Relative performance of current consoles versus previous generations *spawn

Source plz? even a mobile pic will do... First time I read this number for any XB1 game.

 

P3 is Phil Spencer's gamertag itself!!...hmmmmmmmm

 

As I said before, that's a 'peak case' result. It's usable, but if we're making comparisons it should be either peak case versus peak case, or mean versus mean. The internet suggests, from organisations who looked into this (to report how evil and energy consuming consoles are) that PS3 was ~200 W, PS4 ~130, XB1 ~110. That XB1 can draw 150 W in your case doesn't mean that's the operating power draw of the machine on average - nor that PS3 abnd XB360 didn't have higher than typical powre draws also.

Indeed. That wasn't the argument.

I agree. However, that's not the terms you were arguing with.

That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on you. If I make an assertion and you don't agree, it's my job to find the facts to prove my point, not yours! In this case you don't need to because it's well understand a PC that can play games as well as a console only needs a low level card. That also proves my point that the consoles are 'weak' because you only need a low level GPU to achieve the same in PC, whereas traditionally you've needed a high end card to match consoles.

There's no need to repeat your position again (especially not in a thread where it's completely off topic) because it's understood. Either take the conversation up on the matter of whether the current consoles are weak versus typical consoles based on the criteria I specified (averegage power draw, relative PC spec required to match, which you can try to challenge as criteria and/or try to disprove if you don't want to just agree with me) or let it go.

 

There can be significant differences from different Watt-a-meters and even from different consoles. That's by far the highest figure I've seen for an Xbox One, even including early ones with Kinect plugged in and using its infra-red camera to spy on people's cocks through their pants (for the NSA) while they played dancing games.

Relative to high or top end PCs this is the 'weakest' generation of consoles from Sony or MS (or Sega, back before they bowed out). It doesn't help that they are now so directly comparable to PC with basically identical CPU and GPU architectures. There's no secret spice for fanboys to use to disguise the weak* sauce.

Which is not to say these are bad consoles, as clearly they aren't. One mitigating factor for the consoles in terms of power relative to the PC is that GPU's are still stuck on 28 nm and have been for roughly 150 mouse-years.

*financially viable

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say other than Xbox One sometimes draws a little bit more power than usual.

 

Translation - "Here's an isolated anecdotal data point I'm not willing to discuss, and a bunch of points I won't even acknowledge. I'm really entering into the spirit of this Discussion Forum!"

 

I don't understand the purpose of your thread but thanks for your (now removed) mobile pics. I am still surprised about those results though (>150W), even if it's a peak number.

 

According to the manufacturer that P3 voltmeter is "0.2%" accurate. If I had a calculator that inaccurate, performing the sum 4+4 would produce a result of 8 only one time in five. Perhaps they mean accurate to 0.2% but I worry for instrumentation manufacturers that don't know the difference.

 

I think you mean one in five hundred?

 

D'oh! Yes!

 

DSoup put "100 / 0.2" into his Kill-a-watt calculator and it said 5...

 

Yeah but my calculator is made by the people who make this voltmeter!

 

the wording on the website does not lead me to have faith in the companies competence at all.
if you read it like its written '0.2% Accuracy' then it sounds like its a worthless device, I can't believe its that bad,
I'm guessing they actually meant '99.8% Accuracy' or 'Accurate to within 0.2%' (i.e. 100% accurate to witnin 0.2%)

 

So what exactly is the OP's point? The consoles are powered by the components most able to suit the needs of Sony and MS from a price, performance and viability perspective. It was clearly the right move, i'm not exactly sure where the OP thought he had to clarify things to everyone came from.

 

Not going to enter console vs PC debate. Instead the games results arguments.
It is my oppinion that the relative performance of consoles versus
last generarion is not the important factor. Look at Ryse of the Tomb Raider. Would you not classify it as a next gen title? And what about Metal Gear Solid V?
Now look how well they run on last gen consoles and how they were improved for the new gen!
The new gen has enough power to expand over last gen games, but this generation compatibility with PC is leading in a diferent direction. As long as PC is mixed with consoles and consoles receive adapted and cutted down versions of games developed with PCs in mind, results will never be considered good.
Programers need to start making games with console performances in mind and limit their criations within the power budget available (the use of GPGPU will bring more performance). And we know we can have great games with that! Trying to keep up with the PC and its constant evolution will be a lost cause and console results will not be good. Just look at all the downgrades we've already seem.