famousringo said:
In that case, you're just full of it. Apple's A7 chip benchmarks in the ballpark of a dual core Sandy Bridge i5 from 2011. The Xbox CPU was a P3-based celeron processor from circa 2000. That's what, six generations of Intel behind? You want to talk about memory bandwidth? Xbox has a theoretical 6.4 GB/s, the same as an A5 SoC two mobile generations ago. The flash-based storage in a mobile device will stream data faster than any optical drive I know of, and far faster than the DVD drive that shipped in the xbox. Even with the "bare metal" advantage, there is no meaningful metric by which the Xbox outperforms current mobile hardware. The 50 enemies and large game worlds that get you so excited are feats of software engineering, not hardware muscle. They are possible because game designers decided to spend their processor and memory budget on more characters and a larger game world rather than high-rez textures. The limiting factor is development resources, not any kind of compute "power." |
In theory, mobile platforms smash Xbox and PS2. iPad and iPone, however, have hardware resources dedicated to running the OS for the majority of the time. Much of the processing power is completely theoretical and unsustainable- battery management and overheating are big concerns. Sure, if you want to go into the theoretical side Xbox is inferior. But it can devote 100% of its hardware to gaming, without fear of battery management or running a OS, which limit the hardware potential of mobile devices. You think companies wouldn't try to make console-par graphics if they could? They do. Some mobile games had budgets that easily eclipsed the average PS2 or Xbox game, but it makes no difference because the performance is simply unsustainable. It is catching up fast, as seen by studios like Rockstar, but for now they are inferior as pure game consoles, hardware and software wise.
You're Gonna Carry That Weight.
Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC







