@ronvalencia: @ronvalencia:
@ronvalencia: First off, in typical PC blower fashion, YOU OMIT INPUT DEVICES. Also, the X1 has something called Kinect 2.0 (I think you may have heard of it by now?) of which it's power and capabilities are undeniable. It just remains to be seen how it can effectively be implemented.
Another fail.
Another fail.
According to http://www.techradar.com/au/news/gaming/consoles/why-xbox-one-is-more-expensive-than-ps4-is-revealed-in-teardown-1202939
Xbox One's cost pressures
1. Xbox One's APU is more expensive than PS4's APU i.e. bigger chip due to large ESRAM. R9-270 avoids this cost pressure with external fast GDDR5 memory. As shown via benchmark gaming results, R9-270's 2GB GDDR5 with fast GPU is enough to beat PS4.
2GB GDDR5-5500 > 32 MB ESRAM.
R9-270's 2 GB GDDR5 (179GB/s) also avoids PS4's 8 GB GDDR5 (176 GB/s) cost pressures.
2. Kinect camera sensor, which is estimated to cost the company $75. For $499 budget, I could build a PC box with HD 7850 (~1.76 TFLOPS) for around $400 that would beat X1's GCN+32M ESRAM solution and still have another $80 for Kinect camera sensor.
------------
I would rather see 2GB GDDR5 (in place of 32 MB ESRAM**) + 8 GB DDR3-2133 (as with the current X1).
**Without the 32 MB ESRAM, X1's GPU allocation could have supported 30 CU equiped GCN.
If you add Kinect's $75 cost on to PS4's $399 cost, Sony's solution would be superior to X1.
Sony did a good job with PS4, but I'll exchange 8 GB GDDR5 cost with 2 GB GDDR5 and bigger GPU.
This is exactly how and why you're a butt of so many jokes and basically a laughing stock around these parts.
At what point did SONY or PS4 become a subject of my posts? The answer is none (unless one would consider your digression to be of any merit).
In addition to that, you haven't refuted the fact that you did omit any input devices, which is exactly what I pointed out.
Third, the cost of a PC censor counterpart would drive the cost up even further.
Log in to comment