Microsoft boasts 50% faster Hard Drive in Xbox One X versus Standard Xbox One

[vanished]

Good to see improvements but 50% more than crap is still not very good.

When I read that headline, all I see is "<some ISP> boasts 50% faster dialup with new service plan"

[Dabombinable]

14 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Good to see improvements but 50% more than crap is still not very good.

When I read that headline, all I see is "<some ISP> boasts 50% faster dialup with new service plan"

Honestly, I don't know why MS didn't push OEM's for 7200RPM 1TB HDD-the improved access time alone would make the XboneX feel faster, let alone the improved data rates (which would have to surpass 120MB-140MB/sec sustained to beat my 2010 2.5" 500GB HDD)

[vanished]

13 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Honestly, I don't know why MS didn't push OEM's for 7200RPM 1TB HDD-the improved access time alone would make the XboneX feel faster, let alone the improved data rates (which would have to surpass 120MB-140MB/sec sustained to beat my 2010 2.5" 500GB HDD)

The real solution is a) stop using slow noisy optical media, and b) have an SSD internally rather than a HDD.  I realize that it's not realistic given the price, but this would solve the speed issues

[79wjd]

13 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

The real solution is a) stop using slow noisy optical media, and b) have an SSD internally rather than a HDD.  I realize that it's not realistic given the price, but this would solve the speed issues

I would also love to have all flash storage in my server and have it take up a quarter of the space and require less cooling and power, but unfortunately, SSDs are still quite expensive. 

[Coaxialgamer]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

Its still similar to CMT (2x ALU, 1x FPU per module for a total of 4 modules) but actually a bit worse. Bobcat itself was still produced since 2011 (Jaguar is from 2013). And its still shit.

 

Edit: BTW explain how Trinity and Richland manages to run at low power in thin laptops.

That's not CMT . Here's a block diagram of a bobcat core:

there are 2 ALU's as noted , as well as an FP unit . but that's not  CMT . That's superscalar . bobcat is a 2-issue design.

Bulldozer's CMT modules had 2 narrow superscalar ALU's , which share cache , front end and decoders . The end result is that they can share hardware , but process two independent threads . The bobcat core , while being superscalar , uses a single(dual) x86 decoder. It cannot execute multiple threads of instructions , only 1 . Bulldozer's implementation exploited TLP AND ILP . bobcat just exploites ILP.

 

Also , it was arguably a better core than bulldozer because it met it's targets and was a good competitor , while making AMD money.

 

 

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

2x ALU. 1x FPU (the part that is used most in games)-the difference is the lack of resource sharing.

Be that as it may: isn't Bulldozer and AMD did work with the FPU to make it beefier. Also, that's one FPU per core. Bulldozer had one per two cores. It's not really comparable. Besides, it was always meant to be a low power design, not high performance.