Xbox One Gets Last Minute CPU Boost

[Saucycarpdog]

-snip-

Yes, because all of the hatred against the Xbone was clearly unjustified. Oh wait, no it wasn't, and anyone still arguing that has no leg to stand on.

Microsoft directly lied to its customers about several things in regards to how their console works. They stated that the always-on connection was mandatory. Turns out it wasn't. They stated that the Kinect was mandatory. Turns out it wasn't.

And yet, by your logic, simply because they removed all of these shitty policies that we didn't want, we should reconsider buying from Microsoft even though they were originally telling us a load of bold-faced lies.

Imagine if I offered to sell you a new computer, but I told you that you couldn't use it unless you checked in with me once per day and unless you attached a webcam to it so that I could watch you. And that both of these things were required in order for the computer to function properly. You'd tell me I'm a damn liar, and I'd retract my claims and remove the mandatory restrictions. So now you'd buy it from me even though I've proven myself completely untrustworthy? You are far too generous (and far too naive) if you think that way.

Forgive me and everyone else for not being willing to trust someone who has already been caught lying to me so many times before they even released the product.

Actually they never lied. They told everyone their vision in honesty and its just that people HATED that vision. I don't understand about the Kinect and DRM part. They were mandatory because Microsoft wanted them to be mandatory, not because it was a "no choice" kind of thing.

Sorry I can't help but stand up for a guy, who is sharing his own opinion, getting jumped on by creeps who hurl insults for their arguments. If you want to do that, there's a religion and politic section. Want a link?

 

[loc978]

Still kills me that they're running clock speeds that would be low-end on a laptop from 4 years ago... I mean sure, it's 8 cores, and it's standardized hardware... but seriously? Slower per core than the shitty laptop I'm typing this on? Slower than my roommate's phone?

...though if you want it back on topic... still inferior hardware for more money. If I were buying any console this gen, it'd be the PS4. No need, though... they're all x86 now, so I'll be waiting for the next round of 8-core 4+Ghz CPUs to come out. Hopefully this means a paradigm shift away from single-thread only bullshit in game development (and widespread integration of DDR5 system memory. Waiting on that too). Pretty sure I'll be able to outlast this console generation on an $800 build... sometime next year.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

-snip-

Yes, because all of the hatred against the Xbone was clearly unjustified. Oh wait, no it wasn't, and anyone still arguing that has no leg to stand on.

Microsoft directly lied to its customers about several things in regards to how their console works. They stated that the always-on connection was mandatory. Turns out it wasn't. They stated that the Kinect was mandatory. Turns out it wasn't.

And yet, by your logic, simply because they removed all of these shitty policies that we didn't want, we should reconsider buying from Microsoft even though they were originally telling us a load of bold-faced lies.

Imagine if I offered to sell you a new computer, but I told you that you couldn't use it unless you checked in with me once per day and unless you attached a webcam to it so that I could watch you. And that both of these things were required in order for the computer to function properly. You'd tell me I'm a damn liar, and I'd retract my claims and remove the mandatory restrictions. So now you'd buy it from me even though I've proven myself completely untrustworthy? You are far too generous (and far too naive) if you think that way.

Forgive me and everyone else for not being willing to trust someone who has already been caught lying to me so many times before they even released the product.

Actually they never lied. They told everyone their vision in honesty and its just that people HATED that vision. I don't understand about the Kinect and DRM part. They were mandatory because Microsoft wanted them to be mandatory, not because it was a "no choice" kind of thing.

Sorry I can't help but stand up for a guy, who is sharing his own opinion, getting jumped on by creeps who hurl insults for their arguments. If you want to do that, there's a religion and politic section. Want a link? You and Riotguards above you?

 

[shintakie10]

My 2012 video card (7850 HD 2GB) pulls about 1.7 TFLOPS, you aren't impressing this PC gamer Microsoft.

Why is it console systems are always behind the times with PC architecture?

]

Because consoles have to be cheap so they're generally the same cost as a mid range computer with roughly the same specs unless they're sellin far below cost. Even if they're sellin far below cost, they still need to aim low because they can't sell that far below cost or they end up in the situation Sony was in for the longest time.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Yes they did.

No they didn't. They said they wouldn't change it because it hurt their vision of the console, which happen to be DRM and mandatory kinect. I know, dumb decision, but that doesn't mean they are a bunch of liars. After people were confused and irritated at the xbox one reveal, they openly spilled all the info about the DRM and used game issue and of course that was when all this protesting came about.

After all of the protest Microsoft retreated on their DRM and Kinect mandatory, Don Mattrik was removed, a new lady was put in charge of the hardware division, and has been trying to win consumers back since then. No one was lied to. They have been openly stating about the backpedals as well.

I will give you credit for using less insults this time to support your argument. Nicely done.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

-snip-

We might agree if it were simply that they said they "wouldn't" be changing it.

But they didn't. They originally stated that it "couldn't" be changed because such a change would be difficult, if not impossible at this stage in development. Which is very much different. And the revelation that they could, in fact, change it with a simple software patch makes their original statements lies. Let's stop playing spin doctor on this and call it what it is.

And frankly if you find the use of the word "naive" insulting, then I do hope you understand that I mean no offense when I tell you that I really don't care that you chose to take personal offense at a perceived slight. That's on you. I was referring to the attitude that a company which has proven itself untrustworthy should be taken completely at their word and given full trust and faith. That is "naive". That's essentially a textbook definition of the word. It's a clear demonstration of a lack of experience with the situation at hand, and a decided lack of proper judgment.

It's not "insulting" a person to point out that their point of view doesn't reflect the reality of the situation and relies heavily on goodwill that has not been demonstrated. I didn't "insult" anyone. You just got offended by what you felt was a slight at you. And that's your own problem, I'm afraid.

Please point out where they said it was "impossible", and not just difficult. Cause that's what it would be if you change something that was supposed to be a core feature.

It was both the naïve, and the condescending tone you were using. I'm afraid if you think hurling insults supports you're arguments, you look even sillier than anything you're saying.

And yeah, what you basically said in the last paragraph was that "it is not insulting to point out their opinion is wrong because I say so". It's his opinion. Get over it, and stop being silly.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

I do find this a bit perplexing.

Microsoft has had problems with their communication for some time now, so I'm not really surprised..

Saying MS has communication problems is a massive understatement.

I'm honestly surprised by this news, generally you want to lock in your hardware months before production starts so you can iron out all the bugs before full scale production.

This increase can be seen as a bad thing, 3 months to test, build and ship isn't much. If they miss something or the console goes boom after 6 months then MS will be trouble.

There's nothing to say that they haven't been testing this change for more than a year now, and announced it once the testing passed successfully (as nearly any company would).

Yes, however this is the same company that brought RRoD into common usage.

Betting $500+ that they were smart (which considering the DRM plan they wanted to use) and that they didn't repeat their past mistakes isn't what I would call a sure bet.

 

[masticina]

Still kills me that they're running clock speeds that would be low-end on a laptop from 4 years ago... I mean sure, it's 8 cores, and it's standardized hardware... but seriously? Slower per core than the shitty laptop I'm typing this on? Slower than my roommate's phone?

...though if you want it back on topic... still inferior hardware for more money. If I were buying any console this gen, it'd be the PS4. No need, though... they're all x86 now, so I'll be waiting for the next round of 8-core 4+Ghz CPUs to come out. Hopefully this means a paradigm shift away from single-thread only bullshit in game development (and widespread integration of DDR5 system memory. Waiting on that too). Pretty sure I'll be able to outlast this console generation on an $800 build... sometime next year.

The 4Ghz is dead, Microsoft tried to reach it with the Pentium but their models over 3Ghz ran very hot and we're addicted to power. As in much of the electricity they drank in just turned into warmth.

A paradigm was reached, speed didn't add more. Instead every 100mhz added more and more heat with little to show for. The Prescots we're pretty much the worst Pentiums you could own.

How more cores how harder it is to get higher CPU speeds it seems. Just to much heat created. yes you can overclock an octo core if you like but it is harder to reach the speeds you get on a single core. That is reality!

But I agree that the new game consoles at least should lead to the paradigm shift we require. Games can use multi core support, I know synchronizing threads will be a female dog of a job but that is the only way we get forward now. And as long as games are kept Monocore with a few added side effects.. we won't get far.

 

[The White Hunter]

My PC is my multimedia monolith : D

Ironically, despite now having an HDMI hookup from my PC to my TV, I still use my PS3 for much of it.

Less for games, though. Weird.

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.

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 spend most of my time at my desktop due to the layout of my tiny room -_- so it's the media hub for me. The PS3 is an excellent DVD player though.

They're just floundering under the pressures of the internet hating them.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

I wonder if they have considered the increase in temperature when increasing the CPU clock speed. And, was it really necessary, it won't make a huge difference in performance.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Here's a fun game, go back to my original post and point to the actual insults I used. If you can't find any (and you won't, because the only statement that could be remotely construed as one is the use of the word "naive", which I explained earlier), then I'm just going to do what I should have done several posts ago and ignore your input on this subject, as it's relatively clear you just felt like getting offended over nothing. Which, again, is your problem, not mine. Get over it, yourself.

And yet you're getting offended by the other guys opinion? Contradiction much. I'll drop this part of the argument since we basically are just having an annoying shouting match at this point. So how about we BOTH get over it?

OT:And Microsoft did say that most of their games are going to make use of the always on DRM. How would that be not difficult to change?

 

[Something Amyss]

They're just floundering under the pressures of the internet hating them.

You'd think they'd be used to it by now. I mean, they don't exactly have a smooth history.

 

[Something Amyss]

Please point out where they said it was "impossible", and not just difficult.

difficult, if not impossible

That's not saying it's impossible.

Remember, they can't change it.

 

[loc978]

Still kills me that they're running clock speeds that would be low-end on a laptop from 4 years ago... I mean sure, it's 8 cores, and it's standardized hardware... but seriously? Slower per core than the shitty laptop I'm typing this on? Slower than my roommate's phone?

...though if you want it back on topic... still inferior hardware for more money. If I were buying any console this gen, it'd be the PS4. No need, though... they're all x86 now, so I'll be waiting for the next round of 8-core 4+Ghz CPUs to come out. Hopefully this means a paradigm shift away from single-thread only bullshit in game development (and widespread integration of DDR5 system memory. Waiting on that too). Pretty sure I'll be able to outlast this console generation on an $800 build... sometime next year.

The 4Ghz is dead, Microsoft tried to reach it with the Pentium but their models over 3Ghz ran very hot and we're addicted to power. As in much of the electricity they drank in just turned into warmth.

A paradigm was reached, speed didn't add more. Instead every 100mhz added more and more heat with little to show for. The Prescots we're pretty much the worst Pentiums you could own.

How more cores how harder it is to get higher CPU speeds it seems. Just to much heat created. yes you can overclock an octo core if you like but it is harder to reach the speeds you get on a single core. That is reality!

But I agree that the new game consoles at least should lead to the paradigm shift we require. Games can use multi core support, I know synchronizing threads will be a female dog of a job but that is the only way we get forward now. And as long as games are kept Monocore with a few added side effects.. we won't get far.

ummm... first off, it was intel, second, we're getting more heat from running APU/SOC (what the consoles are running, damn good idea for low-wattage systems, but needs a big ol' fan because all of the processing power is in one place) than from more speed (though that is quite similar to putting more cores on one chip). A 100W quad-core CPU with a base frequency of 3.8Ghz doesn't automatically produce a whole hell of a lot more heat then a 95W quad-core CPU with a base frequency of 2.7Ghz (the difference is, surprise, 5%. Wattage). Depends on the architecture (and yes, I'm speaking from first-hand experience, those are two computers in my house, a Vishera and a Yorkfield).

Mind you, it's obviously not easy to engineer something to reach those speeds without overclocking... but it really does make a difference, just not as much difference as it used to, and not as much as intel's core-supporting architecture... due to most games still running a single processing thread.

 

[Denamic]

My 2012 video card (7850 HD 2GB) pulls about 1.7 TFLOPS, you aren't impressing this PC gamer Microsoft.

Why is it console systems are always behind the times with PC architecture?

Mine is a 2012 GTX 660ti, and it does about 2.4 TFLOPS. It's really hard to be impressed when the specs they're trying to sell are barely higher than my mother's laptop.