This is actually very exciting for me. I have a fairly advanced Lyme disease with other related diseases (protomyxzoa). I have a worry for long term health issues because Lyme is consistently linked to Parkinson's in the long run. Seeing articles like this always give me the hope I've been expecting with modern medicine and technology. Joe

Wow a company is including a new feature with a service people already pay $60 a year for. How dare they! I like that no one mentions getting 2 free games every month as well. Seems like Microsoft is so awful. You need to pay $60 for almost any online service you do on Microsoft. Who the hell seriously expects being able to stream content online without paying for said service? Oh yeah, the OP. Nothing to see here. Move along... PS: Not a MS fanboy by any means. This is just a biased article that doesn't belong here.

It sounds like a great idea because there's less to carry around. As always we'll see how the device performs, how they're going to manage memory (how much memory?), and how much it will cost. Until then, bring on the innovation.

Exactly. Apple has the resources to increase their web presence for music exposure. It would certainly suggest for more people to use their music over other possibly illegitimate sources. I don't mind Google's response to the whack a mole situation either. It seems highly logical.

I'm not sure why everyone is bashing the cloud. If I have more than one Xbox, which I do, my game saves are on both devices without having to save the file to an overpriced flash drive and then deal with moving it from box to box and worry about losing it. They don't charge extra money for cloud saves because they already screwed you with an annual $60 charge. The feature itself can come in handy for those who use. For those who don't, it currently offers no hindrance on my gameplay or experience. I for one do support cloud saves. Now cloud based gaming is an entirely different animal that I am not too fond of.

I do agree with you. I'm simply referring to the simple tasks the general public does. Web surfing, iTunes, emails, etc. These are not heavily threaded tasks. Granted the difference is marginal because any modern processor can handle this with ease. Sure in highly threaded workloads the AMDs offer a better bang for your buck, but the general public does not do this on a day to day basis.

I guess I need to provide more information to help get my point across. Intel has 4th gen chips that run on a 7 watt TDP. The performance per watt is pretty remarkable. Intel's i7-3770K has a 77 watt TDP. AMD's FX-8350 has a 125 watt TDP, get's spanked by Intel in most benchmarks, and doesn't have any graphics chip on die to drive a monitor. Translating that down, Intel has an advantage. I would love to be proven wrong though.

As usual, AMD is leaving out some key information. What will be the TDP of such chips? I've always rooted for AMD and all my systems were built with them. You can't beat an Ivy Bridge chip for performance for watt though. With the i7-3770K, AMD doesn't offer anything compelling to compete. I like the idea that they're using the GCN architecture to assist with processing, but have they done anything to the lithography or power consumption? Intel's haswell chips come out soon and those are even better. Power is key in the mobile space where a lot of chips are going. -Joe

Honestly instead of a pissing match and comparing highest speeds for bragging rights why don't we focus more on getting gigabit connections throughout our country. What good is a gigabit connection if it's only in a select few spots of the country. Good for Sony, but as everyone mentioned before, they'll find some way to make things proprietary like they always do.

Sorry... Yes IT is a quad vs dual core. Should have spell checked.

Yes is quad VS dual core, but they still sell for the same price. If you compared the A8/A10 to a quad core Intel, it would cost about 33% more at minimum, then people would complain that the Intel costs more and it's not a fair comparison to AMD. Per clock cycle and per core, Intel simply destroys AMD. Factor in price and what you may be using the chip for, and it starts to become a little more competitive. If money is no issue, than an i5/i7 Ivy bridge with dedicated graphics is simply unbeatable. I own an Ivy Bridge i7 and a Phenom II 970 and in some tasks I can't tell a difference.

Also keep in mind that if you utilize the GPU for computing at all, your workload will finish sooner. So yes the power consumption is higher up front but if you finish the job sooner, you still end up consuming the same or less power, and you saved time. This is important with any processor.

I'm assuming this cost them less than half the price it does it build ours. I'd still rather fly in an American made plane over any Chinese knock-off.

Very well said. Vendor lock-in is the biggest issue with switching games over. Let's not forget about the likely scenario that games won't give the same FPS on linux as they would on Windows. For the die hard game enthusiast, frame rates are extremely important. Look at all the people dumping boatloads of cash on video cards just to get obscene frame rates. Take a 10-15% hit by switching software? Good luck convincing some of the people to do that.

Yeah a propeller based system will work really well in outer space.