The Xbone is a waste of potential. Unforgiveable

  • 71 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by BattlefieldFan3 (341 posts) -

Like how I wasn't able to forgive SONY for the poor engineering decisions on the PS3, I feel like I can't forgive Microsoft for making crappy design choices.

The Xbone APU costs more than the PS4's and uses outdated tech, has less power and is unbalanced. The APU cost $3 billion in R&D while SONY let AMD do most of the R&D for their console.

I just feel that if Microsoft hired someone equivalent to Mark Cerny to design their console, the Xbone would be at least a BALANCED 3 TF machine at $499. With the R&D that Microsoft spent and the amount of money they're paying per APU, it's almost criminal... Now all that we're stuck with is an unbalanced 1.1 TF machine.

http://allthingsd.com/20131126/microsofts-xbox-one-cost-90-more-to-build-than-sonys-ps4-teardown-shows/

Like a similar AMD-made chip found inside the PS4, this one is a combination of a CPU and a graphics-processing unit (GPU) that handles gaming graphics. At an estimated cost of $110 — about $10 more than the AMD chip found in the PS4 — it’s the single most expensive component in the system.

#3 Edited by Dreams-Visions (26569 posts) -

says it all, really. different priorities and concerns about the cost of GDDR5 at the time they began designing the hardware lead to a weaker piece of hardware.

Yes, you're looking at that picture correctly. If they didn't feel the need to add ESRAM to the APU, they would have had room for a lot more Radeon Graphics cores on the die. If they had gone GDDR5 instead of that convoluted mix of RAM types, the One could have been the PS4's equal in terms of GPU power. But they weren't willing to bet that the price of GDDR5 would drop.

Water under the bridge now. All that remains to see is how it impacts the next 7 years or so.

#4 Posted by R3FURBISHED (10358 posts) -
#5 Posted by farrell2k (5810 posts) -

The XboxOne is a mid level PC for the time. The 360 was the same thing in 2005. I don't know why anyone expects otherwise. They're just consoles.

#6 Posted by BattlefieldFan3 (341 posts) -

says it all, really. different priorities and concerns about the cost of GDDR5 at the time they began designing the hardware lead to a weaker piece of hardware.

Yes, you're looking at that picture correctly. If they didn't feel the need to add ESRAM to the APU, they would have had room for a lot more Radeon Graphics cores on the die. If they had gone GDDR5 instead of that convoluted mix of RAM types, the One could have been the PS4's equal in terms of GPU power. But they weren't willing to bet that the price of GDDR5 would drop.

Water under the bridge now. All that remains to see is how it impacts the next 7 years or so.

LOL... No way, dude. The Xbone has 5 billion transistors while the PS4 only has around 3 billion. The Xbone would easily have a 3 TF GPU if they went with GDDR5 RAM.

On the left side of the Graphics Cores, the system memory controllers prevented Microsoft from adding more cores. Had they followed SONY's design, that right there would have given Microsoft their 20 graphics cores. Now look to the right of the graphics cores. That space consumed by the eSRAM could double the graphics cores. Microsoft could have had a 34 Compute Units monster.

#7 Posted by BattlefieldFan3 (341 posts) -

The XboxOne is a mid level PC for the time. The 360 was the same thing in 2005. I don't know why anyone expects otherwise. They're just consoles.

With the amount of money Microsoft spent on R&D and the cost per APU Microsoft is forking over to AMD, the Xbone could have been better than 99% of current high-end gaming PCs if they had someone as smart as Cerny on their design team.

SONY had less money for R&D and silicon budget, but they had a genius in their team.

Microsoft had smart people, but no one who was really a genius like Cerny. They had a lot of money to spill on R&D.

In the end, Microsoft wasted their potential and SONY ended up with a better machine. I'm just lamenting the current state of current-gen consoles. Microsoft's machine could have been so much more if they only had someone like Cerny on their staff.

#8 Posted by Dreams-Visions (26569 posts) -

@Dreams-Visions said:

says it all, really. different priorities and concerns about the cost of GDDR5 at the time they began designing the hardware lead to a weaker piece of hardware.

Yes, you're looking at that picture correctly. If they didn't feel the need to add ESRAM to the APU, they would have had room for a lot more Radeon Graphics cores on the die. If they had gone GDDR5 instead of that convoluted mix of RAM types, the One could have been the PS4's equal in terms of GPU power. But they weren't willing to bet that the price of GDDR5 would drop.

Water under the bridge now. All that remains to see is how it impacts the next 7 years or so.

LOL... No way, dude. The Xbone has 5 billion transistors while the PS4 only has around 3 billion. The Xbone would easily have a 3 TF GPU if they went with GDDR5 RAM.

On the left side of the Graphics Cores, the system memory controllers prevented Microsoft from adding more cores. Had they followed SONY's design, that right there would have given Microsoft their 20 graphics cores. Now look to the right of the graphics cores. That space consumed by the eSRAM could double the graphics cores. Microsoft could have had a 34 Compute Units monster.

Hmmmm. Nope. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

#9 Posted by BattlefieldFan3 (341 posts) -

@BattlefieldFan3 said:

@Dreams-Visions said:

says it all, really. different priorities and concerns about the cost of GDDR5 at the time they began designing the hardware lead to a weaker piece of hardware.

Yes, you're looking at that picture correctly. If they didn't feel the need to add ESRAM to the APU, they would have had room for a lot more Radeon Graphics cores on the die. If they had gone GDDR5 instead of that convoluted mix of RAM types, the One could have been the PS4's equal in terms of GPU power. But they weren't willing to bet that the price of GDDR5 would drop.

Water under the bridge now. All that remains to see is how it impacts the next 7 years or so.

LOL... No way, dude. The Xbone has 5 billion transistors while the PS4 only has around 3 billion. The Xbone would easily have a 3 TF GPU if they went with GDDR5 RAM.

On the left side of the Graphics Cores, the system memory controllers prevented Microsoft from adding more cores. Had they followed SONY's design, that right there would have given Microsoft their 20 graphics cores. Now look to the right of the graphics cores. That space consumed by the eSRAM could double the graphics cores. Microsoft could have had a 34 Compute Units monster.

Hmmmm. Nope. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

In terms of width, the APU of the PS4 is around the same size as the Xbone's size up to the right-end of the Graphics Core unit. The eSRAM on the right could have been used to double the current graphics core.

#10 Edited by Zethrickk382 (134 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED: Might be because the capitalize It on most if not all of their products. It is on my xperia z ultra anyway.

#11 Edited by HavocV3 (7934 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

The XboxOne is a mid level PC for the time. The 360 was the same thing in 2005. I don't know why anyone expects otherwise. They're just consoles.

The 360 had one of the best GPUs for its' time.

The Xbone GPU is like...the...uh...20th best...er...at best? It doesn't even break the top 20, that's for sure.

It will not age as well.

#12 Edited by BattlefieldFan3 (341 posts) -

@HavocV3 said:

@farrell2k said:

The XboxOne is a mid level PC for the time. The 360 was the same thing in 2005. I don't know why anyone expects otherwise. They're just consoles.

The 360 had one of the best GPUs for its' time.

The Xbone GPU is like...the...uh...20th best...er...at best? It doesn't even break the top 20, that's for sure.

It will not age as well.

It's because of the mediocre engineers they have working for them.

SONY may not have a lot of money, but they at least have Cerny. 1 genius is worth more than a trillion mediocre minds.

SONY can engineer a better console than Microsoft with a fraction of the money Microsoft uses for R&D. Now if only SONY were as rich as Microsoft... The possibilities would be endless.

#13 Posted by R3FURBISHED (10358 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED: Might be because the capitalize It on most if not all of thier products. It is on my xperia z ultra anyway.

If true, that is, in my mind, moronic and completely anal.

#14 Posted by GrenadeLauncher (4125 posts) -

Funny thing is, if they hadn't gone for "TV TV TV" they probably could have made a more powerful console at the same price point with Kinect.

#15 Posted by BattleSpectre (5966 posts) -

Seems like both companies are going for different things. Microsoft want their system to be the all-in-one entertainment package. Whereas it seems Sony is sticking to their guns and focusing on games and services that improve them.

#16 Edited by farrell2k (5810 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

The XboxOne is a mid level PC for the time. The 360 was the same thing in 2005. I don't know why anyone expects otherwise. They're just consoles.

With the amount of money Microsoft spent on R&D and the cost per APU Microsoft is forking over to AMD, the Xbone could have been better than 99% of current high-end gaming PCs if they had someone as smart as Cerny on their design team.

SONY had less money for R&D and silicon budget, but they had a genius in their team.

Microsoft had smart people, but no one who was really a genius like Cerny. They had a lot of money to spill on R&D.

In the end, Microsoft wasted their potential and SONY ended up with a better machine. I'm just lamenting the current state of current-gen consoles. Microsoft's machine could have been so much more if they only had someone like Cerny on their staff.

You are correct that the XB1 is woefully under powered, but I doubt it had anything to do with the person designing it, as the higher-ups ultimately sign off on the cost. It was probably more of a cost/performance decision with the guys at the top deciding that the $3 billion or so they wasted on R & D for the god damned thing was probably enough to make most gamers happy.

#17 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

@Dreams-Visions said:

says it all, really. different priorities and concerns about the cost of GDDR5 at the time they began designing the hardware lead to a weaker piece of hardware.

Yes, you're looking at that picture correctly. If they didn't feel the need to add ESRAM to the APU, they would have had room for a lot more Radeon Graphics cores on the die. If they had gone GDDR5 instead of that convoluted mix of RAM types, the One could have been the PS4's equal in terms of GPU power. But they weren't willing to bet that the price of GDDR5 would drop.

Water under the bridge now. All that remains to see is how it impacts the next 7 years or so.

MS could have a box like iBuyPower's $499 Steam box with Radeon HD R9-270 + 2GB GDDR5 179 GB/s i.e. hybrid 8 GB DDR3 and 2GB GDDR5.

Radeon HD R9-270 (20 CU, 925 Mhz, 2.368 TFLOPS)'s chip size about 212 mm^2.

#18 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

@BattlefieldFan3 said:

@Dreams-Visions said:

says it all, really. different priorities and concerns about the cost of GDDR5 at the time they began designing the hardware lead to a weaker piece of hardware.

Yes, you're looking at that picture correctly. If they didn't feel the need to add ESRAM to the APU, they would have had room for a lot more Radeon Graphics cores on the die. If they had gone GDDR5 instead of that convoluted mix of RAM types, the One could have been the PS4's equal in terms of GPU power. But they weren't willing to bet that the price of GDDR5 would drop.

Water under the bridge now. All that remains to see is how it impacts the next 7 years or so.

LOL... No way, dude. The Xbone has 5 billion transistors while the PS4 only has around 3 billion. The Xbone would easily have a 3 TF GPU if they went with GDDR5 RAM.

On the left side of the Graphics Cores, the system memory controllers prevented Microsoft from adding more cores. Had they followed SONY's design, that right there would have given Microsoft their 20 graphics cores. Now look to the right of the graphics cores. That space consumed by the eSRAM could double the graphics cores. Microsoft could have had a 34 Compute Units monster.

MS could have included additional memory controllers (for another 256bit GDDR5) and 14 CUs(+2 disabled CUs) in place of 32 MB ESRAM.

256bit 2GB GDDR5-5500 + 26 CU GCN at 853Mhz (~2.838 TFLOPS) would be similar to 7870 XT.

Within a given budget, Sony did a good job on configuring AMD's IP blocks.

#19 Edited by AtariKidX (6211 posts) -

PS4................better and cheaper.

#20 Edited by blamix99 (1697 posts) -

LOL

499$ = 720p (480p in 3-4 yrs time)

399$ = 1080p

#21 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

@BattleSpectre said:

Seems like both companies are going for different things. Microsoft want their system to be the all-in-one entertainment package. Whereas it seems Sony is sticking to their guns and focusing on games and services that improve them.

A gaming HTPC with Radeon HD R9-270 (e.g. IBuyPower's $499 Steam box) can handle Xbox One's "all-in-one" entrainment package.

Both PS4 and Xbox One are fundamentally X86 based HTPCs.

#22 Posted by MonsieurX (29569 posts) -

Your threads are a waste of space

#23 Edited by AutoPilotOn (8220 posts) -

@blamix99: why would the xbox go down to 480 over time?

#24 Posted by 1080pOnly (1986 posts) -

@blamix99 said:

LOL

499$ = 720p (480p in 3-4 yrs time)

399$ = 1080p

I hope this was a joke. If not it displays a surprisingly high level of stupid even for System Wars.

#25 Edited by Chozofication (2765 posts) -

@BattlefieldFan3 said:

@Dreams-Visions said:

says it all, really. different priorities and concerns about the cost of GDDR5 at the time they began designing the hardware lead to a weaker piece of hardware.

Yes, you're looking at that picture correctly. If they didn't feel the need to add ESRAM to the APU, they would have had room for a lot more Radeon Graphics cores on the die. If they had gone GDDR5 instead of that convoluted mix of RAM types, the One could have been the PS4's equal in terms of GPU power. But they weren't willing to bet that the price of GDDR5 would drop.

Water under the bridge now. All that remains to see is how it impacts the next 7 years or so.

LOL... No way, dude. The Xbone has 5 billion transistors while the PS4 only has around 3 billion. The Xbone would easily have a 3 TF GPU if they went with GDDR5 RAM.

On the left side of the Graphics Cores, the system memory controllers prevented Microsoft from adding more cores. Had they followed SONY's design, that right there would have given Microsoft their 20 graphics cores. Now look to the right of the graphics cores. That space consumed by the eSRAM could double the graphics cores. Microsoft could have had a 34 Compute Units monster.

Hmmmm. Nope. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

He doesn't.

eDRAM just happens to be really dense, but transistor count aside, they couldn't possibly put a high end gpu in a console without meltdowns.

#26 Posted by ImDaMan4Realz (94 posts) -

If it weren't fir Mattrick, I feel that the X1 would have been a much better and respected console.

#27 Posted by Chozofication (2765 posts) -

@BattlefieldFan3 said:

@farrell2k said:

The XboxOne is a mid level PC for the time. The 360 was the same thing in 2005. I don't know why anyone expects otherwise. They're just consoles.

With the amount of money Microsoft spent on R&D and the cost per APU Microsoft is forking over to AMD, the Xbone could have been better than 99% of current high-end gaming PCs if they had someone as smart as Cerny on their design team.

SONY had less money for R&D and silicon budget, but they had a genius in their team.

Microsoft had smart people, but no one who was really a genius like Cerny. They had a lot of money to spill on R&D.

In the end, Microsoft wasted their potential and SONY ended up with a better machine. I'm just lamenting the current state of current-gen consoles. Microsoft's machine could have been so much more if they only had someone like Cerny on their staff.

You are correct that the XB1 is woefully under powered, but I doubt it had anything to do with the person designing it, as the higher-ups ultimately sign off on the cost. It was probably more of a cost/performance decision with the guys at the top deciding that the $3 billion or so they wasted on R & D for the god damned thing was probably enough to make most gamers happy.

Actually, it might cost MS more to make the Xbox than the Ps4. The 2 factors that made them go the route they did were thinking sony would either have the same type of hardware they had, or only 4GB's of GDDR5 with the better gpu. If the Ps4 only had 4GB's, even if it was far superior memory, the Xbox would still have an advantage in that area. When they came up with the Xbox's design, 8Gb's of GDDR5 was not an option.

But since Sony chose to go with 4GB of GDDR5, as time passed 8 gig's soon became an option and they jumped at the chance.

32 mb's of eSRAM is not enough for 1080p, Wii U is designed for 720p and also has 32mb's of eDRAM. That's Xbox's biggest bottleneck and after that the GPU.

#28 Posted by messedupworld (119 posts) -

@BattlefieldFan3 said:

@Dreams-Visions said:

says it all, really. different priorities and concerns about the cost of GDDR5 at the time they began designing the hardware lead to a weaker piece of hardware.

Yes, you're looking at that picture correctly. If they didn't feel the need to add ESRAM to the APU, they would have had room for a lot more Radeon Graphics cores on the die. If they had gone GDDR5 instead of that convoluted mix of RAM types, the One could have been the PS4's equal in terms of GPU power. But they weren't willing to bet that the price of GDDR5 would drop.

Water under the bridge now. All that remains to see is how it impacts the next 7 years or so.

LOL... No way, dude. The Xbone has 5 billion transistors while the PS4 only has around 3 billion. The Xbone would easily have a 3 TF GPU if they went with GDDR5 RAM.

On the left side of the Graphics Cores, the system memory controllers prevented Microsoft from adding more cores. Had they followed SONY's design, that right there would have given Microsoft their 20 graphics cores. Now look to the right of the graphics cores. That space consumed by the eSRAM could double the graphics cores. Microsoft could have had a 34 Compute Units monster.

Hmmmm. Nope. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

I'd like to see you explain why it would be amusing

#29 Posted by misterpmedia (3363 posts) -

Like how I wasn't able to forgive SONY for the poor engineering decisions on the PS3, I feel like I can't forgive Microsoft for making crappy design choices.

The Xbone APU costs more than the PS4's and uses outdated tech, has less power and is unbalanced. The APU cost $3 billion in R&D while SONY let AMD do most of the R&D for their console.

I just feel that if Microsoft hired someone equivalent to Mark Cerny to design their console, the Xbone would be at least a BALANCED 3 TF machine at $499. With the R&D that Microsoft spent and the amount of money they're paying per APU, it's almost criminal... Now all that we're stuck with is an unbalanced 1.1 TF machine.

http://allthingsd.com/20131126/microsofts-xbox-one-cost-90-more-to-build-than-sonys-ps4-teardown-shows/

Like a similar AMD-made chip found inside the PS4, this one is a combination of a CPU and a graphics-processing unit (GPU) that handles gaming graphics. At an estimated cost of $110 — about $10 more than the AMD chip found in the PS4 — it’s the single most expensive component in the system.

Personally I love thinking back to all those people on the usual forums expressing with aggressive fanboytard paragraphs that MS weren't going to 'let' Sony beat them and that the have unlimited amount of cash to supply the division with(which is technically true to a certain extent) and they come out with the XB1 and from all the rumours it turned out to be exactly what people feared it would be. I mean LOL. Embarrassed people everywhere trying to find the positives about the system must have taken some inner mind convincing when they typed out comments to suggest the XB1 would either have, better hardware, or after it was revealed have some magical power boost hidden away some where.

MS got waaay to greedy and lost focus. Concession box is definitely a waste potential of what could have been one powerful gaming machine that could have had packing hardware not even Sony or Nintendo could have matched because they simply couldn't have afforded it.

#30 Edited by BattlefieldFan1 (846 posts) -

@misterpmedia said:

@BattlefieldFan3 said:

Like how I wasn't able to forgive SONY for the poor engineering decisions on the PS3, I feel like I can't forgive Microsoft for making crappy design choices.

The Xbone APU costs more than the PS4's and uses outdated tech, has less power and is unbalanced. The APU cost $3 billion in R&D while SONY let AMD do most of the R&D for their console.

I just feel that if Microsoft hired someone equivalent to Mark Cerny to design their console, the Xbone would be at least a BALANCED 3 TF machine at $499. With the R&D that Microsoft spent and the amount of money they're paying per APU, it's almost criminal... Now all that we're stuck with is an unbalanced 1.1 TF machine.

http://allthingsd.com/20131126/microsofts-xbox-one-cost-90-more-to-build-than-sonys-ps4-teardown-shows/

Like a similar AMD-made chip found inside the PS4, this one is a combination of a CPU and a graphics-processing unit (GPU) that handles gaming graphics. At an estimated cost of $110 — about $10 more than the AMD chip found in the PS4 — it’s the single most expensive component in the system.

Personally I love thinking back to all those people on the usual forums expressing with aggressive fanboytard paragraphs that MS weren't going to 'let' Sony beat them and that the have unlimited amount of cash to supply the division with(which is technically true to a certain extent) and they come out with the XB1 and from all the rumours it turned out to be exactly what people feared it would be. I mean LOL. Embarrassed people everywhere trying to find the positives about the system must have taken some inner mind convincing when they typed out comments to suggest the XB1 would either have, better hardware, or after it was revealed have some magical power boost hidden away some where.

MS got waaay to greedy and lost focus. Concession box is definitely a waste potential of what could have been one powerful gaming machine that could have had packing hardware not even Sony or Nintendo could have matched because they simply couldn't have afforded it.

Well, you might find it funny, but I'm actually angry and depressed.

I was a 360 fanboy last-gen and I also thought there was no way Microsoft was going to screw up their hardware architecture that much. I mean $3 f*cking billion in R&D on the APU alone while SONY probably didn't even spend $50 million in R&D for the entire console. That's not even counting the manufacturing costs per APU which is $10 more than the cost to manufacture each PS4 APU.

How the hell do you f*ck things up so much? You had so much money... How?

Now, instead of the possibility of having a 3+ TF next-gen console, we have 2 weaksauce machines. I don't really blame SONY because they're not doing so hot financially. They exceeded everyone's expectations considering their budget constraints. There's really no excuse for Microsoft. PS4 is the only logical choice for this gen. This gen f*cking sucks. I hope it ends in 5-6 years.

#31 Edited by misterpmedia (3363 posts) -

@misterpmedia said:

@BattlefieldFan3 said:

Like how I wasn't able to forgive SONY for the poor engineering decisions on the PS3, I feel like I can't forgive Microsoft for making crappy design choices.

The Xbone APU costs more than the PS4's and uses outdated tech, has less power and is unbalanced. The APU cost $3 billion in R&D while SONY let AMD do most of the R&D for their console.

I just feel that if Microsoft hired someone equivalent to Mark Cerny to design their console, the Xbone would be at least a BALANCED 3 TF machine at $499. With the R&D that Microsoft spent and the amount of money they're paying per APU, it's almost criminal... Now all that we're stuck with is an unbalanced 1.1 TF machine.

http://allthingsd.com/20131126/microsofts-xbox-one-cost-90-more-to-build-than-sonys-ps4-teardown-shows/

Like a similar AMD-made chip found inside the PS4, this one is a combination of a CPU and a graphics-processing unit (GPU) that handles gaming graphics. At an estimated cost of $110 — about $10 more than the AMD chip found in the PS4 — it’s the single most expensive component in the system.

Personally I love thinking back to all those people on the usual forums expressing with aggressive fanboytard paragraphs that MS weren't going to 'let' Sony beat them and that the have unlimited amount of cash to supply the division with(which is technically true to a certain extent) and they come out with the XB1 and from all the rumours it turned out to be exactly what people feared it would be. I mean LOL. Embarrassed people everywhere trying to find the positives about the system must have taken some inner mind convincing when they typed out comments to suggest the XB1 would either have, better hardware, or after it was revealed have some magical power boost hidden away some where.

MS got waaay to greedy and lost focus. Concession box is definitely a waste potential of what could have been one powerful gaming machine that could have had packing hardware not even Sony or Nintendo could have matched because they simply couldn't have afforded it.

Well, you might find it funny, but I'm actually angry and depressed.

I was a 360 fanboy last-gen and I also thought there was no way Microsoft was going to screw up their hardware architecture that much. I mean $3 f*cking billion in R&D on the APU alone while SONY probably didn't even spend $50 million in R&D for the entire console. That's not even counting the manufacturing costs per APU which is $10 more than the cost to manufacture each PS4 APU.

How the hell do you f*ck things up so much? You had so much money... How?

Now, instead of the possibility of having a 3+ TF next-gen console, we have 2 weaksauce machines. I don't really blame SONY because they're not doing so hot financially. They exceeded everyone's expectations considering their budget constraints. There's really no excuse for Microsoft. PS4 is the only logical choice for this gen. This gen f*cking sucks. I hope it ends in 5-6 years.

Your prayers will be answered with a short gen this time I assure you, for Sony anyway, MS have stated the XB1 is for an entire decade. More than likely banking on high speed internet being the norm in ten years to make use of the cloud etc, which is a risk in itself as it will splinter the user base(offline and always online). And true, both machines are pretty weak compared to PC and always will be. PS4 will try its best to keep up leaving the XB1 firmly in the dust with the Wii-U lagging even more behind.

Comes down to vision like I said, Sony went for gaming machine with media capabilities as a second use. XB1 went for a full function complicated all in one machine that did everything for the living room, even holding on to straws like old media like cable(which is in heavy decline) making the HDMIn feature pretty useless in about 2-3 years more than likely. It's the least talked about feature even if fanboys praise it as 'innovation' lel. But yeah MS fucked up big time and kinect and TV are like two anchors no-one asked for to what could have been a dedicated power house gaming machine that only MS could have had a budget for.

Still baffled as well that people were claiming the ruination of Sony and that they wouldn't be able to compete or go third party and came out with a superior machine. Such an epic turn around in console gaming.

#32 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

@Dreams-Visions said:

@BattlefieldFan3 said:

@Dreams-Visions said:

says it all, really. different priorities and concerns about the cost of GDDR5 at the time they began designing the hardware lead to a weaker piece of hardware.

Yes, you're looking at that picture correctly. If they didn't feel the need to add ESRAM to the APU, they would have had room for a lot more Radeon Graphics cores on the die. If they had gone GDDR5 instead of that convoluted mix of RAM types, the One could have been the PS4's equal in terms of GPU power. But they weren't willing to bet that the price of GDDR5 would drop.

Water under the bridge now. All that remains to see is how it impacts the next 7 years or so.

LOL... No way, dude. The Xbone has 5 billion transistors while the PS4 only has around 3 billion. The Xbone would easily have a 3 TF GPU if they went with GDDR5 RAM.

On the left side of the Graphics Cores, the system memory controllers prevented Microsoft from adding more cores. Had they followed SONY's design, that right there would have given Microsoft their 20 graphics cores. Now look to the right of the graphics cores. That space consumed by the eSRAM could double the graphics cores. Microsoft could have had a 34 Compute Units monster.

Hmmmm. Nope. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

He doesn't.

eDRAM just happens to be really dense, but transistor count aside, they couldn't possibly put a high end gpu in a console without meltdowns.

It depends on amps, clock speed and CU type i.e. 79x0's CU design vs 77x078x0 (not XT model)'s CU design.

#33 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

@Chozofication said:

@farrell2k said:

@BattlefieldFan3 said:

@farrell2k said:

The XboxOne is a mid level PC for the time. The 360 was the same thing in 2005. I don't know why anyone expects otherwise. They're just consoles.

With the amount of money Microsoft spent on R&D and the cost per APU Microsoft is forking over to AMD, the Xbone could have been better than 99% of current high-end gaming PCs if they had someone as smart as Cerny on their design team.

SONY had less money for R&D and silicon budget, but they had a genius in their team.

Microsoft had smart people, but no one who was really a genius like Cerny. They had a lot of money to spill on R&D.

In the end, Microsoft wasted their potential and SONY ended up with a better machine. I'm just lamenting the current state of current-gen consoles. Microsoft's machine could have been so much more if they only had someone like Cerny on their staff.

You are correct that the XB1 is woefully under powered, but I doubt it had anything to do with the person designing it, as the higher-ups ultimately sign off on the cost. It was probably more of a cost/performance decision with the guys at the top deciding that the $3 billion or so they wasted on R & D for the god damned thing was probably enough to make most gamers happy.

Actually, it might cost MS more to make the Xbox than the Ps4. The 2 factors that made them go the route they did were thinking sony would either have the same type of hardware they had, or only 4GB's of GDDR5 with the better gpu. If the Ps4 only had 4GB's, even if it was far superior memory, the Xbox would still have an advantage in that area. When they came up with the Xbox's design, 8Gb's of GDDR5 was not an option.

But since Sony chose to go with 4GB of GDDR5, as time passed 8 gig's soon became an option and they jumped at the chance.

32 mb's of eSRAM is not enough for 1080p, Wii U is designed for 720p and also has 32mb's of eDRAM. That's Xbox's biggest bottleneck and after that the GPU.

MS could have 256bit 2GB GDDR5 + 128bit DDR3 design as in iBuyPower's Steambox.

R9-270's 2GB GDDR5 > X1's 32MB ESRAM e.g. BF4 PC with R9-270 at 1080p > BF4 X1's 720p.

#34 Edited by blamix99 (1697 posts) -

@blamix99 said:

LOL

499$ = 720p (480p in 3-4 yrs time)

399$ = 1080p

I hope this was a joke. If not it displays a surprisingly high level of stupid even for System Wars.

LOL of course it is,

#35 Posted by Pray_to_me (2834 posts) -

MS assumed Sony was gonna go with 4 gb gddr4 which, even though for gaming would be better than 8gb of ddr3, Microscum figured that the average consumer would just see 8<4 and went with that.

Thing is Sony dropped dat bomb and killed it with 8gb of gddr5 ;)

You see a lot of MS fanboys; aka lemmings and Hermits try to down play the fact that PS4 is shitting on Xbone with the ram. Talkin' bout ram don't matter when last gen all they did was spam about ram. All day every day consoles can't do this cuz of the ram yada yada. C'mon hermrits you guys realize you have zero credibility at this point right?

here have some butthurt

#36 Posted by remaGloohcSdlO (4152 posts) -

Because the potential of a console with an 8+ year cycle can easily be determined in week 3...

SMH...

#37 Posted by TwistedShade (3151 posts) -

Cows back to playing the spec game because their PS4 has no games to play?

#38 Posted by blamix99 (1697 posts) -

@blamix99: why would the xbox go down to 480 over time?

games get heavy and heavy every year,

#39 Posted by K1ngd0m4g3rul3z (178 posts) -

Both are terrible pieces of hw.

Fortunately for you whole lot, console gamers don't care about graphics except for bragging.

This gen is gonna be the re-run of the last 2 years of the last in a short while. With consoles having relatively horrible graphics, res, and fps compared to PCs.

FOR THE NEXT 6 YEARS at the very least.

Have fun trying your best to prove otherwise on gaming forums as you've done for the last decade or so however.

#40 Posted by StrongBlackVine (8418 posts) -

Both are terrible pieces of hw.

Fortunately for you whole lot, console gamers don't care about graphics except for bragging.

This gen is gonna be the re-run of the last 2 years of the last in a short while. With consoles having relatively horrible graphics, res, and fps compared to PCs.

FOR THE NEXT 6 YEARS at the very least.

Have fun trying your best to prove otherwise on gaming forums as you've done for the last decade or so however.

PS4 is gonna be solid for few years and don't think Sony will drag this generation out as long as they did the last one because costs will be recouped MUCH sooner. Most people have never gamed a high end PC so nothing of value will be lost to them. Stay jelly.

#41 Posted by K1ngd0m4g3rul3z (178 posts) -

@k1ngd0m4g3rul3z said:

Both are terrible pieces of hw.

Fortunately for you whole lot, console gamers don't care about graphics except for bragging.

This gen is gonna be the re-run of the last 2 years of the last in a short while. With consoles having relatively horrible graphics, res, and fps compared to PCs.

FOR THE NEXT 6 YEARS at the very least.

Have fun trying your best to prove otherwise on gaming forums as you've done for the last decade or so however.

PS4 is gonna be solid for few years and don't think Sony will drag this generation out as long as they did the last one because costs will be recouped MUCH sooner. Most people have never gamed a high end PC so nothing of value will be lost to them. Stay jelly.

Oh I see the denial pr campaign has already started... sorry I didn't get the memo.

and something something "butthurt" etc etc "cows" "metacritic"

#42 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@BattlefieldFan3 said:

@farrell2k said:

The XboxOne is a mid level PC for the time. The 360 was the same thing in 2005. I don't know why anyone expects otherwise. They're just consoles.

With the amount of money Microsoft spent on R&D and the cost per APU Microsoft is forking over to AMD, the Xbone could have been better than 99% of current high-end gaming PCs if they had someone as smart as Cerny on their design team.

SONY had less money for R&D and silicon budget, but they had a genius in their team.

Microsoft had smart people, but no one who was really a genius like Cerny. They had a lot of money to spill on R&D.

In the end, Microsoft wasted their potential and SONY ended up with a better machine. I'm just lamenting the current state of current-gen consoles. Microsoft's machine could have been so much more if they only had someone like Cerny on their staff.

You are correct that the XB1 is woefully under powered, but I doubt it had anything to do with the person designing it, as the higher-ups ultimately sign off on the cost. It was probably more of a cost/performance decision with the guys at the top deciding that the $3 billion or so they wasted on R & D for the god damned thing was probably enough to make most gamers happy.

Actually, it might cost MS more to make the Xbox than the Ps4. The 2 factors that made them go the route they did were thinking sony would either have the same type of hardware they had, or only 4GB's of GDDR5 with the better gpu. If the Ps4 only had 4GB's, even if it was far superior memory, the Xbox would still have an advantage in that area. When they came up with the Xbox's design, 8Gb's of GDDR5 was not an option.

But since Sony chose to go with 4GB of GDDR5, as time passed 8 gig's soon became an option and they jumped at the chance.

32 mb's of eSRAM is not enough for 1080p, Wii U is designed for 720p and also has 32mb's of eDRAM. That's Xbox's biggest bottleneck and after that the GPU.

As for 32MB ESRAM's suitability for 1080p, it depends on the render target. Need For Speed Rivals for Xbox One has 1080p render target and Frostbite 3 engine i.e. same engine as Battlefield 4.

Games like BF4 are mostly bounded by CU count i.e. you can estimate BF4's frame rate at 1080p via CU count and the estimate frame rate roughly matches a Radeon HD SKU with a similar CU count.

#43 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

@Pray_to_me said:

MS assumed Sony was gonna go with 4 gb gddr4 which, even though for gaming would be better than 8gb of ddr3, Microscum figured that the average consumer would just see 8<4 and went with that.

Thing is Sony dropped dat bomb and killed it with 8gb of gddr5 ;)

You see a lot of MS fanboys; aka lemmings and Hermits try to down play the fact that PS4 is shitting on Xbone with the ram. Talkin' bout ram don't matter when last gen all they did was spam about ram. All day every day consoles can't do this cuz of the ram yada yada. C'mon hermrits you guys realize you have zero credibility at this point right?

here have some butthurt

With BF4 results, PS4's 8 GDDR5 didn't enable it to beat Radeon HD R9-270 with 2GB GDDR5 + 179 GB/s bandwidth.

iBuyPower's $499 Steam based game console includes Radeon HD R9-270.

My point, the first priority is to maximise CU count then include sufficient fast VRAM and Radeon HD R9-270 shows superior performance when compared to PS4's result.

As for credibility, the results speak for themselves i.e. Radeon HD R9-270 beats PS4's results.

Atm, all R9-270 SKUs has 20 CUs enabled and AMD haven't released any failed R9-270 with lower CU count..

#44 Posted by Benny_Blakk (906 posts) -

@BattlefieldFan3: To be honest, they are selling units and the "casual device" theme seems to be working. That may be all that matters in the end. Let's not forget games.

#45 Posted by Benny_Blakk (906 posts) -

@ronvalencia: No, it can't handle the "all in one" of the XB1. It doesn't even have an optical drive! You're also comparing a product that is already on the market to something that doesn't even have a release date.

#46 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

@Benny_Blakk said:

@ronvalencia: No, it can't handle the "all in one" of the XB1. It doesn't even have an optical drive! You're also comparing a product that is already on the market to something that doesn't even have a release date.

iBuyPower's Steambox's PC build is very close to the following PC build.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2l6eN

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2l6eN/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 740 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($74.99 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-F2A55M-HD2 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard ($42.99 @ Newegg)

Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($52.99 @ Newegg)

Storage: Hitachi Travelstar Z7K500 500GB 2.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.99 @ Newegg)

Video Card: MSI Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB Video Card ($149.99 @ Newegg)

Case: Rosewill FBM-01 MicroATX Mini Tower Case ($22.89 @ Amazon)

Power Supply: Logisys 550W ATX Power Supply ($20.98 @ OutletPC)

Optical Drive: LG UH12NS30 Blu-Ray Reader, DVD/CD Writer ($49.98 @ OutletPC)

Total: $464.80

(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-12-16 01:51 EST-0500)

--------------

Radeon HD 7870 GE has 20 CUs at about 1Ghz (~2.56 TFLOPS) which is faster than R9-270's 20 CUs at 925Mhz (~2.36 TFLOPS).

The above PC build was targeted against PS4's performance and can be made cheaper with Radeon HD 7850 or R7-260X i.e. GCNs that would still beat X1's GCN setup.

From http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Xbox+One+Teardown/19718

X1 has a slower 5400 RPM HDD.

The point for this topic: MS could have done better...

#47 Posted by StormyJoe (4931 posts) -

@BattlefieldFan3:

How about this: shut your pie hole and don't buy an Xbox One? Jesus, I am so sick of these fake posts by cows.

I don't give a f**k if you don't want an Xbox One. I understand that you haven't any decent games to play on your flop-station 4, but that is not my problem. Stop filling the SW boards with this stupid bullshit.

#48 Edited by Chozofication (2765 posts) -

@Chozofication said:

@farrell2k said:

@BattlefieldFan3 said:

@farrell2k said:

The XboxOne is a mid level PC for the time. The 360 was the same thing in 2005. I don't know why anyone expects otherwise. They're just consoles.

With the amount of money Microsoft spent on R&D and the cost per APU Microsoft is forking over to AMD, the Xbone could have been better than 99% of current high-end gaming PCs if they had someone as smart as Cerny on their design team.

SONY had less money for R&D and silicon budget, but they had a genius in their team.

Microsoft had smart people, but no one who was really a genius like Cerny. They had a lot of money to spill on R&D.

In the end, Microsoft wasted their potential and SONY ended up with a better machine. I'm just lamenting the current state of current-gen consoles. Microsoft's machine could have been so much more if they only had someone like Cerny on their staff.

You are correct that the XB1 is woefully under powered, but I doubt it had anything to do with the person designing it, as the higher-ups ultimately sign off on the cost. It was probably more of a cost/performance decision with the guys at the top deciding that the $3 billion or so they wasted on R & D for the god damned thing was probably enough to make most gamers happy.

Actually, it might cost MS more to make the Xbox than the Ps4. The 2 factors that made them go the route they did were thinking sony would either have the same type of hardware they had, or only 4GB's of GDDR5 with the better gpu. If the Ps4 only had 4GB's, even if it was far superior memory, the Xbox would still have an advantage in that area. When they came up with the Xbox's design, 8Gb's of GDDR5 was not an option.

But since Sony chose to go with 4GB of GDDR5, as time passed 8 gig's soon became an option and they jumped at the chance.

32 mb's of eSRAM is not enough for 1080p, Wii U is designed for 720p and also has 32mb's of eDRAM. That's Xbox's biggest bottleneck and after that the GPU.

As for 32MB ESRAM's suitability for 1080p, it depends on the render target. Need For Speed Rivals for Xbox One has 1080p render target and Frostbite 3 engine i.e. same engine as Battlefield 4.

Games like BF4 are mostly bounded by CU count i.e. you can estimate BF4's frame rate at 1080p via CU count and the estimate frame rate roughly matches a Radeon HD SKU with a similar CU count.

That's a last gen port, man. It can either fit a framebuffer and a few other things @ 900p, or the framebuffer and lots of stuff at 720p (ala Wii U). We won't see any games pushing anything on XB1 @ 1080p.

Since you mentioned a racer, it's interesting that the Project Cars developer is really utilizing the eDRAM on Wii U, and it'll be interesting to see if the Wii U and XB1 versions run at the same native resolution because of that.

XB1 needs 48mb's of eD/SRAM to not be bottlenecked. Do you know if eDRAM would've been cheaper than the eSRAM they chose to go with? I don't know if they could've fit 48mb's on the die in the first place, though.

But like you said, they probably should've chose to use 2 pools of memory ala Ps3. 2GB's of GDDR5 would've been plenty for the gpu in the XB1.

#49 Posted by Douevenlift_bro (5035 posts) -

says it all, really. different priorities and concerns about the cost of GDDR5 at the time they began designing the hardware lead to a weaker piece of hardware.

Yes, you're looking at that picture correctly. If they didn't feel the need to add ESRAM to the APU, they would have had room for a lot more Radeon Graphics cores on the die. If they had gone GDDR5 instead of that convoluted mix of RAM types, the One could have been the PS4's equal in terms of GPU power. But they weren't willing to bet that the price of GDDR5 would drop.

Water under the bridge now. All that remains to see is how it impacts the next 7 years or so.

OUCH!

#50 Posted by Douevenlift_bro (5035 posts) -
@blamix99 said:

LOL

499$ = 720p (480p in 3-4 yrs time)

399$ = 1080p

Basically.