By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
disolitude said:
Sal.Paradise said:
 

No, your argument is wrong, as I outlined in my post before this.

"I don't care about the bottom line or what was realistic for Microsoft, or Sony, or Nintendo, we are arguing about the statement you made that the 360's GPU is comparable to high end-PC GPU's at the time, and that is just plainwrong. "

 It really is as simple as that. Nothing you wrote is relevant to the argument we are having, which I just outlined. I do appreciate your thoughts on everything else you mentioned, but it is not relevant to the argument. 


So just to clear up everything here for people who don't have time to read all this stuff...

You are saying that 360 GPU when the console launched was not on par with a high end GPU you could get for PCs because you could buy 2 of those high end GPUs for the PC and run them in SLI/crossfire which would boost raw horsepower performance.

This is your argument correct.

My argument obviously is that if we look at GPU vs GPU, xbox 360 was in the high spec tier when compared to any PC GPU at the time.

Yes, because an essential feature of the technology in PC GPU's is the ability to SLI/Crossfire them. When you buy a high end PC GPU, part of the high price you are paying for the GPU is due to the development and manufacture of SLI/Crossfire technology in them. It is expected that you can run them in some form of dual configuration, just as it is expected that you can, for example, overclock a GPU or CPU. Are you telling me that doesn't count also? 

Ignoring these essential features of PC GPU technology just because the technology is not viable in the console GPU is ridiculous.