xbox 360

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

16MB of eDRAM is enough for 4xAA at 720p (1280 X 720).

You can tile scene data to push to higher resolutions- Beyond3D covered this in their article on the R500.

Gimme a break noob, shut up with your "My opinion is always right"

 

[BenSkywalker]

Any noob worth a d@mn can back up everything they say of course

 

[compgeek89]

Thats not real FSAA, so yeah they limit it and get higher AA levels but its not full.

 

[Clauzii]

I´m pretty confident the Cell will run a LOT faster than a PIII 1.4.
I´m also aware that both the XBox360 and PS3 will be capable consoles since a lot of manpower went into designing them.

I´m also aware that in the future we might see a smaller and smaller difference between PCs and game consoles - or as I would call them in the future: HomeServers.

And even though the XBox360 is a nice design, the CELL keeps a more ´fresh´ approach to the subject of new innovative design.

And no - either XBox360 nor the PS3 will kill PCs for now.....

BTW: This Article In GERMAN describes the Final Specs for XBox360

I´m NOT impressed :thumbsdown:

 

[Clauzii]

Here it is translated from www.hartware.de:

Microsoft designed its new console particularly for games, was strongly limited in Mulitmediafeatures like a playing of Videos. Digital interfaces for monitors and TV devices are missing perfectly, copy-protected High definition (HD) contents will not be viewable at all to or only in reduced ressolution. A DVD Player is integrated and permits a playing of MPEG 1 and 2. Other popular formats such as MPEG-4, which includes Divx and Xvid or H.264 are not supported by the console.

According to Microsoft the possibility exists of re-tooling over later Firware updates codecs. Firware updates can be up-loaded by games or the on-line service also automatically without influence of the user. This is one of the measures, with which Microsoft wants to reduce the chances of the hackers to a successful compromising of the console.
Over a Streaming connection by LAN or WLAN the "Windows Media center edition" (MCE) it can play films in the WMV Hp format, however the console does not have support for the assigned DRM, it can thus only play copyprotection-free films. From a PC with Windows XP only photos and music can be streamed on the console.
Two USB connections at the front and one at the back permit the connection of MP3-Players, PSPs, USB stick, digital cameras or external harddisks. From these devices music and photos can be played (MP3, WAV or WMA) or as a dia. show. The music can be used also as soundtracks when playing. It can not transfer music or other data over USB on to the internal harddisk however. Playing films over the USB connection was also prevented.
The games for the Xbox are developed in a ressolution of 1280 ? 720 (720p), for final product a choice for 640 ? 480, 848 ? 480, 1024 ? 768, 1280 ? 720, 1280 ? 768, 1360 ? 768, 1920 ? 1080 (1080i) are at the selection. Ressolutions larger than 720p are however only high-scaled. The depth of shade reaches up to 64bit.
In the housing of the Xbox 360 3 fans work at the same time, which speed are dependent on the processor load. Like that the console is louder with ongoing gaming than in the DVD-mode, should be altogether quieter however than the old Xbox.
The controller is offered either with cable or wireless. Wireless variant is operated by one included rechargable batterie or two normal batteries, be able to play 30 hours one with a charge. An empty rechargable batterie is to represent however no obstacle, because the CONTROLLER is loaded over a USB cable directly at the Xbox 360, and can be further played.
Concerning the backwards compatability with old Xbox games still nothing is reliably, at present Microsoft concentrates most on the popular Xbox games. This, should it function, on the Xbox 360 not up-polish graphics similarly to PlayStation games on the PlayStation 2, but look exactly the same as on the old console. Stored game conditions can not be transferred to the new console.
(Introduction on the market for Germany is 2 December, to Christmas should besides 20 to 40 games be available. The console will come in two versions: the small for approximately 300 euro with cable-bound controller and without memory cards and non removable disk. Who wants to store games, still about 35 euro needs to be spent on a MEMORY Card. For approximately 400 euro the console is to bring along both a 20 GByte harddisk, a wireless controller, a remote control and a Headset.)
If one regards the console more exactly, then one notices clearly that Microsoft limited the Multimedia functions strongly.The remote doesn´t reachover the possibilities of a commercial DVD Players.. The console is not to become probably on one hand competition to PC with the "Windows Media center edition", on the other hand is the hardware roughly at the beginning again a losing transaction, which is to be amortized by sales with the PC games and the on-line service "Xbox Live one" or the "Marketplace" on-line Shop again. Customers, that doesn´t play many games but want a multimediabox will be dissapointed.
( Gottfried Hofmann )

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: Clauzii
And even though the XBox360 is a nice design, the CELL keeps a more ´fresh´ approach to the subject of new innovative design.

IF CELL bring a "fresh" approach to PS3, Xenos does the same for Xbox360. I wouldnt term either of them as "innovative" design. Both consoles are being marketed as jack-of-all-trades consoles.

True innovation is by Nintendo. As much as I think the new controller is going to suck, atleast they are trying to innovate.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Clauzii
And even though the XBox360 is a nice design, the CELL keeps a more ´fresh´ approach to the subject of new innovative design.

IF CELL bring a "fresh" approach to PS3, Xenos does the same for Xbox360. I wouldnt term either of them as "innovative" design. Both consoles are being marketed as jack-of-all-trades consoles.

True innovation is by Nintendo. As much as I think the new controller is going to suck, atleast they are trying to innovate.

I dissagree... Innovation isn't what matters if what you innovate sucks. That Nintendo controller is a joke! Complete joke! I almost do not believe it is real.

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Clauzii
And even though the XBox360 is a nice design, the CELL keeps a more ´fresh´ approach to the subject of new innovative design.

IF CELL bring a "fresh" approach to PS3, Xenos does the same for Xbox360. I wouldnt term either of them as "innovative" design. Both consoles are being marketed as jack-of-all-trades consoles.

True innovation is by Nintendo. As much as I think the new controller is going to suck, atleast they are trying to innovate.

I dissagree... Innovation isn't what matters if what you innovate sucks. That Nintendo controller is a joke! Complete joke! I almost do not believe it is real.

Most of the major parts of what makes a controller today was innovated by Nintendo. Ofcourse there is bound to be a "power glove" in between but they are the only company that is innovating. Microsoft & Sony are just too busy cramming every piece of power/feature into their bland consoles.

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

The Xbox360 is definitely going to end my computer. I went from an A64 rig with X800 XT to a mobile celeron with 6600GT. Cut the cost by about $400. Console gaming is a huge market, that's where the developers are going to be focusing cause there's just more money to be made. There are a few good games coming up that I'm looking forward to for the PC, namely FEAR and CoD2, but I'm done putting money into my PC, lack of co-op games is a disappointment, always has been. The Xbox360 sounds like it'll be focused mainly on LIVE play, and the games look pretty damn good. It's back to consoles for me.

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
The Xbox360 is definitely going to end my computer. I went from an A64 rig with X800 XT to a mobile celeron with 6600GT. Cut the cost by about $400. Console gaming is a huge market, that's where the developers are going to be focusing cause there's just more money to be made. There are a few good games coming up that I'm looking forward to for the PC, namely FEAR and CoD2, but I'm done putting money into my PC, lack of co-op games is a disappointment, always has been. The Xbox360 sounds like it'll be focused mainly on LIVE play, and the games look pretty damn good. It's back to consoles for me.

PCs always will be for those that dont waste their money elsewhere.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: compgeek89
xbox360 been ownt

The correct word for that situation is "Pwned". With a "d" at the end. Oh, and no it hasn't been.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Right now, from what we?ve heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox. Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 - 5 years, it?s nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective, floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a Pentium 4.

xbox360 been ownt

Ok now I'll properly respond to this now that the pwnage has been corrected.

My problem with this statement is that their definition of "real world performance" was probably running a current game on a single core. My guess is that each core is *at least* twice as powerful as a P3 733 (a cripled P3 I might add). That would mean that it is minimum 6 times faster than the Xbox CPU. MINIMUM. In reality I would say it's more like 10 times faster. You can't always believe what you read on the 'net.

 

[mooncancook]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Right now, from what we?ve heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox. Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 - 5 years, it?s nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective, floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a Pentium 4.

xbox360 been ownt

Ok now I'll properly respond to this now that the pwnage has been corrected.

My problem with this statement is that their definition of "real world performance" was probably running a current game on a single core. My guess is that each core is *at least* twice as powerful as a P3 733 (a cripled P3 I might add). That would mean that it is minimum 6 times faster than the Xbox CPU. MINIMUM. In reality I would say it's more like 10 times faster. You can't always believe what you read on the 'net.

Wow, what an "educated" guess! ;D

 

[hemmy]

I dont want to read through this stupid thread, but if it hasn't been said, 48 unified shader pipes is NOTHING like pixel piplines, not even comparable

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: mooncancook

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Right now, from what we?ve heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox. Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 - 5 years, it?s nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective, floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a Pentium 4.

xbox360 been ownt

Ok now I'll properly respond to this now that the pwnage has been corrected.

My problem with this statement is that their definition of "real world performance" was probably running a current game on a single core. My guess is that each core is *at least* twice as powerful as a P3 733 (a cripled P3 I might add). That would mean that it is minimum 6 times faster than the Xbox CPU. MINIMUM. In reality I would say it's more like 10 times faster. You can't always believe what you read on the 'net.

Wow, what an "educated" guess! ;D

Oh and look at you trolling! It *is* an educated guess you moron. 3.2ghz x 3 > 733mhz x 1. Not by a small margin either. Do you really believe that in the span of four years, the performance of a console's CPU will only double? According to Moore's Law, CPU performance doubles every 18 months. That means this thing should be 6x more powerful per core, times 3 equals 18x faster. Keep thinking it's only twice as fast if you want tho. :roll:

This is a custom-designed gaming chip that I have very few doubts about once the programmers figure out how to use it.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: mooncancook

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Right now, from what we?ve heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox. Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 - 5 years, it?s nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective, floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a Pentium 4.

xbox360 been ownt

Ok now I'll properly respond to this now that the pwnage has been corrected.

My problem with this statement is that their definition of "real world performance" was probably running a current game on a single core. My guess is that each core is *at least* twice as powerful as a P3 733 (a cripled P3 I might add). That would mean that it is minimum 6 times faster than the Xbox CPU. MINIMUM. In reality I would say it's more like 10 times faster. You can't always believe what you read on the 'net.

Wow, what an "educated" guess! ;D

Oh and look at you trolling! It *is* an educated guess you moron. 3.2ghz x 3 > 733mhz x 1. Not by a small margin either. Do you really believe that in the span of four years, the performance of a console's CPU will only double? According to Moore's Law, CPU performance doubles every 18 months. That means this thing should be 6x more powerful per core, times 3 equals 18x faster. Keep thinking it's only twice as fast if you want tho. :roll:

This is a custom-designed gaming chip that I have very few doubts about once the programmers figure out how to use it.

Though, I agree with your guess, Moore's *law* certainly isn't a *law*... Though, it is called one.

 

[mooncancook]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: mooncancook
Wow, what an "educated" guess! ;D

Oh and look at you trolling! It *is* an educated guess you moron. 3.2ghz x 3 > 733mhz x 1. Not by a small margin either. Do you really believe that in the span of four years, the performance of a console's CPU will only double? According to Moore's Law, CPU performance doubles every 18 months. That means this thing should be 6x more powerful per core, times 3 equals 18x faster. Keep thinking it's only twice as fast if you want tho. :roll:

This is a custom-designed gaming chip that I have very few doubts about once the programmers figure out how to use it.

Well I just think the methods that you used to come out with the 6-10 times faster conclusion is kind of laughable. Well you can totally laugh at me when stat/bench proves that you are right, i don't have a problem witht that.

I never said or think it's only twice as fast, I think it'll be more than that, but I just don't think it'll be 6 to 10 times. I think the new GPU will have a bigger impact than the CPU, at lease initially. I'll reserve some opinion till i really see some heavily multi-threaded games. Oh and besides, saying 6-10 times as fast is pretty vague too. Seriously what do you mean by that? are you comparing the FLOPS numbers?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: mooncancook

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: mooncancook
Wow, what an "educated" guess! ;D

Oh and look at you trolling! It *is* an educated guess you moron. 3.2ghz x 3 > 733mhz x 1. Not by a small margin either. Do you really believe that in the span of four years, the performance of a console's CPU will only double? According to Moore's Law, CPU performance doubles every 18 months. That means this thing should be 6x more powerful per core, times 3 equals 18x faster. Keep thinking it's only twice as fast if you want tho. :roll:

This is a custom-designed gaming chip that I have very few doubts about once the programmers figure out how to use it.

Well I just think the methods that you used to come out with the 6-10 times faster conclusion is kind of laughable. Well you can totally laugh at me when stat/bench proves that you are right, i don't have a problem witht that.

I never said or think it's only twice as fast, I think it'll be more than that, but I just don't think it'll be 6 to 10 times. I think the new GPU will have a bigger impact than the CPU, at lease initially. I'll reserve some opinion till i really see some heavily multi-threaded games. Oh and besides, saying 6-10 times as fast is pretty vague too. Seriously what do you mean by that? are you comparing the FLOPS numbers?

I've read a few articles elaborating upon the Xenon architecture, that's really the majority of what I base my assumptions on. If we had hard figures it would be simpler, but the reality of things is that in all liklihood there will never be a benchmark to accurately compare the two chips. Oh, and I wasn't comparing the FLOPS numbers, just overall performance as a whole. :beer:

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: mooncancook

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Right now, from what we?ve heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox. Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 - 5 years, it?s nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective, floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a Pentium 4.

xbox360 been ownt

Ok now I'll properly respond to this now that the pwnage has been corrected.

My problem with this statement is that their definition of "real world performance" was probably running a current game on a single core. My guess is that each core is *at least* twice as powerful as a P3 733 (a cripled P3 I might add). That would mean that it is minimum 6 times faster than the Xbox CPU. MINIMUM. In reality I would say it's more like 10 times faster. You can't always believe what you read on the 'net.

Wow, what an "educated" guess! ;D

So by your logic The Pentium 4s are much faster than athlon 64s since clockspeed is higher? Another home PC using noob that thinks clockspeed is everything, and that extra cores is too. But Wait!! What about that pentium D's through the FSB design bottlenecking it?

3 Cores does not mean anything, 3.2ghz does NOT mean anything.

 

[mooncancook]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: mooncancook

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: mooncancook
Wow, what an "educated" guess! ;D

Oh and look at you trolling! It *is* an educated guess you moron. 3.2ghz x 3 > 733mhz x 1. Not by a small margin either. Do you really believe that in the span of four years, the performance of a console's CPU will only double? According to Moore's Law, CPU performance doubles every 18 months. That means this thing should be 6x more powerful per core, times 3 equals 18x faster. Keep thinking it's only twice as fast if you want tho. :roll:

This is a custom-designed gaming chip that I have very few doubts about once the programmers figure out how to use it.

Well I just think the methods that you used to come out with the 6-10 times faster conclusion is kind of laughable. Well you can totally laugh at me when stat/bench proves that you are right, i don't have a problem witht that.

I never said or think it's only twice as fast, I think it'll be more than that, but I just don't think it'll be 6 to 10 times. I think the new GPU will have a bigger impact than the CPU, at lease initially. I'll reserve some opinion till i really see some heavily multi-threaded games. Oh and besides, saying 6-10 times as fast is pretty vague too. Seriously what do you mean by that? are you comparing the FLOPS numbers?

I've read a few articles elaborating upon the Xenon architecture, that's really the majority of what I base my assumptions on. If we had hard figures it would be simpler, but the reality of things is that in all liklihood there will never be a benchmark to accurately compare the two chips. Oh, and I wasn't comparing the FLOPS numbers, just overall performance as a whole. :beer:

I consider most of the hypes about the XBox and PS3 CPUs are over-hyped, and Anand's article "under-hype". If the actual performance of the CPU falls in between it's good enough.

Like one of the quotes from you says, console programmers need to figure out how to exploit the hardware over time, and that's one disadvantage of console. By the time they can exploit the potential of the hardware well enough, PC hardware would have advanced a gen or two. So i think if i buy it i'll buy it later when it's cheaper and when developers can take advantage of the new hardware better. I hope the XBox wll disappoint me so i won't feel like buying one though, else my personal productivity level will suffer greatly.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: mooncancook

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Right now, from what we?ve heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox. Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 - 5 years, it?s nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective, floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a Pentium 4.

xbox360 been ownt

Ok now I'll properly respond to this now that the pwnage has been corrected.

My problem with this statement is that their definition of "real world performance" was probably running a current game on a single core. My guess is that each core is *at least* twice as powerful as a P3 733 (a cripled P3 I might add). That would mean that it is minimum 6 times faster than the Xbox CPU. MINIMUM. In reality I would say it's more like 10 times faster. You can't always believe what you read on the 'net.

Wow, what an "educated" guess! ;D

So by your logic The Pentium 4s are much faster than athlon 64s since clockspeed is higher? Another home PC using noob that thinks clockspeed is everything, and that extra cores is too. But Wait!! What about that pentium D's through the FSB design bottlenecking it?

3 Cores does not mean anything, 3.2ghz does NOT mean anything.

Unless that thing has a 200 stage pipeline or something ridiculous (unlikely - this is IBM), that CPU will desecrate ANY P3 by far more than double.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Thats not real FSAA

Neither is the AA on the 7800GTX, what's your point?

Oh and besides, saying 6-10 times as fast is pretty vague too. Seriously what do you mean by that? are you comparing the FLOPS numbers?

Six to ten times the FLOPS of the fastest current desktop CPUs- forget the 733 P3 in the XB1.

Carmack has dropped the PC as his lead dev platform and switched over to the XB360- guess he must be an ignorant fanboy that doesn't know what he is doing

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Thats not real FSAA

Neither is the AA on the 7800GTX, what's your point?

Oh and besides, saying 6-10 times as fast is pretty vague too. Seriously what do you mean by that? are you comparing the FLOPS numbers?

Six to ten times the FLOPS of the fastest current desktop CPUs- forget the 733 P3 in the XB1.

Carmack has dropped the PC as his lead dev platform and switched over to the XB360- guess he must be an ignorant fanboy that doesn't know what he is doing

The flops mean NOTHING. NOTHING. Read that article.

"
What about all those Flops?

The one statement that we heard over and over again was that Microsoft was sold on the peak theoretical performance of the Xenon CPU. Ever since the announcement of the Xbox 360 and PS3 hardware, people have been set on comparing Microsoft's figure of 1 trillion floating point operations per second to Sony's figure of 2 trillion floating point operations per second (TFLOPs). Any AnandTech reader should know for a fact that these numbers are meaningless, but just in case you need some reasoning for why, let's look at the facts.

First and foremost, a floating point operation can be anything; it can be adding two floating point numbers together, or it can be performing a dot product on two floating point numbers, it can even be just calculating the complement of a fp number. Anything that is executed on a FPU is fair game to be called a floating point operation.

Secondly, both floating point power numbers refer to the whole system, CPU and GPU. Obviously a GPU's floating point processing power doesn't mean anything if you're trying to run general purpose code on it and vice versa. As we've seen from the graphics market, characterizing GPU performance in terms of generic floating point operations per second is far from the full performance story.

Third, when a manufacturer is talking about peak floating point performance there are a few things that they aren't taking into account. Being able to process billions of operations per second depends on actually being able to have that many floating point operations to work on. That means that you have to have enough bandwidth to keep the FPUs fed, no mispredicted branches, no cache misses and the right structure of code to make sure that all of the FPUs can be fed at all times so they can execute at their peak rates. We already know that's not the case as game developers have already told us that the Xenon CPU isn't even in the same realm of performance as the Pentium 4 or Athlon 64. Not to mention that the requirements for hitting peak theoretical performance are always ridiculous; caches are only so big and thus there will come a time where a request to main memory is needed, and you can expect that request to be fulfilled in a few hundred clock cycles, where no floating point operations will be happening at all.

So while there may be some extreme cases where the Xenon CPU can hit its peak performance, it sure isn't happening in any real world code.

The Cell processor is no different; given that its PPE is identical to one of the PowerPC cores in Xenon, it must derive its floating point performance superiority from its array of SPEs. So what's the issue with 218 GFLOPs number (2 TFLOPs for the whole system)? Well, from what we've heard, game developers are finding that they can't use the SPEs for a lot of tasks. So in the end, it doesn't matter what peak theoretical performance of Cell's SPE array is, if those SPEs aren't being used all the time.

-
Don't stare directly at the flops, you may start believing that they matter.

Another way to look at this comparison of flops is to look at integer add latencies on the Pentium 4 vs. the Athlon 64. The Pentium 4 has two double pumped ALUs, each capable of performing two add operations per clock, that's a total of 4 add operations per clock; so we could say that a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 can perform 15.2 billion operations per second. The Athlon 64 has three ALUs each capable of executing an add every clock; so a 2.8GHz Athlon 64 can perform 8.4 billion operations per second. By this silly console marketing logic, the Pentium 4 would be almost twice as fast as the Athlon 64, and a multi-core Pentium 4 would be faster than a multi-core Athlon 64. Any AnandTech reader should know that's hardly the case. No code is composed entirely of add instructions, and even if it were, eventually the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 will have to go out to main memory for data, and when they do, the Athlon 64 has a much lower latency access to memory than the P4. In the end, despite what these horribly concocted numbers may lead you to believe, they say absolutely nothing about performance. The exact same situation exists with the CPUs of the next-generation consoles; don't fall for it.
"

 

[BenSkywalker]

The flops mean NOTHING. NOTHING. Read that article.

That article was without a doubt the poorest ever to appear on AnandTech. But to the general point FLOPS certainly do mean something, even if they are not capable of indicating the absolute performance of a part a chip with a peak throughput of 1TFLOP will almost certainly be significantly faster then a chip with a peak throughput of 1GFLOP.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

The flops mean NOTHING. NOTHING. Read that article.

That article was without a doubt the poorest ever to appear on AnandTech. But to the general point FLOPS certainly do mean something, even if they are not capable of indicating the absolute performance of a part a chip with a peak throughput of 1TFLOP will almost certainly be significantly faster then a chip with a peak throughput of 1GFLOP.

Almost? Almost is not an absolute. Therefore, FLOPS in terms of performance means nothing, because it is not an absolute. If it were an absolute, then it would mean something.