Xbox One Gets Last Minute CPU Boost
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Detailed version: the clock speeds indicate the number of ones and zeroes a cpu/gpu can put out in a certain time frame. This means that if your clock speed is higher, you can potentially do more calculations each second. TerraFLOPS: the shader operations done in GPUs are mostly floating point operations, ie: operations involving decimal numbers. 1 terraflop means you can do 10^12 operations (basic mathematical calculations) each seconds.ssgt splatter said:
What it boils down to:
If you bought a decent computer in the last two or so years, you'll probably be fine for the rest of the next console generation.
I only bought a 360 because sony initially fucked up. I never liked microsoft and watching their xbone announcement makes me hate them more. It's like the department is run by a bunch of people that don't know shit about games and gamers.
That's basically what my Ps3 is right now.SkarKrow said:
There's also nothing to say they did, and given it's Microsoft, this seems more likely.spwatkins said:
My PC is my multimedia monolith : DZachary Amaranth said:
Why the hell would they test a tiny boost in the clock speed for a year? A days stress to ensure it doesn't burnout or crash would suffice just fine for a stable overclock.
Yopaz said:
reminds me of when people say "go to the atm machine"
....machine is already in the acronym!
OT: While this is nice, it doesn't really add much/enough to drag anyone over or make people consider getting the xbox one over what they already have. still, hopefully this helps them down the line somewhere.
Sorry it took me so long to reply, but the unintentional irony of your reply is enough to kill a horse.CriticKitten said:
In your attempt to prove how the Xbox One criticism was justified, you spat out two "arguments" that are blatantly untrue.
You know why it doesn't require Kinect and Internet connection anymore? It's because they bloody changed their hardware. Not because they lied about it to begin with. Do you honestly believe that Microsoft meant to say that they couldn't possible make a console which doesn't require Kinect even if they wanted to?
They said that the Xbox One would have a mandatory 24-hour verification system - which was true. That's how their original console was built to work. Then they changed the architecture and their DRM system which they did as a result of consumer complaints. I don't know what strange kind definition of lying you have, but that isn't in any way, shape or form lying. That's not even misleading. If anything, it's shockingly and unprofessionally candid.
Also, you're point about the Kinect is also incredible untrue. Microsoft wanted to sell the Xbox One as an integrated package, and thus they marketed it mandatory part of the console. Obviously so that developers would always be able to rely on the Kinect being connected. So they added APIs that would verify that the Kinect is connected and interrupt the boot process if it isn't. People didn't like it; fair enough - Microsoft changed it.
But they never said that it would be impossible to make hardware that doesn't require the Kinect sensor, they said that they didn't want to - with good reason.
So no, Microsoft didn't directly lie. In fact, they didn't like at all and that you seem to think they do is exactly the kind of thing that would have me believe that the criticism was unjustified.
1.75GHz = 1.75 billion processor cycles per second, with up to 8 instructions per integer core for this instruction set and CPU architecture. The change from 1.6GHz is hardly going to be noticeable for the user, but it could bump up the thermal readings of the XBOne if they had to adjust the voltage a few steps up to do it.ssgt splatter said:
853MHz = 853 million processor cycles per second. Gives the GPU a slight edge at Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering (both of which are techniques made to enhance low-resolution models and textures). Again bumping up the thermal readings of the console for what basically amounts to nothing.
1.33 TFLOPS = 1.33 trillion floating-point operations per second, meant to denote how much FPU (floating-point unit) or Graphics operations performance a processing unit has. NOT 1.33 TFLOPS/s, because that would denote 1.33 teraFLOPS per square second, which doesn't even make the slightest amount of sense.
1.33 TFLOPS is not really all that much... but we've yet to know if we're talking single or double precision (completely different numbers).
As for AMD being nearly bankrupt, nearly is putting it right. They seem to be slowly recovering now.
Both were a Software requirement to begin with. Probably something along the lines of "if [ping microsoft.com] >= 2000 then encrypted_features off elseif Kinect_plugged_in=0 then encrypted_features off else encrypted_features on" (XBox games come encrypted on the disc by default, and the system has got some crazy encryption running too).TomWiley said:
Good thing you included that sign, what with your sarcasm being so subtle and all.Kalezian said:TomWiley said:
Even with the slight increase of performance, PS4 still has the better specs.
Also, like others that had said in this thread, increasing performance without enough time to accurately test it, yes absolutely nothing will go wrong. ever. What do you mean the 360 had heating problems because, yet again, they rushed their console in hopes of beating Sony?
Why dont you want to go to the future with specs that was widely available in the far off year of 2005?
It's supposed to set on fire due to us not testing it with it's new specs, WHY DO YOU HATE THE CLOUD?!
and, of course since this is the internet and people cant tell through text alone:
Also, this is how it works. Microsoft amping their performance is a good thing, and you have the right to nod and confirm it is. You also have the right to also decide it isn't enough to win you over.
But you don't have the right to assume it isn't valid positive based on your third-party interpretation of the difficulties their earlier, 7-year old console (which had a fan about 50 percent the size of the new one) had.
Don't get me wrong, you will have that right once the Xbox One is released and we can confirm it does have the heating issues of the original, and once it's linked to the clock-speed.
But until then, you're just irrelevant speculation, really. Why? Because you have no idea what the heat output of the components are. Heck, you don't even know what the components yet, yet alone how the fans work. And you don't seem like you've read a whole lot about how the new Xbox actually handles heat either.
Multitasking with multiple cores is supposed to -compliment- a good CPU, not be its only feature. What's with the gimped Ghz ratings?
Maybe I don't understand the performance-per-core/per-clock as well as I should, but 1.0/2.0 Ghz just doesn't seem like a step forward.
Maybe I don't understand the performance-per-core/per-clock as well as I should, but 1.0/2.0 Ghz just doesn't seem like a step forward.
I like that Microsoft is trying to make up for the past, but I feel as a consumer I should say slow down. They're making all these hardware and software changes as well as releasing their console before Sony (like that wasn't planned) that I'm worried there may be some tragic issues upon release. I'd rather wait a bit longer and receive a well finished system, then have the next gen red ring equivalent.
You only need low latency memory for very specific applications like database operations, etc. And the speed of the processor is irrelevant if it doesn't limit the performance of the GPU. If you have a strong enough CPU to let your GPU be fully utilized, you're good for games. I mean run a game and run task manager besides it, look up how much CPU it uses, run a GPU monitoring utility and look up how much of the GPU is utilized. So who cares about 150 mhz / core? Unless fantasy football is CPU only of course, then I completely salute you Microsoft. /sarcasm offmasticina said:
Speaking as someone who's running eight 3.50's, I'm woefully unimpressed. After all the consumer contempt that Microsoft has perpetrated this time around, and considering I'm on my 5th Xbox 360 (and am paranoid to take my Halo 3 Edition out of the box for fear of a RROD virus being patched to it from a newer game or the wifi) I've pretty much given up on their products.
For case and point: I play my Original Xbox more often than my 360 for my last-gen games.
Funny, does anyone else remember that Sony was the bad guy 8 years ago when pitching the PS3? It even had all the problems the WiiU is experiencing now with early release issues. Now even though it still doesn't have as many games as the 360, it wound up being played way more in my household than the 360. Partly because the fact that at any given time my 360's were experiencing 3 RROD, tray-sticking issues, 2 RROD overheating issues, patch problems, or UI updates that made the system a complete stranger to us. Eventually the only reason I kept up with the 360 was so I could troubleshoot it at work when another inevitable problem arose with selling them.
RicoADF is right, I just don't trust them anymore.
For case and point: I play my Original Xbox more often than my 360 for my last-gen games.
Funny, does anyone else remember that Sony was the bad guy 8 years ago when pitching the PS3? It even had all the problems the WiiU is experiencing now with early release issues. Now even though it still doesn't have as many games as the 360, it wound up being played way more in my household than the 360. Partly because the fact that at any given time my 360's were experiencing 3 RROD, tray-sticking issues, 2 RROD overheating issues, patch problems, or UI updates that made the system a complete stranger to us. Eventually the only reason I kept up with the 360 was so I could troubleshoot it at work when another inevitable problem arose with selling them.
RicoADF is right, I just don't trust them anymore.
Ironically, despite now having an HDMI hookup from my PC to my TV, I still use my PS3 for much of it.SkarKrow said:
Less for games, though. Weird.
To be fair, why would Microsoft release an incomplete console after spending like a billion man-hours redesigning the controller?
But yeah, they probably didn't put anywhere near that much thought into it.
I am getting a distinct impression that you are being condescending merely for the fact I have a dissenting position. Additionally, whether or not intended, your wording applies all of the above scenarios to me having explicitly quoted my statement of antipathetic-indifference without making any attempt to separate the proceeding banter from me. Furthermore I was not nearly explicit enough in my reasoning for you to have enough information to even remote gauge my positions.TomWiley said:
I had no intention or interest in getting Microsoft's next console but at the same time reflect my distaste over their initial presentation of the console and its restrictive DRM practices that could set a precedent for this and future generations if the console succeeds. All the other issues, except the indie policy, can go to hell as I never really cared about them. Going forward I have no reason to believe that they will not completely reverse their position all over again, the tech is there, they spent money developing it, there is very little chance that they are just going to throw it away.