| Hardstuck-Platinum said: The reason it wasn't valued by the market is because it hasn't effected how the consoles perform. It's 36 CU's vs 52, and the 36 CU's is somehow performing on a par with the 52 and it's difficult to understand why. With the PS4 and Xbone, It was 18 vs 12 CU's and the difference was extremely noticeable. All the PS4 games were at 1080p and the Xbone games were at 720-900p and people saw that and valued the PS4 more than the Xbone as a gaming platform. Power matters in gaming and it is valued by the consumers. |
More to performance than the number of CU's.
The Xbox One's issue wasn't strictly due to CU's, but lack of DRAM bandwidth, texture mapping units, render output pipelines and other bottlenecks.
It's a culmination of issues that bring down a platform.
Price is the other factor, hard to justify buying an Xbox One when it was not only slower than the Playstation 4, but was also more expensive. (Eventually became the same price)
That SRAM was a cost-incurring exercise and the wrong choice.
And just like Flops, there is more to a system than just one individual number that people use for their specification-wars, take the RDNA4 parts for example... 48CU's will outperform the older 80CU part.
...On the other flipside a smaller chip that clocks higher isn't always a cheaper chip to manufacture, sometimes a larger chip with more relaxed frequency and voltage curves is a cheaper chip to produce, it's about finding that balance.
If you take a silicon wafer and a heap of chips suffer from significant crosstalk and leakage, then they need to be binned or sold as another product just as often as a larger chip with faults.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
