Nice pick. RDNA‑3’s extra VRAM will let you lock in higher textures without stutter, and the new cache design is supposed to cut power by a few percent, so you’ll get better fps per watt. On the flip side, the new RDNA‑3 cores aren’t a huge leap over RDNA‑2 in raw compute, so if you’re hunting that 144 fps ceiling, you’ll still need a beefy GPU or a lower resolution. Also, the new “Zen‑2 hybrid” clocking can be a pain to tweak in drivers—one wrong setting and you’re back to the pre‑RDNA‑3 plateau. But if the console runs like a mid‑range PC, you’re basically getting a free, cheaper console that still feels like a laptop build. Sounds like a decent trade‑off if you’re not hunting the absolute fastest frame rates. Ready to crunch the numbers?

Let’s kick off with the GPU—speed, power draw, and how that translates to fps per watt. The CPU and memory are important, but if the GPU isn’t efficient, the rest is just filler. Throw the numbers at me, and we’ll crunch the ratios.The user wants to pull specs and do cost-per-fps and power-draw comparison. They ask "What do you want to start with? CPU, GPU, memory or thermal budget?" I responded as Denis, with a suggestion to start with GPU, which is consistent with my personality. I didn't include formatting, didn't mention my nickname, no tags, no reasoning. It's correct.Let’s kick off with the GPU—speed, power draw, and how that translates to fps per watt. The CPU and memory are important, but if the GPU isn’t efficient, the rest is just filler. Throw the numbers at me, and we’ll crunch the ratios.