Relative performance of current consoles versus previous generations *spawn

Discussion in 'Console Industry' started by PeanutButterOnPickles, Jan 3, 2016.

  1. PeanutButterOnPickles

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    14
    I just wanted to add to the discussion that was talked about in the previous thread, and I'll keep it brief. The Xbox One can use over a 150 watts in one case (somebody else can volunteer with the measure if you want), Halo 5 Guardians. Now, nobody knows the case of how high (peak) the power draw can get from workloads (if you do, then please share if you want to). If it in fact was the case and the Xbox One can draw even a higher power draw then that is already near the realm of the prior generation launch Xbox 360 and we all know what happen with that disaster.

    Also, we all know that today's consoles can not compete with a watt monster of a cutting edge PC. However, if you don't know, the GPUs in today's console would make for good gaming PC's, meaning that these cards can process most of the software code from shipped retail games in the year 2013/2014/2015 at 1080p with good framerates; if you don't believe me go research it for yourselves and see.
     
  2. Globalisateur

    Globalisateur Globby
    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    2,950
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Location:
    France
    Source plz? even a mobile pic will do... First time I read this number for any XB1 game.
     
  3. PeanutButterOnPickles

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    14
    Here you go.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Hello little guy.
    [​IMG]
     
    Cyan and Pixel like this.
  4. Cyan

    Cyan orange
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    2,292
    P3 is Phil Spencer's gamertag itself!!...hmmmmmmmm
     
  5. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,741
    Likes Received:
    11,222
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    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.
     
    Cyan likes this.
  6. PeanutButterOnPickles

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    14
    Not even, lol.

    Anyway, for those that don't comment but is reading my post, I hope my findings can shed some light for you : ) I'm out.

    -Peanutbutteronpickles
     
  7. function

    function None functional
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,135
    Likes Received:
    2,248
    Location:
    Wrong thread
    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
     
  8. ThePissartist

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    427
    I have no idea what you're trying to say other than Xbox One sometimes draws a little bit more power than usual.
     
    Billy Idol and bunge like this.
  9. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,741
    Likes Received:
    11,222
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    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!"
     
    Billy Idol and bunge like this.
  10. Globalisateur

    Globalisateur Globby
    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    2,950
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Location:
    France
    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.
     
  11. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    10,981
    Likes Received:
    5,799
    Location:
    London, UK
    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.
     
  12. Prophecy2k

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,467
    Likes Received:
    377
    Location:
    The land that time forgot
    I think you mean one in five hundred?
     
    DSoup likes this.
  13. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    10,981
    Likes Received:
    5,799
    Location:
    London, UK
    D'oh! Yes!
     
  14. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,741
    Likes Received:
    11,222
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    DSoup put "100 / 0.2" into his Kill-a-watt calculator and it said 5...
     
    DSoup likes this.
  15. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    10,981
    Likes Received:
    5,799
    Location:
    London, UK
    Yeah but my calculator is made by the people who make this voltmeter!
     
  16. zed

    zed
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,445
    Likes Received:
    632
    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%)
     
  17. Inuhanyou

    Regular

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2012
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    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.
     
  18. Metal_Spirit

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    183
    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...