The wisdom of the 6Tf vs 4Tf

[Pemalite]

Kerotan said:
The fact that WW the xb1 barely outsold ps4 the week it launched tells you something.

Worldwide the month it launched it will lose heavily. Sony have nothing to be worried about.

And I mean literally nothing. Because xbox yet again next year hasn't got a software line up to match the ps4.

Sony must be relieved because the xbx was their last shot at redemption.

Even if the Xbox One was selling the Playstation 4 5:1 with the Xbox One X, Sony would not have anything to worry about, the Playstation 4 is still a resounding success and there are still 10's of millions of consoles that Microsoft would need to make up ground for anyway.

Intrinsic said:

Foe someone that seems as knowledgeable as you do I find myself sometimes totally disagreeing with you...... then again guess we can't always agree with everyone.

I don't need you to agree with me.
Nor do I expect it or even care.

Intrinsic said:

1. 6TF is plenty powerful. Especially for a console. It may not be powerful enough to do 4k gaming across the board or 4k at 60fps, but the things that can do that cost more just for a GPU than the entirety of the XB1X. The XB1X like the PS4pro/PS4 offers the best price to power ratio as far as gaming goes. You simply can't build a PC that will perform like those consoles at their price points. Thats always been the thing and place of consoles.

"6TF" is not plenty powerful.
Nor is Teraflops all there is to a GPU's power.

But to put it in comparison to AMD"s product lineup... It falls roughly inline with the Radeon RX 580, which is a rubbish GPU.
How do I know it's a rubbish GPU? Because I own one.

The Xbox One X and Playstation 4 Pro haven't demonstrated games beyond that GPU's capabilities yet, in-fact... Sometimes the results are even worst as far as visuals and performance go.  Like... PUBG.

And how do I know the Xbox One X hasn't demonstrated games beyond my RX 580? Because I own that console as well.

Intrinsic said:

1. To say 6TF isn't powerful is when comparing it to what? Cause thats just something that irks me a bit.... when people that I know to be predominantly PC gamers get dismissive when talking specs simply because there is some PC hardware out there that can do 2 or 3 times the performance...... all the while talking like that thing doesn't cost a significant deal more or that everyone that owns a PC uses that level of hardware.

The GPU that the Xbox One X has is Radeon RX 580 class and thus falls short of Geforce 980, Geforce 980 Ti, Geforce 1060, Geforce 1070, Geforce 1070 Ti, Geforce 1080, Geforce 1080 Ti, Titan X, Titan XP... And that's just nVidia's GPU's.

And to reinforce the fact that flops are a useless denominator... Some of those GPU's have 1 Teraflop or more LESS of single precision floating point capability.

On the AMD camp... AMD Radeon R9 Nano, Fury, Fury X, Vega 56, Vega 64 all beat the RX 580. The old R9 390X is roughly on par.

Cost is of course a big deal, but nVidia GPU's tend to be smaller, consume less power, meaning they are cheaper to manufacture anyway.

Intrinsic said

1. Whatever it cost the XB1X to do checkerboarding, it will cost the PS4pro less to do it. Thats the whole point of having specialized hardware for specific tasks. 

The point is moot... Because if Sony and Microsoft packed sufficient hardware to begin with... Then we wouldn't need to use checkerboarding to fake higher resolutions to start with.
Checkerboarding is something that the Playstation 4 Pro needs to rely on, more so than the Xbox One X.

However, again... If you have a source that you can demonstrate the overhead that Checkerboarding has on the Xbox One X, then we can safely assume the overhead is inconsequential and thus not even worth mentioning.

It's called evidence. And I wants it. It's my precious.

AsGryffynn said:

A Ryzen is rather expensive now, and a lot of people don't notice these differences now. Why would they then? 

Ryzen Mobile based on Zen+ seems to be allot more cost efficient than Ryzen on the Desktop.
Making some cutbacks to things like the memory controllers, caches and so on has actually made it a rather economical chip to manufacture... So I would assume next-gen would take the same approach. I.E. Using a mobile variant.

Ganoncrotch said:

A Ryzen 7 1700 costs about £200 to the consumer and is capable of doing this with 10% of its power (Overwatch, HD videos, browser)

To be fair... I can do a similar thing with my 3930K, which is 6+ years old now.
Granted it will use a little more of it's total CPU time as it has less CPU cores... And consume more power which is expected for it's age, but it would give your Ryzen 7 a run for it's money once I overclock her.

And I was also doing a similar thing on the old Phenom 2 x6 1090T back when Dinosaurs roamed the Earth, 6x Phenom cores was amazing back then, especially when you overclocked the NB to 3ghz, giving it a good 15% IPC boost, putting it hitting distance of Nahelem.

We can pretend that FX never happened though right?