Guild Wars 2

Hi!

I’ve recently resumed playing gw2 ^^ and I want to build a PC that will run it smoothly on High settings for as little money as possible (student life)…

I’ve found this build that seems good, could you guys give me feedback please?
http://www.amazon.com/lm/R2EW8Y33MQQN5P/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&lm_bb=&tag=yttgdiscount-20

for GW2 i recomendu you i3 or i5… but even FX 6300 is good.

if you can wait few days i will do some benchmarks with i3 and i5 and compare it against FX 6300

oh ok, but will the gpu be able to max the settings and still maintain around 60 fps?

Someone tested that i3 (and not even the newest one) outperformed even FX-8350, so I would go with that.
The GPU is just fine for max settings (except rendering @ native). Plus it overclocks pretty well giving you even a little more headroom. If it runs at sub-60 fps it’s because the CPU is too weak. You could consider bumping the PSU to 500W at least, nothing more frustrating than buying a new system and seeing it lacks the power to run.

what i3 would you recommend at the same price as the fx?

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i3-3240-Dual-Core-Processor-Cache/dp/B0093H8GQG/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1394723073&sr=1-2&keywords=i3
something like this and would I have to change the mobo at all?

I’d say this one http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i3-4130-FCLGA-Processor-BX80646I34130/dp/B00EUUKVXM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1394725244&sr=8-2&keywords=intel+i3+4130 only a few dollars more but the performance increase is bigger. You would have to change motherboard as well, that one you chose only goes for certain AMD processors. Pick one with LGA1150 Socket and H81 or H87 chipset (Z87 is for overclocking and that CPU isn’t meant for it)

I don’t know where do you live in, but here’s a nice little build, based on the components you chose: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/39a8e

It has Windows included there because I’m pretty sure you need it also. If you don’t, just take it out.

Only problems is that i3 is not worth that money – if you play other games to. Do YOU?

An FX-6300 and i3-3220 are close enough that I’d still recommend the 6300 over an i3.

Fermi.2409:

An FX-6300 and i3-3220 are close enough that I’d still recommend the 6300 over an i3.

If hes building for GW2 the i3 will outperform the FX6300 2:1 in MOST areas.

If he is building for all around, then I would suggest the FX6300 and then he will have to live with a max of 45-60FPS pertaining to GW2.

Like i said i will do some test i3 vs Fx 6300 in GW2

OP just know that what ever rig u decide on, u wont maintain a constant 60 FPS in GW2. GW2 is incapable of running at a good solid FPS in all situations. WvW, large events, Cities, will all crawl around below 30 FPS, how low that figure goes depends on ur rig. Old Core2Q system will see 5 FPS, low end I series like the i3’s and even stock clocked i5’s may see as low as 10. Top end system will still regularly see low 20’s.

So be sure you want to upgrade/rebuild a rig for GW2 specifically, because the performance u get no matter what u spend isn’t really that great.

SolarNova.1052:

OP just know that what ever rig u decide on, u wont maintain a constant 60 FPS in GW2. GW2 is incapable of running at a good solid FPS in all situations. WvW, large events, Cities, will all crawl around below 30 FPS, how low that figure goes depends on ur rig. Old Core2Q system will see 5 FPS, low end I series like the i3’s and even stock clocked i5’s may see as low as 10. Top end system will still regularly see low 20’s.

So be sure you want to upgrade/rebuild a rig for GW2 specifically, because the performance u get no matter what u spend isn’t really that great.

This, and if you DO build specifically for GW2 and you want to maintain the top low (25FPS) are you talking a couple Grand to get into the Intel i7 Extreme Series CPUs.

sirsquishy.8531:

Fermi.2409:

An FX-6300 and i3-3220 are close enough that I’d still recommend the 6300 over an i3.

If hes building for GW2 the i3 will outperform the FX6300 2:1 in MOST areas.

I was just going off the comparison we did previously. Either will do fine in general, but the gap was a couple frames in the heavy situation. If it’s different elsewhere, then yeah, get an i3

Get FX 6300 and oc it to 4.5Ghz it will outperform any i3 at 3.4Ghz believe me i just played on i7 3770K at 3.8Ghz – FX 6300 is great for its price!

for maximum performance get i5 K – that all

Wow thanks alot for the feedback guys, gave me a lot to think about ! I sure do appreciate

KillScale
I reccomend you FX 6300 if you will OC, but if you dont want to OC and you might upgrade to better CPU then i3 is good solution to.

DX12 is comming – more future proff is 6300 also easy OC even with stock cooler for this game (you just need rigth modo that can disable 1 core per CU) then T wont be a problem

If you’re not looking to OC, I’d recommend the Intel Core i5 4570 quad core desktop processor with any reliable H87 chipset motherboard. The quad core aspect should help it lastt in the long run. For GPU I’d recommend something like the Radeon HD 7790 or the GTX 650TI.
Just an i5 quad core processor like that would kick the snot out of any AMD processor for GW2.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

Get FX 6300 and oc it to 4.5Ghz it will outperform any i3 at 3.4Ghz

Assuming OP will even want to OC…

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

KillScale
DX12 is comming

Aaaaand Guild Wars 2 isn’t going to get it ever. So that doesn’t matter.

As far as your OP link goes, while I’m not a fan of AMD’s lackluster FX line of cpus, your build looks pretty solid all-around, except I would spend $6 more to get the 2GB version of the ASUS 7790, as GW2 can easily eat up over 1GB if you play with remotely decent settings.

ASUS 7790 2GB

If you had the money to stretch for the i3 mentioned though, that would probably be my personal route, as stock for stock it will hold it’s own, and the 1150 socket will allow you to upgrade in the future to an i5 or i7 with ease if you wish it, simply replace the cpu and done for an even larger performance boost.

Future proofing, is a word thrown around a LOT in tech forums, but the reality is, there is no such thing as future proofing, as technology advances at such a pace, it simply does not exist. If you want the MOST for your money, you spend the most you can (within a reasonable budget that you have of course) to get current HIGH end parts, and hope it lasts before upgrading once more. A GTX 780 for example will last much longer and at higher resses than say grabbing a GTX 760 and hoping to play newer games at reasonable settings.

EDIT
That i3 btw, you can check out over at Bit-Tech,
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/11/14/intel-core-i3-4130-haswell-review/5

It’s numbers are quite favorable.

Bit-tech is intel fanboys site
Believe me FX 6300 OC-ed higher that 4.5GHzs will be as fast as i7 at 3.5Ghz. But i3 – lower power consumption, better upgrade also DX12 migh help a lot!

It is up to him if you go FX 6300 you will need to OC it to at least 3.9-4.0Ghz . If you go i3 you may upgrade to i5. But FX 6300 is better CPU

While the FX-6300 is a fine CPU for gaming it simply doesn’t do as well with this one.

One other advantage the i3-4130 has is you can later upgrade to significantly faster CPUs. AMD has halted development on the AM3+ platform. Intel has Broadwell coming in 4Q.

And I refuse to talk about overclocking voodoo Bee. OCing requires better underlying infrastructure (higher price/quality MB, PSU, cooling) as well as luck in the silicon lottery. You can always overclock one system to be faster than another that isn’t overclocked.

Edit: I’m guessing these guys are also Intel fanboys.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

Bahellagh now you see what is difference between FX and i3 4* in singlethread, most of this game use 1 or 2 cores

Also not that in wasteland which use 2 core FX 4300 beat i3 4330

Xbitlabs is okay, but bittech is and intel fanboys site…

The i3 will perform better in GW2 than the 6300, what’s your point? It sounds like you get your info from TekSyndicate :/

Btw, an FX-6300 will not beat a stock 3770k sitting at 3.9 GHz :/

It is up to you… but i have both.
The point is that DX9 is bottleneck for every new CPU. And yes FX at 5.0-5.1Ghz will beat i7 3.9Ghz. I guest that if if you hawe haswell at 4.5Ghz you need FX at least at 5.5 Ghz or higher

http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/wasteland-2-test-gpu.html
interesting right? I am not saying that FX is better buy than i5, i wanted to buy broadwell for this game, but i wont because like i said DX9 is to big bottleneck here.

Considering that I had an i3-2120 (2nd gen) BEAT a FX8350 in this game, that kinda lays it out for EVERYONE.

the FX series CPU’s are TERRIBLE for this game.

If the OP is building mainly for GW2 in mind, I would look at an i3 to START. Forget going AMD for the CPU, as it WILL NOT CUT IT.

As mentioned, but other like minded and GOOD techs on this post, the 1150 socket has 4-5 GOOD upgrades above the i3 that will last you for a good 3-5 years in the gaming world before you should consider jumping to a new platform. So while there is no ‘future’ proofing, there is the 5 year cycle that most IT personnel Live by (myself included).

Start with a z87 series Motherboard (get a good MB now, so if/when you upgrade you dont have to replace that too), and get yourself a i3 that is clocked at 3.2ghz or faster. It should be well with-in your budget. If you have budget left over get an i5 that is clocked at 3.0ghz or faster (the extra 2 cores helps ALOT for the other processes that run inside GW2.exe as well as your system stuff).

the HD7790 is a GOOD GPU. If the 2GB version is only 8bucks more I HIGHLY recommend going that route. As shown before on these forums, full on details at 1080p will eat up above 1.3GB of Video ram.

If you are running a lower res and decide to run lower in-game settings, then you can sit between 230MB and 680MB video ram.

So it really depends on what game options you are going to run, and what LCD Resolution you are planning on playing at.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-7.html

here you have benchmarks- you need 1GHz more with 4100 to get same or little better performance.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-7.html

here you have benchmarks- you need 1GHz more with 4100 to get same or little better performance.

Not good enough, only covers a very small footprint of CPUs/APUs for their tests.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

It is up to you… but i have both.
The point is that DX9 is bottleneck for every new CPU. And yes FX at 5.0-5.1Ghz will beat i7 3.9Ghz. I guest that if if you hawe haswell at 4.5Ghz you need FX at least at 5.5 Ghz or higher

http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/wasteland-2-test-gpu.html
interesting right? I am not saying that FX is better buy than i5, i wanted to buy broadwell for this game, but i wont because like i said DX9 is to big bottleneck here.

Ok seriously, stop bringing up random games in the forums… Jesus christ, you do it every time so you can sit on your AMD fanboy throne by saying “OH MY FX 4xxx BEATS ANY i7!!!!!!!!! All I have to do is overclock it to 349081329054 GHz”. It is NOT interesting to see a random game that has nothing to do with GW2.

But now you have all these cpus in each different post you make, if it were true to begin with you would actually be using a 3770k and recommending the obvious go-to for this game… First you say 4GHz, then 4.5, now it’s 5.0 so a FX-6300 can beat an i7 3770k?? An 6300 will not touch an i7-3770k. BUT, since you insist on using a link YOU gave us, what is this?

[url]]http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-new-msi-test-wl_2_proz.jpg[/url]

The i3 beats the FX-6300 on average fps by 3, so it has 1 less minimum fps, it has more average. So your point is moot, interesting right?

sirsquishy.8531:

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-7.html

here you have benchmarks- you need 1GHz more with 4100 to get same or little better performance.

Not good enough, only covers a very small footprint of CPUs/APUs for their tests.

FX 8150 is faster than llano quad core – we know that game use only 2-3 cores .. so why difference between FX 8150 and FX 4100?
Because this game will use every second core (1 per CU) – piledriver is better and faster

I think what sirsquishy was getting at is the testing was quite limited. Also offering varied results for each cpu.

It is hard to tell INTEL-Fanboys that FX has good singlecore performance.
Of-course it depends on game but in GW2 actually FX is not that bad.

More test
- beta
http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/guild-wars-2-beta-test-gpu.html
- Release
http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/guild-wars-2-test-gpu.html

it is shame that they didnt do CPU usage.
So here you can see there is no difference between FX 4100 and FX 8150

http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/divinity-original-sin-test-gpu.html
Yeah, you have some game where i5 2100 will beat FX4300
http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/might-magic-x-legacy-test-gpu.html

look here FX 4100 vs FX 4300

And once again, in your own links, an i3 Sandy Bridge, beats them both. It’s hard to tell a diehard AMD fanboy that his FX simply does not have good enough single core performance, despite being told by numerous people.

Aaaaand again, editing your post so you can post different games, who would have thought, lol. You already proved the point, the i3 holds its own, as already been stated.

Do you think that i am die hard amd fanboys – do you know why i i went with FX. I wanted i5 K but my budget… actually this is first AMD CPU that i bought

So why is FX 4300 on same lvl as i3 4330 in other games? I am asking because i want to know

http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/the-incredible-adventures-of-van-helsing-beta-test-gpu.html

or this benchmark – intel destroys amd totaly (i also like this game and recommend). Then you see that there is no difference between phenom x2 and phenom x4
(also no difference between FX 4100/4300)
- but there is difference between i3 and i5

Absolutely nothing wrong with going with AMD, much less for any of the FX line, the issue comes into play whenever anything is posted you instantly chant “INTEL FANBOY SITE!!!!!!!!”. AMD in fact is sometimes the one thing to go for when budget restrictions are too tight. The FX-6300 for example is a good all-rounder, but we are talking GW2, where the i3 will be the better purchase for $5 more, and also allow him to upgrade to an i5 or i7 if he wants in the future, which will offer much, much more.

A 4300 though? For $10 more I’d rather the 6300 for a budget cpu if I had to go with a lower end AMD setup as the 6300 will offer more headroom, especially in a LAN rig. However, in GW2 it is another story. No matter how much we want it, we won’t get the FX cpus playing as nice as the Intels, unless AMD comes out with a cpu line that offers superior single thread, in which case yay for all.

I’m not saying AMD is bad at all, and they make for great budget setups, as I mentioned already, but again, this is Guild Wars 2.

All pointless benchmarks;

1. they dont all use dx9
2. NONE of them are MMOs
3. None of them are coded to use DX9 like GW2 is.

So pointless is pointless.

Sobe
- bittech is intelfanboys site that is true
look at this 2.5Ghz piledriver has better MT than 3.3Ghz steamroller
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2014/01/14/amd-a8-7600-kaveri-review/8

even FX 8350 has worse MT than i3 – so they say

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

Sobe
- bittech is intelfanboys site that is true
look at this 2.5Ghz piledriver has better MT than 3.3Ghz steamroller
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2014/01/14/amd-a8-7600-kaveri-review/8

even FX 8350 has worse MT than i3 – so they say

FX has 8 cores (or 4 if you disable the 2nd core per module) where i3 only has 2 cores and HT (threaded per Core).

But the fact remains, per core performance Intel>AMD.

in a MT setup, Intel should only be 8-12% ahead of AMD at its best config.

AMD sacrificed ALOT of the cpus performance to stack cores the way they did, and it shows. In GW2 and alot of other single threaded applications

It just so happens that GW2 uses DX9 is such a bad way, that it takes a worse hit (end user experience) then any other application I have seen so far.

GW2 should really be on DX10 or 11, and Not 9 at this point.

I think that Fx 8350 has stronger MT than i7 3770K – i dont know about i7 4770K

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

I think that Fx 8350 has stronger MT than i7 3770K – i dont know about i7 4770K

it doesnt, and never will.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

It is up to you… but i have both.
The point is that DX9 is bottleneck for every new CPU. And yes FX at 5.0-5.1Ghz will beat i7 3.9Ghz. I guest that if if you hawe haswell at 4.5Ghz you need FX at least at 5.5 Ghz or higher

http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/wasteland-2-test-gpu.html
interesting right? I am not saying that FX is better buy than i5, i wanted to buy broadwell for this game, but i wont because like i said DX9 is to big bottleneck here.

And again you toss out a comparison to a totally different game. We are talking this game that uses 2 to 3 cores on most systems.

But while each core of an FX-6300 is inferior to an Intel one, it follows that two cores of an FX-6300, even on different modules, are still inferior to two Intel ones. And in all likelihood you would need a game to occupy more than three cores worth of work before the FX-6300 pulls away from an i3-4130.

Yes, Dx9 is a bottleneck. So is the multithreaded model prevalent in the 00s which simply spins the renderer into it’s own thread. But if you haven’t done multithreaded design before you tend to stick with well documented methods of the time.

And just to put this to bed once and for all, if (and it’s a big if) the devs choose to upgrade to a newer Dx version it would be Dx11 (along with a new multithreaded design for maximum gain) so it would allow the most players to get the benefit. Not Dx11.1 which is only in Win 8.x or Dx11.2 which is only in Win 8.1. Microsoft is choosing to tie newer Dx versions to newer OSes. Good for them, not so great for a game company who wants their title playable on the most systems possible, without the need of an OS upgrade.

Steam Survey Windows OS numbers.
Win XP – 6.6% – Dx9
Win Vista – 4.2% – Dx10
Win 7 – 65.9% – Dx11
Win 8 – 10.5% – Dx11.1
Win 8.1 – 12.8% – Dx11.2

As for Mantle, realistically not going to happen without the Dx11 recode. And even then why would a game company intentionally tick off the larger playerbase that doesn’t use ATI? Again looking at the Steam Survey, nVidia: 52.38% AMD: 31.03% Intel: 16.23%. Only answer I have is payola. AMD pays off the major game engine manufacturers to include Mantle support so the major titles made with those engines can include it. Our game isn’t in that group.

I was just comparing games that use less than 4 threads…
Yeah if game use 4 or more thread then FX is better. Also it can overclock – thats good.

I hope that developers will support DX12 even if it is only for win 9 or win 8.1. WHY?

Because if you buy new i5 will much more expensive then buying new OS with low level API support! IF you just check that video

Dont take this video as a MAntle video – just comapring current DX vs LOW level. Note that conzoles has even lower level API (closer to the metal).

Conzole has 8 jaguar cores – single core performance in CB is around 0.4-0.45.

Thats it… we can only hope that developers will support DX12.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

It is hard to tell INTEL-Fanboys that FX has good singlecore performance.

Because it really doesn’t. It has adequate performance, sure, but relative to Intel CPUs the FX line is miles behind.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

I was just comparing games that use less than 4 threads…
Yeah if game use 4 or more thread then FX is better. Also it can overclock – thats good.

I hope that developers will support DX12 even if it is only for win 9 or win 8.1. WHY?

Because if you buy new i5 will much more expensive then buying new OS with low level API support! IF you just check that video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3-hH_iGbIk

Dont take this video as a MAntle video – just comapring current DX vs LOW level. Note that conzoles has even lower level API (closer to the metal).

Conzole has 8 jaguar cores – single core performance in CB is around 0.4-0.45.

Thats it… we can only hope that developers will support DX12.

At $100+ a pop for a new OS with a totally revamped UI is something people tend to shy away from. The only reason 8.1’s market share is growing is because 8 was terrible and new rigs tend to ship with 8.1.

And again, lets change subjects, this time to consoles. We aren’t talking consoles. They will always have a game development advantage over PCs because their hardware is fixed and predictable. You don’t need the layers of abstraction to talk to unknown hardware if you know exactly what you have at all times. It allows you to get away with less CPU horsepower. And that’s at the software level. At the hardware level you could remove the need for a generic expansion bus and create a more efficient bus with less overhead and higher bandwidth between the CPU and GPU.

PCs still hearken back to the days of “Big Iron”, general purpose computers. They are the panel van to the console’s F1 race car. One’s a work horse while the other is a thoroughbred.

Here’s a question or two for you.

Did ANet upgrade the game engine in GW from Dx8 to Dx9 during it’s lifetime? No.

Did they improve the poly count of models or rolled out higher resolution textures? No.

But Beh you say, they were busy working on GW2 and it does have all those things. But here’s the thing, MMOs are content driven and an updated game engine isn’t content. Sure players will praise improved framerates, for all of two minutes and then go back complaining that new content isn’t coming out fast enough. So that’s where the bulk of the staff is, in content creation. 3D artists, event designers, sound people. Not a crack team of 3D engine designers starting with a clean sheet of paper. No you have a couple of programmers tasked with maintaining and tweaking a complex piece of code that they were likely not part of during it’s creation. That is never a fun job. Their one mandate is not to break it. It’s tough to refactor code in that kind of environment. An often use comparison is doing aircraft maintenance while in flight.

So I’m not holding my breath for a miracle in terms of the game’s renderer. Dx11, Dx12, Mantle, 64-bit, core scalable performance … might as well wait for the elusive rumored water carburetor.

I think XFlyingBeeX is just a troll. We should all just ignore him. His points are almost always not contributing to the topic at hand, often derailing threads and spouts bogus information about hardware comparisons without proof to back it up for GUILD WARS 2. Always with something for ANOTHER game. It might work good in THAT game but not THIS game.

I don’t think anyone in their right tech-educated mind would recommend an AMD FX CPU for someone building a machine for Guild Wars 2. And I say that for as in, building a machine mainly for Guild Wars 2. And if otherwise, an APU would probably be recommended if someone were in a tight budget. Even then, an Intel i3 and Radeon HD 7750 will likely have BETTER results.

The best way to go about recommending hardware is to determine what will produce the best experience WITHOUT overclocking. It’s not like everyone was born a master overclocker “Oh just overclock that kitten to 5 GHz and you’ll see a whopping ### frame increase” No, it just does not work like that. And even then, on an AMD FX CPU, you’d probably only see 10 FPS increase from 4 to 5 GHz. I only saw FIVE on my FX-8350 from 4 to 4.7. Worth it? Not remotely! The same 700 MHz increase on say an intel i5 or i7 could see DOUBLE that. But what’s most important in my opinion, is what the performance will be like WITHOUT modification.

I never take overclocking into account. Store bought systems don’t have the right hardware or bios to allow OCing in the first place. If you can afford a boutique system then they will OC it for you, assuming you buy the right MB and CPU.

The FX-6300 is a fine budget CPU if you are playing games that are quickly GPU bound. This game isn’t one of them. If you can accept that fact and live with it fine. Doesn’t matter if your other games run great, it’s not a good choice for this game.

So it’s an education thing. As long as it’s an informed decision, it’s up to them to go AMD. But what we are saying is in this game, Intel is the better performer for the price. Unless you are going with integrated graphics of an AMD APU Vs Intel’s HD Graphics 4×00, which in that case and that case alone, AMD wins.

PCs still hearken back to the days of “Big Iron”, general purpose computers. They are the panel van to the console’s F1 race car. One’s a work horse while the other is a thoroughbred

Not so much any more. While the consoles can benefit from optimization, the new ones are really just lower midrange PCs from a year or two ago. They’re also running fill operating systems now. Really although they’re ‘purpose built’, the PC’s brute power is more then enough to push them ahead.

Overclocking can make sense to count, if you’re talking about a self built computer with the proper components. You just can’t assume that people are going to get that godtier chip that can hit 5.2 GHz stably or a GPU you can OC by 50% and use more reasonable overclock numbers.

No, it’s amazing what you can do with custom silicon.

They aren’t running a full operating system. There is no need to allow random hardware being attached. The whole device driver and HAL portions of an OS simply isn’t needed. The XBox One OS isn’t going to be installed anywhere else and Microsoft has said that other than borrowing the Tile UI it has no shared code between Windows, Tablet or Phone OSes. The original XBox was closer to a PC than the XBone is.

Don’t confuse the CPU and GPU components with something you could find in a PC. That silicon is unique and there isn’t anything that resembles a northbridge/southbridge pair or unified hub controller.

Behellagh.1468:

Don’t confuse the CPU and GPU components with something you could find in a PC.

Actually, the new consoles are more or less off-the-shelf parts in a somewhat customized configuration . The PS4 and XB1 are both using 8core tablet CPUs of differing (fairly low) clockrates. The PS4 is using a 7850-level GPU (close to 7870, iirc, in physical setup/specs but a low clockrate once again holds it back), while the XB1 is a decent bit behind at 7790 or 7770 level, I forget which. It’s really just the RAM setups that are different from normal PCs, slightly, but that’s not going to allow huge amounts of power to be suddenly be pulled from rather weak parts.

Behellagh.1468:

They aren’t running a full operating system. There is no need to allow random hardware being attached. The whole device driver and HAL portions of an OS simply isn’t needed. The XBox One OS isn’t going to be installed anywhere else and Microsoft has said that other than borrowing the Tile UI it has no shared code between Windows, Tablet or Phone OSes.

Even so, they’re running ‘full’ OSes now, even if they may not quite up to snuff with Windows or Linux. This is actually a bit of a resource drain; iirc, each console has a core or two dedicated purely to OS matters.

Really, the new consoles aren’t anything like what the older ones were. As it is, you can match their power (or at least the Xbox One’s, the PS4 is a little harder) with an equal budget, and they’re already behind when it comes to running newer games. The XB1 can’t even run Titanfall@60 FPS constant for god’s sake at 792P.