Xbox 360 and XBone which cpu has better single core performance?

[poofyhairguy]

I was reading this thread as PS3/360 vs. PS4/XB1 and, speaking directly to the PS3 vs PS4, what's the point of comparing two things that can't be used interchangeably?

For the fun of the discussion I guess.

I understand comparing Intel to AMD or NVIDIA to AMD since I can put any one combination in my PC, start a PC game and directly speak to one combination outperforming another one.

But you can understand why people don't always just compared platforms with the same applications right?

I mean, people cross compare iPhones and Android phones all the time, yet no iPhone can run an Android app and vice versa. Basically you are looking at things from a macro view, not just "can I play x game?" but more "what is the best a game on X platform can be?"

 

[Sonikku]

Both the PS4 and Xbox One are faster and produce better graphics than their previous gen counterparts. All the games they publish for the systems run perfectly smooth in my experience. So what impact is the CPU really having (and what makes the AMD chip so bad, really)?

These aren't PCs and are purpose built for console games. What is the point of this thread?

Games will always run smooth on consoles no matter what cpu they put in because developers will always just water down their design to match until the game is running. The SNES had a sluggish cpu and the developers built around it. But don't think for a moment that if its cpu was as fast as the significantly older Genesis that devs wouldn't have done even more with the system.

I get that the ps4 and the xbone are "better", I'm just kind of disappointed because they don't seem better as "much" as the last generation. I mean, with the 360 it's specs were so top end that it was nearly as good as a full blown gaming PC you'd have to spend a grand on when it first came out.

But a gaming pc today for that same budget would just obliterate these systems. The radeon 500 series was practically cutting edge on the 360 at the time, but the radeon 6670ish part they threw in the one was low end a full year before the one came out. And the cpu fares even worse. The damnest thing of all is that while CPU's were getting significantly faster every year back in the 360 days, they've hardly improved at all for the past four. You kinda almost think it wouldn't be so hard to be semi-competitive even with years old hardware.

 

[futurefields]

Here's the point though, you can't play Uncharted 4 on a PS3, for example, so the differences between the PS4 CPU / GPU and PS3 CPU / GPU don't actually matter. And for those games that are built for multiple consoles, such as FIFA or Madden, it's safe to say that everything will still look better / play better on the newer console.

I guess people find this fun on an absolutely theoretical level, but it's absolutely meaningless when features and game availability are exclusive to a certain console.

Yes we do find it fun on a theoretical level.

What are you contributing here but a "this thread is dumb" type comment.

Either contribute something substantive and on topic or go away.

 

[mmntech]

I get that the ps4 and the xbone are "better", I'm just kind of disappointed because they don't seem better as "much" as the last generation. I mean, with the 360 it's specs were so top end that it was nearly as good as a full blown gaming PC you'd have to spend a grand on when it first came out.

I think it really boils down to the fact that we're playing the same games as last gen, just with a fresh coat of paint. There's a pretty big leap in visuals but presentation and core mechanics are still the same.

The 360 and PS3 were anomalies when they came out. Consoles are rarely as powerful as their PC counterparts. Their main advantage has always been their plug-and-play nature. No system requirements, drivers, farting around with settings, obnoxious DRM. Even though you can build a gaming PC for the same budget, a lot of people would prefer ease of use.

However, this generation has really blurred the lines between the two, and not for the better. We've seen consoles adopting some of the worst practices from PC, but none of the advantages. That's a whole other rant though. Let's just say I wouldn't have bought my PS4 at launch had I known how much of a mess this generation was going to be.

 

[futurefields]

I seem to remember the OG Xbox being pretty darn powerful when it came out too. I certainly wasn't playing anything that looked as good as DOA3 or Wreckless The Yakuza Missions on PC at the time. Of course it still had the luxury of rendering at low SDTV resolutions but those graphics were pretty great looking.

 

[dagamer34]

Games will always run smooth on consoles no matter what cpu they put in because developers will always just water down their design to match until the game is running. The SNES had a sluggish cpu and the developers built around it. But don't think for a moment that if its cpu was as fast as the significantly older Genesis that devs wouldn't have done even more with the system.

I get that the ps4 and the xbone are "better", I'm just kind of disappointed because they don't seem better as "much" as the last generation. I mean, with the 360 it's specs were so top end that it was nearly as good as a full blown gaming PC you'd have to spend a grand on when it first came out.

But a gaming pc today for that same budget would just obliterate these systems. The radeon 500 series was practically cutting edge on the 360 at the time, but the radeon 6670ish part they threw in the one was low end a full year before the one came out. And the cpu fares even worse. The damnest thing of all is that while CPU's were getting significantly faster every year back in the 360 days, they've hardly improved at all for the past four. You kinda almost think it wouldn't be so hard to be semi-competitive even with years old hardware.

360 and PS3 were both such boondoggles in spending money to one up the competition that a) both lost tons of money at release and b) in order to make up money, the generation was extended by at *least* 2 years if not more.

The benefit of a faster realization of profit by Sony and Microsoft is that it's more likely they'll create their successors, thus advancing what both platforms can do (and PC gamers can complain less about consoles holding their games back in graphics).

My hope that that with gen 10, they don't wipe the table clean again and start from scratch all the software they've built this time around. And backwards compatibility really needs to be there from day one. x86 cores and faster GPUs will hopefully help make that happen.

 

[Rakehellion]

Without looking at numbers or thinking very hard about the problem, I'd say the Xbox One wins by a longshot since the other console is from 10 years ago.

 

[futurefields]

Rak - Xbox 360 cores are double the clockspeed

3.2ghz vs 1.6-1.73ghz

So it's not that simple.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Rak - Xbox 360 cores are double the clockspeed

3.2ghz vs 1.6-1.73ghz

So it's not that simple.

That doesn't matter. A 5ghz pentium 4 can't touch a 3.5ghz i7. As technology changes it also becomes more efficient and can do things more quickly. The fact remains that the 360 and PS3 can't even come close to the visual quality of the xb1 and ps4. That is all that matters. Games run better and look better.

 

[tdawg]

That doesn't matter. A 5ghz pentium 4 can't touch a 3.5ghz i7. As technology changes it also becomes more efficient and can do things more quickly. The fact remains that the 360 and PS3 can't even come close to the visual quality of the xb1 and ps4. That is all that matters. Games run better and look better.

Exactly!

 

[futurefields]

The fact remains that the 360 and PS3 can't even come close to the visual quality of the xb1 and ps4. That is all that matters. Games run better and look better.

Duh.

We all know XB1 and PS4 games look better.

What does that have to do with the thread topic?

????

 

[Rakehellion]

Rak - Xbox 360 cores are double the clockspeed

3.2ghz vs 1.6-1.73ghz

So it's not that simple.

Newer CPUs are more efficient at the same clock speed so it isn't even a sensible comparison.

Search the CPUs forum where you'll find that this thread has been done a thousand times on every CPU in existence.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Duh.



We all know XB1 and PS4 games look better.



What does that have to do with the thread topic?



????

It means your bitching about the CPU and trying to compare it to something that is actually sower is pointless.

Also next time quote the entire post and maybe when you read what is written a second time you'll see something that you left out.

 

[futurefields]

Newer CPUs are more efficient at the same clock speed so it isn't even a sensible comparison.

Search the CPUs forum where you'll find that this thread has been done a thousand times on every CPU in existence.

i know newer cpu's are more efficient but we are talking about different architechtures and clock speeds

is an i5 core @ 1.6ghz faster than a p4 core @ 3.2ghz? I doubt it... its probably about as fast as a 2.2-2.4ghz p4 core

 

[poofyhairguy]

is an i5 core @ 1.6ghz faster than a p4 core @ 3.2ghz?

Yes, yes it is.

 

[TeknoBug]

i know newer cpu's are more efficient but we are talking about different architechtures and clock speeds

is an i5 core @ 1.6ghz faster than a p4 core @ 3.2ghz? I doubt it... its probably about as fast as a 2.2-2.4ghz p4 core

Actually yes an i5 1.6GHz would be faster than a Pentium 4 3.2GHz.

 

[mmntech]

Actually yes an i5 1.6GHz would be faster than a Pentium 4 3.2GHz.

Significantly faster.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/2644300?baseline=2967720

NetBurst wasn't the world's greatest CPU archiecture. Which is why Intel kept getting trounced by AMD's K8 used in the Athlon 64.

IIRC, NetBurst used long pipelines and in-order processing, where as AMD and PPC used shorter pipelines and out-of-order processing.

 

[Graze]

is an i5 core @ 1.6ghz faster than a p4 core @ 3.2ghz? I doubt it... its probably about as fast as a 2.2-2.4ghz p4 core

You're crazy and shouldn't even be in this thread because I don't believe you know that much about the CPU's and their underlying technologies

 

[tdawg]

i know newer cpu's are more efficient but we are talking about different architechtures and clock speeds

is an i5 core @ 1.6ghz faster than a p4 core @ 3.2ghz? I doubt it... its probably about as fast as a 2.2-2.4ghz p4 core

And this is why I jumped into this thread in the first place...

 

[IntelCeleron]

Significantly faster.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/2644300?baseline=2967720

IIRC, NetBurst used long pipelines and in-order processing, where as AMD and PPC used shorter pipelines and out-of-order processing.

Pretty sure NetBurst was out-of-order.

 

[futurefields]

You're crazy and shouldn't even be in this thread because I don't believe you know that much about the CPU's and their underlying technologies

Bro I made this thread, I can be in it as long as I want. You, on the other hand, have contributed nothing. none. zip. zilch. nada.

 

[Lil Frier]

Bro I made this thread, I can be in it as long as I want. You, on the other hand, have contributed nothing. none. zip. zilch. nada.

Your assessment of his comments could easily function as an assessment of this thread, relative to the Console Gaming forum though, so...

 

[lamedude]

An i5 is a pretty fat core especially compared to a P4. Jag and Xenon/Cell seem pretty similar in that regard (both dual issue).