How does my gaming PC compare to XBox 360?

PPC core just like all other consoles excluding xbox1 requires optimization to run on par and above desktop cpus, striping a CPU down doesnt exactly make it any slower, of course its gonna be more difficult to use but so was PS1, N64, PS2, GC ect, out of order processing and instruction sets make desktop cpus useful for what they do, general processing
 
Ballz2TheWallz said:
i beg to differ, any "cross platform games" should never be a console decideing factor, it should be on what exclusives you want, it also holds true that pc ports are more prominant on xbox1 plus i prefer TES games, halo, rare(conkers, pd0, kameo, fucking roll people), and forza is just more fun the GT was to me, all on what you prefer
Click to expand...
I am confused, what are you argueing about? Buying the xbox360 is or isnt a better idea? i was giving reason why i believe the xbox360 is worth buying over upgrading your computer or waiting for the ps3.
 
ClearM4 said:
I am confused, what are you argueing about? Buying the xbox360 is or isnt a better idea? i was giving reason why i believe the xbox360 is worth buying over upgrading your computer or waiting for the ps3.
Click to expand...
you also talked about alot of 360 games being on ps3, and i simply said cross platform games shouldnt decide your console, exclusives should
 
The 360 is signifcantly better than any PC. And you also have to consider that consoles are built and optimized, both hardware and software, for a single purpose. Game are designed for just one set of hardware instead of the millions of combinations on a PC.

So with a 360 and PC of the same specs the 360 would still win.

You can't even get a triple core processor on a PC. The best you can get is a Athlon 64 X2 4800+. This is clocked at 2.4ghz. Yes, I know mhz is'nt really a good indication of a processors performance anymore. And the same is true of the PPC processer in the 360. But still it's a triple core with 3.2ghz clock.
And it's video chip from ATI is currently more powerful than anything on the desktop.

So why aren't people impressed? Games aren't coded for all of this. The xbox runs Doom3 and HL2 just fine. These are also just ported over to the 360. Only programmed for a single thread out of the 6 available. Nothing is even beginning to tap it's potential yet.
 
Ballz2TheWallz said:
you also talked about alot of 360 games being on ps3, and i simply said cross platform games shouldnt decide your console, exclusives should
Click to expand...
Ok, well I meant that there will be a lot less exclusive games than there was between the xbox and ps2. I will probably end up with the xbox360 and nintendo rev for its unique games.
 
J-M-E said:
Uh I dont think xbox360 comes close to my Dual GTX's and AMD64 4000+ but alright.

The graphics on it dont impress me at all.

Upgrade your pc and enjoy gaming with a mouse and keyboard. If you want, you can even hook the xbox controller up to your pc :D
Click to expand...

And how much did you pay for your computer, and how much is an xbox360? I still won't ever play or buy a FPS for a console (Halo1 was the exception), but for nearly every other genre, xbox360 is a superior system to the computer, and for MUCH less.
 
That's well said as often nothing is a fulfilling as instant gratification. If you keep waiting, you may find yourself waiting as there is always something new coming out. A 360 is going to get better graphics than your setup, and would require an upgrade equal to a upper mid or high end system. Of course, we likely havn't seen what the 360 really is capable of yet since it will take time for developers to find ways to squeeze every bit of horsepower possible. I think a 360 would be good, but i'm biased.


ray4389 said:
remember like in the PC world if you wait then better will always come out and you will keep on waiting.

buy and xbox360 now and you'll love it

buy a ps3 later and you'll love it

upgrade your PC with w/e you can afford and you'll love it...

the fact is that you can always wait for better so enjoy what you can now


The little diff in the console market is that you may be a bigger fan of another and you just wait for that one to come out...but if you want a 360 jsut get it and don't wait for sumthin else.
Click to expand...
 
ClearM4 said:
The simple fact is your better off with the xbox360 for the price if your gaming. I love my computers, but consoles offer more. Better select/variety of games. Also, some games are just more fun with a controler, while sitting at the couch, playing on your big screen tv. The xbox360 offers gaming performance of a highend PC for cheap. Not sure which is faster or has better graphics, but its close and really shouldn't be a factor. Oh and I also see no reason to wait for a ps3 unless your a sony fan. Graphics wont be much better if at all, xbox360 will offer most of the same games ps3 does. Both are HDTV. But the ps3 wont be out until next christmas in the USA.
Click to expand...
That is only true if you have a do not currently have a decent gaming PC. If one starts from scratch building a PC for gaming then clearly the 360 is a better value. But, if one already has a mid-range gaming PC it might be more economical to slap on a few upgrades for the near future. Especially if one doesn't have an HDTV yet.
 
Archer75 said:
You can't even get a triple core processor on a PC. The best you can get is a Athlon 64 X2 4800+. This is clocked at 2.4ghz. Yes, I know mhz is'nt really a good indication of a processors performance anymore. And the same is true of the PPC processer in the 360. But still it's a triple core with 3.2ghz clock.
Click to expand...
I'm sure but this is what Anandtech had to say.

Right now, from what we've heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon
CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox.
Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 -
5 years, it's nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective,
floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a
Pentium 4.
And it's video chip from ATI is currently more powerful than anything on the desktop.
Click to expand...
They also said.

There are 48 shader units in the Xbox 360 GPU, but given that we're dealing with a unified shader architecture, you can't compare that number directly to the 24 shader pipelines of the GeForce 7800 GTX for example. We roughly estimated the shader processing power of the Xbox 360 GPU to be similar to that of a 24-pipeline ATI R420 GPU.

So why aren't people impressed? Games aren't coded for all of this. The xbox runs Doom3 and HL2 just fine. These are also just ported over to the 360. Only programmed for a single thread out of the 6 available. Nothing is even beginning to tap it's potential yet.
Click to expand...
Doom 3 could run on a PC with a Geforce 3 chip. Plus have you ever seen Doom 3 on the Xbox? Textures are very blurred and lots of shadows are missing in the Xbox port.

HL2 is scalable to a DX6. So why wouldn't the Xbox be able to run HL2?

Like I said the 360 and the PC aren't easily comparable. Hard to tell which performs faster and is more capable.

Future PC games will run just fine on a AXP 3000 with a 6800 GT graphics card. I'd worry when the Unreal 3 engine is released. Since we know lots of games are based on the Unreal engines very often.

With people buying 360's for $5k and killing for one of these machines I'd sit just fine with that PC. Hell most likely your PC won't crash as often as some of these 360's. Just ask yourself "are any of your games slowing down"? If yes then think about it after X-mas.

Let darwinism take it's action on the people who think the 360 is the next best thing since sliced bread. When the killings and the price gouging has stopped then think about it.
 
DukenukemX said:
I'm sure but this is what Anandtech had to say.

Right now, from what we've heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon
CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox.
Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 -
5 years, it's nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective,
floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a
Pentium 4.

They also said.

There are 48 shader units in the Xbox 360 GPU, but given that we're dealing with a unified shader architecture, you can't compare that number directly to the 24 shader pipelines of the GeForce 7800 GTX for example. We roughly estimated the shader processing power of the Xbox 360 GPU to be similar to that of a 24-pipeline ATI R420 GPU.


Doom 3 could run on a PC with a Geforce 3 chip. Plus have you ever seen Doom 3 on the Xbox? Textures are very blurred and lots of shadows are missing in the Xbox port.

HL2 is scalable to a DX6. So why wouldn't the Xbox be able to run HL2?

Like I said the 360 and the PC aren't easily comparable. Hard to tell which performs faster and is more capable.

Future PC games will run just fine on a AXP 3000 with a 6800 GT graphics card. I'd worry when the Unreal 3 engine is released. Since we know lots of games are based on the Unreal engines very often.

With people buying 360's for $5k and killing for one of these machines I'd sit just fine with that PC. Hell most likely your PC won't crash as often as some of these 360's. Just ask yourself "are any of your games slowing down"? If yes then think about it after X-mas.

Let darwinism take it's action on the people who think the 360 is the next best thing since sliced bread. When the killings and the price gouging has stopped then think about it.
Click to expand...

QFT. Intelligent man, this one. Can't you people wait a couple weeks? Stop comparing it to PCs, hardware wise, because either the PC will win now, or the PC will win later. It's a no-win situation, and the system should be judged on its own merits or... lack thereof.
 
I love that people here aren't blinded by hype or jealousy. I will not dog or put down the 360 anymore. I know that not everyone can afford a decent gaming PC and the Xbox 360 is meant to fill that void. Having said that, I do believe the Xbox 360 could have been so much more and that MS is a vampire that emulates success and drains anything good out of the exceptional ideas that they steal.

No more PC vs Xbox 360 debates. No point in shooting yourself in the foot.
 
peacetilence said:
I do believe the Xbox 360 could have been so much more and that MS is a vampire that emulates success and drains anything good out of the exceptional ideas that they steal.
Click to expand...
The only thing I could think of that would have made the 360 better is if MS had went with an X86 CPU. Though I'm sure the price would have been $100 more.

Besides the Xenon CPU everything else was MS ideas. Large amount of the 360's power is based on the ATI GPU. Which is based on Direct X mostly.
 
DukenukemX said:
I'm sure but this is what Anandtech had to say.
Click to expand...
Is'nt this the article that was taken down after like, a day? With all the more technical sites out there, anandtech is the one to put it down so much?
 
Circuitbreaker8 said:
Really? Thats funny...because every review says the 360 version of CoD2 is better. And hes going to need more than a 7800GTX to blow 360 ;)
Click to expand...

Ok i have a GTX and it runs cod2 like butter, you decide which looks better. (just note that we have been trying to get rid of aliasing for the past 5 years!)

heres the xbox 360 screenshot from igns review, as you can see there is a lot of aliasing and the af isnt amazing:
cod2.jpg


and heres my pc with one gtx, which is running like butter at 1280x1024 with aa and af!
cod2pc.jpg


now which do think looks better?
 
Well i thinkthe 360 looks bit better than that screenshot.. the screenshot is very bluury and has compression artifacts galore..
 
diehard said:
Is'nt this the article that was taken down after like, a day? With all the more technical sites out there, anandtech is the one to put it down so much?
Click to expand...
The first one yes. The second one was from their recent 360 review when they take apart the machine.

From what I understand the article was removed not because it wasn't accurate and didn't have sources to back up their claims but because it pissed off a lot of people. Everywhere from console f@boys to Microsoft themselves.

Nobody has yet been able to prove that the article is incorrect from any technical point of view. Even Steve Jobs had something to say about the Cell chip.

Did you really think three retarded Power PC core would be considered faster then today's X86 CPUs? Even developers have agreed that they're not happy with the choice of processors in the 360 and PS3.
 
Just to clarify, PowerPC processors have the potential of being far more efficient for gaming purposes than x86 CPUs... just certainly not these ones. The 3 cores in the 360 are very stripped down, and the one core inside the PS3 is no good improvement - nor is the SPE array, which serve very little purpose for what they are supposed to do. 3.2ghz x 3 x 2, or 1 3.2ghz + 7 SPE's are just marketing moniker designed to make you feel better about your purchases. In reality, these companies would've made much better decisions going with dual-core PPCs at MOST, with more complete instruction sets, and better branch prediction capability. Hell, decrease it to 2x3.2ghz
DukenukemX said:
"retarded"
Click to expand...
cores, and throw in a PPU instead, as it would've served the system SO much better. Put it this way... developers have one HELL of an uphill climb to put this hardware to use to its "3,2ghz" potential, and MS/Sony should have their hands full in making dev tools worthy of their ineffecient cores. Does this mean that the ineffecient cores won't get used to their market-hype potential? No. Of course they will... eventually. Just not anytime soon. Hell, most game devs still don't use 2 cores, PC or otherwise...
 
revs said:
Well i thinkthe 360 looks bit better than that screenshot.. the screenshot is very bluury and has compression artifacts galore..
Click to expand...

true but i used a lot of compression on my pcs screenshot aswell :p
 
steviep said:
In reality, these companies would've made much better decisions going with dual-core PPCs at MOST, with more complete instruction sets, and better branch prediction capability. Hell, decrease it to 2x3.2ghz cores, and throw in a PPU instead, as it would've served the system SO much better.
Click to expand...
The Power PC chips are extremely good if Sony and Microsoft didn't retard them. No one said anything bad about the PowerPC chip in the GameCube. That I'm sure isn't crippled.

Hell, most game devs still don't use 2 cores, PC or otherwise...
Click to expand...
Quake 3 did. How little of a benefit it will be today. When more people buy dual core CPUs then we'll see patches I'm sure.
 
They did "retard" the chips, to make them cheaper to manufacture - there's no out-of-order execution, for example. The chips are simplified, with smart coding and good compilers meant to make up for the performance difference. Eventually, it will, but not on this first wave of games.
 
Kevin Lowe said:
They did "retard" the chips, to make them cheaper to manufacture - there's no out-of-order execution, for example. The chips are simplified, with smart coding and good compilers meant to make up for the performance difference. Eventually, it will, but not on this first wave of games.
Click to expand...

That does'nt make them cheaper to manufacture. It costs the same. Well actually a bit more as they would have to order an entirely new reticle mask set.

Chips such as Athlon 64's of the same model all cost the same to manufacture. All nvidia and ati chips of the same series cost the same to manufacture as well. Hell even chips from different series are close to the same cost to manufacture. The biggest difference is the cost of the reticle set to create different chips. But the rest of the process is pretty much the same no matter which chip you make. I work in a fab making chips.
 
Archer75 said:
That does'nt make them cheaper to manufacture.
Click to expand...

So there's no correlation between features and transistor count, transistor count and die size at a given process, or die/wafer and yield?
 
Kevin Lowe said:
So there's no correlation between features and transistor count, transistor count and die size at a given process, or die/wafer and yield?
Click to expand...

Well yield would certainly have an impact. And there is some price differences between say, ram and a CPU as there are some different steps involved. But they all go through most of the same equipment when processing them. The more transistors you put on a chip the smaller technology you need for your steppers/scanners to be able to handle. So there would be an equipment cost in going from say .12 micron to 65nm, unless if they already have the equipment in place that can handle those technologies. Then there would'nt be an increased cost of equipment.

But to actually produce a Athlon 64 X2 4800 toledo core does'nt cost anymore than a 4400+ toldeo core. Same die size.
All P4 prescotts cost the same to produce. Putting the extra cache on an P4 extreme edition does'nt cost anymore. It's just a different reticle set.
Desktop ram pretty much all costs the same. It's the same die size in most cases and the same technology used.
Hell, Nvidia and ATI chips are made in the same fab.

So to sum up most chips using the same technology, 65, 90 nanometers, .12 micron, etc cost about the same to produce, from silicon to a finished product.
 
Archer75 said:
Well yield would certainly have an impact. And there is some price differences between say, ram and a CPU as there are some different steps involved. But they all go through most of the same equipment when processing them. The more transistors you put on a chip the smaller technology you need for your steppers/scanners to be able to handle. So there would be an equipment cost in going from say .12 micron to 65nm, unless if they already have the equipment in place that can handle those technologies. Then there would'nt be an increased cost of equipment.

But to actually produce a Athlon 64 X2 4800 toledo core does'nt cost anymore than a 4400+ toldeo core. Same die size.
All P4 prescotts cost the same to produce. Putting the extra cache on an P4 extreme edition does'nt cost anymore. It's just a different reticle set.
Desktop ram pretty much all costs the same. It's the same die size in most cases and the same technology used.
Hell, Nvidia and ATI chips are made in the same fab.

So to sum up most chips using the same technology, 65, 90 nanometers, .12 micron, etc cost about the same to produce, from silicon to a finished product.
Click to expand...
produceing ALL 4800s is obviously gonna cost more then producing ALL 4400s for the simply fact that evey chip you make ISNT going to do 4800 so it gets thrown out, thus wasted money, remember MS isnt makeing 2 differnt chips, its either it does 3.2ghz or out it goes

and if instruction sets didnt cost anything and helped the console i doubt they would be left out, so obviously your wrong somewhere
 
Microsoft licensed the Power PC core from IBM and makes their own chips. Unlike the Xbox where Microsoft buys the chips directly from Intel. So MS is saving a bundle with the Power PC core.

Also the out-of-order core uses a lot of transistors. Microsoft probably felt that by using the transistors else where was going to give the 360 a bit more bang. More performance per transistor.

Now the problem is developers need to totally rewrite their code. Which could take years.
 
DukenukemX said:
Microsoft licensed the Power PC core from IBM and makes their own chips. Unlike the Xbox where Microsoft buys the chips directly from Intel. So MS is saving a bundle with the Power PC core.

Also the out-of-order core uses a lot of transistors. Microsoft probably felt that by using the transistors else where was going to give the 360 a bit more bang. More performance per transistor.

Now the problem is developers need to totally rewrite their code. Which could take years.
Click to expand...

So you think Microsoft decided to use transisters elsewhere to give the 360 more bang? I'd say that they were very stupid for thinking that they can dumb down a CPU and somehow make the system better. Developers are already complaining about the PS3, and despite the fact that MS' platform is easier to develop for, I don't hear them giving it praise either. To have Anandtech say that in reality, it's only "2x better" in power kind of reminds me of one of the dullard quotes to come out of Nintendo's PR division last year. lol
 
Ballz2TheWallz said:
produceing ALL 4800s is obviously gonna cost more then producing ALL 4400s for the simply fact that evey chip you make ISNT going to do 4800 so it gets thrown out, thus wasted money, remember MS isnt makeing 2 differnt chips, its either it does 3.2ghz or out it goes

and if instruction sets didnt cost anything and helped the console i doubt they would be left out, so obviously your wrong somewhere
Click to expand...

It does'nt cost anymore. But since Microsoft did'nt actually make the chips themselves but they have to pay what IBM wants for them. IBM makes them and sells them at various price points as all chip makers do, even if it cost the exact same to make them.

Yes, there are always die lost to yield issues. But on average all 4800's cost the same as 4400's to produce. It's not unusal for AMD or Intel to actually make one chip at one clockspeed and then underclock it and sell it different price and speed ratings. Intel did that with thier Northwood cores. I think they were all 3.2ghz chips and then they just underclocked them to 3ghz, 2.8ghz, etc. Which is done in the final packaging of the chip.

I have personally worked on chips for the PS1 and PS2, Hard drives, RAID cards, ipods and DVD recorders. At other companies I have worked on Nvidia and ATI chips, Flash ram, notebook ram and system ram. Chips used in communications, military and aerospace. And i've done it for the past decade.
 
Archer75 said:
It does'nt cost anymore. But since Microsoft did'nt actually make the chips themselves but they have to pay what IBM wants for them. IBM makes them and sells them at various price points as all chip makers do, even if it cost the exact same to make them.

Yes, there are always die lost to yield issues. But on average all 4800's cost the same as 4400's to produce. It's not unusal for AMD or Intel to actually make one chip at one clockspeed and then underclock it and sell it different price and speed ratings. Intel did that with thier Northwood cores. I think they were all 3.2ghz chips and then they just underclocked them to 3ghz, 2.8ghz, etc. Which is done in the final packaging of the chip.

I have personally worked on chips for the PS1 and PS2, Hard drives, RAID cards, ipods and DVD recorders. At other companies I have worked on Nvidia and ATI chips, Flash ram, notebook ram and system ram. Chips used in communications, military and aerospace. And i've done it for the past decade.
Click to expand...

Dude knows what he's talking about. This is a regular practice in the microprocessor industry... build 1 chip and squeeze entire product lines out of it. I wonder why, then, Microsoft decided to cripple the chips and bring coding back more than a decade if it would cost approximately the same to have complete PPC cores.
 
steviep said:
Dude knows what he's talking about. This is a regular practice in the microprocessor industry... build 1 chip and squeeze entire product lines out of it. I wonder why, then, Microsoft decided to cripple the chips and bring coding back more than a decade if it would cost approximately the same to have complete PPC cores.
Click to expand...
because microsoft is software first minded ...


err ..yeah ..(it almost makes sense if you think about it long enough after huffing some paint thinner)




[H]
 
ThreeDee said:
because microsoft is software first minded ...


err ..yeah ..(it almost makes sense if you think about it long enough after huffing some paint thinner)
Click to expand...

*sniffs paint thinner*
Nah... it still isn't making sense. This is one of the richest companies in the world... they did their R&D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top