Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
General Gaming Chat
XBOX ONE and STEAM BOX
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dullonien" data-source="post: 570938" data-attributes="member: 13739"><p>Moore's law is misinterpreted, or miss-quoted by a lot of people. The 'law' (just an observation really) doesn't really say anything about performance, instead it states that the amount of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles roughly every two years. Another Intel member stated that combining this with increased efficiency 'should' mean a doubling of performance every 18 months, but this certainly isn't always the case. Intel themselves are incredibly strict at enforcing this 'law', probably because Moore was one of Intel's co-founders, but other companies aren't so fixated with it.</p><p></p><p>To fit in line with the doubling every 18 months law, by my calculations the new consoles should be 32 times as powerful as the old ones (1x2(18months)x2(3yrs)x2(4.5yrs)x2(6yrs)x2(7.5yrs). So if they are only 6 times as powerful, they are far behind the performance curve. Then again, are today's desktop computers 32 times as powerful as machines 7 1/2 yrs ago?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This wasn't necessarily the case. The IBM processor in the PS3 was made specifically for it, but the graphics hardware in both the Xbox 360 and PS3 were developed by ATI and nVidia respectively, with the 360's based on the Radeon X1800 series of desktop GPU's, and the PS3's based on a cut down Geforce 7800.</p><p></p><p>The thing is, AMD have developed what they believe is the best way to render games in their desktop GPU's, so why start from scratch to develop a console GPU? Basing the console on a PC is sensible, because there is already the development tools available for coders, they already know the language required etc. Look at the problems Sony experienced the the PS3's proprietary hardware. It arguably had more potential performance than the Xbox 360, but it was/is apparently a pain in the arse foe developers, especially at the beginning when develops had to learn how to code for it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Missed this paragraph in your initial post. The Xbox 360 and PS3 weren't ahead of pc's at launch. The PS3 took a different take on it's Cell processor, but this wasn't necessarily better than the more straight forward processors found in PC's, backed up by the fact that the PS4 is powered by a more conventional AMD processor.</p><p></p><p>In terms of graphics though, the Xbox 360 and PS3 were kinda in-line with mid-high end GPU's of the time. They were based on graphics hardware also available in PC's of the time (the X1800 series and 7800 (at 7600 clocks). There were more powerful GPU's available for the PC at the time of launch of both consoles, and PC's quickly became much more powerful.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Edit. Whilst some of the system resources will be required for background tasks etc, MS understands how to manage resources quickly and efficiently, it knows how to manage multitasking. Just look at Windows, XP's handling of resources was a bit rubbish tbh, but Vista, 7 and 8 are much improved in that regard. MS will take what it has learn't from Windows and apply it to the Xbox One, as such I'd be surprised if the majority of the 8Gb of RAM weren't available to the GPU when playing a game. Compare this to the 256MB available to the GPU in the PS3 and 512MB shared in the 360, and this is a big, big improvement. This will enable developers to use much more detailed, and much more expansive textures in their games, which should see a big improvement to graphics quality. </p><p></p><p>The 8 core processor may be used for things like Physics calculations as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dullonien, post: 570938, member: 13739"] Moore's law is misinterpreted, or miss-quoted by a lot of people. The 'law' (just an observation really) doesn't really say anything about performance, instead it states that the amount of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles roughly every two years. Another Intel member stated that combining this with increased efficiency 'should' mean a doubling of performance every 18 months, but this certainly isn't always the case. Intel themselves are incredibly strict at enforcing this 'law', probably because Moore was one of Intel's co-founders, but other companies aren't so fixated with it. To fit in line with the doubling every 18 months law, by my calculations the new consoles should be 32 times as powerful as the old ones (1x2(18months)x2(3yrs)x2(4.5yrs)x2(6yrs)x2(7.5yrs). So if they are only 6 times as powerful, they are far behind the performance curve. Then again, are today's desktop computers 32 times as powerful as machines 7 1/2 yrs ago? This wasn't necessarily the case. The IBM processor in the PS3 was made specifically for it, but the graphics hardware in both the Xbox 360 and PS3 were developed by ATI and nVidia respectively, with the 360's based on the Radeon X1800 series of desktop GPU's, and the PS3's based on a cut down Geforce 7800. The thing is, AMD have developed what they believe is the best way to render games in their desktop GPU's, so why start from scratch to develop a console GPU? Basing the console on a PC is sensible, because there is already the development tools available for coders, they already know the language required etc. Look at the problems Sony experienced the the PS3's proprietary hardware. It arguably had more potential performance than the Xbox 360, but it was/is apparently a pain in the arse foe developers, especially at the beginning when develops had to learn how to code for it. Missed this paragraph in your initial post. The Xbox 360 and PS3 weren't ahead of pc's at launch. The PS3 took a different take on it's Cell processor, but this wasn't necessarily better than the more straight forward processors found in PC's, backed up by the fact that the PS4 is powered by a more conventional AMD processor. In terms of graphics though, the Xbox 360 and PS3 were kinda in-line with mid-high end GPU's of the time. They were based on graphics hardware also available in PC's of the time (the X1800 series and 7800 (at 7600 clocks). There were more powerful GPU's available for the PC at the time of launch of both consoles, and PC's quickly became much more powerful. Edit. Whilst some of the system resources will be required for background tasks etc, MS understands how to manage resources quickly and efficiently, it knows how to manage multitasking. Just look at Windows, XP's handling of resources was a bit rubbish tbh, but Vista, 7 and 8 are much improved in that regard. MS will take what it has learn't from Windows and apply it to the Xbox One, as such I'd be surprised if the majority of the 8Gb of RAM weren't available to the GPU when playing a game. Compare this to the 256MB available to the GPU in the PS3 and 512MB shared in the 360, and this is a big, big improvement. This will enable developers to use much more detailed, and much more expansive textures in their games, which should see a big improvement to graphics quality. The 8 core processor may be used for things like Physics calculations as well. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
General Gaming Chat
XBOX ONE and STEAM BOX
Top