View Single Post
Old 05-24-2013, 07:55 PM   #148
Willynowei
Some dude
 
Willynowei's Avatar
 
Football is a wonderful thing.

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 3,017

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ryan Clady
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by extralife View Post
both systems use an 8-core 64-bit AMD Jaguar CPU with an AMD GPU of the same architecture on the die. they are so close to each other that if these were theoretically PC products launched by AMD or Nvida or Intel or whatever, they would both be released under the same brand. this information is widely available.
You're dancing around the points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by extralife View Post
neither company anticipates selling this system at a loss

and yes, of course either company could beat the other. they didn't, because they are colluding through AMD. they have the same CPU, the same GPU, and the same amount of RAM. Sony is clocking the CPU higher and using DDR5 instead of DDR3 for the RAM. they are also likely charging more.

this is the first time in 30 years of console gaming that competing systems have had architectures anywhere near alike. they are reskinned PCs with a slightly different philosophy in harware configuration. there is zero proprietary hardware in these boxes.
1.) You talked about collusion, my point was that both companies worked closely with separate AMD teams that operated in silo like atmospheres. They had somewhat similar resources and goals so the divergence in result was not great. Therefore, i'm providing the alternative reasoning to why the chips came out similar in design; an alternative that's much more likely than collusion.

1b.) There is plenty of propriety hardware in these boxes, even if you don't include their vastly different peripheral sets of kinect and eyetoy, and how insanely advanced they are, you're still looking at internals that are largely unconfirmed outside of Soc and ram. Even if we focus on only those two parts, the AMD chip designs are customized by both Sony and Microsoft extensively over a half decade of preparation. On the contrary these boxes are full of proprietary tech.


Quote:
Originally Posted by extralife View Post
they are not "somewhat similar." they are the exact same.

2.) You said they are "the exact same" - that is wrong. Similar is not the same. The inclusion of the on die ram on the Xbox erases your argument that they are the exact same. The layouts and architecture maybe similar but they are not the same, you don't need 200 top engineers on payroll working for 7 years on silicon for something that's the "exact same."

Quote:
Originally Posted by extralife View Post
no, I mean they are the exact same. the systems use the same processor, the same GPU, and the same x86 PC architecture. you cannot dispute this, because it is true. and not only is it true, but the capabilities of these systems will be outstripped by modest gaming PCs from the day they land on shelves. that has not historically been true.
3.) According to your logic of similar architecture = the "exact same," the GPU inside the PS3 (RSX) was just a modified G7series that was available at the exact same time on shelves, but with more horsepower.
The X360's Xenon was available within months in the form of x18series cards that packed a heftier punch and all the effects.
Heck, the original Xbox had an intel processor and Nvidia off the shelf graphics.

You can't compare products without paying attention to price and heat consumption.

The images below were from Crysis: released for PC 6 years ago, shortly after the PS3's launch date.



You could play that game half a decade ago on a HDTV or HD projector and get the game in full surround sound, provided you had the right components in your PC.

The idea that videogame consoles could beat PCs with innovative hardware designs is a myth perpetuated during the 3D era race between Sega, Sony, and Nintendo. PC's have always been home to the most horsepower.

Last edited by Willynowei; 05-24-2013 at 08:44 PM..
Willynowei is offline   Reply With Quote