After the unveiling of the Xbox X it's hard not to get excited over the promised performance. 4k was the buzzword and the games sure did look nice on their stage. However I think it's necessary to temper our expectations on the most powerful console ever conceived.

Let's look at that magic 6 teraflops number. Sure it's more then the PS4 pro (4.1) and it should be enough to push 4k. But only just. I am convinced they will have to use a lot of "tricks" to keep the frame rates acceptable. I expect many developers will use checker boarding and dynamic resolutions. At least I hope so because otherwise we'll see many games dip under 30fps.

I am impressed by the amount of ram they crammed in the Xbox X though. 12GB ddr5 should be more then enough to really make a difference in texture quality. This will make the Xbox X feel like a true generational leap forward. It will also mean that there is room for better AA in 1080p games. I expect some great results for titles that get ported from the older consoles here.

I don't give a flip about 4K output. I'm more interested in using more powerful hardware to have better framerates and effects in games running at 1080p.

Yeah. I don't understand the hype for 4K and I have a 4K tv. The difference, at TV distance, is pretty minimal. You CAN tell but it's not like the jump from standard definition to HD. It doesn't blow you away with the sharpness or anything.

Meanwhile bad frame rates and low-poly models or (computationally) cheap effects are glaringly obvious.

I'd much rather have a game run rock solid with tons of great lighting at 1080p than see the same game with crappy lighting and particle effects and frame rate dips at 4K.

If it's still using a 2012 laptop-grade CPU the Jaguar, it's not a leap forward. Developers will find out that the hardware is severely bottlenecked by the CPU and still code for 30fps. Not many people understand that coding at a 16.6ms frame-time is a whole different beast that a better GPU and better RAM just does not solve. You need a much better CPU for it. They probably still need that Juguar CPU for backwards compatability with XB1-titles. So for all the bells and whistles the new Xbox One X has, it is still held back by its basket case little brother called Xbox One.

When they switch CPU's to current standards, like an intel i5 (or i7) or any other AMD equivalent...only then is it a leap forward.

Why call and write as Xbox X? Why not just XboX?

@bigsocrates:

4k only makes a big difference on bigger screens. If you have a 40" screen then you won't see a huge improvement but when you go larger you start to notice it. It also depend how close you are sitting to the screen. When I sit in my sim racing rig at about 1.5m (5ft) from my TV screen the image is really sharp and I couldn't go back to 1080p. When I sit back in the couch the improvement is still very clear but when I play a 1080p game it still looks passable.

I literally couldn't care any less about the Xbox X (and the Pro), because my current PS4 does me just fine.

Microsofts slogan should be "just by a pc already" if you care about specs ..... Just by a pc !

Yeah. Totally. Play Anywhere makes that argument even more so than this weird focus on specs.

People will say "the Xbox is much cheaper" but they're using a $1500 MacBook Pro and a $400 console (not everyone of course). I would choose a PC over a console because it's...a PC too, not just for playing games. Most of us aren't paying $2000 for a high end PC and then only using it to play games.

Microsoft have made the argument to own their console worse as time goes by, not better. The PS4 is a much better console if you have a capable PC in your house.

Spend more than twice as much for maybe not even equal performance? Do people making these comments actually have or know what high end PCs cost and how they run 4K? The graphics card alone costs as much as Xbox One X and from what I have seen from Digital Foundry, might not even run games as well as this console will . High end monitors that can show off the games well are also crazy expensive.

I have seen this comment so many times and it is pretty ignorant of the PC market.

It isn't just for 4K. Performance and visuals across the board will be better as long as developers do their work.

Anyways, I am excited. I need a PC upgrade desperately but paying $500 and looking at getting a new TV first (which I also need) sounds really appealing. Finally a console that's coming out that is on par with the top end PC power. One of the biggest disappointments (that I think hamstrung this gen of consoles) is how they put out brand new consoles that were like mid range PC power at release. Set everything back.

I agree with all the points laid out in this thread so far but what I will say what Microsoft is doing with the X is good for video games overall. Focusing more on good graphics and hardware means the bar is raising for what we can see on the PC side. We are behind on our potential for graphic fidelity and even though games look good and fine these days they can look so much better. The PC is bottlenecked by what the consoles can do because devs primarily design for the current console hardware. Xbox X raising the bar on what we can do makes sure what we get on the PC is more worth the money we spend on upgrades. Making the advantages of a PC more advantageous.

Back in the day when my PS2 had my loyalty I was full of anti-HD arguments once it became clear that Xbox 360 needed better monitors than the one I had at the time.

I bought a better screen, and an Xbox 360 and I had no regrets.

Now I feel like I'm in the same position again. I'm bought into the PS4 ecosystem and I have, what I think is a nice monitor to play my games on. Why do I need to upgrade and get a better screen again?

If the jump is anything like SD to HD was then the cycle will probably continue and I'll be looking back in 10 years wondering how I could have ever been invested in staying with the lower-grade screen.

Human nature fuels confirmation bias but if the tech is significantly better, then ultimately that's what will matter in the long run.

Can we stop saying just build a PC already. It's not that simple. I have and always will be a PC gaming enthusiast. I have been building PCs since the mid 90's and just built my current rig this last October. (I5 6600K, 32 GB of DD4 @ 3200 (before anybody says anything I have a use for this much ram that isn't gaming related), a Asus RX 480 8gbits flashed to a rx580, and Samsung 512GB M2 SSD). The whole system cost me 1100 dollars including the Windows 10 licence. That system cannot run 4k gaming at anything over 45 fps unless seriously reduce the rest of the setting. That system cannot run over 120 fps at 1080p on max setting. In short my rig will not do what the X does. That said I didn't build that system to play games. If I did and I was doing a 4k rig on a budget it would look something like this https://pcpartpicker.com/list/ZMK4VY . (For those who don't want to look it's total cost is just below 1300 bucks.) Sure, I could be a bit cheaper by switching the SSD for a HD and I could always remove the 4k blu ray drive but then it wouldn't really be comparable to the X would it. (Also I wasn't willing to go lower than a Z270 MB because it's a PC and if you can't tweak your hardware then you're really not doing it right.) That rig would get you similar results to what the X is suppose to be getting. Yes, it has other advantages but at 3x the cost it had better have.

Every game uses a lot of "tricks" to run well. Halo 5 would downscale parts of the level or scene you weren't looking at so what you did see was a higher resolution.

It's all trade offs and sacrifices to find a place where the dev is happy.

I must be out of touch with kids today, in the 80's/90's everyone gamed in the living room/basement on the TV, pc was a lot less. In this thread and every other thread I've seen, everyone is 'build a pc!' instead, so spend twice as much and be twice as uncomfortable? I like my pc for some games but I totally would give up slight graphical advantages of pc for comfort...with the xbox one x maybe I don't have to make the compromise at least for a little while.

I'm excited for it. 4k TVs are pretty cheap now if you have a job, and I already need a new Xbox since mine was stilen so it all works out pretty well for me. I know PC gaming is the IT thing, but console gaming is just a lot more enjoyable and convenient for me.

I'm excited for this, because it means that now developers will (hopefully) be incentivized to make more graphically intensive games that take advantage of the Pro and XBOX hardware, which will then trickle down to the PC.

now games will take even longer to make beacuse 4k graphics :D

You're on a hardcore gaming forum, of course the representation of high end PC users is higher here than most places. Looking at the Steam hardware survey, the number of users that have a 4K capable video card is less than 4% of all users, and that doesn't even mean their CPU is up to snuff, or they have enough RAM. And hell, they might not even have a 4K display. The three most used "high end" cards (as in discreet graphics, not CPU based), are the GTX 750 TI--a three year old card, the GTX 970--a 2.5 year old card, and the GTX 1060, a year old card that is design to be good, but affordable.

I spent $1300 on my PC last June, getting a 1080, a high end i7, etc., it's a very powerful PC even today. But even on my machine if I want to get 60 frames at 4K, then I usually can't do much more than medium settings, rarely high settings. $500 for a machine that can do 4K/30, let alone some of the games that they are promising are 4K/60, is fucking nuts. Even if it only sells a few million units, there will be far more Xbone Xs sold than 4K capable gaming rigs.

The small form factor and Dolby Vision HDR/Atmos are a big selling point for me. It's $50 less than the Oppo BD player with the same features and it comes with the bonus of playing video games.

@bigsocrates: I couldn't agree with you more. I have a PS4 Pro and on my TV the difference is minimal for the extra grunt it takes to output. The really big jump that would make a difference is how complex models are (terrain/characters) and how they physically interact with each other. How unyielding/pliable objects are and how they deform when coming into contact with each other. This is probably 15+ years from now but that could really change the way games look, and possibly even how they play. Lighting/particle/liquids are also more important to me than resolution.

I think people are really underplaying those features and it's a real shame. I don't think people understand what they have there.

That all being said I think the real question isn't is it a good price for what you get <Spoiler Alert It Is>. The question is about value and I'm not sure that 4k matters enough to enough people for the answer to that question to be yes for most consumers. Then again I don't know if Microsoft cares.

4K is a resolution

@frostyryan: i know but my point still remaing remember the jump from sd to hd how the dev time got bigger

That's because games development itself also advanced. The leap from that gen to the next was huge in terms of actual games development and artistry.

Here, there's not a "generation leap." This leap isn't the same as that leap. Games development time won't change drastically because games will display in 4K now on consoles. PC versions of games already display in 4K.

I'm personally not holding my breath. They under delivered last time, so I'm not buying their supposed improvements. More importantly, it's smaller so I can't wait for DF and other people to tear the thing down. I fear it being either too hot or loud.

I am aware that developers are using these techniques now. My point was that they will have to continue doing this on the Xbox X to achieve stable frame rates. If done right this is not a big deal. I just think that Microsoft was overselling the power of their system in the presentation. You could come away from it thinking every game would run at full 4k at 60fps and I think that just won't be the case.

From a hardware standpoint, the XOX is a little disappointing. The GPU is fantastic (and is faster than anything that doesn't say 1080 or Titan on it), but the CPU is incredibly underpowered in comparison. The Digital Foundry folks said in the Destiny 2 video that it's going to be a bottleneck going forward, and will likely prevent a lot of games from hitting 60FPS, even at lower resolutions. This thing is a 4K 30FPS machine, much like the PS4 pro. The difference is that it'll likely be able to hit that 4K number natively much more often. But it isn't designed as good as it could have been, and for $500 it seems like a niche item.

I have no need for a 4K tv until (a) my current TV breaks or (b) cable providers and other content providers consistently provide 4K content. When (and only when) I can watch sports in 4K I will buy a 4K TV.

6 teraflops is easily enough for 4k at 60fps, the gtx 1070 runs at 6.5 and is very comfortable with 4k. vr, now that would be a different story

I feel like the E3 conference actually undersold the X... You're probably right about them using lots of "tricks" to get the performance but that's what consoles are best at. It's when you can't tell there's anything tricky happening that they really shine and Digital Foundry's video makes me think a lot of those tricks are also going to be under the hood which means you won't be able to notice.

@retrometal: yep, I'm exactly the same. I'll be waiting to see if it's worth it if I don't plan on getting a 4KTV for years.

Just for the record, GTX 1070 = 6.5TLOPs. GTX 1080 = 8.9TFLOPs.

My 1070 barely manages stable 1080/60 with really demanding games. Yet, the new Xbox will pull off 2160/60 somehow? Hmmm.

Their presentation, and any E3 presentation for that matter, is marketing material. It's purpose is to pump up and sell a product. If you're expecting these companies to add caveats to every piece of hardware or software you will be disappointed.

Teraflops only takes into account the GPU power, not the CPU power. The XOX has greatly increased GPU power over the standard XO, but the CPU power was only bumped up a small amount. Destiny 2 will only run at 30FPS on XOX. Here's what Digital Foundry says about it:

"On the face of it, there's nothing here that we couldn't have guessed already: when you look at the balance of the PS4 Pro and indeed Project Scorpio, both consoles have been specifically designed to run current-gen game engines at higher resolutions and smoother frame-rates. Both Scorpio and PS4 Pro only offer a 31 per cent uplift in CPU power, while GPU sees a 2.3x boost over base hardware with PS4 Pro, rising to a 4.6x uplift on Scorpio vs Xbox One. The core hardware design of both machines is all about scaling up graphics, not the game simulation." (Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-why-cant-destiny-run-at-60fps-on-ps4-pro)

Check out the DF video on Destiny 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smn_ZUGK7ZQ While it will ultimately vary from game to game, the XOX was generally designed to run 900p XO games at 4K. It was not designed to bump those same 30FPS games to 60FPS. Certainly games like Forza will be running at 60FPS, but the XOX is going to end up in the same ballpark as the PS4 Pro, I think, and essentially only makes sense if you have a 4K TV.

It's not entirely fair to consider the cost of a monitor when you're considering the price of a PC, because you'll need to buy an expensive 4K TV to fully take advantage of the XOX, as well. If you already have a monitor or TV you're planning on using for either setup, then it's a moot point.

Also, you don't need a $500 graphics card to enjoy super high resolutions on PC. Even a 970 GTX, which can be had for pretty cheap nowadays, can function as a 4K 30FPS card. I agree that the PC cost of entry is higher, but you are also getting a much more versatile machine. And once you make the plunge, you can upgrade piecemeal as certain components age.

@ilserpente: I would consider it different for me to get a TV. I use it more socially and that's of more value to me. I also watch TV or movies on it and not really my computer. Considering I will be moving into a place and will need a new TV but not a new monitor (I've been using the same one for many years now, a Dell I was also hooking the Xbox 360 up to at one point). If I go up in the PC monitor space it gets pricey. I also am interested in HDR, for more than just games. and that isn't really there on monitors right now. When you get into high end stuff like that in monitors they are super pricey.

For my position that's what I'm looking at saying it. Can't speak to anyone else. I'm not saying the Xbox One X sells tons.

For me I need to buy a whole new PC at this point. I have a i5. It's not a piecemeal upgrade for me. I would not be interested in settling for a 970. I already have priced out what I am looking for and it costs more than twice as much as the Xbox.

You're talking to someone who has played on PC for many years. I love it. But I don't do much that needs power besides game. I pretty much just browse the internet, write, program simple stuff, and listen to music on it. So for me a TV is a much better investment as a versatile thing.

Eventually I will get a new PC. Getting one when the cards are a step or two beyond this even and an Xbox in the meantime sounds pretty good.

I have a GTX 970 and am satisfied with it for the time being, but let's not oversell it. I've struggled to maintain a constant 60 fps at 1080p on medium settings with some of the more recent AAA games (ME Andromeda and Hitman come to mind).

@frytup: Sorry but you are talking out of your ass. A 1070 can easily max any game at 1080p 60fps. I have a 1070 and run everything maxed at 1440p at 60fps. Only game that I have had to turn down slightly is The Witcher, and even that was minimal.

I'm one of the people who still feels like 1080p is great. Just gimme them frames and I'm a happy boy.

@at93850 said:

You can plug PCs into the TV and play with a controller, so that seems like a false dilemma. I have PC/PS4/XBox all hooked up to the same TV.

I'm sure Cuphead could run on the Switch. Really the only thing selling me on the 1X is that it is so small and it would take up less room in my closet than my first gen Xbox One.

@retrometal: that's how I feel too

Man I've tried it and it is just a pain in the ass in a recliner. Launch the game with the mouse, switch to controller, pressing esc to pause, etc. It's the fact that only some of the games are controller suitable and the rest all depend on some sort of mouse/keyboard support. I played all the way through starcraft 2 before I decided it just wasn't worth it and moved my pc back upstairs. I do have the steam link to occasionally play games with it.

I actually like the first gen sitting in my rack more than the 1s, the 1s is white and honestly not attractive at all. The original at least has some heft to it. My ps4 pro is equally not attractive, the original ps3 was much better (although much less functional because of that round top).

Granted, I'm running 1920x1200 which is ~10% more pixels than standard 1080p, but my ass would be happy to show you TW3 barely making 60 frames with everything cranked. Deus Ex: MD is basically a slide show with everything on.

Many games are completely fine, yes, but those games don't look like what MS showed yesterday.

@at93850: I just can't get into how big the original One is. I'd think about getting an S but that feels like a waste of money/redundant at this point. I kind of wish I could get a 1X and PS4 Slim (or even Pro) just to live in a tiny console future of the Switch/PS4S/X1X.

Excuuuuuuse me Princess, but isn't it Xbox One X?

@darth_navster:

Oh I realize it's not an ideal solution, but DF is doing a series on that very issue (using a 970 for 4K). They overclock it (though not by a ridiculous amount) and need to tweak the individual game settings a bit, but the generally do get the job done with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0nl0Pdn3is&t=16s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rGNfveTD4Q