By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fatslob-:O on 08 November 2013
Edit Thread
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:
MohammadBadir said:
fatslob-:O said:

I'm glad some of us came to a consensus that a system can do more with less.

it's doing more with more.

@Bold I don't know about that.

I can be pretty sure that it's achieving more with less. 

Depends what we're saying it has less of. It's got less CPU clock speed, less electricity consumption, and possibly less FLOPS, but the original Xbox had less FLOPS than the PS2 and look how that turned out.

On the other hand it has more RAM, more eDRAM, newer GPU features, more CPU cache, more instruction per cycle.

@Bold The IPC is worse than bulldozer no offence. 

I agree with everthing else but the reason why the xbox won has to do with it having an insane fillrate such as pixel and texture. 

You guys should be depending on it's newer architecture, not it's raw power!

IPC is a lot better than PS3 and 360 though.

Xbox's advantage over PS2 is actually similar to Wii U's over PS3/360; twice as much RAM and a newer GPU feature set making up for a CPU with less raw power.

The IPC is actually worse.  

5 gflops per core at 1.2ghz is pretty bad but you shouldn't be depending too much on the CPU to help with rendering because all of the newer consoles are GPU accentric and CPUs rarely do anything for rendering if any at all.