>made in 2005 >can run games as late as 2016 how did

>>388626238
Still playing the halo franshice on it today

Love

File: genesis.jpg (28KB, 606x373px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 606x373px

>made in 1988
>can run games as late as 2017
how did sega do it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3CTqTzkgZQ

By limiting the industry to console standards, slowing down progress on graphical and gameplay fronts

File: large_998_2600_Halo.jpg (62KB, 400x487px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 400x487px

>Console came out in 1982
>Can run a game from 2010
How did Atari do it

>>388627005
The 360's GPU was literally more powerful than any consumer GPU on the market for 2 years.

>>388626238
I've had to replace mine twice because of RRoD, but the third still works

Does anyone have an original 360 that still works?

>>388627352
A year at most...you do know the GeForce 8800 GTX was available in 2006 right?

>>388627460
Sure, but the point still stands, it was insane how powerful/feature rich the 360 was for the price and for the comparable stuff on the PC.

Imagine if the PS4/XBONE actually were the most powerful devices when they came out in 2013.

>>388627676
True but that price/performance ratio did come at the cost of being the most unreliable console ever produced

>>388627352
>The 360's GPU was literally more powerful than any consumer GPU on the market for 2 years.
Not it wasn't, the 8800GTX released less than a year later and was 3x as powerful.
>>388627460
This, the 8800GTX wipes the floor with the 360 GPU. 3x the ROP count, 3x the memory bandwidth, actual geometry shader support. The Xbox 360 GPU was basically equivalent to an X1900 with half the ROPs laser cut. It only beat the PS3 GPU because it was just an underclocked 7900GTX with half the memory bandwidth and half the ROPs disabled.

>>388627352
I'm calling bullshit. Wikipedia tells me it was comparable to a X1900

>>388627419
I do. Jasper too

File: file.png (6KB, 266x97px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 266x97px

>>388627957
>Not it wasn't, the 8800GTX released less than a year later and was 3x as powerful.

Nope, about 30% more powerful.

>>388627990
It's based on the same architecture, doesn't mean it's the same chip.

>>388627850
>being the most unreliable console ever produced
dreamcast and original xbox are worse. at least rrod was fixed with the slim, all original xboxs are ticking time bombs.

>>388627990
It's not, the X1900 had 48 dedicated pixel shaders, 8 dedicated vertex shaders, and 16 ROPs, the 360 GPU had 48 unified shaders and 8 ROPs. X1900 clock speed was also significantly higher.

>>388627957
>The Xbox 360 GPU was basically equivalent to an X1900 with half the ROPs laser cut
Not quite right either...the X1900 wasn't a unified shader GPU. The 360's GPU is more like a prototype HD2900 with the geometry shader and a few other things unfinished.

>3x the memory bandwidth
Care needs to be adduced when saying this because the 360's GPU contains 10 MB of eDRAM which is faster than 8800GTX's RAM. But of course, it's only 10 MB. Still very useful obviously.

File: file.png (154KB, 512x341px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 512x341px

>>388627957
nVidia themselves literally stated the 360 was better than anything they had at the time.

File: Lost-Odyssey.jpg (208KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 800x600px

JUST LET ME PLAY THIS

>>388628061
>Nope, about 30% more powerful.
>comparing Nvidia to AMD FLOPs as if it means anything
Nah, it was 3x more powerful
>4GPixel/s vs 13.8GPixel/s
>25GB/s of memory bandwidth vs. 86GB/s of memory bandwidth
>8Gigatexel/s vs 38Gigatexel/s

>>388627990
When gears of war came out, that blew everyone away.

>>388628293
>Not quite right either...the X1900 wasn't a unified shader GPU.
I never said the R500 was the equivalent of the R580, that would just be the closest comparison for performance.

>>388628314
>Nvidia said the 500MHz neutered 7900GTX in the PS3 was faster than the 7900GTX already on desktop in 2005
really makes you think

>>388628473
why cant nobody on this board admit that they are wrong?

>>388628387
OK play GoW 1 on a 360 and then try it on a 8800 GTX with similar settings.

>>388628473
>I never said the R500 was the equivalent of the R580, that would just be the closest comparison for performance.

It's difficult to compare unified shader vs non-unified shader, because the former is significantly more efficient. Not just in the way the cores can be flexibly optimized for different workloads, but also the cores are individually more efficient having been subject to iterative architectural improvements.

Comparing raw specs from the X1900 to the 360's GPU is going to end up misleading. Also the eDRAM is a really big thing the 360 had going for it compared to the X1900.

>>388628521
>why cant nobody on this board admit that they are wrong?
Because I'm not wrong, I never said the Xbox 360 GPU was the same GPU you get on the desktop. It is the closest equivalent in terms of performance, although the X1900 is actually a little faster if you compare a game like Oblivion.
>>388628526
I did it back when it came out on PC, it was able to run at native 1080p with vert sync instead of 720p with tearing.

By dragging games over the next decade and change down, same as all consoles

i find it hilarious how /v/ has a hard time admitting the 360 was a good console

>>388628835
>Also the eDRAM is a really big thing the 360 had going for it compared to the X1900
And the X1900 had a 256-bit memory interface with 512MB of dedicated VRAM.

>>388628936
I'm not even debating whether the 360 was a good console or not. It was a brilliant design (aside from the RROD) for something released in 2005. I am just pointing out the narrative that it was more powerful than anything on PC was not really accurate.

>>388626238
I'm suprised they got GTA V to run on last gen consoles. I'm still impressed by what the 360 is capable of. Tell me MGSV being able to run at a smooth framerate isn't remarkable. It even runs a nerfed version of Battlefield 4. That's fucking insane.

>>388628943
>And the X1900 had a 256-bit memory interface with 512MB of dedicated VRAM.
Yeah but the framebuffer is the most memory intensive part of VRAM and it can easily fit into 10 MB when you're doing 720p.

The X1900 fast and large VRAM is great for texturing but it can't compete with the pure framebuffer read/write speed of 360's eDRAM. It's small but it's blazing fast where it counts.

>>388628091
Lolno. There are people who have used them as HTPCs for years

>>388629417
my point still stands.

>>388628936
why should I admit what isn't true? You were 10 when it came out, but I assure you it was not a good console

i think next gen the tech in consoles will be on more equal grounds with pc's similar to how the 360 faired

>>388629805
and you were 13, whats your point?

>>388628335
It's on Backwards Compatibility, it was even FREE it's first whole week of release.

>>388630043
Don't let Microsoft fool you, I consider the Xbox One X a new console, considering just how much more powerful it is than the original One.