- May 7, 2007
The 360 released in November of 2005, and the GPU is similar to a Radeon X1900 XT, which at the time bested the 7900 GTX 256MB in both performance and visual quality by a good margin, even though the X1900 wasn't released until January 2006.How you figure that? The PowerPC CPU's in both the 360 and PS3 were in-order. Meaning they were the equivalent of a the PowerPC version of a Intel Atom. Sure it was 3Ghz but the Xbox One and PS4 are running at 1.6Ghz. The GPU is comparable to a X1900/X1950 XT or the 7800/7900GTX, which is probably why those consoles did so well for years because those graphic cards weren't cheap back then.
Ok, just because a CPU is in-order does not automatically mean that it has Atom-level performance - ffs, we have gone over this before, and I know you know this.
The tri-core Xenon PowerPC CPU was clocked at 3.2GHz, so it had similar performance to 3 IBM 970FX CPUs clocked at 1.6GHz, which is multitudes above 3 Atom cores of any variant.
At the time, x86-64 CPUs were only just becoming dual-cores, so unless it were a multi-socket 2P system, no x86-64 CPU would compare to the Xenon CPU in 2005 and even into 2006.
The Xenon CPU also featured 2-way SMT, which with 3 CPU cores then offered 6 threads.
Again, this is when x86-64 CPUs were only finally allowing for 2 threads or 4 threads with the pathetic excuse of a "dual-core" that the Netburst Pentium D offered with Hyper-threading.
At the original price point of the 360 in 2005 to mid-2006, no PC would even come close to that level of performance for gaming.
Please stop with hypocritic bullshit like this, it is beyond tiresome.The X1900 cards were $250 and more while the GTX 7800 cards were even more money. It was a no brainer to buy a console back then.
You literally just said:
...and now you say that buying the 360 at the time was a "no brainer".The only time that ever happened was when the PS1/Saturn/N64 came out and the PC was behind in graphics. When the 3Dfx Voodoo one came out that's a different story but for a short time the consoles had the edge.
So which flip-flop hypocritic bullshit opinion are you going with now???
I totally missed that you made this utterly ridiculous apples-to-oranges statement.Sure it was 3Ghz but the Xbox One and PS4 are running at 1.6Ghz.
Clock speed means little to nothing when comparing two completely different ISAs, different microarchitectural generations, and when massive IPC differences are present.
So what that one is clocked at 3.2GHz, and the other is clocked at 1.6GHz?
What is the point you are trying to make with that statement???
I'm not letting this go.Meaning they were the equivalent of a the PowerPC version of a Intel Atom.
Have you ever actually used an Intel Atom for gaming before? Have you???
Let me tell you - I have, and across multiple generations and with and without Hyper-threading.
Pairing an Intel Atom of any kind with even a RTX 3090 GPU, will net less of a gaming experience than what is possible on the 360 and PS3.
For someone proclaiming to be a "PC gamer", and consistently dissing console gaming of any kind (regardless of the user budget), you sure don't know shit about gaming across multiple PC architectures outside of the most mainstream and popular x86-64 CPUs, and certainly know less about console technology and gaming for talking such smack about it all of the time.
There is no shame in not knowing enough, as there is always more to learn.
But, there is extreme shame in talking such utter bullshit while being called out by everyone in multiple threads, and never learning from your mistakes.
Be better than that - I know you are better than that, especially for a Linux PC gamer.