What, it isn't? It's 2015, christians don't give a crap what you do anymore. One of em might say "I don't approve" or perhaps stick their nose up at you but that's about as bad as it gets. Big deal. Most of 'em won't say anything at all. The thread title makes it sound like burnings at the stake are still happening in the christian world, lol.

You think 500 years? LMMAO. Not sure if the 50 years number is dead on balls accurate, is the number I've frequently heard thrown around, but 500 years is insanely, comically optimistic. Hell, it's denial. America went from being not very ethnically diverse to very much so in a few decades because of immigration (And before you go telling me America has been immigrating for centuries my response to that is: not really. For the longest time America was getting its immigrants almost entirely from Europe until eventually there was a freeze put on immigration that lasted several decades. It wasn't until the mid to late 1960s that immigration really got going again and that's when it opened up to multiple spots on the globe. But that new way of doing it started with a trickle. It would still be a while before America was mass immigrating from the third world like it is now) yet you think it'll take 5 centuries for Europe to become Muslim if it keeps immigrating Muslims at the levels it currently does?!!!

But love how you threw ultra-rightwing extremist in there. :) I guess it's kinda of a rule for the left to always throw in the words "extremist" or "racist" at least once every other sentence when topics like this get brought up.

Yeah, that was hilarious. Like people who are willing to kill a dozen people are gonna care that it's illegal to have the guns they're shooting the people with.

Things like this happening in Europe are gonna get more and more common. They've been immigrating so many Muslims into their countries because of Europe's low fertility rates that it's estimated that quite a few European countries could be Muslim countries in 50 years. Seems to me that a better solution to low fertility is to ban or at least put limits on abortion but they'd rather import millions of people from the most backwards countries on Earth.

How is this news? We've known these consoles can do this since before they launched. This is another case of people grabbing onto poorly written articles for the sake of convincing themselves that something is more impressive than it is. This is all stuff we already knew but the author is providing no explanation or context. For one thing he doesn't bother mentioning that PS4 does the same thing and does it better. Here's what's actually relevant: X1 can dedicate one of its 12 GPU cores to compute and PS4 can dedicate 4 of its 18 GPU cores to compute. This is because PS4 has 8 ACE units and X1 has 2. Now who do you think that favors?

A 40-50% difference in GPU power is more than marginal imo. It ain't a generation apart but not inconsequential either. But yeah, PS4 is no beast. It's just better than X1. Both machines are not what they could and should have been. I ain't saying they should be up there with high-end gaming PCs, that's impractical. But the chips in them should match up with mid-level gaming PCs of late 2013 better than they do.

It's Mattrick's doing. Everything Xbox went downhill when that guy took over (I'm convinced PS3 would never have caught up to X360 had it not been for him) and I'm glad to see him gone. But it really, really sucks that it couldn't have happened prior to the creation of X1. His idiotic policy decisions have been reversed but nothing can be done about the poor hardware design he left behind.

Yeah, usually console specs measure up to PCs pretty well for a year or two but this time they were completely outclassed on day 1.

Kinect is/was not the primary thing making it weak though. They started with DDR3 memory and bandwidth-wise there's not a lot you can do with that. There's a bunch of components on the APU eating up space and jacking up the cost that do nothing but aid the DDR3. And even with all that custom hardware it's still slower than GDDR5. I've heard that X1's APU is a little bigger and more expensive than PS4's despite being weaker. Too many resources went into helping the DDR3 and yes, Kinect as well but DDR3 is the bigger problem. And I could be remembering this wrong but I think I recall reading that X1's audio chips are on the APU and PS4's aren't. That tells me that Mattrick and co. weren't even all that concerned with power if they were willing to allocate precious APU space to things like that when they didn't necessarily need to. All that extra stuff on the APU takes away from the CPU and GPU silicon that could have been put on there and that's why X1 is weak sauce. But then again, ya could also say there was no point in putting in more CPU and GPU power cuz DDR3 doesn't have the bandwidth to run it anyway. Which brings us right back to DDR3 being the chief problem with the console.

As far as the thread topic goes I don't think 1080p/60 is the measure you should be going by. Resolution and framerate depend on the game as much as the hardware. Some games do a lot technically, some not so much. Gonna be easier to get the latter ones to 1080p/60. I think flops are the better yardstick and when it comes to that this really is the weakest generation I've seen when you compare what we got to what was going on with PCs at the time. Really the only thing that wasn't disappointing about these machines is the 8 gigs of RAM ... and X1 got that part only half right.

They were absolutely right to predict that. MS was poised to be the market leader this generation. But how could anyone have predicted that they'd suddenly decide to commit brand suicide with a bunch of dumb policies (They later fixed 'em but considerable damage had already been done) and weak hardware (No way they can change that)?