How much more powerful was Xbox 360 compared to original Xbox?

How much more powerful was Xbox 360 compared to original Xbox?

Attached: 617585-xbox360_vs_xbox (1).jpg (480x640, 27K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/O1dMPbmPS7A?t=14
google.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

A lot.

Consider the following:

Gen 8 (PS4/XB1) -> 8GB Ram
Gen 7 (PS360) -> 512MB Ram
Gen 6 (PS2/OGXB) -> 64MB Ram for Xbox, about half for the PS2

The amount of ram is the easiest way to demonstrate how much a console is better. Games featuring huge maps, such as the all so popular battle royales, literally would not be possible on the previous gen.

Try playing Splinter Cell Chaos Theory on the Xbox, and then again on the PS2. That's an apt comparison for shadow and light effects across both consoles. As for graphics, the prettiest game on the PS2 is Shadow of the Colossus, yet the average 1st party Xbox game isn't that much worse compared to SoTC.

A more jarring comparison can be made by playing Halo 2 and Halo 2 anniversary.

youtu.be/O1dMPbmPS7A?t=14

Attached: 1461173208353.jpg (746x1000, 117K)

>512MB Ram
wait, fucking really?

360 times more powerful obviously

Google it faggot
google.com/

Yes really. Consoles REALLY cheap out on RAM, always have.

The Atari 2600 had 128 BYTES of RAM.

Attached: 1551676709816.jpg (480x360, 29K)

2

the 360 single-handedly held back its generation, just like the PS2 did before it, multiplats had to be able to run on fucking 512 RAM, it was embarrassing

Christ, I had no idea. If you asked me how much RAM a 360 had I would've said 4 GB. Guess I'm more tech illiterate than I thought.

>yet the average 1st party Xbox game isn't that much worse compared to SoTC.

SOTC looks way better than the majority of Xbox games though.

Why is there such a huge leap in ram from gen 7 to 8 yet the games on gen 8 don't look nearly that much more impressive compared to gen 6 to 7? Gen 8 to me still looks like its more just a supped up gen 7.

Tech illiterate here btw so don't get too triggered by this post.

Didn't the PS3 hold it back even further though? I remember reading they split the 512 RAM on the PS3 and half had to be dedicated to graphics. It's why Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3, and New Vegas had nothing but problems because of they utilized large open world maps.

No

PS3 had 256MB ram though.

Yes it does.

Law of diminishing returns

Not even a very high end PC would have 4gb of ram in 2005 when the xbox released
4GB of ram means a 64 bit OS, which werent widely used until like 2009

>multiplats had to be able to run on fucking 512 RAM
Only on consoles though, pretty much all multiplats of that gen required at least 2GB RAM on PC.
As a matter of fact, last gen was indeed one where you could see a very substantial gap between console versions and pc versions of games, even at a quick glance, where even the lowest setting on pc looked better than how it did on console, especially the textures.

look up the teraflops that is a good metric

The gap between your average pc and consoles has decreased though. It's just that nowadays graphical improvements are small at best.

This.
As much as it is used as a meme, it's real.
Once certain thresholds are reached, improvements in tech won't produce substantial evident improvements in visuals.
As an example, let's assume that in a couple of generation we achieve 99% realism on all aspects.
If the generation after that is at least twice as powerful, it will certainly reach 100% realism, but the end users can't really see the visual difference between 99% and 100%, and it'll be the same for subsequent generations, even if they were to be 100 times more powerful.
Obviously that power can be used in different ways(especially cause it's pointless to use that power to increase visuals that the end users wont be able to distinguish from the previous gen), but since we're only talking about looks and visual difference between generations, we're literally almost at the limit where you won't be able to distinguish them.

About 358 times, they just round that.