You keep saying the X1X CPU is shitty. Ya'll must've forgot!

I'm talking about the hot garbage that was the Xbox 360 CPU which was an in order processor at a time those things weren't even built because they're so horrible.

You guys didn't notice because all you saw was it had 3 cores and was clocked at 3.0 Ghz so it must be pretty good.

I know some smartass will come here to explain to me that it's obvious that last gen the PS3 CPU was great and the 360 one was crap and everyone knows that.

Actually no, that's not accurate. The PS3 CPU WAS HOT GARBAGE!!! It was worse than the 360 CPU by far. The 360 CPU was trash but it was easy to work with at least. The PS3 was just a f&ck show.

But mommy no, don't let the bad man talk about my daddy the cell!!! Waaaa! The cell actually has one CPU core exactly like the 3 cores in the 360. Then it has a bunch of PPE(I think they called them) cores that act as a real shitty GPU. But not really a GPU because it was designed to decode highly compressed video streams in Blu-ray movies.

Sony put that piece of crap CPU because they wanted to corner the next gen HD DVD market and the Playstation was their way to do that. You got that, Sony screwed us all with a $600 Blu-playerstation in 2006. Although it was so expensive, it was actually weaker than the 360 which cost only $400 and was released a full year earlier.

Sony put a super expensive Blu-ray drive and a super expensive CPU that decodes those blu-ray streams and also acts as a GPU for games. The problem is it was so garbage acting as a GPU that Sony had to at the last minute just toss in an Nvidia GPU to help it out. The PS3 was a piece of shit hardware with a horrible CPU 1 core then a crap GPU that decodes Blu-ray streams and an actual decent GPU from Nvidia. That's why it was so expensive and outclassed by a system that was released a FULL YEAR EARLIER and at $200 less. But it could play Blu-ray movies and that was what Sony wanted.

Fast forward to today, the X1X CPU is an out of order, highly optimized 8 core processor that runs at 2.3 Ghz with improvements over Jaguar in many key areas such as built in instructions and much larger internal cache. It's not good or anything but oh boy is it ever a massive improvement over the horrible 360 CPU and the nightmare horror clown dogshit big top circus act that was the Cell.

Well, it is shitty. That's why people call it shitty.

/thread

Nobody cares at this point.

SPU's practical IPC (instruction per cycle) is less than 1.0 ie. Jaguar's practical IPC is higher than SPU i.e. needs about 2 Ghz 8 core Jaguar to beat 3.2 Ghz CELL.

Why are you posting about old consoles CPU's?

So then why does Nintendo have the most technically advanced game thus far, in Breath of The Wild? That was made on a highly modified GameCube CPU with 2gigs of ram. The gtx 980m in the switch does bump the resolution from 720p to 900p, but regardless Nintendo does more with that hardware than anything being done on these other consoles.

I'm just giving some perspective. Why not?

I love Nintendo, I love my Switch and I think BOTW is the best game I have ever played and is my GOAT. I have nothing bad to say about Nintendo. However, The Xbox One X CPU isn't as horrendous as is being made out here. It's bad, yes but it's also BY FAR THE MOST POWERFUL CPU EVER IN A CONSOLE! I don't think many people fully realize that with all the bs that gets posted here.

Switch's GPU is like GT 920 MX class NOT GTX 980M

@Xplode_games:

My point is, regardless of the tech, the developers are not going to push the hardware on a gameplay stand front. For example: Breath of the Wild is a more advanced game than Uncharted 4 in 8k@60fps.

@Xplode_games said:

it's also BY FAR THE MOST POWERFUL CPU EVER IN A CONSOLE!

Isn't that like being the best bull fighter in Nunavut?

I guess it's a compliment to the X1X that it is absurd to compare it to other consoles. You make a good point.

@Xplode_games: The xbox 360 and ps3 had great cpu's for their time. With the xbox one , ps4 , ps4 pro and xboxone x that is not the case.

I don't understand your argument.

You're saying the X1X's CPU isn't shit because PS3, a last generation console, has a weaker CPU than it?

WTF? You need to take time off SW, you're starting to lose it.

EggsBox Juan Eggs CPU is the bottleneck, get over it.

wait so your entire point boiled down to the X1X CPU being better than the 360 and PS3 CPUs?

Like no shit, the 360 came out over a decade a go

I like how cows ignore the PoS 4 Pro

Other devices have a crap CPU so herp derp xbx1 is fine. slow clap OP, slow clap indeed.

What point are you trying to make here? Just because its better than last gen consoles (which,btw, are now over a decade old) doesn't make the CPU in the console any less "shitty". Its still hot garbage from BOTH BRANDS.

@FLOPPAGE_50:

PlayStation 4 Professionelle

No, the 360 CPU had horrible performance for it's time. Do you know what an in order processor is?

The difference is that last gen people didn't figure it out because consoles weren't using common PC parts so people thought the Cell had magic powers and the 360 3 core CPU was ramped up for gaming and although not as powerful as the cell it was pretty good.They said the situation balanced out because the 360 has a better GPU than the PS3 which helps for the lack of CPU power.

With the new consoles the cat was out of the bag from the beginning because these were off the shelf parts and we knew their exact performance.

If what i'm saying is not true then it will be very easy to prove me wrong. Go ahead and find me an article stating how the 360 CPU is even an average CPU for it's time. I'm sure you'll find many stating how it's a pleasure to work with because it's easy to program for. But I'm talking about performance. It was pathetic in that regard. I think if I remember correctly a SINGLE CORE 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4 processor was considerably faster than the 3 core 360 CPU. What's sad about that is that Pentium 4 was one of the worst disasters in Intel history because they were getting destroyed by AMD. That Pentium 4 performance was pathetic even for the time.

doesn't change anything

both cpu suck for different reasons

I'm not comparing the CPUs directly. I'm comparing their performance for their time. When the 360 was released back in 2005, the CPU performance back then was horrible. Not today which is obvious that it is terrible. I'm talking about back then in 2005 when it was brand new it was pathetic. The CPU was much worse than today's X1X CPU by comparison.

Remember how terrible the 360 turned out and how little life the console had because of the CPU bottleneck? Maybe this thread will help you realize how meaningless the X1X has a shitty CPU argument is.

Please read the reply I wrote to drlostrib. It explains exactly what the point is.

Um yeah this is not true at all. The Xenon could hang with the normal CPU"s at the time (mid clocked Pentium 4's, Athlon 64 4400 series and under).

Xenon didn't really get embarrassed till Core 2 Duo and mainstream Athlon 64 x2 came out which was the following year (even then it was still comparable to the budget line of those two series).

I really 100% have no idea what your talking about ? Budget office computers have CPU"s that are leaps and bounds better than the Xbox X CPU's (this was NOT HAPPENING in 2005..........)

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1026

For 3D particle movement benchmark

AMD (Llano) A8-3850 (the same Athlon II 4X quad CPU cores at 2.9 Ghz) = 252.33, scaled down to 2.4 Ghz, it may yield 208 score.

Athlon 5350 (quad core Jaguar at 2.05 Ghz) = 174.07, scaled to 2.3 Ghz, it may yield 195 score.

X1X's potato 8C/8T CPUs will beat Athlon II 4X.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1026

Intel (Skylake) Core i3 6320 (51W, $157), 2C/4T, 3.9 GHz, 0.5MB L2, 4MB L3 = 384.68 score This is similar to Kabylake based Pentium G4560 with 2C/4T at 3.5Ghz

X1X's 8C/8T at 2.3 Ghz estimated score based from Athlon 5350's score is 390 score. This is not factoring any X1X CPU's TLB optimizations.

Anyway, some practical IPC data for Jaguar

http://www.techdesignforums.com/practice/technique/amd-calypto-rtl-clock-gating-powerpro/ The article was written by Steve Kommrusch is Fellow Design Engineer at AMD.

As you can see, there's room for practical IPC improvements. Jaguar's theoretical IPC is 2 instructions per cycle.

PS; Last gen console's PPE's practical IPC is worst than Jaguar.

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/757375/Xbox 360's PPE has 0.2 practical IPC... LOL. IBM was engaging in GFLOPS BS PR.

If the X1X CPU is shit what does that make PS Pro's CPU?

The x360 cpu is far better than a pentium 4 cpu, it's about 70- 85 percent of the performance of 1 nehalem core (I7-9xx). But proper vectorized coding can exceed that performance (the powerpc architecture uses spe's). So a rough estimate would be something short of one core of an i7-9xx series intel cpu running at the same ghz, which would be like an I7 920 and only one core enabled.

As you can see if you divide the performance of the i7 920 by 4 it still murders the pentium 4 670 and that cpu is running at 3.8 ghz, so I don't know who told you that nonsense.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-interview-metro-2033?page=4

The ps3 cpu was a lot stronger than the x360 cpu as well, it was even used to build supercomputers. It didn't translate into games in the first half of last gen though, since it was more difficult to develop for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_cluster

Wow lemmings are surely going to great lengths when they need to write such nonsense to try to justify their purchase of the crap, no games, half-arsed Xbox One fauX. Lol

Thread back fire....

Better balanced in relation to the GPU power...

Hahahahahahahahaha......... no it's not....... it's no where close....

Yeah I don't understand this thread.

He's trying to downplay the X1X hardware criticism by comparing it to xbox360 which is a TERRIBLE idea.

Maybe he was too young to recall but the 360 was running a solid CPU at the time and had a GPU that was arguably better than the $400 desktop equivalent (hell the GPU even had unified shaders which didn't make it to the PC world for most till 2007).

If you want a dogshit console "hardware for the time" wise then compare it to the xboxone. Xboxone GPU was 2x slower than a $150 GPU at the time of release (7870XT Tahiti) and the CPU was comparable to a 3 to 4 year old budget CPU (Phenom X4).

@commander said:

@Xplode_games said:

@commander said:

@Xplode_games: The xbox 360 and ps3 had great cpu's for their time. With the xbox one , ps4 , ps4 pro and xboxone x that is not the case.

No, the 360 CPU had horrible performance for it's time. Do you know what an in order processor is?

The difference is that last gen people didn't figure it out because consoles weren't using common PC parts so people thought the Cell had magic powers and the 360 3 core CPU was ramped up for gaming and although not as powerful as the cell it was pretty good.They said the situation balanced out because the 360 has a better GPU than the PS3 which helps for the lack of CPU power.

With the new consoles the cat was out of the bag from the beginning because these were off the shelf parts and we knew their exact performance.

If what i'm saying is not true then it will be very easy to prove me wrong. Go ahead and find me an article stating how the 360 CPU is even an average CPU for it's time. I'm sure you'll find many stating how it's a pleasure to work with because it's easy to program for. But I'm talking about performance. It was pathetic in that regard. I think if I remember correctly a SINGLE CORE 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4 processor was considerably faster than the 3 core 360 CPU. What's sad about that is that Pentium 4 was one of the worst disasters in Intel history because they were getting destroyed by AMD. That Pentium 4 performance was pathetic even for the time.

The x360 cpu is far better than a pentium 4 cpu, it's about 70- 85 percent of the performance of 1 nehalem core (I7-9xx). But proper vectorized coding can exceed that performance (the powerpc architecture uses spe's). So a rough estimate would be slighty short of one core of an i7-9xx series intel cpu running at the same ghz, which would be like an I7 930 and only one core enabled.

As you can see if you divide the performance of the i7 930 by 4 it still vastly exceeds the pentium 4 performance and the pentium 4 670 is running at 3.8 ghz. Even one core of I7-920, which only runs at 2.66 ghz (turbo boost isn't enabled when four cores are under heavy load) is still murdering the pentium 4 at 3.8 ghz. So I don't know whoever told you that nonsense.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-interview-metro-2033?page=4

The ps3 cpu was a lot stronger than the x360 cpu as well, it was even used to build supercomputers. It didn't translate into games in the first half of last gen though, since it was more difficult to develop for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_cluster

The console industry became a lot more succesfull because of the x360 and ps3, and it was simply because they gave you amazing performance for a low price. If you wanted to have a pc that was comparable to the x360 performance at the time the x360 released you had to dish out three to four times the price of an x360.

The problem with Pentium 4 is with 64bit SIMD units while PPE has 128 bit SIMD unit. The first full 128bit SIMD for ADD and MUL operation equipped X86 CPU is Intel's Core 2.

AMD K10 followed Core 2 with it's full 128bit SIMD unit for ADD and MUL operations. AMD K8 has 128bit SSE ADD unit with 64bit SSE MUL unit i.e. half-assed 128bit SIMD setup.

AMD Jaguar has full 128bit SIMD units for ADD and MUL like K10 example, but with 128 bit AVX improvements. 8 core Jaguar was designed to be AMD's PPE/CELL competitor against IBM's updated PPE solution i.e. PowerPC A2.

@scatteh316: LMAO typical cow bs, so I guess you're saying the PS Pro is more powerful than the X1X now? Or the CPU is better? God you cows are delusional clowns.

@Xplode_games:

I guess I don't understand how it relates.

Are you saying past machines also had weak cpus so the weak cpus on these aren't a big deal?

So.. the Xbox One X CPU isn't completely shit, but it's still pretty shit. That was the point of the thread?

Okay. Thanks for the info, LOL.

Mind Blown!

And I said Pro is more powerful where exactly? Or that the CPU is better?

The ratio between CPU and GPU power in Pro is lower then Xbone X so Pro should be less CPU limited.

Better balanced.......

A PC with an i5 paired with a GTX1060 is a better balanced system then a Pentium Dual Core paired with a GTX1080ti.

But I suppose that logic is beyond your intelligence levels.

Oh the XBO,PS4,Pro and XBO X CPU is shit...

The 360 was far worse than Cell and Cell with 5 SPE alone beat the PS4 CPU with 6 it would have beat the xbox one as well..

Those jaguars are shit bottom of the barrel and the 360 CPU was even more whimpy...lol

I still don't understand the point of this thread.

A lemming trying to hard to justify his purchase. The purpose is pretty transparent actually.

@pinkanimal:

I understand he is trying to defend the X1X CPU.

I just don't understand how. The post doesn't make sense.

Someone commented on age and that would actually make sense. Someone young wouldn't have an understanding of the Xbox 360 launch and only have spec information.

That's why I said he is "trying to hard". He tries to hard to extract sense out of nonsense probably because that's all he has left.

@tormentos said:

@Litchie said:

So.. the Xbox One X CPU isn't completely shit, but it's still pretty shit. That was the point of the thread?

Okay. Thanks for the info, LOL.

Oh the XBO,PS4,Pro and XBO X CPU is shit...

The 360 was far worse than Cell and Cell with 5 SPE alone beat the PS4 CPU with 6 it would have beat the xbox one as well..

Those jaguars are shit bottom of the barrel and the 360 CPU was even more whimpy...lol

That's with 6 CPU cores for PS4 and XBO with 7th CPU core not being use in the benchmark. 8th CPU core is allocated for OS usage while ARM CPUs are allocated for DRM/minor background workload.

For PS3, only 6 CPU is available for game use while 7th SPU is use for OS/DRM related services.

Estimated scores

XBO with 7th CPU usage at 1.75Ghz: 131

PS3 with 6th SPU usage at 3.2 Ghz: 126

XBO's CPU for games are still superior to 6 SPUs. CELL has PPE similar to X360's PPE i.e. 1/3 of 34 score.

X1X with 7th CPU usage at 2.3 Ghz: 173 Not factoring TLB and lower latency improvements.

PS4 Pro with 7th CPU usage at 2.1 Ghz: 157

Both PS4 Pro and X1X CPUs beats PS3's CELL.

Note that X1X CPU cluster has extra CPU cores beyond the 8 CPU cores... X1X 8/8T CPU is supported by 6 DSPs + ARM CPUs + hardware H.265 4K video decoder/encoder DSPs.

Unholy cowzerz, Captain Ron schooling'em again. Never gets old bud, keep it coming. :P

@scatteh316:

Yes. It is. And how. Uncharted controls like a laggy early 3D game. It's all for show. If you dig those experiences that's fine. This does not change the fact that Kojima could have made Uncharted 4 on PSX instead of Metal Gear Solid.

lems are now just shooting in the dark to come on top.

And there is proof you're a salty fan boy with nothing logical or constructive to say.