How powerful is the XB1?

[quote user="ICN3D"]He addressed me[/quote]You filled page 4 with incorrect information. Why wouldn't I address you?

We're not at a technical specification level in this thread.
At this point, we're at a general misattribution of other people's observations and gross misuse of terminology.

That's not how a power discussion works.
You can't use similarities based on usage model as evidence of a system architecture.

Smiling Cat nailed it on page 1:

"When the 360 and PS3 came out from a raw processing capability they exceeded mid to high level PCs, but had a very different architecture which is why games kept getting better and better."

He summed up the power argument in one sentence. My addition on Page 3 was more of a response to lordhimbleshire's topic post, that the "how powerful" discussion has little merit because as an end user we have zero control over it. If you're actually worried
about being able to add power, there's a modular system architecture out there that enables that as an end-user - the PC.[quote user="ElectroFlying"]However in laymen terms. The X1 is more of a PC, than a lot of PC's are.[/quote]This isn't a usage discussion,
this is a power discussion. When discussing "power", one is looking at system architecture and not cosmetic features/functions.

 

Current gen consoles can be compared to a mid-range PC. i5 processor (at best) with a $150 video card in it. That's my observation so far. I could be way off. Have yet to be impressed. I mainly game on PC, and have seen no reason to change that.

 

See it's ppl like Hellfire that give Icestorm fuel. He's so far off base that it's just pointless to argue anymore.

Icestorm claims I'm wrong yet there are tons of ppl that know more than him that say otherwise....like I said....I posted 2 articles on the subject and all he did was stick his fingers in his ears and go "NUH UH!!!"

Then Hellfire jumps in and starts talking about how consoles are closed systems....bravo dude....not even close to the point.

 

Just to confirm both Machines have 64bit processors, which allows the Chip to address more memory and thus the OS. It's kinda pointless having a 32bit processor and addressing more memory as the BUS and data packets can't handle it, even if the OS could.

 

[quote user="TruthReveal3d"]Current gen consoles can be compared to a mid-range PC. i5 processor (at best) with a $150 video card in it. That's my observation so far.[/quote]That was when people were trying to get a feel for what the consoles may be like,
before they came out.

Watch_Dogs shows why that assessment is no longer valid. Watch_Dogs's VRAM usage on PC is unheard of for a PC title. Why? Because the consoles have a huge unified memory pool they can abuse. PCs don't. Ubisoft doesn't optimize for PC. My PC runs it just
fine since it has 6GB of VRAM per card. Others? Not so much...[quote user="ICN3D"]Icestorm claims I'm wrong yet there are tons of ppl that know more than him that say otherwise.[/quote]Attacking me instead of discussing the links I provided which provide in-depth
analysis of MS's Hot Chips presentation isn't going to get you anywhere.

Which are not discussing actual system architecture. VentureBeat is providing analysis of physical components, not system architecture.
Cinemablend is providing exceptionally poor analysis of how games run in general. CPU power? No, CPU is not the issue. PC gaming sites for years have been running "how much CPU do I need" roundups that show the effect of CPU scaling and GPU scaling. The short
version is that after a certain baseline the CPU is far less important than GPU.

Again, you are looking at both articles that have no relevance to a power discussion or articles with such poor analysis that they don't even warrant discussion.

 

You're right Icestorm....those ppl have no clue what they are talking about. They have jobs picking apart the consoles and you're a forum goer.

Why should I even worry with what they say....I should just listen to you.

I not attacking you....I'm just calling it like I see it. I posted 2 links of ppl who know what they are talking about discussing the topic, and all you did/are doing is saying "NO...they're wrong!!"

You and ppl like Hellfire are harping on me saying these consoles ARE PCs...I'm not saying that....I'm saying they are very similar. Of course they're not PCs.

 

To answer the original question, "How powerful is the XB1?", it is powerful enough to create bigger, more detailed and more immersive game worlds than the last gen of consoles.

Comparing it to PCs or PS4 shouldn't matter. Just play and enjoy the games.

 

You're certainly good at rebuttal lad, albeit misguided. It was in reference to 'the X1 is more of a PC, than PCs'. In leyman's terms a closed system is not an open system, simple and nothing to do with your assertion...

"The new gen machines are actually more like PCs then they have ever been. It's x86 architecture."

Original Xbox used a 32bit x86 chip, it's hardware set-up was closer to a PC build than the X1, that's not an opinion.

I'm not fuelling IceStorm by saying he is correct, but it did fuel you. You're pointing out the obvious with X1 is more 'PC like' than a PS4 or WiiU. Your articles were a component breakdown (2nd hand account too lmao) and an off the cuff opinion - neither
of which talked about the X1 system architecture.

Here's the thing, you were politely gave more than enough information to allow you to make an informed decision, that's been ignored and you've decided to go with your own and 'tons of ppl that know more than him'. That's okay, but don't use said unproven
3rd parties and opinion to make an argument against known facts.

 

[quote user="ICN3D"]They have jobs picking apart the consoles[/quote]VentureBeat's article is halfway decent, though it has zero to do with a power discussion.

Cinemablend's article is written to generate pageviews.

Again, attacking me instead of my arguments doesn't get you anywhere.

I'm not sure why you would be
concerned about anything posted by third parties.

Are you interested in a discussion or are you interested in the world bending to your perception of it?

Stating my points are invalid
because you believeI don't know what I'm talking about is directly attacking me, not the information I've provided. Stating my comments have little value because I'm "just a forum goer" is attacking me instead of the information I've provided.

You said, and I quote:

"The new gen machines are actually more like PCs then they have ever been.

It's x86 architecture. I'm not saying they aren't going to figure out tricks in the future....but these programmers probably learned on X86 archictecture and have dealt with it for years.

So just saying that they just might be doing everything they can already.

New tricks? Perhaps....but as of now, theres only so much you can do.

Edit: the X1 is basically a PC anyway. More so than the PS4 or WiiU."

This is fundamentally incorrect. None of the next gen consoles have an architecture that resembles a PC. As I stated earlier, "x86 architecture" refers to CPU architecture, not system architecture.

 

The X1 and PS4, from what I'm told, are essentially an all in one AMD APU. The consoles don't have dedicated GPUs and share the same RAM with the processor, similar to what an APU does.

I never said the X1 was more of a PC than a PC....thats stupid. If I did say that....then I have no idea what I meant....but quote me using the quote function....b/c I don't think I said that.

Hellfire....you're talking about the console being a closed system....thats not anywhere near the point I was trying to make. Thats the problem. You can do a quick google and look up stuff like you just did and report back to me all you want about how
the 360 did this or that...but it doesn't change the fact that you were so far off base with your first reply, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

Again...from what I'm being told from ppl at Toms Hardware...the X1 is essentially just like an AMD APU.

Is it exactly like a PC....OMG NO....I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that you fanboys want ppl to think that there is hidden power there when there isn't. I'm fine with the graphics so I don't care if there is or isn't.

I guess if my console of choice had trouble running games and the $100 camera and mic were a thing of the past....I'd be upset and want everyone to think the tomorrow is coming as well.

 

Don't you guy's get bored of bickering. There's more to life lol.

 

It's been like....7 hours since my last post. It's not like I've been sitting here the whole time arguing.

 

Well I suppose you have to sleep some time

 

I wasn't quoting you bud, it was the guy before me. You're not diligently reading what I'm writing, I'll cut this right down for you with quotes and all...

[quote user="ElectroFlying"]X1 was more of a PC than a PC[/quote]

Not you okay? Thats where the closed system comment comes in, as my leyman's definitation to show the consoles are different from PCs, see:

[quote user="HellfireIRL"]simple and nothing to do with your assertion...[/quote]

So now onto YOU:

[quote user="ICN3D"]The new gen machines are actually more like PCs then they have ever been. It's x86 architecture.[/quote]

Then I write:

[quote user="HellfireIRL"]Original Xbox used a 32bit x86 chip, it's hardware set-up was closer to a PC build than the X1,[/quote]

You now say:

[quote user="ICN3D"]You can do a quick google and look up stuff like you just did and report back to me all you want about how the 360 did this or that...but it doesn't change the fact that you were so far off base with your first reply,[/quote]

What are you on about? I said Original Xbox not the 360.

I do not have to look up google to know OG Xbox had a x86 CPU, having owned one and having owned PCs I know what a CPU is and what it's for, where you've demonstrated the opposite. Again, my first reply if you read on was aimed at aforementioned quote.

Your premise here is that the Xbox One is more like a PC than ever before, and went on to say it's 'basically a PC anyway'...

I've said the first ever Xbox was 'more like PC hardware' and as it was primarily pointed out to you that X1 system architecture is ENTIRELY different than a PC, which you mistakenly thought x86 CPU architecture meant.

Which by the way is an okay mistake, nothing wrong with making those.. I interjected because you kept flaming so poeple didn't know if you or Icestrorm 'were telling the truth', when this was never a belief based argument, IceStorm was and is right, people
should know that.

You're talking about fanboys, hidden power, $100 camera affecting graphics (which nobody mentioned) to argue against the reality where you mistook CPU similarity for system similarity.. buddy that's ranting not debating, if you respond and do not grasp what
I've cleared up, don't expect a reply and you can take that as a win or whatever floats your boat.

 

@ice

Generally speaking those who game on PC are unimpressed. Some of those who left the 360 are. It is what it is. Consoles are always underpowered, and I think the bar keeps dropping over time. Consoles are made to be stupid proof gaming machines for the living
room. They aren't made to be powerful.