Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

ATI Stream processors?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 11, 2008 1:19:11 PM

I've heard that the R600 had 320 Stream Processors but they were part of 64 shader processors. I heard only 64 threads were avaliable unless special optimization was used so this brings this question to my mind... Dosen't the 2900XT HD3870 (and HD4870 with its 800) have a lot of wasted silicon?

Somebody please clear this up.

More about : ati stream processors

July 11, 2008 1:27:07 PM

The R600 technically does have 320 stream processors

They are grouped into arrays of five (4 simple shaders and one complex shader), that's where the 64 shader processors come from.

Same thing with the HD4800 series.
July 11, 2008 1:29:09 PM

Actually the efficiency of the 48xx series per mm² of silicone is quite high. If i recall it correctly it was a lot higher than that of the latest nvidia GTX series.

The only thing that might be wasted on the 2900/38xx/48xx series is the tesselation unit since no-one uses it.

The 800 stream processors you are refering to are grouped. Nvidia does the same thing but theirs are more complex and less parallel.
The "special optimization" you refer to is needed for all graphic cards be it nvidia or amd. The difference is, that amds card depend a little more on solid drivers than their competition.

To get to the bottom of it, amd groups their stream processors in packs of 5. 1 that can handle more complex operations and 4 that can do simple operations. So if an application requires only complex operations, the shading power of the amd cards is reduced. That's a purely theoretical scenario though.
And before you ask, the same is true about nvidia. While their shaders are all the same, they have a SF unit that deals with special instructions. And there are far less of those than stream processors too.
Related resources
July 11, 2008 1:29:45 PM

Id like to be the first to say...who cares....the 2900 series and 3870 series werent very good....the 4XXX series are very good...as for "wasted silicon" and that i think you would have to speak to an ati technician...its beyond us mere mortals.
July 11, 2008 2:01:06 PM

So basically the games are using all the steam processors (with the exception of the complex one only if it needs it)?

What about the Xbox 360 GPU with it's 48 shaders? Are those somehow different from the R600 ones?
July 11, 2008 2:30:07 PM

lameness said:
Id like to be the first to say...who cares....the 2900 series and 3870 series werent very good....the 4XXX series are very good...as for "wasted silicon" and that i think you would have to speak to an ati technician...its beyond us mere mortals.


Um what? The 2900 series is not as bad as everyone thinks. I have one and it performs better than you would think. The 3800 series was much better since it had the 55nm core so it runs cooler and also had more optimizations.

protokiller said:
So basically the games are using all the steam processors (with the exception of the complex one only if it needs it)?

What about the Xbox 360 GPU with it's 48 shaders? Are those somehow different from the R600 ones?


Way different. The only thing that is truly the same in the Xenos and the R600 is the ring bus memory controller. Other than that they are different. In shaders the Xenos chip is closer to the X1900 series of GPUs.

Its still a decent card though.
July 11, 2008 3:09:06 PM

If I were ATI I would have kept the Xbox 360 design because it seems to be a solid performer while still having a unified shader design.
July 11, 2008 3:25:34 PM

protokiller said:
If I were ATI I would have kept the Xbox 360 design because it seems to be a solid performer while still having a unified shader design.



Wow, we are sure glad you aren't "ATI". The Xbox 360 video hardware is laughable compared to current cards: Xbox 360 uses TWO graphics chips, 90mm and at 500MHZ, with a unified memory architecture on a 128-bit bus. All to achieve 4xFSAA, z-buffering and alpha blending, which is common and surpassed on by the cheapest cards today.

Come August, the X360 will get a new GPU and mobo, further refining the refinements of the original which were so unstable they they cost Microsoft a billionty dollars in warranty charges.

It's ok to have an opinion, but it's not ok to think your opinions carry the same weight as someone who actually understands what they are talking about.


July 11, 2008 3:28:42 PM

bf2gameplaya said:
Wow, we are sure glad you aren't "ATI". The Xbox 360 video hardware is laughable compared to current cards: Xbox 360 uses TWO graphics chips, 90mm and at 500MHZ, with a unified memory architecture on a 128-bit bus. All to achieve 4xFSAA, z-buffering and alpha blending, which is common and surpassed on by the cheapest cards today.

Come August, the X360 will get a new GPU and mobo, further refining the refinements of the original which were so unstable they they cost Microsoft a billionty dollars in warranty charges.

It's ok to have an opinion, but it's not ok to think your opinions carry the same weight as someone who actually understands what they are talking about.


I heard that they were doing a GPU and CPU die shrink (to 55nm) so it would help the heat problems that cause most of the problems with the 360.

Although a refresh to the hardware and an updated GPU/CPU would be nice. Maybe they could add a few more shaders and raise the clock speed as well.
July 11, 2008 3:30:36 PM

The 360 GPU only has 48 shaders. Imagine how much ATI can throw on now that they have moved the manufacturing process down?

The 360 gpu can do FSAA without the 10mb daughter die, it simply allowed it for virtually no performance hit something I don't see current ATI cards doing.

However from what I understand they can't implement a daughter die on a pc card due to direct X standards.
July 11, 2008 3:48:35 PM

I see where you are going with this protokiller. And when you come up with your badass xenos gen II we can hang out and play raytraced crysis for the lulz!
July 11, 2008 3:51:45 PM

I'm Just trying to say that it's not as bad a card as BF2gameplaya would make it out to be. He is comparing it to current cards and I think it's only fair we think about what ATI could do with the design ***NOW*** not how it is currently.

When the card first came out in late 2005 it was better than the X1900 which was ATI's high end.

So if you want to compare it to today's cards then think about what they could do to it on 55nm vs 90nm.
July 11, 2008 4:04:43 PM

First of all, it wasnt better than the R580, and it isnt all that good today. Give ya a for instance, try running Crysis on it, and then try running Crysis on a 1900, you cant, why? Because the xbox is incapable as all consoles are, theyd be so weak, they dont even bother. The future is programable shaders, the xbox is history, outdated, and inferior
July 11, 2008 4:19:09 PM

We the PC supremasists shall clean the earth of the vile console scum!
July 11, 2008 4:51:48 PM

lol gaiz don't act like I don't have a pc myself. I like owing both to get the better things out of both.

The 7800GTX is near the speed of the X1950, the ps3 gpu is supposted to be faster than the 7800GTX and the Xenos is faster than the ps3 gpu.

Don't sit here and tell me the Xenos is not as good as a Geforce 6800 which CAN run crysis. Consoles are held back by their stupid cpu designs and low amounts of memory required to run crysis. I'm not saying it could run it on medium, probably all low but it would run provided it had more memory thus not a gpu bottleneck.
July 11, 2008 4:53:03 PM

jonyb222 said:
We the PC supremasists shall clean the earth of the vile console scum!

As a real PC supremacist i feel insulted by PC supremasochists posing as true believers. :kaola: 
July 11, 2008 4:56:50 PM

protokiller you are not making much sense.
For the longest time only the highest and mightiest of GPUs can tame the wild beast that is crysis. And you are trying to tell us that a Geforce 6800 would not be a bottle neck?
What kind of fairytale land do you live in?

Also, a console playing at anything other than max settings does not count. Consoles are supposed to have only one quality setting.
July 11, 2008 5:02:41 PM

protokiller said:
lol gaiz don't act like I don't have a pc myself. I like owing both to get the better things out of both.

The 7800GTX is near the speed of the X1950, the ps3 gpu is supposted to be faster than the 7800GTX and the Xenos is faster than the ps3 gpu.

Don't sit here and tell me the Xenos is not as good as a Geforce 6800 which CAN run crysis. Consoles are held back by their stupid cpu designs and low amounts of memory required to run crysis. I'm not saying it could run it on medium, probably all low but it would run provided it had more memory thus not a gpu bottleneck.

The 7800GTX 256 sucked, period. The 7800GTX512 (which no one could buy) was slower than the 7900GTX which is slower than the 1900XTX. If you want to spread FUD, go to the Games forum not here. This isnt for consoles. And no, theyll NEVER make Crysis for the 360 because itd have to be soooo dumbed down, no one would buy it.
July 11, 2008 5:04:33 PM

I was saying the console memory bottleneck and poor cpu performance (the 360 is said to have the power of a 1.5ghz Pentium 4 per core by the quake developers) would be a bigger issue than the gpu which at least has the power to run the game but NOT on high.

In your first post you said "run crysis" not "max crysis" a thing not even $600 cards can do.
July 11, 2008 5:11:15 PM

Slobogob said:
As a real PC supremacist i feel insulted by PC supremasochists posing as true believers. :kaola: 


:ouch:  I would never hurt my dear computer! If anything it hurt me more than I do it. :na:  (case fell on my foot and got shocked while building it)
July 11, 2008 5:12:59 PM

If it can't run it on high it CAN'T run it. Crysis' main selling point is graphics, no one wants to play a **** looking slideshow. Follow jaydeejohn's advice and go preach to the console freaks.
July 11, 2008 5:15:43 PM

jonyb222 said:
:ouch:  I would never hurt my dear computer! If anything it hurt me more than I do it. :na:  (case fell on my foot and got shocked while building it)

I think you accidentally proved his point. Sort of.
Masochist= Someone who takes pleasure in pain, which I think you confused with
Sadist= Someone who takes pleasure in causing pain. :p 
July 11, 2008 6:18:45 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
And no, theyll NEVER make Crysis for the 360 because itd have to be soooo dumbed down, no one would buy it.


People keep saying that. And I haven't said anything yet, but I'm pretty sure I heard that they are making it for the 360.

So, a little research (search google for "crysis xbox 360") shows some sources that say it is coming out for the Xbox, such as this one.

But then again, there are others that say that it won't come out for the xbox 360. Personally, I hope it does come out for the 360, just to show the people that think consoles are so amazing that they can't really compare with pcs.
July 11, 2008 6:28:50 PM

And if this is so, do you think theyll get the same IQ? Have you seen supcom on a console?
July 11, 2008 6:38:42 PM

evilshuriken said:
I think you accidentally proved his point. Sort of.
Masochist= Someone who takes pleasure in pain, which I think you confused with
Sadist= Someone who takes pleasure in causing pain. :p 


yup I did confuse them, partly due to my coworker telling me other wise
July 11, 2008 6:41:57 PM

protokiller said:
the 360 is said to have the power of a 1.5ghz Pentium 4 per core


I thought I that was the speed when all three cores were utilized

Anyway, yes the Xbox 360 probably could run Crysis on the lowest settings (might have to modify some settings to ultra-low) at 640x480, but no one would want to play it that way. The chance of Crysis being ported to a console is pretty much nonexistant.



July 11, 2008 6:55:58 PM

protokiller said:
lol gaiz don't act like I don't have a pc myself. I like owing both to get the better things out of both.


Yes, but you seem ignorant to both, yet complain about the architecture of one as if only one has shortcomings and limitations.

Quote:
The 7800GTX is near the speed of the X1950


In the same way that the HD2900 is near the speed of the GF8800GTX. Also depends on whether that's the last minute name changed GF7800Ultra you're refering to or the original GTX-256. But neither has the legs of the X1950

Quote:
the ps3 gpu is supposted to be faster than the 7800GTX


Based on what? Some parts are higher clocked, but it has half the ROPs and half the memroy bandwidth of the GF7900.

Quote:
and the Xenos is faster than the ps3 gpu.
Quote:


At many tasks, but not all, just like the X1900vGF7900. But all of that leads to your assumption that the X360 is what to the X1900 since you have the X360>RSX and X1950>GF7800 and RSX > GF7800, but that still gives you only that X360>GF7800 and X1950>GF7800, nothing more.

Quote:
the 360 is said to have the power of a 1.5ghz Pentium 4 per core by the quake developers


And it's said to contain the soul a 3rd world child to power it, just there by me, but that doesn't make it so. The 3 core HT PowerPC design is not easily relatable to traditional PC architecture.

Considering your premise and your choice of forums I agree, poor attempt and not really seeking information so much as expounding on some criticism you heard from someone else and want to voice.

Interesting you have no issue with the waste of silicon for an NVIO or the missing MUL, but then again you have a specific target for your axe/grinder I guess. Both have there benefits, issues and inefficciencies, I would suggest reading the Beyond3D reviews on the architecture and the shader design portion of TechReport review of the HD2900 to see those benefits and limitations in an easy to interpret fashion, well suited for someone thinking that the X360 is with its flaws.

Seems like this thread has one purpose and that's been served and rejected.
July 11, 2008 11:01:47 PM

I started this thread to find out why Nvidia cards were pwning ATI cards with far less stream processors (or at least what they seem to advertise spec wise in retail) then I made a simple inquiry about the 360 gpu and somebody said it sucked and here we are.

And no turboflame the 360 cpu has three cores each at 3.2GHz with two threads per core (like hyperthreading since it has a long P4-like pipeline). It's very fun having people call me a troll and pc fanboys start saying consoles are trash because I hear the same thing only opposite in the console forums.

How is it hard to compare the 360 cpu to desktop cpus? Surely the developers would know how much power they are getting with relation to desktop cpus. I sorta spent some time thinking about it and if the 360 CPU has 1.5ghz Pentium 4 power per core then total therotical power should be 4.5Ghz (pentium 4 sytle) that would mean even a Pentium D @ a lowely 3GHz should have gave more performance and be easier to program for only having two cores.

I'm not trying to be a console fanboy here just trying to say that consoles are capable of a bit more than some of you might think. After all since they only have to develop for one system they can optimize the hell out of it when they make games.
July 11, 2008 11:08:05 PM

You fail to realize that console gamers know nothing about their hardware and just like to argue because they where born stupid and can't help it.
So no, you can't compare us with the console fanboys. Honestly, I feel insulted that you should consider them equal to us.
July 11, 2008 11:13:45 PM

jonyb222 said:
We the PC supremasists shall clean the earth of the vile console scum!


hmm and you wonder why I compare you to console fanboys? That sounds like something somebody in the halo 3 forums would say about PCs.

I would say I know far more about the 360 hardware than most. Sure, you can say I don't know exactly where it fits compared to desktop gpus but at least I can tell you the hardware specs.

Most just think their consoles are gaming beasts that only a $2000 PC can match but I find myself telling those people off frequently, both my close friends I play Gears of War with for example I've got them to buy a simple graphics card and "omg all the sudden it don't suck"
July 11, 2008 11:53:59 PM

protokiller said:

And no turboflame the 360 cpu has three cores each at 3.2GHz with two threads per core (like hyperthreading since it has a long P4-like pipeline).


When did I say it didn't?

protokiller said:
How is it hard to compare the 360 cpu to desktop cpus?


Very

RISC vs CISC
July 12, 2008 1:49:05 AM

turboflame said:
I thought I that was the speed when all three cores were utilized

Anyway, yes the Xbox 360 probably could run Crysis on the lowest settings (might have to modify some settings to ultra-low) at 640x480, but no one would want to play it that way. The chance of Crysis being ported to a console is pretty much nonexistant.


Err I don't know exactly what you meant by the part in bold.
July 12, 2008 3:51:55 AM

In all reality, the 360 should be able to run Crysis at relative medium/low settings (which really isn't bad for the 360, because low-res [textures] is the norm.) You have to remember - the 360 would only output 720p, or even "640p" like they did in Halo 3. Furthermore, consoles use lower res textures, so you wouldn't really need to worry about the RAM being eaten up.

I know my x1950xt could run Crysis at 1440x900 on medium, so I expect the 360 would be able to run it at 1280x720 or wtfever res 640p is and low res textures alright. It wouldn't have amazing graphics, but it'd look alright for a console game.
July 12, 2008 3:54:56 AM

Exactly, it would look "alright". That my friend, is not the selling point of that game. Without the "omg uber" graphics it's not really that great anymore.
July 12, 2008 4:06:15 AM

I don't disagree. It's just annoying that people think Crysis would look like http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/Screenshots/Screensh... that on the 360

when it would really look like: http://ve3dmedia.ign.com/images/01/73/17340_Crysis-03.j..., except lower res.

I have a 360 and it's fine for what it is, although I prefer "real" gaming on the computer. The 360 is just nice when you wanna pick up and play with some friends or don't feel like installing and troubleshooting a game on a computer (almost always have to). Crashes are generally far less frequent on the 360, but that might be because you can't tab out of it. Regardless, both have their pros and cons. I personally prefer the PC if I really want to get into a game.

k enough about consoles, and I really don't know anything about ATI's SPs.
July 12, 2008 8:28:39 AM

Like I said, programable shaders are the future, the more they are flexable the better they are, be it 10 100 or 1000
July 12, 2008 9:03:12 AM

protokiller said:
Err I don't know exactly what you meant by the part in bold.


Oh, you said that each core in the Xbox 360's CPU was the equivalent to a 1.5ghz P4 while I had thought I read that the overall performance of the entire CPU was the equivalent to a 1.5Ghz P4 (which I think would be more realistic). But I forgot where I got that from so I'm not going to argue about it.
July 12, 2008 11:18:38 PM

turboflame said:
Oh, you said that each core in the Xbox 360's CPU was the equivalent to a 1.5ghz P4 while I had thought I read that the overall performance of the entire CPU was the equivalent to a 1.5Ghz P4 (which I think would be more realistic). But I forgot where I got that from so I'm not going to argue about it.


ah ok, still be my theory correct or yours it's still amazing developers can make games for that machine that look and play as well as they do with such limited power.
July 13, 2008 12:01:27 AM

protokiller said:
ah ok, still be my theory correct or yours it's still amazing developers can make games for that machine that look and play as well as they do with such limited power.

Yep. It helps that everyone has exactly the same hardware though, so it can be optimized for exactly that architecture.
July 14, 2008 4:08:14 AM

protokiller said:
I started this thread to find out why Nvidia cards were pwning ATI cards with far less stream processors (or at least what they seem to advertise spec wise in retail)


Excep it doesn't PWN, nVidia G80 hardware is actually pretty weak at GPGPU work, so the premise is broken. Gaming though is another story and more about the back end than stream processors. Like I said, go read up on it.

Quote:
I'm not trying to be a console fanboy here just trying to say that consoles are capable of a bit more than some of you might think. After all since they only have to develop for one system they can optimize the hell out of it when they make games.


That has nothing to do with what they are capable of, in fact it's because of the optimization and single focus that you can barely squeeze out playability from what is now a very low capability system.
December 3, 2009 2:39:50 PM

protokiller said:
I was saying the console memory bottleneck and poor cpu performance (the 360 is said to have the power of a 1.5ghz Pentium 4 per core by the quake developers) would be a bigger issue than the gpu which at least has the power to run the game but NOT on high.

In your first post you said "run crysis" not "max crysis" a thing not even $600 cards can do.




.....umm, I have NO clue where you clowns get your specifications and complete INACCURACIES about both PC's and the Xbox 360...due to fanboyism... but for starters.... the Xbox 360's architecture is far more complex and advance than people recognize...take TIME to recognize and believe. First of all, I have NO CLUE where you got that the 360 has a CPU (let alone ONE CPU) that runs similar to a Pentium 4 at 1.5ghz...... wth. It has a CUSTOM state-of-the-art first generation TRIPPLE-core cpu running at 3.0ghz provided by IBM. EVERY component down to it's software and operating system is CUSTOM, and designed for gaming ONLY...everything is dedicated.....UNLIKE a PC and it's PC games which require billions of different drivers for billions of different games among billions of combinations of different hardware involving different memory brands AND speeds and compatibility as well as graphics cards, CPU's, motherboards, PSU's and OS and rig-specific optimizations... You clowns have NO idea the amount of programming and extra optimization that must be put into (or lack thereof overall) for PC versions of games due to what I just said which leads to less potential performances.....versus a console DEDICATED for games designed AROUND it's hardware making it easy for programmers to OPTIMIZE to pull out equivalent or better performance with quality than PC counterparts with sheer better hardware by SPECs. I bet most didn't even know the 360's GPU is what started the HD lineup of the ATI's DX10 GPU's and was the FIRST GPU capable of DX10 effects...hence the unified shader architecture that only DX10 utilizes for performance of stream processors. How do you think 360 runs ALL games at 720p atleast...with 60fps at all high quality with only 512mb of SHARED RAM versus games on PC's that NEED high-end dual-core CPU's and 2gigs of ram due to an operating system and other PC-compliant services running? 360 went from running outdated games like F.E.A.R. to Crysis 2..(yes, Crysis IS coming out for both 360 and PS3..look it up). Big example of consoles superiority in terms of OPTIMIZATION is xbox 1's Halo 2. That worked with INFERIOR laughable hardware on the Xbox 1 featuring a LIMIT of a 733mhz CPU, 128MB RAM and a Geforce 3 basically....... yet the Halo 2 Vista REQUIRED a duo-core CPU, 7800GTX and 2 Gigs of RAM just to run smoothly at ANY resolution (and all they changed was the pathetic "higher-resolution" textures)...
December 4, 2009 3:55:26 AM

^ wow you're so knowledgeable you didnt even check the date this thread was last updated before you posted.

there's a specific term they call posters like you around here, along with an image tag.
December 15, 2009 11:17:23 PM

wh3resmycar said:
^ wow you're so knowledgeable you didnt even check the date this thread was last updated before you posted.

there's a specific term they call posters like you around here, along with an image tag.


I could care less..... dates of post in forums are irrelevant when there was both ignorance THEN and still NOW involving console capabilities and custom architectures.... and there is no excuse as hardware specs were clearly available in detail for the public involving 360's design..... yet people still doubted it's capabilities. I remember 4 years ago people claimed it wouldn't be able to run F.E.A.R..... fast-forward 4 years ago with a quadruple jump in technology, people struggle to run Crysis still, with 8800GTX's/HD4800's and even some GT200's with just medium - high quality...... BUT they're developing Crysis 2 (CryEngine 3) for the CONSOLES...... and there's still obvious fanboyism and ignorance towards what a console (a machine DEDICATED to not operating systems, not internet, not microsoft word or other b.s.....but GAMING ONLY) can do. It has outlasted many PC fanboy's expectations and to be honest, I think it's all retarded and ultimately DISRESPECTFUL to the people who program and design hardware and software/optimizations on ALL platforms..only to have little kids who can't fathom the creations and science behind the little PC components they WASTE thousands of dollars on jsut to brag about rig setups and how they score 10000FPS on a game when humans can't even distinguish 60FPS on average. The biggest fastest engine doesn't determine a car's performance (although it's potential helps)....without the driver and other factors......... and its' the same concept with all hardware........ the biggest, expensive, latest GPU/CPU has NOTHING to do with it's "POTENTIAL" performance without the DRIVERS and software/optimizations to utilize it's potential's percentage. It's so apparent people don't realize that..........they just upgrade this that and the third, waste money/resources then blame programers for incompatibilities because of ignorance, unappreciation for current/last gen hardware just to feel like they have supercomputers.
December 17, 2009 2:14:16 PM

SURE is gravedigging ..... around HERE .... and RANDOM capitalization of WORDS and the .... use of ELLIPSES. NOT to mention .... RAMPANT fanboyism.
July 7, 2010 1:06:40 AM

Quote:
.....umm, I have NO clue where you clowns get your specifications and complete INACCURACIES about both PC's and the Xbox 360...due to fanboyism... but for starters.... the Xbox 360's architecture is far more complex and advance than people recognize...take TIME to recognize and believe. First of all, I have NO CLUE where you got that the 360 has a CPU (let alone ONE CPU) that runs similar to a Pentium 4 at 1.5ghz...... wth. It has a CUSTOM state-of-the-art first generation TRIPPLE-core cpu running at 3.0ghz provided by IBM. EVERY component down to it's software and operating system is CUSTOM, and designed for gaming ONLY...everything is dedicated.....UNLIKE a PC and it's PC games which require billions of different drivers for billions of different games among billions of combinations of different hardware involving different memory brands AND speeds and compatibility as well as graphics cards, CPU's, motherboards, PSU's and OS and rig-specific optimizations... You clowns have NO idea the amount of programming and extra optimization that must be put into (or lack thereof overall) for PC versions of games due to what I just said which leads to less potential performances.....versus a console DEDICATED for games designed AROUND it's hardware making it easy for programmers to OPTIMIZE to pull out equivalent or better performance with quality than PC counterparts with sheer better hardware by SPECs. I bet most didn't even know the 360's GPU is what started the HD lineup of the ATI's DX10 GPU's and was the FIRST GPU capable of DX10 effects...hence the unified shader architecture that only DX10 utilizes for performance of stream processors. How do you think 360 runs ALL games at 720p atleast...with 60fps at all high quality with only 512mb of SHARED RAM versus games on PC's that NEED high-end dual-core CPU's and 2gigs of ram due to an operating system and other PC-compliant services running? 360 went from running outdated games like F.E.A.R. to Crysis 2..(yes, Crysis IS coming out for both 360 and PS3..look it up). Big example of consoles superiority in terms of OPTIMIZATION is xbox 1's Halo 2. That worked with INFERIOR laughable hardware on the Xbox 1 featuring a LIMIT of a 733mhz CPU, 128MB RAM and a Geforce 3 basically....... yet the Halo 2 Vista REQUIRED a duo-core CPU, 7800GTX and 2 Gigs of RAM just to run smoothly at ANY resolution (and all they changed was the pathetic "higher-resolution" textures)...


I'm sorry to bump my very old thread, but doing some searching on google I found this thread and this very late reply and, even if he never reads it, would like to post for the rest of the users who may be interested.

The 360 does not have a state of the art CPU, it was a P4 like long pipeline design that John Carmack, a respected game developer stated getting the performance of a 1.5GHz P4 per core.

360 does not run all games at 720P and 60FPS, in fact, many like the newer cod games run at a VERY low 1024X600 res.

Most run at 720P and 30FPS and rarely are games running at 60FPS AND 720P on modern consoles.

And finally, the reason Halo 2 required such high specs when compared to the Xbox1 was simply because it was a terrible port. Halo 1 on PC required much less hardware than Halo 2 and even that was considered a rather bad port.
July 7, 2010 5:53:07 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!