Return to the 'is the Wii more powerful than original Xbox?' question

[omgwtfbbq]

oli2 said:

HappySqurriel said:

 

I don't think you really understand what you're talking about; it is a well known fact that G3, G4 and G5 PowerPC processors were far faster than their Pentium 2, Pentium 3 and Pentium 4 counterparts at the same clockspeed. It wasn't until Intel released the Prescot 2M core in Early 2005 that the Pentium 4 line became competative with other processor lines at similar clockspeeds; at 2.8 GHz the Prescott core was considered 'equal' to the Willamette core at 6.2GHz which is why it was named Pentium 4 HT 620.

If i understand the purpose of your post, i am sick just by reading it because it is oversimplistic ...

Nothing related to you, because you do know that things are not as simple : when you want to define the 'power' of a CPU, 'Mhz' are only a part of the equation.

On your post, if you neglate that the pentium IV CPUs where engeneered for the increase of the pipeline length, implying the increase of the frequency of the CPU, all you say is perfectly correct.

My point is you cannot compare the PowerPC or the athlon XP architectures to that of Pentium IV at the same frequency, because this one was targeted to run 'faster' than those 2.

The only problem Intel had with this is that they could not meet the yields to sustain their roadmap ... If i recon correctly, today we would be at 7 GHz !

Yes that is correct correct. However, maybe you should try actually READING the thread. The point he was trying to get across is NOT that the Pentium 4 architecture was crappy (it was, but that wasn't his point) or that the pentium 3 architecture was crappy (it wasn't, but again not his point) but that the P3 architecture at the same clockspeed was not as powerful as a G3 at the same clockspeed. Yes the P3 architecture was designed for higher clockspeeds but that is NOT relevant to this discussion, ecause we are comparing the Xbox to the Wii, which have the SAME (well, similar) clockspeeds, but different architectures.

So, while your point is correct, it has no relevance to the topic at hand and you're fighting a straw man.