If PS4/Xbone had the power that the 360 had in 2005...

i remember that my computer couldn't run bioshock

xb360 was better than pcs an my pc was getting error all over the place

i had a huge gaming pc the 360 CHANGED the game overnight literally u needed a new card or games wouldnt run anymore 360 dominated that gen like it pissed pc gamer soff cuz they had to upgrade or stand in the 360's dust

the 360 was gettin the games an if ur pc couldnt keep up u were dead basically remember bioshock remember the errors and the water errors an plane errors

i dunno what happened this gen but all the games run on pc now and microsoft didn't change the game this time in fact they downgraded the game now sony has better graphics card an came out same time i dont get it i dont understand having weak hardware as a strategy at the same time maybe microsoft can explain it to me this gen

A console will never be viable against PC ever again. The console market went ape shit over a $600 console while today, $900+ graphics cards are commonplace. they are two very different markets and the 7th generation marks that divergence until the end of time.

8GB of RAM is a slouch now?

It would have been nice, that's for sure. Was never going to happen because Sony (esp. sony) and MS just can't take that kind of loss anymore, and it would've been even more expensive for them this time after they found out what it takes to cool such monstrosities.

The main problem with these current consoles is the CPU though. Ps4's gpu esp. is quite capable. Hopefully they get some extra RAM unlocked as well.

Would have been cool to see. But the age of loss leaders are gone.

The Xenos wasn't top of the line per say, it was the first unified shader based gpu to hit the market in 2005. Its actual performance wasnt really anything outstanding especially by mid 2006

Actually you only needed an ATI X1950 series gpu to match the 360 and it was under $300. Now If you bought a Nvidia 8800GTS or 8800GTX you were in the 2-3x performance ranges.

You cant just scale like that because you still have to consider power and cooling requirements needed. And even in 2013 AMD's best gpu was 7970 and it's TDP is above 250w. And 290 series didnt change that requirement 290 is a 275w and 290x is an~300w gpu.

Here is the flaw in your statement about *hermits* true dedicated and enthusiast pc gamers tend to be ahead of the curve and to that end have no quarrel in upgrading.

And those dream consoles wouldn't be $400, they would be well above $600 and most likely cost the companies, and who have to take massive losses. Just like MS and Sony had to do the first 3-5 years of the gen.

But what you missed was in 2005 when the 360 released. The ATI 1950 XTX was the most powerful card you could buy and the Xenos outperformed it (almost, in older games the 1950 XTX card won, but in new games because of the unified shaders the Xenos blew it out). The GTX 8800 cards were revolutionary at the time. But do remember the 8800 GTX Ultra was 600-700 bucks at the time and the 8800 GTX was 500. That wasn't until 2006 though, so for the first year, the 360 easy matched PC's and even bested them.

Now, both consoles can't even touch a decent PC. My PC BLOWS both consoles out of the water and I probably won't even have to upgrade again this gen again with how far above my GPU's are and with DX12 around the corner.

I do wish the Xbox One and PS4 were packing GTX 290's or something like that. I wish they hadn't gone the APU route. Why couldn't have have worked out a deal with intel and get something along the lines of a core i5 in there. As far as GPU's goes, I know from the past AMD is easier to work with than Nvidia (they are the reason Microsoft dumped the original Xbox as soon as they could due to Nvidia wanted royalty fees).

But doesn't the gtx 980 have a much lower power usage than AMD cards? If this is all theoretical, they could just use that.

They wouldn't have to have the best cpu on the market either, an i5 or something like Thuban (in a lower watt package obv.) would've been more than enough. Even a phenom 2 x4 is much better than what's in current consoles.

They could've built a top of the line machine for 250 watts or under I imagine.

The Xenos didn't beat the ATI 1950 XTX performance wise.

The Xenos was just better in shader intensive games because of unified shade tech.

In 2005 the 360 was getting trounced by high end PCs because there weren't any games that were shader intensive.

Go look up games like F.E.A.R. which ran a lot better on a 7800 GTX while being displayed at much higher resolutions and settings.

It wasn't until around late 2007 when you started to see a lot more shader intensive games where the 360 pulled ahead.

But by then you could purchase an 8800gt for 200USD that could perform up to 3x better than the 360 or PS3.

They would find something to bitch about and find an excuse why there pc is better. The 360 got ripped apart on system wars by hermits due to a supposed weak processor and low amount of ram.

Doesn't matter when we're just comparing Xenos to the 1xxx and 7xxx series though. Xenos was simply the better chip at the end of the day. For longevity sake, the 360 was better than any PC until the core 2 duo 8800 combination.

If the PS4 and Xbone had the power of the 360, they would be 360's, not PS4's or XBone's.

i like consoles more personally, but pc gamers can have all the fun they want on their pc's. It doesn't hurt me

Yet the 360 only produced 1 universally praised game for graphics the entire generation and that was like the same month the other consoles released *gears 2006*. 360 was really efficient graphic wise and nothing more.

During the generation PS3 was the only console that pushed and was praised for amazing graphics on exclusive games time and time again.

Despite not being as powerful, PS4 looks to be producing top notch graphics with it's exclusives that are arguably some of the best that anyone has seen, so why would anyone want the current systems to be like 360 when it was basically ignored as far a graphics were concerned all last generation?

The 1950 XTX can do 375 gflops and had 48 dedicated shader processors and 8 vertex processors while the xenos did 240 gflops and had 48 unified shader processors( they used different combos in usage like 36 shader and 12 vertex )

they cheaped out badly on this gen of consoles... thats for sure. Even if you compare the original ps3 console, that was a very good console, had full ps2 backwards compatibility, blu-ray and 60gb hard drive, hdmi output... This gen ps4 has no backwards compibility and by contrast is a weaker console if you put into comparison the other consoles came out almost a decade ago now.

The problem was that with MS the xbox lost them billions and then when they were designing the 360 that R&D cost sent them even more in debt. Even at release MS was losing $100 per unit, selling it at a lost for the first year.And because of poor choices in cooling design and using poor quality material lend the 360 into a solid three year cycle where MS didnt make a dime on the 360 itself. After 2008 they didnt have too much of an issue to start making profit on the xbox brand after they fixed most of the issues. Now with Sony and PS3, Sony spent millions on factories to produce the Cell that was suppose to be their all in one processor which it didn't turn out the way they wanted. Then them throwing in the bluray drive drove the cost up where they were losing hundreds per unit. And they didnt start turning a profit on the PS3 console until around 2010.

Those are some the reasons why we had such a long gen with those consoles because they were trying to make up all those loses. This time around they learned their lesson where at least their consoles break even from the start where they can start turning a profit within the first year. The reason why backwards compatibility isnt direct this time is the architecture change on the cpu. However if they continue to use the x86 based processors this gen games will work easily with next gen consoles if they allow.

Sony is banking on GPGPU development which will make the weak CPU's not really a problem anymore.

Even if Maxwell or Maxwell-like efficiencies were available back then, Nvidia would likely have charged a huge premium for the privilege. Microsoft certainly learned their lesson about going Nvidia for consoles with the original Xbox. Maybe Sony too, since they got an inferior gpu despite the ps3 launching a year later.

I would be happy. As consoles no longer hold back multiplats graphics.

The X1950 came on october 2006 almost 1 year after the 360 and was more expensive than a core 360 it self by its own,without anything else it was $325.

The 8800GTX was $600 dollars alone on late 2006 and the 8800GTS was a December 2007 GPU dude,by that time the 360 was 2+ years.

In mid 2006 there was the X1900 and the 7900GTX which both were there with the 360 or a little over it,but price was wasn't even close,and on early mid 2006 those were the top GPU basically.

But you are right on the rest TDP and loses would prevent any of the 2 from releasing something powerful this gen alto MS could have done better than sony but didn't want to because of the route they were fallowing.

Yeah nobody will touch Nvidia with a 10 foot pole haha.

Yet Nvidia owns much more of the GPU market than AMD.

Awesome :)

Hey i'm not an AMD fanboy but they've sucked royally for consoles. They're the reason the Xbox one of my favorite consoles ever only lasted 4 years and never got die shrinks. By extension, they're also a big reason the 360 was launched rushed with shit hardware because they wanted to dump the Xbox so bad due to the money being lost. Screw Nvidia for all that.

And they put an inferior gpu in a console that came out a year later, and probably charged more as well.

For PC, they are usually better than AMD but yeah.

It would be the end for Sony if MS desided to muscle its way to the top....if word got out that Xbone has got THE ONLY PROPER next gen CoD/Madden/FIFA? Playstation would be dead.

AT $500 with $300 loss per console the MS monster would have killed Sony once and for all...

It would be like 3 different powered consoles WiiU at the bottom, Xbone at the top with PS4 stuck in the middle.

As for power requirement Maxwell laptop:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Schenker-XMG-P505-PRO-Clevo-P651SG-Notebook-Review.132393.0.html

980M and 970M are both the first mobile chips that are so close to their desktop counterparts...look at those benchmarks...

lol if a console had an r9 290 gpu equivalent it would be MUCH more than $400.

The original Xenos GPU chip area size is 182 mm^2 + SMART EDRAM 80 mm^2 = 262 mm^2.

PPE CPUs has chip area size of 176 mm^2. Xbox 360's total APU chip size is 438 mm^2.

Xenos contain 48 unified shader units + EDRAM has 192 pixel processors.

At 28 nm process tech,

Radeon HD 7790/R7-260/R7-260X has 160 mm^2 chip area size.

Radeon HD 7870/R7-265/R7-270/R7-270X has 212 mm^2 chip area size.

With embedded memory considerations, the best Radeon HD GCN with original Xbox 360's GPU chip area budget is either 78x0 or 7790. Microsoft selected 7790 variant.

Here is the crunch, Xbox One's chip size is a large 363 mm^2 with 47MB ESRAM. 32MB ESRAM's area size can contain another 7770 class GPU which can result in 24 CU GPU. Microsoft wasted about 1/3 of 363 mm^2 chip on 32MB ESRAM.

Xbox 360 has the latest/fast GDDR3 memory during 2005 while Xbox One has the inferior 256bit DDR3-2133 memory which should be GDDR5.

Microsoft selected poorly.

Sony did well with PS4's smaller APU 348 mm^2 chip size i.e. they maximised GPU size with GDDR5 memory. Sony did their best with lesser financial health (when compared to Microsoft's financial health).

My Xbox One spec's with the same APU chip size as Microsoft's Xbox One

• GPU: 24 CU with 22 CU active and 2 CU for yields at 853 Mhz with 2.402 TFLOPS
• 256bit GDDR-5000

If the APU chip size budget was 438 mm^2 as with original Xbox 360, the GPU could have been Radeon HD 7950 (Tahiti Pro with 384bit bus) with 28 CU and 256bit bus i.e. similar to FirePro W8000 (Tahiti Pro with 256bit bus). Tahiti could be a smaller chip with reduced 64bit DP math performance e.g. Radeon HD R9-285 "Tonga".

In terms of chip size, R9-290X is a GeForce 8800 GTX and Xbox 360's GPU+EDRAM chip budget wouldn't be able match that monster chip size.

Radeon R9-M295 "Tonga" (reduced speed clock Radeon HD R9-285) has maximum 120 watts.

NVIDIA Geforce 8800 GTX sets a new standard when it comes to large scale PC GPU and both NVIDIA GeForce Titan and Radeon HD R9-290X still follows it's foot print.

it would be awesome that's for sure. ps4 wouldn't have x2 AF in Evolve...

Early 7th gen games, like CoD2, also looked slightly better on high end PCs.

PS4/X1 are 10+ times more powerful than last gen consoles. It's about the same jump as we have seen in past generations.

AMD's best GPU supports higher performance double precision floating point which is nearly pointless for current games.

R9-M295 "Tonga" which is down clocked(i.e. 800Mhz) Radeon HD R9-285 "Tonga" has max power of 120 watts.

Radeon HD R9-285's double precision floating point performance was gimped like NVIDIA Geforce GTX 770 counterpart.

AMD Tonga implementation

R9-M295 = 120 watt at 800Mhz

W7100 = 150 to 160 watts at 925Mhz

R9-285 OC = 176 watts at 918Mhz http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-285-tonga,3925-11.html

No big deal for me i love consoles

Well PS4 is the world's most powerful video game console in the history of games.

Uh no, it's common place for the minority hardcore PC gamers.

Yep let's ignore all those other doxens of games tha tthe Xbox 360 god praise for includng games runnng cryengine and what not because you're an idiot.

The Xbox 1 before the 360 was written off. 360 made profit at the end of 2007.

You got AMD mixed with Nvidia

Here is a more detailed chart

Even if Ms got those games as exclusives Sony wouldn't be dead because of all the other games Sony has under their thumb.

No Company is willing to to sell at a lost...... their there to make a profit...... At $300 lost per unit at 10 million sold they would lose 3 billion.... so how is that a win?

What you seem not to understand is that the X1 and PS4 designs were finalized by early 2013 which means that the primary design of their gpus were from 2012 with a possibility of prototype designs lending into new gpus for 2013. You cant suggest the Consoles could be using Maxwell based mobile gpu's as examples of what could have been since the gpu architecture didn't get finalized until 2014.

Hermits with Nerdrigs represent less than 1% of the gaming population. You might have a skewed view of reality because 95% of system warriors are windows fanboys, but Overpriced Nerdrigs will never be a barometric of the industry because Hermits are too small of a demographic to hold any sway.

Another "power" thread....

It will be nice when we finally have console games to talk about.

This is unfortunately the truth. UNLESS! Console gamers stop being cheap a$$holes (get it? with the money symbols and stuff, lol I made a funny).

I can't help but laugh when I see console gamers rage about a game having frame rate issues on their new beloved piece of plastic. The reality is if the consoles had the hardware needed to run most of today's games at 1080 60fps, they'd be rather expensive, and consolites would just complain about the price.

There is no winning, so either give up on consoles and go PC or stop bitching, people!

AMD has a larger PC GPU (including IGP) market share than NVIDIA. From PC software's stand point, IGP and dGPU are logically the same, but with different performance levels.

Counting CPUs is pretty dumb, if so then Intel wins by a landslide.

If you only count gpus not included on the CPU then Nvidia wins by a landslide.

So basically this thread is like the old saying "if a dog had a square asshole, it would shit bricks." None of this matters because neither the X1 or PS4 are in that position.

I am reading this thread, and seeing "well in October 2006 the XTX 900KJm released for 1 billion Yen, but the KYjEllYATC4500 was this, BLAH, BLAH" and I get to your post and there is your usual shyte. I am literally crying laughing as I type this. Well done sir.

Considering that people are paying several hundred dollars for phones nowadays I believe a $500 console could have worked. $600 is too high but $500 would have been fine (Without Kinect I mean). That extra $100 could have went into the APU, perhaps beefing up the GPU side to 2.5 tflops and using different CPUs or if using the same going with 12 cores instead. And in X1's case the silly memory architecture would have to be changed as well. Increasing the horsepower like that might also necessitate upping the bus to 384 bit. I don't think people would be complaining about the power if they were made this way. Certainly would be worth an extra $100 to me.

Look at last gen when did unified shader tech got released on PC? November 2006? Whole year after the 360?

Soo AMD HAD this tech for a whole year before releasing it on PC....

Same this time. MS had just to pay Nvidia and it would have made the Xbone a monster...at 4 Tflops least.

Unified shader architecture does not always mean it will beat a gpu with fixed shader and vertex processors. The 360 gpu only could do 240 gflops vs X1950's 300+

It took the 360 nearly a year before game engines started to become more shader intensive and by that time Nvidia had gpu's that were more then 2x faster with 2x or more vram.

If MS waited a year later Maxwell would have been a option

But the first unifed shader AMD GPU released 1 year after Xenos ALSO made by ATI...

Soo these corps have the tech 1 year earlier and release it later in public.

The Xbone could have had easily Maxwell in 2013.

Sony would be dead easily with a GTX M970 class gpu in the Xbone.

That is not how things work...

Again having the first marketed Unified Shader Architecture does not mean that it was "better" During 2005 into late 2006 7800 series whopped on the 360 because game engines were still not heavily shader based.

MS went to ATI to get their latest prototype chip they were working on and had them come up with a design based on it. And MS payed quite abit for it too, the 360 cost MS nearly a billion in R&D and production costs.

Actually going by history Nvidia has never given consoles prototype gpus, they have always given them chips that were on the market. ie NV2A chip in the 1st Xbox which was Geforce 3, and the RSX which was G70 aka 7800 geforce gpu.

Since the X1 released in late 2013 its design was finished at least 5-6 months prior more then likely Q1 of 2013, So no X1 couldn't have had Maxwell based gpu because it wasn't until late 2013 when the 1st gen Maxwell gpu was finished and was released in early 2014 then it's not a power house ie gtx 750ti. The bigger Maxwell's wouldn't have not been available for use since their design wasn't finished until 2014

Now it would have been nice to see both the X1 and PS4 come with stronger cpu's and gpu's but they have to make money not lose it.