PS3: Unreal Tournament 2007


Recommended Posts

I should have been more clear. The PS3 doesn't actually exist yet. Until it does, his claim that it's more powerful than the X360 is rubbish.

If the PS3 matches the specs currently made available by Sony, it will have some advantages (theoretical geometry/vertex horsepower) and some disadvantages (architecture is bad for high resolutions, AA, and HDR).

Since it isn't released, it's impossible to say anything for sure.

John Carmack said that the PS3 might have a slightly more powerful CPU. First off, he was probably referring to Sony's theoretical numbers when he said this. But as I've said a dozen times, the PS3's problem won't be the Cell - it will be the overall system architecture (in particular, the memory architecture and the GPU).

You say we can't say PS3 is more powerful since it doesn't exist yet but it's ok for you to say its non-existent overall system architecture will be a problem.. :rolleyes:

I have no idea what additional features/specs/online support Sony plans to offer. But until they announce something, I'll assume that they think the Cell and a couple exclusive games are going to win this battle for them. But Microsoft and Nintendo have realized the importance of community to gamers. So far it doesn't look like Sony has.

PSM: How will the Playstation online experience change with the introduction of PS3?

Kaz Hirai: With the Playstation 3, you can expect to see a lot more of the freatures that make it exciting to be part of an online community, beyond just the gameplay. Wether it's matchmaking or other community features, those are a integral part of being an online community. We're hard at work on integrating those functionalities, as well as other functionalities that people have come to expect, and even some new things that people will find very refreshing.

No, I'm not saying trolling is ok. I am simply saying that regardless of the troll post on the first page, the odds are that trolls from the opposite side would still do their own trolling.

I am hardly trying to defend the initial troll post on the first page. Just an observation as a pattern of other threads.

See others also find it odd that you didnt mind the first flame-bait post of this thread. Anyway, nobody could have predicted that this thread would have ended up like this without that post. ;)

See others also find it odd that you didnt mind the first flame-bait post of this thread. Anyway, nobody could have predicted that this thread would have ended up like this without that post. ;)

latley it seems like every thread in the console area turns out like this! :laugh: :no: :rolleyes: :whistle: ;) :| :yes: :x :woot: :p :devil:

You say we can't say PS3 is more powerful since it doesn't exist yet but it's ok for you to say its non-existent overall system architecture will be a problem.. :rolleyes:

If you're going to compare specs, the 360 wins. Game over.

But that's not a fair comparison since the PS3 doesn't actually exist yet. That's why I'm not saying the PS3 will be worse off or not.

Yet Xbox fanboys will still curse the moon and say the Xbox360 IS MORE POWERFUL. Yeah right folks. Heres UT2007 running on the PS3 at 720p on alpha kits at 49FPS with even better lighting and detail levels then that of Gears of War. Gears of War can't even do 30FPS yet on the Xbox360 and that game has probably had a full year more development time then UT2007 on the PS3.

Like Sony said recently, " the proof will be in the pudding " and well, we'll be seeing this playable gem very soon running smoothly on the PS3 with every graphical touch you could imagine being incorporated.

Whereas Xbox fanboys will jump for joy when they see the next Gears of War video still struggling to even reach 20FPS let alone 30+.

PS3 is for real folks, and the bandwidth is just fine : laugh :

If you're going to compare specs, the 360 wins. Game over.

But that's not a fair comparison since the PS3 doesn't actually exist yet. That's why I'm not saying the PS3 will be worse off or not.

Specs huh? Alright lets compare specs.

PS3 Flop = 2Tflop overall capability, 216Gflops from Cell 1.8Tflops from RSX

Xbox360 Flop = 1Tflop. Less then 100Gflops from Xenos, rest from Xenon

Winner = PS3

Polygon Counts

PS3 = +800,000,000 triangles per second ( thats the Geforce 7800GTX number )

Xbox360 = 500,000,000 triangles per second

PS3 Wins again

Shaders per second

PS3 = 100+ billion shaders per second

Xbox360 = 48 billion shaders per second

PS3 Wins again

Memory Bandwidth

Xbox360 = 21.6 FSB bandwidth, 5.6GB CPU-GPU bandwidth

PS3 = Main Ram = 25.6GB/s, V-Ram = 22.4GB/s, RSX - Cell Bandwidth = 35GB/s

PS3 Wins yet again.

Dot Products Per Second

Xbox360 = 6 billion dot products per second

PS3 = 50 billion dot products per second

PS3 Wins again

I dunno dude, your looking at a different set of specs then the rest of the world lmao. The PS3 owns the Xbox360 in every single category.

But wait were talking about the dude that thinks the PS3 won't be able to handle even 720p because of all things, frame-buffers and bandwidth lmao. The dude has no clue what hes talking about, hes just a rabid Microsoft boy toy who thinks just because he uses the words frame-buffer and anti-aliasing he knows a thing or two. The fact that he even made that pathetic statement about GAME OVER XBOX360 SPECS FTW! when the official specs for both system have been out since E3 is laughable to say the least.

And yes, both specs are theoretical. Meaning the Xbox360 numbers will be dramatically lower in the real world as well. So in the end, the PS3 wins hands down no matter what you want to compare.

But hey, what is left in the Xbox360 fanboys arsenal next? Hmmmmm ... lets see .... THE XBOX360 CONTROLLER HAS MORE BUTTONS! ... nope ... that one won't work either ... hmmm ...

Welp, I think were all out of debate points now. Case closed.

Edited by udontneed2know

If you're going to compare specs, the 360 wins. Game over.

But that's not a fair comparison since the PS3 doesn't actually exist yet. That's why I'm not saying the PS3 will be worse off or not.

Your comparison is all theoretical and you know that though.

this is like comparing a pc with a mactel. the systems run with different components, runs different os, different software, different architecture. one isnt even out yet. and yet arguements exist. yawn

this is like comparing a pc with a mactel. the systems run with different components, runs different os, different software, different architecture. one isnt even out yet. and yet arguements exist. yawn

Its more like comparing this years PC with a PC 4 years from now. The architectures are the same, but since IBM was only given 24 months to build the thing they basically looked at the PS2 and went with that style of architecture for the overall facet. The PS2 was of course far less advanced, but it still had the muscle it needed thanks to those VU0-VU1 Vector units attached to the EE to allow it to keep up with the Xbox all these years graphically. And the 360 is just 3 generic PPE's with sequential order multi-threading and IBM slapped a VU onto each Core for more muscle. Whereas the Cell is a reinnovation of the Vector processing paradigrm where the Vector Units can speak to one another, share LS SRAM and differentiate the amount of LS avaliable per SPE depending on the projected load each SPE will be given, and the PPE is like the brain of the operation or the conductor of an orchestra. Similar architectures, but one has far more thought and innovation apparent inside.

Software? Thats all the same. Sony has gotten a hold of pretty much every stellar engine out there from SpeedTree to UE3.0 and Havok and AGAEI and slapped it into the SDK's, but also threw in some special work from SN Systems for their compilers and debuggers and IBM sends out its SPE Optimizers this month as well as Nvidias shader programs and stuff of that sort.

Different OS's, sure, but OS's all do the same thing. Just most do it better then Windows can. And just because the PS3 isn't out yet doesn't mean the thing isn't being built as we speak in mass units prepping for the upcoming launch in March or April.

You can't really compare PS3 and 360 like that as they work in different ways. Just wait until they come out and judge then, instead of guessing and pretending you know the truth.

That goes out to everyone.

Couldn'ta said it better myself :no: :whistle:

You can't really compare PS3 and 360 like that as they work in different ways. Just wait until they come out and judge then, instead of guessing and pretending you know the truth.

That goes out to everyone

What are you talking about? They work in different ways? What does the PS3 play games in reverse or something?

We've known plenty about both systems since their unveiling at E3. Theres only 1 Playstation 3 that exists and thats the one thats been talked about for 7 months now.

The only technical thing we don't know about the PS3 is all the juicy little inner details of the RSX. But we can guess considering it will be more powerful then the 7800GTX which pushes 800,000,000 triangles per second. That alone beats the 360's mark of 500 triangles per second.

We know enough to know whats up. So those who have been paying attention will talk plenty.

Ut-oh you better report me or get the thread locked, as always. Nevermind I will save you the trouble and report myself. REPORTED!

What YOU are doing (psuedo-reporting) your own flame-bait posts is making the job difficult for the mods, they'll have to wade through thus increasing more work load for them. For once, try to put your motives aside and think for this forum. :rolleyes:

How convienent, someone says something postive about programming on the PS3 and now he is a sellout.

Uh no, Sweeney is a sell-out. Shall I dig up his previous comments that reaffirm that image? :whistle:

And udontneed2know, are you on Sony's pay roll? (Doing all their dirty-work here) :laugh: :rofl:

What YOU are doing (psuedo-reporting) your own flame-bait posts is making the job difficult for the mods, they'll have to wade through thus increasing more work load for them.
Let me shed a tear. :cry:
For once, try to put your motives aside and think for this forum. :rolleyes:
Thank you concerned citizen, I think the forum will do just fine.
And udontneed2know, are you on Sony's pay roll? (Doing all their dirty-work here) :laugh: :rofl:
No, he is been quite informative. Just because someone can't stand reading the crap that is posted downplaying the capabilities of the PS3 by the Xbots doesn't mean he is being payed Sony or is a fanboy like you seem to peg many people if they are the slightest bit interested in something other then a Microsoft console. This is like the fourth or fifth time I have noticed you do this to a person, including myself. Are you on the MS pay roll? Edited by jmole

Let me shed a tear. :cry:

Funny (not). You probably dont know what it takes so you shouldnt make fun of them.

Thank you concerned citizen, I think the forum will do just fine.

Ofcourse it would, if you would stop snow-balling every thread with little eggs with a hint of flame-bait.

No, he is been quite informative. Just because someone can't stand reading the crap that is posted about the PS3 by the Xbots doesn't mean he is being payed Sony or is a fanboy like seem to peg many people if they are the slightest bit interested in something other then a Microsoft console.

Yes, he is informative; he is telling us exactly what Sony told us 6 months back at the E3. :D He claimed that he wrote 'papers' and hasnt put forth any. He goes on and rambles how some future PS3 games will turn out. Every post of his puts the PS3 as the best thing since sliced bread. All of these signs are obvious. :whistle:

Yet Xbox fanboys will still curse the moon and say the Xbox360 IS MORE POWERFUL. Yeah right folks. Heres UT2007 running on the PS3 at 720p on alpha kits at 49FPS with even better lighting and detail levels then that of Gears of War. Gears of War can't even do 30FPS yet on the Xbox360 and that game has probably had a full year more development time then UT2007 on the PS3.

Umm... where did Epic say that GoW was running at under 30FPS? Oh wait, you made that up.

Like Sony said recently, " the proof will be in the pudding " and well, we'll be seeing this playable gem very soon running smoothly on the PS3 with every graphical touch you could imagine being incorporated.

With such lofty expectations, you're going to be very, very disappointed when the PS3 arrives.

Whereas Xbox fanboys will jump for joy when they see the next Gears of War video still struggling to even reach 20FPS let alone 30+.

Again with the made up numbers. Good job there.

PS3 Flop = 2Tflop overall capability, 216Gflops from Cell 1.8Tflops from RSX

Xbox360 Flop = 1Tflop. Less then 100Gflops from Xenos, rest from Xenon

Winner = PS3

1) I think you mixed up Xenos and Xenon.

2) You're comparing the Cell's non-IEEE compliant single-precision number to the Xenon's IEEE compliant double-precision number. For the PS3, the DP number is a measely 20 GFLOPs or so (estimated as IBM reports the cell with 8 SPEs at 4Ghz does 26 GFLOPs)

3) As for the RSX, the Geforce FX 5800 had more computational power than a Radeon 9800 Pro. Which was more useful in games?

Polygon Counts

PS3 = +800,000,000 triangles per second ( thats the Geforce 7800GTX number )

Xbox360 = 500,000,000 triangles per second

PS3 Wins again

Those numbers are meaningless and you know it. According to Sony the PS2 could do 77 million triangles per second. And yet not a single game does much more than a tenth of that. Why? Because sony timed how long it took to draw 1 untextured triangle on a black background and divided that from 1 second to get their ridiculous calculation.

Furthermore, you were insisting in a previous thread that all the geometry work would be done on the Cell, not on the RSX. So which is it?

Shaders per second

PS3 = 100+ billion shaders per second

Xbox360 = 48 billion shaders per second

PS3 Wins again

You're comparing the Xbox 360's GPU number to a number that Sony says is for the RSX + Cell. Clearly that's not a fair comparison. You're also not defining what counts as a "shader operation." On the 360, the Xenos chip has 48 unified shader pipelines each capable of 2 operations per cycle. Sony won't comment on how they came up with their 100+ number (except to say that it's based on the RSX+Cell) which means there's no possible way you can compare those 2 numbers.

Memory Bandwidth

Xbox360 = 21.6 FSB bandwidth, 5.6GB CPU-GPU bandwidth

PS3 = Main Ram = 25.6GB/s, V-Ram = 22.4GB/s, RSX - Cell Bandwidth = 35GB/s

PS3 Wins yet again.

Your Xbox360 numbers are just plain wrong.

Xbox 360 = 22.4GB/sec UMA, 21.6 GB/sec FSB, 32GB/sec primary GPU to daughter die, 256GB/sec EDRAM bandwidth.

Xbox 360 wins this one hands down.

Dot Products Per Second

Xbox360 = 6 billion dot products per second

PS3 = 50 billion dot products per second

PS3 Wins again

First of all, the 6 billion number is just plain wrong. You probably meant 9.6 billion.

Once again you're comparing the CPU+GPU in the PS3 to just the GPU in the X360. The X360 is capable of 33+ billion dot products per second.

Sony's number is unsubstantiated and probably assumes the unrealistic scenario of having the entire system (CPU + SPEs + GPU) doing nothing but dot products.

I dunno dude, your looking at a different set of specs then the rest of the world lmao. The PS3 owns the Xbox360 in every single category.

Only if you make up numbers and intentionally misinterpret them.

But wait were talking about the dude that thinks the PS3 won't be able to handle even 720p because of all things, frame-buffers and bandwidth lmao. The dude has no clue what hes talking about, hes just a rabid Microsoft boy toy who thinks just because he uses the words frame-buffer and anti-aliasing he knows a thing or two. The fact that he even made that pathetic statement about GAME OVER XBOX360 SPECS FTW! when the official specs for both system have been out since E3 is laughable to say the least.

I said it won't be able to handle anything above 720p, and that it can't possibly do 720p with both FSAA and HDR enabled. The numbers could smack you in the head and you still would pretend they weren't there.

And yes, both specs are theoretical. Meaning the Xbox360 numbers will be dramatically lower in the real world as well. So in the end, the PS3 wins hands down no matter what you want to compare.

So in the "real world" the Xbox360 numbers will be "dramatically lower" but the PS3 numbers won't be? Give me a break.

But hey, what is left in the Xbox360 fanboys arsenal next? Hmmmmm ... lets see .... THE XBOX360 CONTROLLER HAS MORE BUTTONS! ... nope ... that one won't work either ... hmmm ...

Welp, I think were all out of debate points now. Case closed.

All this from the guy that says the PS2 has better graphics than the Xbox. I wish Sony would hurry up and ship their console so this nonsense will end.

Uhm, ask anyone that have seen the demos in real life and they'll say it doesn't have very smooth framerate.

The demo that was ran back in September during TGS.

It only took the five-minute duration of the Gears of War demo to convince us that the game's explosive combat will more than likely live up to its lavish visuals. The demo version was running reasonably well, with a frame rate hovering at and occasionally below the 30 mark. But the game is purportedly running on only one of the Xbox 360 CPU's three cores, and Epic claims it should at least double that performance number by the time emergence day rolls around, sometime next year. In the meantime, we'll bring you more on Gears of War as soon as possible.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/gea...tml?sid=6133348

This is the first time we've seen the demo running on final Xbox 360 hardware (the E3 demo was running on a high-powered PC), and you'll be happy to know that it looks better than it did a few months ago, and it's running smoothly already. Unlike last night's demo, Cliff was in the driver's seat and manipulating everything in real-time.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/651/651385p1.html

I said it won't be able to handle anything above 720p, and that it can't possibly do 720p with both FSAA and HDR enabled.

You sure about that: Heavenly Sword

1.3 Developer Quotes

Dean Calver, a Heavenly Sword developer, has been a member of the Beyond 3D forums for quite sometime. He has also gave us a couple of hints on development of Ninja Theory's next-generation title. Read the following information:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These are actual quotes from Dean Calver, a developer of Ninja Theory's next-generation title, Heavenly Sword.

Talking about the FPS of Heavenly Sword at resolutions of 1080p:

"If you split the demo into 2 sections (interior and exterior), the interior runs real-time quite happily at 1080p. The exterior struggles a bit but more because we just kept adding more and more till it looked right without going through various optimization passes then anything else (i.e. the flags are really expensive at the moment due to a quick implementation)."

...

We currently have complex pixel shaders, a full atmospheric model, full-scene dynamic shadowing, HDR lighting, tone mapping, parallax mapping, internal lens reflection and depth-of-field all in hi-def resolution running in real-time.

...

Asked if the E3 trailer was running on one core:

"We haven't yet made the jump to a multi-thread game architecture yet. Almost everything sits on a single thread…"

Oh noes, physics and AI too. Something you said the Cell wouldn't be very good at doing in a previous thread.

Our full-on combat system works against highly skilled individual AI, against coordinated squads of enemies, all the way through to army scenarios. The Havok physics engine is being used to push character interaction within the world and within combat to unprecedented levels."

Edited by jmole

Ooops missed a post.

You were at Zero Hour?

You sure about that: Heavenly Sword

Oh noes, physics and AI too. Something you said the Cell wouldn't be very good at doing in a previous thread.

Huh?

I said the Cell sucks for AI. And it does. I said it's great for physics, but that the architecture of the PS3 doesn't allow it to fully flex its muscle since according to the person I was arguing with it will be too busy doing all the geometry setup. So you're taking my comment out of the context of that conversation which isn't fair.

Also, that developer doesn't mention if they're running on an actual PS3 or a PC with a 7800GTX (which has oodles more memory bandwidth than the RSX)... and makes no mention of FSAA nor what resolution he's talking about.

The PS3 should be able to render 720p with HDR but no FSAA. Or it could do 720p with 2x FSAA but no HDR (assuming HDR means FP16 or higher). Of course it's entirely a matter of what you trade-off in order to get that.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!