*Amazon FireTV
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
Well I found these benchmarks http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/snapdragon-s4-pro-apq8064-msm8960t,3291-5.html
Kind of seem to trade blows with perhaps an edge to SGX543mp4.
But the Krait 300 CPU in FireTV is based on an Cortex A15, which is a generation ahead of the A9 in Vita I guess http://www.androidauthority.com/arm-a9-vs-arm-a15-87559/
So I guess that's it. ~2X CPU + slightly behind GPU +much more RAM= overall more powerful?
According to this the Adreno 320 has either 86 or 97 GFLOPS/. Not bad, half of PS3/X360 class in theory .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adreno
Edit:: I think S600 pretty clearly is better than SGX543MP4, say for example http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6747/53581.png
Kind of seem to trade blows with perhaps an edge to SGX543mp4.
But the Krait 300 CPU in FireTV is based on an Cortex A15, which is a generation ahead of the A9 in Vita I guess http://www.androidauthority.com/arm-a9-vs-arm-a15-87559/
So I guess that's it. ~2X CPU + slightly behind GPU +much more RAM= overall more powerful?
According to this the Adreno 320 has either 86 or 97 GFLOPS/. Not bad, half of PS3/X360 class in theory .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adreno
Edit:: I think S600 pretty clearly is better than SGX543MP4, say for example http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6747/53581.png
The SGX in the Vita is the same as in the iPad 3 but with custom enhancements designed by Sony. It also has access to it's own memory unlike the Amazon box. I would think that the Vita would have quite a performance edge over the it.
I'm no mobile guru so perhaps another can chime in, but as I linked above http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6747/53581.png
And in GFLOPS from what I can tell, the 320 (86-97 GFLOPS) is 3-4X the SGX543MP4 (7 GFLOPS per core @200mhz according to wiki, or ~28 GFLOPS altogether). While the SGX seems to have a fillrate edge. I'd wager just like in PC, the compute is more important going forward.
Combine that with a generation ahead CPU and 3-4X the RAM amount.
The chipset seems better than I first thought, upon investigation, at least.
Still very disappointing it was not absolute bleeding edge of mobile.
To put it in perspective though my phone has:
Snapdragon S4 (Quad@1.5GHz)
Adreno 320
2Gb
1920x1080 display with HDMI out or Screen Mirroring (which is like the inverse of remote play but quite handy for watching stuff on the big screen if you can't be bothered connecting a cable)
I can also use a DS3 as a controller so I play Dead Trigger, Shadowgun, N.O.V.A 3, Riptide GP 1+2 etc on the big screen now and then. But none of them looking anything as good as Killzone or Uncharted etc on the Vita.
Part of this though, IMO, is that NVidia has already crippled the top end of the games scene through its TegraZone sh!te. So games have enhanced graphics on Tegra devices and only on Tegra devices. Even though other chips could easily do the same. My phone runs rings around a Tegra3 tablet I have but doesn't display the enhanced water effects in Shadowgun or reflections in Dead Trigger even though it could do so with ease.
Though with an in-house dev team Amazon has the potential to push the hardware more (it being fixed). But I guess that depends on the uptake of the controller and not the box. At the moment in terms of games it's just another Android box like Ouya et al. It's got nothing to offer for big screen gaming and the hardware is middle of the road so it's not going to challenge any consoles.
Sony have screwed up again with this though. The real challenge would have been VitaTV, but their eternal dithering has put a bullet in that now.
I don't see why it matters if this thing is powerful or not. If the games are good, then people will play them. The device is pretty cheap. If you're looking primarily for streaming content, it's a good little box by all accounts. Add in some cheap, but quality games and I don't see why people wouldn't play them.
Judging by the games I play on my phone\tablet, you're looking at Fire>Wii<PS3\X360
(((interference)))
Veteran
Pretty embarrassing for MS lol:
http://www.gamepur.com/news/14194-a...-one-negative-consumer-review-their-stb-.html
http://www.gamepur.com/news/14194-a...-one-negative-consumer-review-their-stb-.html
Yes hugely embarrassing. I think I'll trade my Xbox One/PS4 for a box that plays crap iPhone games because netflix access, because that's so hard to come by free. Clearly I dont have any devices that can access netflix except my $500 Xbox one.
They should have put an asterisk by that review "warning: likely not an actual xbox owner".
They should have put an asterisk by that review "warning: likely not an actual xbox owner".
(((interference)))
Veteran
Ah, but see you're seeing it from your core gamer POV.
To some parent who merely wants a console for their kids and something to watch Netflix on in the living room, that is a very valid point.
To some parent who merely wants a console for their kids and something to watch Netflix on in the living room, that is a very valid point.
Ah, but you're misjudging the market, as is the case with all these "tweener" consoles.
How big is the market you describe above, really? I'll say very small. Even if little Timmy is 12, he's likely sophisticated enough to want/demand a PS4/XOne like his friends, or at least a 360/PS3.
That's the problem with these half assed attempts to attract the core. You just cant half ass that market. Basically they are going to go to the highest end devices every time. Currently the X1 and PS4, and of course some PC.
No core gamer is going to see that "sev zero" game as anything but a curiosity, most likely.
Anyways, I think Amazon TV looks good next to $99 roku devices and Apple TV, due to the gaming aspect. But I paid I think 60 for my lower end Roku, and Chromecast is 35. That's where they may have trouble.
I wish it had more power/more advanced chipset, and was $99 with controller. Then I would possibly bite. But, controllers are expensive, so it's probably just not possible.
My ideal Android console: 2GB RAM is fine. Latest chipset such as Snapdragon 800 at least, and preferably even more cutting edge as these things move fast. Emphasis on easy sideloading/open access (for emulation of older consoles, which I guess they cannot officially advertise, but at least can make easy). emphasis on easy hack ability and being a great streamer from PC/other devices. Of course all the pay services. And $99 with controller.
A tall order, especially the last part
.(((interference)))
Veteran
Ah, but you're misjudging the market, as is the case with all these "tweener" consoles.
How big is the market you describe above, really? I'll say very small. Even if little Timmy is 12, he's likely sophisticated enough to want/demand a PS4/XOne like his friends, or at least a 360/PS3.
That's the problem with these half assed attempts to attract the core. You just cant half ass that market. Basically they are going to go to the highest end devices every time. Currently the X1 and PS4, and of course some PC.
But Amazon are not going for that market, they don't want to compete with Sony and MS who have spent billions on hardware, studios and establishing an ecosystem.
They're after the low hanging fruit that can be got by targeting the cheap and cheerful end of the market (which might not be huge, but seems to be growing) and competing with Ouya and the streaming meda boxes (which don't play games).
They also, most likely want get a foot in the door before Apple announces its new Apple TV.
Yup, but such market has not yet imo proven to exist in console land (and likely never will). See: Ouya.
You also always start to get into the issue of, why not a cheap/used X360 or such? For gaming purposes, there's just no comparison with it and FireTV/Ouya. And the price isn't much higher.
Fire Tv is "streamer with a attempt at slapping some core gamer appeal on the side". I'm dubious the core gamer part can ever amount to anything or will do anything besides wither away.
But I guess as a way to entice people to choose you instead of $99 Roku, it could work as some vague idea or promise.
(((interference)))
Veteran
If Apple launches their much rumoured next gen AppleTV this year, that could all change...
Ah, because with a X360 you still have to pay the $60 a year Gold membership fee to watch Netflix
If Apple launches their much rumoured next gen AppleTV this year, that could all change...
Ah, because with a X360 you still have to pay the $60 a year Gold membership fee to watch Netflix
That's why i said for gaming.
The only way the netflix fee matters is if you dont have another device for netflix access, including a smart TV. Very few would be in that category. Or dont already pay for Live for gaming purposes.
You're targeting a person that:
-Has no way to access netflix.
-Wants high end gaming, and doesn't care that Fire Tv is almost immeasurably inferior to X360 in that aspect, and has no plans to play online (otherwise he'd sub to gold with that 360 anyway)
How many people is that?
also, he could buy a PS3. Though i think the base PS3 may be a little more expensive.
Personally I could access Netflix on my Roku, WDTV, Tablet, phone, PC, and Laptop, besides 360.
Also, I dont use netflix
For Netflix, there are also many cheaper devices, starting with Chromecast. Wal Mart also has some offbrand (RCA that I noticed) media streamers for like 50 bucks, although I think that's about the price of the lowest roku.
Similar threads
