Greatest disparity in console hardware per gen?

How is that relevant to pixel processing? Having a bigger RAM/ROM doesn't give me a better core.

Of course it can hold more audio/visual assets, but that (as your point) wasn't entirely clear from this quote chain.

@tormentos What are you on about? FLOPS as a unit of measurement were practically created solely for comparing DIFFERENT architectures. It's basically saying "how many times can this chip multiply/add/do some operations per second" on the damn wiki page for flops there is even a table organized by FLOPS for different supercomputers (with different architectures).

Last gen, the Wii was the weakest of weak sauce comparatively to the other two consoles.

Exactly and even the RSX could not replicated that let alone the xbox,some things were better on PS2 most were not,but again the xbox didn't land on the same day or month the PS2 did,the PS2 came almost 2 years after so it was a given it had to carry stronger hardware.

It sure did but on that time most multiplatforms were quick cash grabs in fact this site slam several for been nothing but PS2 ports with better AA by multiplatforms it wasn't used much the xbox power.

Yes it had more ram double,but at the same time it didn't have embedded ram like the PS2 had on its GPU,and is quite something because the xbox didn't have that until the 360 when MS chose that route with EDRAM and the ESRAM but sony was already there and the bus connecting the memory to GPU was huge 2560bit bus which was unheard of,giving the PS2 48GB/s for its GPU something not even the PS3 had.

Yes it showed but never what MS claimed it would do,did you see multiplatforms games on xbox been double the frames as on PS2.? The xbox didn't have the power for that the Nv2A was also a little over hyped by Nvidia and MS just like Nvidia did with the RSX as well,the xbox never had 2 times the in game performance of the PS2 when all was say and done.

It was a more capable machine no denying that and far easier to code to as well,but far weaker or like a dude say here 10 times is a total joke.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1126?vs=1127

No unless you want to ignore this,the xbox one has a weaker GPU and no way to make the gap from,it also has a cumbersome memory structure that hurt it.

The PS3 was actually more powerful than the Xbox 360 unlike,but the xbox 360 was far easier to code for the PS3 was a nightmare.

Shadow of Mordor was never patched and is not 1080p is 900p and stayed that way,it was this site who claimed it was 1080p but DF confirmed it was 900p and that has less foliage to.

Name them most of them are not on par are lower in resolution,and have been known to be buggy or crap jobs like Resident Evil,in reality any game that performs worse on PS4 is a screw up game on sony platform period there is no way other than that because the xbox one is weaker and will always be,like ACU which was hold back on PS4 resolution wise,a game which MS had a deal of millions of copies to be included with their machine,when the last one showed bast oceans with storms and multiple ships fighting and was 1080p on PS4.

Any game that run at the same resolution on both machines will be faster on PS4 else something was screw up on PS4,there is no way around that.

No dude comparing flops between the PS4 and xbox one is totally accurate because both machines have the same CPU and a GPU from the same line,son under those conditions it is an indication,on different hardware that is not the case because regardless of one having more than another they work in different ways to achieve a goal so this GPU 1, does 10 flops while GPU 2 does 3 flops,but it take 5 flops of performance to run B Program on the first one while on GPU 2 it takes 1 flop of performance to run that same B Programs so in then end you can do more with those 3 flops than with 10.

Actually if you use a Xenos on the PS3 the gap would be even bigger because the Xenos is capable of running the process that were offload to Cell because the RSX was to weak,so if you run those on Xenos you still have a very capable CPU but now free in invest in even more things and Cell was very capable graphics wise unlike the Xenon.

No it wasn't it was created to to measure the performance on each processor,comparing them over different hardware is useless and pointless and this has been proven over the years multiple times,just like core speed is pretty useless when it comes to compare performance to.

I already proved my point and not with wikipedia i use Anandtech which showed 2 GPUs one with more flops than the other,and show the one with less flops actually outperforming the one with less.

Flops mean crap the Intel pentium 3 CPU on xbox had more flops than the emotion engine but for 3D the EE walked all over that Intel Pentium 3 regardless of having less flops and less than half the speed.

There are cases and cases for example Cell has more flops than the Xenon,and Cell is more powerful,yet the RSX has more flops than the Xenos yet is much weaker.

X1 >>> PS4>Wii U

X1 the only console with 1080p@60FPS exclusives

Forza 5 & 6

Halo 5

@tormentos: So what I get from your reply is the xbox one has a weaker gpu and cumbersome memory so its worse

But the ps3 had a weaker gpu and cumbersome memory but it was better than the 360. It all makes sense

Also if a xbox one game performed better than the ps4 game its because Microsoft paid them to do it

Brilliant it all makes sense now. Thanks for clearing it up

I think what your saying is you cant always judge an overall power of a system buy raw specs alone. Its a balance of it all together.

I completely agree with that

I feel like we are getting tangled up a bit on something else. Are we sure we are not making comparisons with something analogous of the AMD and Intel cpu's. Wherein the old AMD's cpu's coudl perform more operations per clock cycle to the intel (or vice versa I can't remember).

Because I'm quite certain FLOPS is exactly as he is describing it, it's a measure of many Floating Point Arithmetic Operations a processor can perform per second, nothing else. No software involved, no architecture of what it is installed with.

It's kind of like the performance value you gauge the hardware by before you put all the hardware together.

Need to acknowledge that FLOPS is not the be all benchmark for how powerful a GPU/CPU is. It is purely a mathematically derived theoretical maximum of how many floating point operations it can perform a second, if it did that and only that.

It should also be noted that how well a given piece of hardware performs is dependent on the benchmark workload, or the specific tasks that must be done in the work load (add, multiply, floating-point add or multiply). So it is entirely possible to have a piece of hardware with higher flops lose to a lower flop hardware with the right benchmark, there are also other factors such as the memory system speed which can change things. But it's still a good comparison metric that shouldn't be downplayed, especially is graphics hardware/gaming hardware which heavily uses FP.