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

@primorandomguy: 0.2 GHz worse. No one's bragging about the power of Pro. I think that's the difference.

Member when "No compromises"?

Pepperidge Farms members.

Nice try but the xbox one can't use its complete 7th core it can use up to 80% of the 7th core.

Oh and Cell also has the PPE which is dual threaded..

Dude they barely beat a 2001 cpu design, yeah that jaguar it is shit.

Cell was started on 2001 and was ready on 2005,is an old design compare to Jaguar specially the one one XBO an PS4 and still beat the PS4 and with 6th SPE could also beat the xbox one as well, it can't use it 7th core completely.

But is nice to see you completely omit mentioning the xbox 360 which CPU was total crap.

You really hate cell...lol

This is the type of person that will buy X1X, people like TC.

@scatteh316:

Nah it's perfectly logical. Uncharted 4 could be done on a psx, breath of the wild could not. It visually would not look the same but the game could be done, nonetheless.

Physically it could be done....animation wise it could not be done.... gameplay wise it could not be done...

Nice try troll.

@scatteh316:

Gameplay wise the game could be done. I don't see why not. A cover based shooter?

Maybe go and play the Uncharted games and look at YouTube videos of PSX to remind yourself of what it was technically capable of.....

Most stupid comment I've seen on here for a long time...

The KIng is already here..lol

@scatteh316:

Gran Turismo 6 is not all that different from Gran Turismo 2.

We're not talking about GT are we..... So stop changing the topic.

Well boohoo, just enjoy the console when it launches pal.

Bringing up past consoles is pointless as the standards and expectations keep going up. 60fps should be standard on a console launching in late 2017. The half-ass CPU prevents that on many games. The bottom line is all these consoles are shit. PC is the only platform that runs all games properly.

@BassMan: Exactly why I say a console without exclusives is pointless. If a game is out on PC, that's almost 100% the way to play it best.

@scatteh316:

It's the same topic.

No it's not..... You've gone from Uncharted being possible on PSX to GT 6 is no different to GT2......... way different....

I only assume you've bought GT in to it because you've realised what a stupid comment you made about Uncharted and are now trying to twist some ridiculous fan boy logic to try and change it over to a debate about GT now.

i have been very critical of the X1X and PS4 pro as i dont think either console should exist.

but i think the overall approach MS and sony are taking for their consoles is the correct one. in isolation the X1X is actually a really nice bit of kit imho. well designed with a big focus on getting more bang per clock.

the decision taken on the CPU in both consoles this gen is the correct one. very CPU light, very GPU heavy (with some sembelance of balance of course..no point in having an intel atom dual core trying to power something like an RX vega). a very simple and small CPU with modifications to "cheat" some extra performance out is the correct approach and its something i hope sony and MS look into further for the PS5 and X2.

would i love the top end ryzen++ and a navi+ GPU with 64GB of HBM2 for 500 bucks? sure who wouldnt. but consoles are built to a tight budget since no one is willing to pay top dollar for them. so compromises have to be made and the best designed consoles have the compromises in the right places.

having a full fat desktop CPU like ryzen or an intel i5 would be a complete waste of money in a console.

@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 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

What you write here is utter nonsense. Nehalem was released on the PC in 2008. The i7 920 I think was the name if I remember correctly. This was a four core beast that was the top of the line in PC hardware in 2008. Are you really trying to tell me that the Xbox 360 CPU that came from a 2005 released console and was a budget stripped down in order piece of shit can perform 70 - 85 percent of that? Are you crazy?

Are you saying the PS4 Pro isn't CPU bottlenecked? Then why can't it do 60fps for even one fucking game? Wtf?

What a complete load of bull shit that lot is...... 360's CPU was comparable to a Pentium 4 Dual Core running at the same clock speed.

Can you please point out where I said Pro won't be bottlenecked?

I'll wait.....

Here is a blast from the past, PS4 number is only using its PPE not SPE's

You don't want to understand this thread. The 360 was great hardware for it's time and at a great price. But it's CPU was dog shit. It's GPU was absolutely brilliant and props to AMD for doing such a great job for them. I guess that's why today they make the hardware for all consoles.

The X1X is similar to the 360 in that it has a great GPU but a shitty CPU. The 360 was a great system and was a lot better than the PS3 hardware wise that was released a year after and for $200 more. Does anyone cry about the 360 having a shit CPU? Did it really matter? No, in the end if the 360 had a better CPU then it's GPU wouldn't have been as good and overall the results would've been much worse. Because the GPU is the thing that matters the most for games. That's why it's the Graphics Processing Unit, makes sense right?

The X1X has a shitty CPU. But it's not shittier than the 360 CPU was ***FOR IT'S TIME***!!! IWhy is it that the cows are saying the X1X has a problem with CPU when no one ever said anything about the 360 CPU. Because they didn't know any better and now they think they know what they're talking about. They don't. It's absolutely absurd to think the X1X is crap while the 360 was great because the X1X has shitty CPU. That's moronic, the 360's CPU situation was worse and it did fine. If by now you still don't understand then you don't want to.

You used the word balanced. How can you call a system balanced that has a CPU bottleneck?

write all the paragraphs you want, wont change the X1X CPU being shit

I said better balanced.... reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points is it?

And me using the word balanced means the word bottlenecked now?

Special needs over here folks....

@scatteh316:

No, the point is that a pretty coat of paint doesn't make a game more advanced.

Weak CPUs are necessary in the recipe for a great console. To simplify, let's say the console will retail for $500. If you have a balanced CPU and GPU, then the console will be shit gaming performance for the $500. If you have great CPU and shit GPU then it will be pathetic performance for a $500 console. If you have a great GPU and a shit CPU then you will have the best possible performance for your $500.

Even if you design a $1,000 console. You still want a shit CPU. Because if you just make it have a great CPU and GPU, it will get demolished by a competitor that can design a $1,000 console with an amazing GPU and shitty CPU. That's what makes sense. That's the world of fixed hardware on a budget.

Now what I am really pointing out in this thread is the bs spewed by cows that the X1X CPU being shitty is a terrible thing. No, it's absolutely expected and necessary in designing a great console.

If you think Uncharted is just pretty paint you truly are a fan boy..... I suggest you go and play them.

And while we're on the subject, mechanically GT6 is in a complete different league to GT2 and any one that's played them would know this.

BoTW can be run on a decent mobile phone....... Heck it would run on a high end mobile phone at a higher resolution and frame rate then what the Switch does.

Weak CPUs are necessary in the recipe for a great console. To simplify, let's say the console will retail for $500. If you have a balanced CPU and GPU, then the console will be shit gaming performance for the $500. If you have great CPU and shit GPU then it will be pathetic performance for a $500 console. If you have a great GPU and a shit CPU then you will have the best possible performance for your $500.

Even if you design a $1,000 console. You still want a shit CPU. Because if you just make it have a great CPU and GPU, it will get demolished by a competitor that can design a $1,000 console with an amazing GPU and shitty CPU. That's what makes sense. That's the world of fixed hardware on a budget.

Now what I am really pointing out in this thread is the bs spewed by cows that the X1X CPU being shitty is a terrible thing. No, it's absolutely expected and necessary in designing a great console.

I won't forget how bad this thread is.

? I think it's pretty clear that this thread is a backfired damage control thread and the OP is an idiot lol.

That is the stupidest fucking thing I think I've ever read........ Having a weaker CPU then GPU when building to a budget is a good design choice yes.

But having a shitty CPU is never, in a million fucking years anything other then a terrible thing and defiantly not part of a designing a great console.

Lol, actually you're right. I never thought of that. Good point!

@scatteh316:

I have played them.

The software drives the innovation. The people behind breath of the wild really pushed the hardware on a gameplay front. Uncharted 4 is just uncharted 1 with some kinks worked out and a fresh coat of paint. Strip down the visuals of that series and it could have been fully realized on a ps2. That's what I mean by Breath of the Wild being a more advanced piece of software. The bare minimum breath of the wild could work on was the Wiiu, and it shows.

Great post! I completely agree. I will add that I wouldn't want MS to add an i5 CPU for example. Because that would drive the price up to let's say $649 or so. Well, I would rather them put a little better CPU and a much better GPU to better spend that hardware budget.

I think the minimum Uncharted 4 can be done on is something like the Sega Saturn. Maybe the Neo Geo but that would be a sprite version. It would be same gameplay though. Anyway, I'm not sure just taking a guess here so please don't hold me to this.

I think they should do that - Uncharted on the Neo Geo. Followed by GTA3 on the Vic20.

So now you've moved the goal post to PS2.... which would still require a strip back to the core GAMEPLAY elements and not the graphics to make it work on PS2...... hahahaha.......

BoTW is not a more advanced piece of software at all...... And could be done on PS2 and Xbox.....

And at bare minimum BoTW doesn't work on a Wii U or a Switch..... unless you count 15fps instances as innovative?

Ya the X1x has a shitty CPU , but good enough for the clueless lemmings willing pay for it :)

@scatteh316:

Might have exaggerated a bit on the psx. Still, the core game could be done on much older hardware than what it was released on. To bring it back to the topic. The x1x CPU? The point is that it doesn't matter so much as most developers aren't taking advantage of the hardware as-is, other than a prettier coat of paint. So if this x1x had a better CPU, what difference would it make if the games are going to be essentially the same? That's the point. Nintendo needed new hardware to develop Breath of The Wild. From concept, it could not be done on the wii, thus Nintendo looks at their r&d and releases consoles based around what spec is needed in order to bring these ideas to realization.

These new(er) consoles were not much needed in terms of games released, were they? It's the same shit as last gen . Console releases are traditionally released when new ideas are not possible on prior hardware.

PS2 could of managed a graphically down graded version of this up until the 1:40 mark... at which point it wouldn't run the same scene as it just wouldn't have the power to handle all the collision detection, meshes, physics...etc....etc..... so no... it couldn't be done on older hardware.

So you're still wrong.

You literally did not read what I and multiple others have stated. I will post it again and maybe your brain will register.

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).

Budget office computers have CPU"s that are leaps and bounds better than the Xbox X CPU's (this was NOT HAPPENING in 2005..........)

Do your understand or do I and 5 other users need to post it again for your brain to comprehend ?

Capcom did a presentation way back in the day of their MT Framework engine and stated in the presentation that Xenos was around the same level as a pentium 4 Dual Core running at the same clock.

Exactly. A Pentium D at 3.2ghz was GOOD in 2005. High clocked pentium D where going for well over $200 when the 360 launched.

@scatteh316:

You mean the fluff of the uncharted series? Does all that stuff affect the gameplay?

Climbing on stuff is part of gameplay.........

It really wasn't..... go and read some of the old reviews......Most of the time it got killed by the single core AMD stuff...

Single core AMD 64 3500 series and higher (which where the series that could beat the Pentium D) where running for minimum $300 in 2005 and over $400 at launch.

Pentium D wasn't good because it was worst than a $300+ CPU ?

I think your the one who needs to go read some old reviews. Pentium D (especially the higher clocked series) was WELL above the average CPU in a desktop. Same can not be said for the Xboxone and X1X CPU