Build-Your-Own "Ultimate" Adobe Photoshop CS6 PC

Summary: Photoshop is a big, heavy application that, when pushed hard, can bring even a high-end system to its knees. For hardcore graphics designers, a dedicated piece of kit is essential.

Without a doubt, the single most-requested feature here on Hardware 2.0 in the ‘Build-Your-Own PC’ category is for an “Ultimate” Photoshop system. Now that Adobe has officially launched Photoshop CS6, it’s time to take a look at this new release and prepare a hardware package that does it justice.

It seems that the reason why people are interested in the hardware specifics for a PC with Photoshop is because it’s a big, heavy application that, when pushed even modestly, can bring even a high-end system to its knees. Even small bottlenecks in performance can mean a lot of time spent twiddling your thumbs while the program chunters through a task. There’s no doubt that the better your hardware, the better your Photoshop experience will be.

Well, here it is, a guide to building your “Ultimate” Photoshop CS6 system.

Personally, I’m not much of a Photoshop user, and most of my “art” ends up looking like the 4chan Rage Guy, so please don’t ask me any Photoshop-related questions!

While I’m specifically looking at a system suited to Photoshop CS6, this build will work equally well for any of the big Adobe products, such as Premiere Pro CS6 or even the ‘full’ Master Collection CS6 package.

To build the “Ultimate” Photoshop system you will need to choose four components carefully. These are:

A fast, quad-core processorLots of RAMLots of big, fast hard drivesA graphics card that supports GPU-acceleration found in Photoshop CS6

Let’s take a look at these four components in more detail.

When it comes to Photoshop, there are three CPU-related facts that you have to accept. Intel CPUs trump AMD silicon, speed of the CPU matters, and pushing the cores beyond four doesn’t have a huge impact on performance. Here’s a benchmark to support all the above statements, and based on my testing these conclusions are just as applicable to Photoshop CS6 as they were to CS5 or 5.5. AMD makes some good CPUs, but for Photoshop you should be looking at Intel processors.

So, we’re going to start building this Photoshop system by putting an Intel Core i7 at its heart. I recommend the excellent 3.6GHz Core i7-3820 CPU (which turbo-boosts up to 3.8GHz), a part that will set you back about $310.

You need RAM, and lots of it. Consider 8GB an absolute minimum, and take that to 12GB or 16GB if your motherboard allows. There’s not need to get fancy or fast RAM aimed at gaming systems for this build. In fact, you’re better off sticking to the quality desktop RAM from reputable vendors.

Stick with RAM from Crucial or Kingston and you won’t go wrong. Not only will you get a quality, stable product, but these companies offer excellent warranties if you do end up with a bad stick of RAM. This RAM also works out a lot cheaper than the stuff aimed at gamers.

A Photoshop system needs masses of storage. This is not just because the application itself is huge, or because the output can be massive. It’s because in order to get the best from Photoshop you need multiple drives, with each one dedicated to handling a specific task.

Ideally, you need four drives. One for the OS, one for the application, one for your output files, and one to act as a “scratch disk.”  A “scratch disk” is what Adobe calls using a portion of a hard drive as virtual memory. You can get away with fewer disks, for example two disks — one for Windows and the applications, the other to ask as storage and a “scratch disk” — but it’s far ideal. Trying to run everything on a single disk is best avoided as it’s going to create a significant performance bottlenecks.

Since this is an “Ultimate” system, I’m going to recommend that you use four disks. You’ll need two large hard disk drives (HDD), and two fast solid state drives (SSD). You’ll install Windows onto one of the hard disk drives, and Photoshop onto the other hard drive. Then you’ll use the one of the solid state drives for your output files, and the other as a “scratch disk.” This setup gives you the best possible storage performance, eliminating a number of potential bottlenecks.

It’s worth noting that you don’t need big solid state drives for this build because they’re only used for short-term storage. Once you’re done with a project, it’s a good idea to move the files to a hard disk drive where the cost-per-gigabyte is much lower.

Photoshop CS6 features a new Mercury Graphics Engine, and this comes equipped with a number of GPU-accelerated tools, including blur effects, liquify effects, and adaptive wide-angle effects. To make use of these GPU-accelerated tools you will need a system kitted out with a graphics card from the NVIDIA Quadro lineup, something you won’t find in a standard system.

At the high-end these Quadro graphics cards become super expensive, with a Quadro 6000 setting you back $4,000. Thankfully, you don’t need a high-end card to power the new features found in Photoshop CS6 and we can make do with something more modest, such as the Quadro 2000.

OK, let’s put this all together into a complete system. Here’s a complete list of components (including case and operating system):

CPU: Intel Core i7-3820 3.6GHz - $310Motherboard: ASRock X79 Extreme6 - $250RAM: 16GB kit (4GBx4), Ballistix 240-pin DIMM, DDR3 PC3-12800- $105HDD: 2 x Western Digital Caviar Green WD30EZRX 3TB ($180 each) - $360SSD: 2 x Corsair Force Series 3 CSSD-F120GB3A-BK 2.5? 120GB SATA III ($150 each) - $300Graphics card: PNY VCQ2000D-PB Quadro 2000D 1GB - $410Optical drive: LG WH12LS39 12X Blu-ray Burner - $80Power supply unit: CORSAIR Enthusiast Series TX750 V2 750W power supply unit - $105Case: Thermaltake V4 Black Edition chassis - $50Operating system: Microsoft Windows 7 Professional SP1 64-bit - $130

Total price: $2,100

Once you’ve built this system I recommend giving it a thorough stress-test to shakeout any problems before you start working on it. Adobe CS6 applications are incredibly demanding and will uncover even the smallest flaw in your system. Better to find any problems before putting the system into a production environment.

Image credit: Adobe.

Related:

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

View the original article here

Xbox 360 sales down by almost half

Summary: Microsoft’s Entertainment and Devices Division saw revenue fall by 16 percent to $1.62 billion, with the company placing much of the blame on a “soft gaming console market.”

Digging through Microsoft’s third quarter earnings uncovers evidence that suggests sales of the company’s Xbox 360 games console may be past their peak, falling dramatically over the last quarter.

Microsoft sold 1.4 million consoles during January to March of this year, a precipitous drop of 48 percent compared to the same period last year. This in turn resulted in a fall in revenue for the Xbox business of 33 percent, down to $584 million. Sales of the Kinect motion controller were also down, but Microsoft did not state by how much.

The only part of the Microsoft’s Xbox business that saw growth during the period was Xbox Live.

Overall, Microsoft saw revenue from its Entertainment and Devices Division fall by 16 percent to $1.62 billion, with the company placing much of the blame on a “soft gaming console market.”

Despite this, the Xbox 360 continues to enjoy its fifteenth consecutive month as the best-selling console in the U.S., according to NPD data. In March, 371,000 Xbox 360 units were sold, and total retail spending on the platform was $430 million.

There’s no doubt that the Kinect ’hands-free’ controller has helped to keep sales of the console, accessories, and games buoyant following its release in November 2010, but an accessory can only go so far is keeping an aging console relevant.

The problem with the Xbox 360 — and Sony’s PlayStation and Nintendo’s Wii for that matter – is the age of the platform. Microsoft’s latest iteration of its popular console first debuted in November 2005, and while it has seen a few revamps since then, the underlying technology has essentially remained unchanged, with most of the design changes relating to cooling.

Can you imagine playing the latest games on a PC that was over six years old? It doesn’t bear thinking about, but when you fire up that console of yours — no matter if it’s an Xbox 360, PS3 or Wii — you’re gaming on technology that is over five years old. Not only is console gaming suffering because of aging technology, it’s having a knock-on effect on PC gaming also since many of the PC versions are actually ports of the original Xbox game.

The financials give us a hint that work on the next Xbox is well underway. Microsoft’s Entertainment and Devices Division saw its research and development costs jump by 35 percent over the quarter to $335 million. It’s hard to imagine that this increase is down entirely to research and development on the Windows Phone platform.

Not only are consoles expensive to develop, the process takes time. This development time is then followed by a period where Microsoft then works with game studios to bring a selection of must-have titles to the platform. The entire process consumes dollars, which is why Microsoft wants to squeeze all it can from the 360 before moving on.

How long will we have to wait for a new Xbox? Most of the rumors and predictions seem to predict a 2014 launch, putting the replacement console two holiday seasons away. It’s possible that Microsoft has overestimated the lifespan of its Xbox 360, allowing sales to peak years before the replacement console is ready. If sales are already ’soft’ then I can only imagine that they are going to get worse as the quarters go on.

Microsoft’s Entertainment and Devices Division could be in for a rough ride.

Image credit: Microsoft.

Related:

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

View the original article here

Why we shouldn't get too excited about a 'Liquidmetal' iPhone 5

Summary: A Liquidmetal iPhone 5 would be a near indestructible piece of kit, right? Wrong.

The shell of the iPhone 4 and 4S is constructed of robust stainless steel sandwiched between two sheets of fragile glass. It’s a revolutionary design, but one that has caused a lot of heartache and expense for owners.

According to a rumor that surfaced last week, this could change with the next-generation iPhone, where the vulnerable rear glass panel will be replaced with a robust Liquidmetal shell.

Liquidmetal is the commercial name given to an amorphous metal alloy that is almost twice as strong as the strongest titanium alloys. It was developed by Caltech in 2003 and has been used in a broad range of military, medical, luxury, consumer, industrial, and sporting goods products.

In August 2012, Apple acquired a license to use this material, but has yet to use it for anything more exciting than the iPhone’s SIM card eject tool.

I’ve come across Liquidmetal before: a SanDisk Cruzer Titanium USB flash drive. SanDisk also used Liquidmetal in the construction of the now long defunct Sensa e200 media player.

It’s incredibly tough stuff, and I really tested the durability of that flash drive. Short of taking a hammer to it, I could barely put a scratch, let alone a dent, in the thin shell surrounding the drive’s delicate electronics.

There’s no doubt that Liquidmetal is incredibly tough stuff. You might think that a Liquidmetal iPhone 5 would be a near-indestructible piece of kit?

Wrong.

To begin with, one side of iPhone is still made up of exposed glass, and let’s face it, the screen is far more expensive — not to mention more difficult — to replace that the rear cover is. But there’s also a weird property of Liquidmetal that means a dropped Liquidmetal iPhone could suffer more damage than if the back were made of glass.

Liquidmetal is, as you can see from the video below, excellent at storing elastic energy. This, to you and me, means the material likes to bounce about with Flubber-like vigor when dropped.

I’ve seen this property in action. That SanDisk Cruzer Titanium flash drive I had would bounce enthusiastically whenever dropped onto a hard surface. A bouncing flash drive is one thing, but a bouncing iPhone is another, and likely to suffer more overall damage than one that just thuds to the ground because each bounce is another chance for gravity to break the screen.

I don’t think that it is Liquidmetal’s indestructibility that Apple is interested in, because let’s face it, Apple doesn’t have a track record of building robust devices, but instead the material’s high strength-to-weight ratio that interests the Apple engineers.

This property means that you can cast a shell out of Liquidmetal that’s much thinner than a shell stamped out of a sheet of metal, as was the case with the early iPhones, or machined out of a block of aluminium, which is how Apple manufactures the shells of devices such as the MacBooks or iPads. A thinner shell means less space taken up per unit volume by the casing, which in turn leaves more space for the important stuff that goes inside the device.

But there’s one property of Liquidmetal that no one seems to have considered. How transparent is this material to radio frequencies?

If the material doesn’t allow for effective passage of radio frequencies, moving all the iPhone’s antennas — GSM, CDMA, UMTS, GPS, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth — inside a Liquidmetal shell doesn’t make sense. I’ve had a look through the tech specs for the material but can’t find anything relating to this. I’ve put a question in to Liquidmetal Technologies about radio frequency transmission, and will update this post if I get an answer.

Image credit: Liquidmetal Technologies.

Related:

Top accessories for your iPhone and iPad

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

View the original article here

MacBook Pro 2012 could feature Liquidmetal technology

Summary: But there are potential obstacles to constructing a notebook chassis from Liquidmetal, the primary being how the material handles heat.

The blogosphere just won’t let go of the idea that Apple is on the verge of using Liquidmetal technology in one of its products. Last week it was the iPhone 5 that was going to get the Liquidmetal treatment, and now it’s rumored to be a feature of the MacBook Pro 2012 refresh.

SlashGear reports that Apple could cast the chassis of the next MacBook Pro from Liquidmetal. But, just as with the iPhone 5 rumor, that this raises all sorts of issues related to whether this metal is transparent enough to radio frequency to allow Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to work properly.

A possible solution to this problem is offered up in the design of the Wi-Fi + 3G/4G iPad. The chassis of this product is machined out of aluminum, but in order to give the cellular antennas a window out to the world, there’s a black plastic panel at the top of the tablet. It’s not a particularly elegant solution, but I’ve never heard anyone complain about it.

But there’s another possible obstacle to constructing a notebook chassis from Liquidmetal, and this one relates to how the material handles heat. The datasheet lists the thermal conductivity of the Liquidmetal as 6 Wm-1K-1, which makes it a far poorer conductor of heat than aluminum, which has a thermal conductivity of around 35 Wm-1K-1.

What this means is that Apple would need to redesign the cooling system of the MacBook Pro to take into account the fact that a Liquidmetal shell would be far poorer at dissipating the heat generated by the system than the current aluminum shell. However, buried on Liquidmetal Technologies website, a reference signals a way to tailor the material for specific thermal and electrical conductivity, so there may be possible to re-engineer the material to overcome this problem.

I like the idea of a Liquidmetal MacBook Pro — or for that matter any portable — more than I do the idea of making the back of an iPhone out of the material. The first reason is production. Casting is normally a much quicker process machining parts, and this gives the Liquidmetal chassis an advantage over how Apple currently manufactures parts for portable systems.

Another reason for switching from aluminum to Liquidmetal is that portables have to deal with countless bumps, scratches and abrasion on a daily basis. Liquidmetal would certainly offer a system far greater protection than aluminum does, and keep the hardware looking better for a lot longer.

Image credit: iFixit.

Related:

Top accessories for your iPhone and iPad

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

View the original article here

Build your own "Ivy Bridge" desktop PC

Summary: An Ivy Bridge PC for under $600, built around Intel’s next-generation processor.

Intel’s new Ivy Bridge CPUs, built using third-generation Core architecture, are now on sale. That means it’s time to look at putting together a system based around this new and exciting silicon.

“Ivy Bridge” is the codename for Intel’s 22-nanometer die shrink of the earlier 32-nanometer “Sandy Bridge” architecture. It makes use of new 3D tri-gate transistors that deliver 32 percent better performance than the transistors used in Sandy Bridge processors. These new transistors have allowed Intel to get better performance from Ivy Bridge processors with half the power consumption.

Build your own “Ivy Bridge” desktop PC

All Ivy Bridge processors feature a built-in Intel HD graphics GPU. These GPUs offer full DirectX 11, OpenGL 3.1, and OpenCL 1.1 support. While hardcore gamers are likely to turn their noses up at integrated graphics, these GPUs are more than adequate for general computing and even casual gaming.

Intel has developed these processors to compete directly with AMD’s A-series APUs.

Let’s take a look at the components you need for this system. My target price for the base hardware is $600.

A number of Ivy Bridge processors are already available for purchase. Here’s a listing of Ivy Bridge parts that I’ve found over on NewEgg:

Core i5-3450 - 3.1GHz - Quad-core - HD 2500 graphics - $200Core i5-3450S - 2.8GHz - Quad-core - HD 2500 graphics - $200Core i5-3550 - 3.3GHz - Quad-core - HD 4000 graphics - $220Core i5-3570K - 3.4GHz - Quad-core - HD 4000 graphics - $250Core i7-3770S - 3.1GHz - Quad-core - HD 4000 graphics - $320Core i7-3770 - 3.4GHz - Quad-core - HD 4000 graphics - $320Core i7-3770K - 3.5GHz - Quad-core - HD 4000 graphics - $350

Can’t decide between the Core i5 and Core i7 processors? Let me simplify things for you by pointing out the two key differences between the two lines. All Core i7 Ivy Bridge parts have an 8MB L3 cache and have Hyper-Threading enabled — which means two threads can be run per core — while Core i5 Ivy Bridge parts have 6MB of L3 cache and do not feature Hyper-Threading.

If you plan on making heavy use of applications that can leverage Hyper-Threading — for example, multimedia software such as Adobe Premiere Pro or HandBrake — then the extra cost of the Core i7 is worth it, otherwise I recommend picking a CPU from the cheaper Core i5 range. It’s worth bearing in mind that games don’t benefit from Hyper-Threading, so you’re better off saving money on the CPU and putting what you save towards a better graphics card.

You’ll also notice that some processor model numbers have K and S suffixes. Parts with the K suffix feature unlocked multipliers and are excellent for overclocking, while parts with the S suffix are “performance-optimized” low-power parts, all with a TDP below 65W.

If you want performance — or the opportunity to overclock your system — then I recommend that you go for either the Core i5-3570K or the Core i7-3770K. If you want a more power-efficient part — which will have the advantage of needing less cooling, so it’s better suited to situations where you don’t want too much cooler noise — then the Core i5-3450S or Core i7-3770S are the parts you want to look at.

While you are free to pick whichever part for your system you want, I’m going to go with the cheapest processor in the list, the Core i5-3450. This processor is clocked at 3.1GHz and can be pushed up to 3.5GHz when turbo-boosted.

Price: $200.

Intel’s Ivy Bridge processors all feature a Socket LGA 1155, so we need to find a compatible motherboard. In theory, all LGA 1155 motherboards are compatible with Ivy Bridge CPUs, but it’s likely that many of the existing motherboards will need a firmware update to support this new processor line.

The motherboard I’ve gone for there is the Gigabyte GA-Z77MX-D3H. This board features Intel’s Z77 Express chipset and comes with everything you’d expect from a modern motherboard, including UEFI firmware, HDMI and USB 3.0.

This is a good, all-round, capable motherboard.

If you’re planning to update an existing Sandy Bridge system with an Ivy Bridge processor, or want to use a different motherboard to the one I’ve picked here, it’s wise to check with the manufacturer that it supports the new processors.

Price: $140.

I believe that fitting any less than 4GB of RAM is false economy, especially since two 2GB RAM modules will only cost you around $25. For this build I’ve gone for two sticks 2GB of Crucial Ballistix Sport DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600). It is good, stable RAM, and it’s a decent price.

I’ve had nothing but good experiences with Crucial RAM over the years, and I personally recommend it. For more information on how much RAM you need, I previously wrote a how-to guide.

Price: $25.

Following the disastrous flooding in Thailand that caused hard drive production to slow down, the price of storage has gone through the roof, increasing by as much as 300 percent. Given this, it’s vital to shop around for the best deals.

I’ve gone for the Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB drive. This is a 7,200 RPM drive and features 64MB of cache; a robust, reliable drive that’s fast and offers generous storage space at a decent price.

When buying hard drives, it’s a good idea to choose a “bare drive” option rather than the “retail kit.” These retail kits come with all sorts of extras such as packages, drive rails, screws, instructions and so on that you’re unlikely to need. You can pay as much as $30 extra for the privilege of your drive coming with retail packaging as opposed to being shipped in a plain anti-static bag.

Price: $140.

Here I’ve gone for the Corsair Builder Series CX430 V2. This offers 430W of power, and a wide range of connectors. On top of that, it’s quiet and is 80 PLUS efficient so it won’t cost too much to run.

Price: $45.

Don’t think too much about this one. A combo DVD burner like the ASUS DRW-24B1ST will suffice, and in this day and age come at a relatively cheap price.

Price: $20.

Let’s do a quick rundown of the price list:

CPU: Intel Core i5-3450 - $200Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z77MX-D3H - $140RAM: 2 x 2GB Crucial Ballistix Sport DDR3 1333 - $25Hard drive: Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB - $140Power supply unit: Corsair Builder Series CX430 V2 - $45Optical drive: ASUS DRW-24B1ST - $20

Total price: $570.

Related:

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

View the original article here

No Windows 8 DVD playback will mean increased costs, and consumer confusion

Summary: While Apple has a streamlined one-size-fits-all OS X edition that contains everything users needs, Microsoft is once again juggling features in order to make one edition of Windows more superior and desirable than another.

ZDNet’s Ed Bott reports that DVD playback has been cut from its upcoming operating system as Microsoft tries to give consumers a reason to buy the more expensive Windows 8 Pro edition.

Windows 8 users who want out-of-the-box DVD playback capability will not only have to purchase the higher-priced Pro edition, but also the optional Media Center Pack. This is bad news for consumers because it means increased costs, more confusion, and the potential for more ‘crapware‘ to be installed on new PCs.

Currently, Windows Media Player handles DVD playback. With Windows 8, Microsoft is removing this functionality from Windows Media Player and shifting it into the optional Media Center component.

This represents a big change in how Windows works, given that Windows Media Player has had DVD playback support since version 6.1, the version that shipped with Windows 95 and Windows 98.

Microsoft has yet to explain how it intends to inform consumers of the removal of this feature. I expect that the first most people will know of this is when they try to play a DVD and are informed that they need to buy the upgrade.

Note that third-party software, both commercial and freeware, will be able to add DVD playback functionality to all Windows editions. The changes outlined here only affect the functionality built into the Windows operating system.

Microsoft says that the Media Center Pack will be available at “marginal costs“. However, in order to have the option to buy this feature, users will have to be running the higher-priced Pro edition, or upgrade to this edition. Currently, the difference in price between Home Premium and Ultimate editions of Windows 7 stands at around $100. I would expect the difference between Windows 8 and Windows 8 Pro to be similar given that the difference in features between the two editions is broadly the same.

That’s a hefty tax on consumers who want to be able to play DVDs.

I agree that the decision to cut this feature is driven by the need to reduce costs. Decoders cost money for Microsoft to license. By reducing the codecs included as part of Windows, Microsoft is able to pass on the savings to the OEMs. Even a dollar or two saved per PC adds up for the OEMs as it is multiplied across millions of PCs sold.

However, because PC buyers expect to be able to play DVDs on their PC — something that Windows users have been able to do for many years — OEMs will be under pressure to include some level of DVD playback functionality on new PCs.

This gives the OEMs a potential revenue stream. While OEMs could bundle a free media player such as VLC Player on new PCs, what’s more likely to happen is that they’re going to cut deals with commercial DVD playback software makers to install cut-down versions of the software on pre-made systems. This software will be crippled or limited in some way, and a license will be required to lift the limitation and make full use of the software.

OEMs already install cut-down versions of commercial DVD and Blu-ray playback software such as CyberLink’s PowerDVD or InterVideo’s WinDVD onto some systems.

I think that it is admirable that Microsoft is actively looking for ways to shave the cost of Windows 8, but I feel that removing key functionality such as DVD playback from Media Player is a step too far and seems like a desperate attempt to up-sell the more expensive edition. I can see no other valid reason for removing this feature.

While Microsoft has simplified the Windows 8 editions on offer, it will create additional confusion by removing functionality that people expect, and making it an optional extra that they’ll have to pay for.

I feel that Microsoft is making a big mistake here. While Apple has a streamlined one-size-fits-all OS X edition that contains everything users needs, Microsoft is once again juggling features in order to make the higher-priced edition of Windows more superior and desirable than the cheaper option, while at the same time giving OEMs yet more reason to install third-party crapware onto new systems.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons, Microsoft.

Related:

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

View the original article here

Next-generation consoles may not meet sales projections: analysts

Summary: Games consoles are battling against a whole host of other distractions for attention, such as social media and tablets.

The next-generation games consoles from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will fail to match the sales of the current hardware, according to Piper Jaffray analysts.

Analysts Michael J. Olson and Andrew D. Connor believe that there will be an average drop in software sales for the systems of 53 percent during the first 14 months after their release, based on “meetings with industry sources”.

But it gets worse.

According to Gamesutra, the analysts predict that sales of Nintendo’s Wii U will only be 35 percent of that they were for the Wii during its first 14 months on sale due in part to the “disappointing” hardware specification of the new system. Sony’s PlayStation 4 is predicted to do a little better; with sales during the same period being 50 percent of that they were for the PlayStation 3.

Microsoft’s Xbox 720 is the one the analysts think will do best. They predict that sales of this console during the same period following launch will be 55 percent of what they were for the Xbox 360.

The problem, according to Olson and Connor, is that games consoles are battling against a whole host of other distractions for attention, such as social media and tablets.

“Unfortunately, we do not expect a console refresh to fully offset the secular declines in console gaming,” the analysts said. “We believe console gaming will continue to be a time-share donor to social networks, mobile games and tablets. We therefore favor companies with increasing exposure to social/mobile gaming, including Zynga and EA.”

Sales of the Xbox 360 seem to have already hit a wall. While the console has managed to cling on to the title of best-selling console in the U.S. for fifteen months, sales are down by almost a half compared to a year ago.

Microsoft blamed a “soft gaming console market” for a 16 percent fall in revenue at its Entertainment and Devices Division.

Related:

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

View the original article here