By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - If Kinect had been optional right from the original design concept of Xbox One would Xbox One have been made more powerful?

Jizz_Beard_thePirate on 23 August 2014

Probably if the focused on the hardware alone instead of thinking about Kinect all the way through as well as the power so yea, it would probably be at min, as powerful as the ps4



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

Around the Network
KingdomHeartsFan on 23 August 2014

No, Sony are way better at designing hardware than Microsoft, even though the PS4 is more powerful it costs less to make (going by that breakdown we saw a while ago), so if the X1 was more powerful it would have to be sold at a loss or still be $500 anyway.



ICStats on 23 August 2014
vivster said:

Wait what? Why would they design a console to be weaker just because of kinect? Kinect was already calculated within the price so its cost would've never affected the console specs.

If they would've used cheaper hardware X1 without Kinect would currently be below 399. What makes the inferior hardare so expensive is the ESRAM. That was the idiotic decision that broke X1's specs. Not the RAM or Kinect.

Nah the eSRAM is necessary because of the RAM decision.  DDR3 alone is way too slow.

In turn the eSRAM takes up a lot of die area, and the Xbox One has 6 less graphic cores (Compute Units), fewer texture units & ROPs because of that.




My 8th gen collection

vivster on 24 August 2014
ICStats said:
vivster said:

Wait what? Why would they design a console to be weaker just because of kinect? Kinect was already calculated within the price so its cost would've never affected the console specs.

If they would've used cheaper hardware X1 without Kinect would currently be below 399. What makes the inferior hardare so expensive is the ESRAM. That was the idiotic decision that broke X1's specs. Not the RAM or Kinect.

Nah the eSRAM is necessary because of the RAM decision.  DDR3 alone is way too slow.

In turn the eSRAM takes up a lot of die area, and the Xbox One has 6 less graphic cores (Compute Units), fewer texture units & ROPs because of that.

 

If they decided against the ESRAM and put in the same number of CUs the difference would've only been half of what it's now due to the slower RAM.

The ESRAM isn't even close in making up the power difference lost due to the missing CUs.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Mystro-Sama on 24 August 2014
KingdomHeartsFan said:

No, Sony are way better at designing hardware than Microsoft, even though the PS4 is more powerful it costs less to make (going by that breakdown we saw a while ago), so if the X1 was more powerful it would have to be sold at a loss or still be $500 anyway.


^This

 

Sony's hardware engineers are just better.



Around the Network
ICStats on 24 August 2014
vivster said:
ICStats said:
vivster said:

Wait what? Why would they design a console to be weaker just because of kinect? Kinect was already calculated within the price so its cost would've never affected the console specs.

If they would've used cheaper hardware X1 without Kinect would currently be below 399. What makes the inferior hardare so expensive is the ESRAM. That was the idiotic decision that broke X1's specs. Not the RAM or Kinect.

Nah the eSRAM is necessary because of the RAM decision.  DDR3 alone is way too slow.

In turn the eSRAM takes up a lot of die area, and the Xbox One has 6 less graphic cores (Compute Units), fewer texture units & ROPs because of that.

 

If they decided against the ESRAM and put in the same number of CUs the difference would've only been in the single digits due to the slower RAM.

The ESRAM isn't even close in making up the power difference lost due to the missing CUs.

Ofcourse ESRAM can't make up for performance of the lost CUs, but if they had 18 CUs with no ESRAM & DDR3 you would still expect much lower performance than the PS4.

If DDR3 only made a difference of single digits then both companies would just use that instead of using the GDDR5/ESRAM options.

I was trying to find some like-for-like comparisons of DDR3 vs GDDR5.  Here's some.

http://www.redgamingtech.com/ps4-vs-xbox-one-gddr5-vs-ddr3-latency/

http://tech.firstpost.com/reviews/his-hd-6670-1gb-ddr3-graphics-card-20680.html#show

Here's another on more similar hardware to PS4/XB1 (HD 7750).

http://www.goldfries.com/computing/gddr3-vs-gddr5-graphic-card-comparison-see-the-difference-with-the-amd-radeon-hd-7750/

Scene Card 720p (avg)
Dark Tower AMD HD 7750 1GB GDDR5 53.12
AMD HD 7750 2GB GDDR3 34.15
Desert Sunrise AMD HD 7750 1GB GDDR5 72.03
AMD HD 7750 2GB GDDR3 50.41
Concrete Jungle AMD HD 7750 1GB GDDR5 41.64
AMD HD 7750 2GB GDDR3 27.04

And this:

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2012/msi_radeon_hd_7750_2gb_ddr3_test/index39.php&usg=ALkJrhi1G4TxkhzXnvN1ZfRJ3KdXukbpQQ

Basically as soon as they picked DDR3 with any combo is worse than GDDR5.  Lower # of CUs with ESRAM is slower.  Same number of CUs without ESRAM is slower.  



My 8th gen collection