The 360 gpu had about 240 giga flops of power I think. The newest xbox was supposed to have 1, 200 giga flops. That is only a five time increase in gpu power. If tgere has been a downclock and if a significant portion of the gpu is reserved for the OS, I could see how it could only be three times as powerful in gpu terms.
Xbox One (Durango) Technical hardware investigation
- Thread starter Love_In_Rio
- Start date
- Status
The 360 gpu had about 240 giga flops of power I think. The newest xbox was supposed to have 1, 200 giga flops. That is only a five time increase in gpu power. If tgere has been a downclock and if a significant portion of the gpu is reserved for the OS, I could see how it could only be three times as powerful in gpu terms.
Wow, either that is a mistake or indeed the GPU clock speed has been lowered like: 550MHz-600MHz. Lets hope it is a mistake.
SedentaryJourney
Regular
I agree, but it's bizarre to low ball a PR number. Why not just say 10x?
Maybe it's a different point of perspective. 3 times more - as in, we can do 3 times the stuff we were doing on the X360 (3 times the detail, 3 times the physics etc). If you add up these 3 times everything more, it ends up being more than 3 times in absolute terms. Other than that, I really have no idea - but I'm not sure the comment of a dev should be taken as to mean that there was a downclock or something. Not everyone uses the same metric to deduct performance (i.e. flops)...
AstoundingHolmes
Newcomer
If that's the quote, then I think it was indeed just marketing flubbing another point. The idea seems to be that the XBO is an improvement in 3 areas, graphics, physics, and sound. He might have been nervous and somehow turned 3 areas of focus into 3x the power. PR messages melting together and all that. I'm sure he was assaulted by prep teams telling him a bunch of sound bites to utter and he just botched it somehow.
At this point it would be just better for them to give the facts. Admitting there's a power deficit is bad but not as bad as all the comments and then corrections. It just making matters worse. Its in stark contrast to sony who cannot say a thing wrong at the minute and thats because they aren't hiding under a cloud of misinformation.
Last edited by a moderator:
There's no clear metric and such comparisons are vague.
The difference seems to be that MS are providing more and confused information as everyone who works for MS is swamped with info requests, post unpopular DRM and message board outrage.
For those numbers to have ANY use, we'd first have to know how exactly they calculate the comparison (if they calculate / use some creative maths AT ALL).
For what it's worth, they could compare total Flops, GPU Flops, CPU Flops, etc. - or just come up with some fancy calculation including the impact of the dedicated hardware etc.
And even if we knew all of that for sure, XBOX 360 and XBOX One would still remain to be based on completely different architectures - so differences in theoretical numbers don't mirror the difference in true gaming performance at all.
All we know at this point is that Microsoft's PR team apparently wants any reps to tout "8 times the performance of 360" as the official statement. And we can assume that this is the most positive way to describe the performance delta.
If their theoretical peak numbers were anywhere near (or better) than PS4's, they'd have made an official announcement on GPU TFlops (just like SONY) a long time ago.
For what it's worth, they could compare total Flops, GPU Flops, CPU Flops, etc. - or just come up with some fancy calculation including the impact of the dedicated hardware etc.
And even if we knew all of that for sure, XBOX 360 and XBOX One would still remain to be based on completely different architectures - so differences in theoretical numbers don't mirror the difference in true gaming performance at all.
All we know at this point is that Microsoft's PR team apparently wants any reps to tout "8 times the performance of 360" as the official statement. And we can assume that this is the most positive way to describe the performance delta.
If their theoretical peak numbers were anywhere near (or better) than PS4's, they'd have made an official announcement on GPU TFlops (just like SONY) a long time ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
(((interference)))
Veteran
8x is about right considering GCN efficiency vs Xenos.
And for the record the current clocks are as per vgleaks, 1.6 Ghz and 800 MHz.
And for the record the current clocks are as per vgleaks, 1.6 Ghz and 800 MHz.
240GFLOPS x 8 / 5 (Xenos SIMD width) x 4 (GCN width) =>~1.5TFLOPS
I copyright that finely crafted piece of PR mathematics
Anyway "xX" statement are pretty useless GPU can be measured in many way, it gets worse for the whole system. If one looks at the ps3 and the ps4 the system have nothing in common, "xX" statements means nothing, it is just PR.
I copyright that finely crafted piece of PR mathematics
Anyway "xX" statement are pretty useless GPU can be measured in many way, it gets worse for the whole system. If one looks at the ps3 and the ps4 the system have nothing in common, "xX" statements means nothing, it is just PR.
(((interference)))
Veteran
GCN is ~100% efficient whereas Xenos was ~60% (and that's from the XB1 dev docs so it's what MS is basing its calculations from) so:
240 GF x 60% = 144 GF x 8 = 1152 GF = ~1.2 TF
240 GF x 60% = 144 GF x 8 = 1152 GF = ~1.2 TF
8x is a totally fair PR number ... I have no real issue with them, unlike, say, with their cloud comments.
I agree, the cloud comments were awful.
COPS N RAPPERS
Regular
3x, 8x and now 10x....again.
Phil Spencer -
Phil Spencer -
seems like MS's PRs might be far away from knowing the hardware. Maybe AMD is probably in a big pickle with microsoft's chips?
Phil Spencer -
Phil Spencer -
http://gamingbolt.com/phil-spencer-xbox-one-10-times-more-powerful-than-xbox-360-cloud-gives-more
seems like MS's PRs might be far away from knowing the hardware. Maybe AMD is probably in a big pickle with microsoft's chips?
- Status
Similar threads
