By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Xbox One CPU Clocks In At ~1.9GHz

Ganoncrotch on 30 August 2013
Adinnieken said:
ethomaz said:

lol not that I didn't know the Xbone CPU clock (can be anything from 1.6 to 2.0Ghz) but the explanation is just wrong in so many levels lol

So, if I understand this correctly now.  When it comes to the Xbox One, SemiAccurate is no longer correct?

Also, what are your creditials, his are listed in the article.

Where did you get your Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or Electrical Engineering degree from?

And finally, please rather than just discount it as untrue, provide a real answer.

I'm not saying you're wrong or right.  I'm tired of people pulling opinions out of their ass when they don't like what is said without some basis in fact to support it.  I dealt with this with the coherency and HSA argument and I'm going to personally put my foot down.

Unless you can corroborate your opinion with some factual information, don't offer it.


Opinions and facts are not always the same thing. Some peoples opinions of certain companies is that their CEOs dance around burning cross's while chanting satanic ritual music backwards to the screams of burning puppies.... This is mostly not based on facts!

I for one like to read even off the wall opinions on various stuff, the less they're based on facts the more interesting the read normally is, tis why I come here most days.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

Around the Network
superspeedybull on 30 August 2013
CGI-Quality said:
superspeedybull said:
CGI-Quality said:
superspeedybull said:

I remember the PS3 mainly depending on its CPU.

The PS3 was a completely different machine. Thank goodness they realized the GPU has far more signifcance with these consoles.

Well I agree with you mostly but to say these consoles depend more on GPU than CPU this generation is just an assumption that you make because of the significant jump in GPU than in CPU. Do you know why sony and microsoft went with APU solutions this generation? 

Of course it's an assumption, but one based on the principles of modern game development. Ask any dev what matters more - chances are they'll tell you the GPU.  

No as for why they both went with AMD, simple, AMD was the cheaper solution. It will probably pay off, too

I'll tell you why, haven't you notice one thing both microsoft and sony have done with consoles this generation? The've made it to the point where these things can jump from one task to another. The fact that you can be surfing the web one minute and playing killzone online in the matter of a few seconds seems to be big deal. Last generation this wasn't possible simply because the GPU and the CPU worked on one process at a time. 

APU architecture that aren;t synchronized allows them work seperately the bigger GPU is in fact more important and more useful than a bigger CPU. Because the way these consoles are put together a single game can run entirely on the GPU and the consoles UI can still be running at full operation on the CPU. So this is how we can, stream, video chat, surf the web, and play games all in at the same time sort of. 



Pemalite on 30 August 2013
superspeedybull said:

What? Developers made it very clear that the PS3's superior CPU made up for its weaker GPU, do you know something that they don't? Please explain. 


I've explained it in my previous posts.

Yes, the PS3 had a weaker GPU than the Xbox 360.
However, the CPU was mostly used for framebuffer effects and things like Morphological Anti-Aliasing, the Cell simply isn't fast enough to handle a GPU's full load, because well. It's simply not wide or fast enough!




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Captain_Tom on 30 August 2013
Pemalite said:
curl-6 said:
Can someone explain to me, as I'm pretty ignorant in this area; how does the PS4/Xbone's Jaguars compare to PS3's Cell and 360's Xenon? How much more powerful are the next gen CPUs? Ten times as strong? Five times? Two times?


It depends.
The Cell was *very* good at certain types of equations, not all.

The problem is, game engines use differing types of math to achieve a certain result, Jaguar on the otherhand is a more balanced CPU.

To simplify it... The Cell has a high theoretical maximum performance ceiling, but it's unrealistic to achieve it over long periods of time.
Jaguar can achieve a set level of performance constantly, there aren't any tricky nuances.

So, to put it in perspective, in a Race the Cell will run at 20km's an hour and peak at 40km's an hour every now and then, Jaguar will run at 30km's an hour for the entire race, in the end over time, Jaguar gets more work done.

It's difficult to peg in numbers of how much faster Jaguar is, because... Well. They're completely different, flops isn't a good performance metric because CPU's and Game engines do more than just deal with floating point.


Yeah exactly.  I have seen performance measurments where the Cell rivals the desktop i5's and i7's from about 2 years ago (VERY GOOD)  However games are not run on these types of code and as such the CELL was a poor choice as a gaming processor.  

 

In terms of gaming value I would say an 8-core Jaguar is about 3 times as powerful (which is coincidentally what many devs have said too).



Kratos on 30 August 2013
landguy1 said:
So, 2 people banned for disagreeing with ethomaz? Is it a forum where OPINIONS are shared. IF someone disagrees with the opinions and asks for that person to prove it, is that a bad thing? More than a few times, I have tried to use my poor memory as a basis for a comment and people threw out the prove it line. If I didn't prove it, I was supposed to be full of crap. So, even if ethomaz provided proof of his "credentials", who is the person to judge the validity of those and then determine that he is now an expert? Does it really matter? The real answer is people here disagree all the time and Banning was not the answer for people just saying prove it.

OT - I also think that we won't know whether this will impact anything until someone breaks this all down to a point where anyone on this site can have an opinion without having to "Prove It'.

Those people were banned for flaming and insulting ethomaz, sure they were sharing their opinion, but in a awful rude way.



PSN ID: clemens-nl                                                                                                                

Around the Network
fighter on 30 August 2013
CGI-Quality said:
superspeedybull said:
CGI-Quality said:
superspeedybull said:

Well I agree with you mostly but to say these consoles depend more on GPU than CPU this generation is just an assumption that you make because of the significant jump in GPU than in CPU. Do you know why sony and microsoft went with APU solutions this generation? 

Of course it's an assumption, but one based on the principles of modern game development. Ask any dev what matters more - chances are they'll tell you the GPU.  

No as for why they both went with AMD, simple, AMD was the cheaper solution. It will probably pay off, too

I'll tell you why, haven't you notice one thing both microsoft and sony have done with consoles this generation? The've made it to the point where these things can jump from one task to another. The fact that you can be surfing the web one minute and playing killzone online in the matter of a few seconds seems to be big deal. Last generation this wasn't possible simply because the GPU and the CPU worked on one process at a time. 

APU architecture that aren;t synchronized allows them work seperately the bigger GPU is in fact more important and more useful than a bigger CPU. Because the way these consoles are put together a single game can run entirely on the GPU and the consoles UI can still be running at full operation on the CPU. So this is how we can, stream, video chat, surf the web, and play games all in at the same time sort of. 

None of what you said requires a super CPU, which is what the manufacturers, I'm guessing, realized. RAM and GPU power are far more important, and going by many of the 7th gen complaints, were the biggest culprits that plagued many of the titles, especially regarding the PS3.

It's lessoned learned, in 2013, a console's GPU and RAM matter more.


hey superspeedybull - don't bother with CGI - it's a waste of time



Pemalite on 30 August 2013
fighter said:
CGI-Quality said:
superspeedybull said:
CGI-Quality said:
superspeedybull said:

Well I agree with you mostly but to say these consoles depend more on GPU than CPU this generation is just an assumption that you make because of the significant jump in GPU than in CPU. Do you know why sony and microsoft went with APU solutions this generation? 

Of course it's an assumption, but one based on the principles of modern game development. Ask any dev what matters more - chances are they'll tell you the GPU.  

No as for why they both went with AMD, simple, AMD was the cheaper solution. It will probably pay off, too

I'll tell you why, haven't you notice one thing both microsoft and sony have done with consoles this generation? The've made it to the point where these things can jump from one task to another. The fact that you can be surfing the web one minute and playing killzone online in the matter of a few seconds seems to be big deal. Last generation this wasn't possible simply because the GPU and the CPU worked on one process at a time. 

APU architecture that aren;t synchronized allows them work seperately the bigger GPU is in fact more important and more useful than a bigger CPU. Because the way these consoles are put together a single game can run entirely on the GPU and the consoles UI can still be running at full operation on the CPU. So this is how we can, stream, video chat, surf the web, and play games all in at the same time sort of. 

None of what you said requires a super CPU, which is what the manufacturers, I'm guessing, realized. RAM and GPU power are far more important, and going by many of the 7th gen complaints, were the biggest culprits that plagued many of the titles, especially regarding the PS3.

It's lessoned learned, in 2013, a console's GPU and RAM matter more.


hey superspeedybull - don't bother with CGI - it's a waste of time


Why do you say that? CGI was right on the money.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

fighter on 30 August 2013
Pemalite said:
fighter said:
CGI-Quality said:
superspeedybull said:
CGI-Quality said:
superspeedybull said:

Well I agree with you mostly but to say these consoles depend more on GPU than CPU this generation is just an assumption that you make because of the significant jump in GPU than in CPU. Do you know why sony and microsoft went with APU solutions this generation? 

Of course it's an assumption, but one based on the principles of modern game development. Ask any dev what matters more - chances are they'll tell you the GPU.  

No as for why they both went with AMD, simple, AMD was the cheaper solution. It will probably pay off, too

I'll tell you why, haven't you notice one thing both microsoft and sony have done with consoles this generation? The've made it to the point where these things can jump from one task to another. The fact that you can be surfing the web one minute and playing killzone online in the matter of a few seconds seems to be big deal. Last generation this wasn't possible simply because the GPU and the CPU worked on one process at a time. 

APU architecture that aren;t synchronized allows them work seperately the bigger GPU is in fact more important and more useful than a bigger CPU. Because the way these consoles are put together a single game can run entirely on the GPU and the consoles UI can still be running at full operation on the CPU. So this is how we can, stream, video chat, surf the web, and play games all in at the same time sort of. 

None of what you said requires a super CPU, which is what the manufacturers, I'm guessing, realized. RAM and GPU power are far more important, and going by many of the 7th gen complaints, were the biggest culprits that plagued many of the titles, especially regarding the PS3.

It's lessoned learned, in 2013, a console's GPU and RAM matter more.


hey superspeedybull - don't bother with CGI - it's a waste of time


Why do you say that? CGI was right on the money.

So the obvious contradiction with him claiming this entire gen the PS3 is the most powerful thanks to it's processor (when X360 has the best GPU) and now claiming that the most powerful GPU is de facto the winner doesn't strike you ?

Interesting.



superspeedybull on 30 August 2013
fighter said:
CGI-Quality said:
superspeedybull said:
CGI-Quality said:
superspeedybull said:

Well I agree with you mostly but to say these consoles depend more on GPU than CPU this generation is just an assumption that you make because of the significant jump in GPU than in CPU. Do you know why sony and microsoft went with APU solutions this generation? 

Of course it's an assumption, but one based on the principles of modern game development. Ask any dev what matters more - chances are they'll tell you the GPU.  

No as for why they both went with AMD, simple, AMD was the cheaper solution. It will probably pay off, too

I'll tell you why, haven't you notice one thing both microsoft and sony have done with consoles this generation? The've made it to the point where these things can jump from one task to another. The fact that you can be surfing the web one minute and playing killzone online in the matter of a few seconds seems to be big deal. Last generation this wasn't possible simply because the GPU and the CPU worked on one process at a time. 

APU architecture that aren;t synchronized allows them work seperately the bigger GPU is in fact more important and more useful than a bigger CPU. Because the way these consoles are put together a single game can run entirely on the GPU and the consoles UI can still be running at full operation on the CPU. So this is how we can, stream, video chat, surf the web, and play games all in at the same time sort of. 

None of what you said requires a super CPU, which is what the manufacturers, I'm guessing, realized. RAM and GPU power are far more important, and going by many of the 7th gen complaints, were the biggest culprits that plagued many of the titles, especially regarding the PS3.

It's lessoned learned, in 2013, a console's GPU and RAM matter more.


hey superspeedybull - don't bother with CGI - it's a waste of time

I realized that after reading the response, totally missed the point. 



superspeedybull on 30 August 2013
CGI-Quality said:
superspeedybull said:
CGI-Quality said:
superspeedybull said:

Well I agree with you mostly but to say these consoles depend more on GPU than CPU this generation is just an assumption that you make because of the significant jump in GPU than in CPU. Do you know why sony and microsoft went with APU solutions this generation? 

Of course it's an assumption, but one based on the principles of modern game development. Ask any dev what matters more - chances are they'll tell you the GPU.  

No as for why they both went with AMD, simple, AMD was the cheaper solution. It will probably pay off, too

I'll tell you why, haven't you notice one thing both microsoft and sony have done with consoles this generation? The've made it to the point where these things can jump from one task to another. The fact that you can be surfing the web one minute and playing killzone online in the matter of a few seconds seems to be big deal. Last generation this wasn't possible simply because the GPU and the CPU worked on one process at a time. 

APU architecture that aren;t synchronized allows them work seperately the bigger GPU is in fact more important and more useful than a bigger CPU. Because the way these consoles are put together a single game can run entirely on the GPU and the consoles UI can still be running at full operation on the CPU. So this is how we can, stream, video chat, surf the web, and play games all in at the same time sort of. 

None of what you said requires a super CPU, which is what the manufacturers, I'm guessing, realized. RAM and GPU power are far more important, and going by many of the 7th gen complaints, were the biggest culprits that plagued many of the titles, especially regarding the PS3.

It's lessoned learned, in 2013, a console's GPU and RAM matter more.

I never said any of it did.