It's known as the xbone720p because it's double the 360.
The 360 was interlaced though, the 720 is progressive so it's double the doubled power of a 360i.
The Xb1 is 4 times as powerful as it's predecessor not taking into account the esram bottleneck and % allocated to kinect and NFL tv.
I almost believed that, until I looked at game comparisons and noticed the X1 versions do not look 4xs better. Nor does Titanfall look 4xs better than a GTA V or CoD or whatever other game you want to compare it against. Maybe it's looks 2xs better than perfect dark zero. I'm just throwing stuff out there, we both are. I just ate a nice grilled steak and this post was a nice dessert. Thank you. Back to actually playing my X1 instead of making up fallacies about it. --- Gamertag: Beasthunt, PSN: Beasthunt. Acts 2:38
Just check titanfall xbone and xbox360. Its about that much.
Titanfall isn't the greatest looking game on any of the platforms that its available on. You might as well be comparing The Last of Us to Knack and saying "Yup, that's the power difference between the PS3 and PS4". --- I like how the GameFAQs spellcheck shows that the word "Wii" is fine, but the words "Xbox" and "Kinect" show up as typos.
It depends on which aspects you want to look at. "Power" isn't an entirely linear value: a system can be weaker in some ways while substantially more powerful in others, and it really just comes down to which features you're trying to analyze.
In terms of raw performance, I'd estimate the CPU to have 3-5 times as much overall processing power (depending heavily on multi-threading viability and the like), the GPU to be about 4-6 times as powerful, and the RAM being about 10 times as capable overall (taking into account having 16 times as much overall and around 6 times as much bandwidth). Along with that though, the GPU also has far more features and capabilities than the Xbox 360's GPU. --- "Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review