- May 2, 2017
- 2,989 (2.34/day)
|Processor||AMD Ryzen 5 1600X|
|Cooling||Custom CPU+GPU water loop|
|Memory||16GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 C16|
|Video Card(s)||AMD R9 Fury X|
|Storage||500GB 960 Evo (OS ++), 500GB 850 Evo (Games)|
|Power Supply||EVGA Supernova G2 750W|
|Keyboard||Lenovo Compact Keyboard with Trackpoint|
|Software||Windows 10 Pro|
That comparison is nonetheless deeply flawed. You're comparing a GCN-based console (with a crap Jaguar CPU) to a PC with an RDNA-based GPU (unknown CPU, assuming it's not Jaguar-based though) and then that again (?) to a yet to be released console with an RDNA 2 GPU and Zen2 CPU. As there are no XSX titles out yet, the only performance data we have for the latter is while running in backwards compatibility mode, which bypasses most of the architectural improvements even in RDNA 1 and delivers IPC on par with GCN. The increased CPU performance also helps many CPU-limited XOX games perform better on the XSX. In other words, you're not even comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing an apple to an orange to a genetically modified pear that tastes like an apple but only exists in a secret laboratory.I agree, that part of my comment was a bit confusing but I didn't mean The X1X has RDNA.
just the Real-World performance increase didn't suggest higher IPC than RDNA1 to me, based on how RDNA performs in comparison to the console.
Not to mention the issues with cross-platform benchmarking due to most console titles being very locked down in terms of settings etc. Digital Foundry does an excellent job of this, but their recent XSX back compat video went to great lengths to document how and why their comparisons were problematic.