| fatslob-:O said:
Xenon does 70 Gflops. http://ca.ign.com/articles/2010/08/26/xbox-360-vs-playstation-3-the-hardware-throwdown BTW bobcat is totally different from Jaguar. (The PS4/X1 can pull off 100 Gflops like I said earlier.) http://www.reddit.com/r/PS4/comments/19d9yc/how_powerful_is_the_amd_jaguar_cpu_for_the_ps4/ Flops depends on SIMD engines and you know this Read my other edits at last post. Edit: The architecture would have to be the same in order for the WII U to play WII games and plus they can't change anything drastic otherwise bye bye to backwards compatibility. |
No it's not, Jaguar is an upgrade from Bobcat, still within the same architectures, just enhanced with 15% higher efficiency, 4-cores instead of 2, more cache, and several other enhancements. Nothing completely different, and nothing life-changing.
70? I've heard 115GFLOPS, and googling the CPU gives me 115GFLOPS.....
PS4/X1 Can pull off 100 GFLOPS with 8 or 6 cores? 2 cores are reserved for the OS just so you know....
What does that have to do with anything? Architectures of Xenon and Cell are different compared to Espresso. PS360 are based on a G5 design (terrible design), while Espresso is based on a G3, not the same family at all. FLOPS comparisons aren't comparable at all either. If that's the case, then explain to me how YOU think a 15GFLOP Espresso can even hope to run games as well as 115GFLOPS CPUs like Xenon?
Most of your edits are "Lolololo look how weak it is" type of posts. And I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why the figures of Espresso and Jaguar are that close, yet Espresso apparently has "much worse" SIMD?
