KBG29 said:
I have faith that one day these companies and general consumers are going to wake up and stop getting robbed. I work for a very big US company, and they just spent $1000's on PC's that have half the RAM, Half the CPU, and about 1/4 the GPU power of the XBO. These brand new PC's have too little RAM and too little GPU to propperly run the graphics intense software that is vital to our daily operation. They spent over $800 on each unit, and are still running extreamly inefficient. They could have made a deal with Microsoft to run their programs on Xbox One, and bought a fleet of identical devices for everyone in the company, and still spent less in the end. In addition they would not be having the problems they are having right now with different business units having different PC's which is causing even more problems getting everyone reliable and consistent access to the programs. Instead of wasting time trying to fix the programs to run on multiple and underpowered expensive PC's, they could be streamlining the programs to be more efficient, and driving up productivity and innovation within the company. |
What on earth? If the Xbox One had a decent processor, this would maaaaaaaaaaybe be a discussion. It doesn't. It's marginal for gaming, one of the primary limitations of the 8th gen of consoles as the PS4 also has this limitation. It was a default-chosen poison because the big AMD cores were too hot/power hungry to be an option in 2013, and only just now are the much-awaited 'Zen' CPUs around the corner for 2017 release.
The Jaguar is fundamentally an 8-core 'netbook' level processor with abysmal performance.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7933/the-desktop-kabini-review-part-1-athlon-5350-am1/3
The Kabini is the Jaguar with 2 or 4 cores, along with a weaker iGPU. But the benchmarks let us see what it would be like as a PC processor. Even a 16-core Jaguar would be agonizing to use as a desktop CPU. You can see the 4-core Athlon 5350 (Jaguar Quad) getting edged out by the 1.6Ghz Pentium 2160 in IPC, and despite 2 cores vs 4 cores, also being beaten by the Core 2 Duo E8400 in multi-thread testing. The Core i3 3220, another dual-core, beats the 2Ghz Jaguar Quad by a bit more than double, which means that an 8-Core Jaguar would still lose to that i3 from 2012. YES : A dual-core from 2012 is faster than an 8-Core Jaguar.
What's really bad is that now, you can get a good deal on a 6th-gen i5 or i7 Quad-Core (easily 3x faster than that 2012 i3) in a system with 8GB of Ram for far less than the money you're talking about. Add a $140 GTX950, and you have massively more power available, along with the capability to Run 6gbps Sata3, 20Gbps M.2 nvme, USB 3.1/C, Raid. Triple Monitor outputs, etc/etc/etc.
The only thing the X1 or PS4 could do with a desktop OS is be a somewhat clunky/slow HTPC or web browsing system. As a business workstation they would be below absymal. Any time you can look at a 4-year old i3 having more performance capability, that's just too weak to be competitive. Who on earth greenlit $800+ for PCs that don't have at least that level of performance?
This is a Quad-Core, Eight-Thread i7 PC with 16GB DDR4, 1TB HDD, M.2 SSD Port, with Nvidia GT730, for $699 that would utterly annihilate the X1/PS4 : http://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/desktops/hp-pavilion-510st-desktop-pc-v9a74aa-aba-pc
And that was just the first thing I clicked on from the HP web page. Adding the GTX950 would give it hugely more GPU power than an X1 as well for not much more. There are also far better deals if you build to order yourself from Amazon.
