Here's how Microsoft's $500 Xbox One X compares to a PC

No, but you will be able to upgrade your current PC for a cheaper price than having to buy a completely brand new Xbox model, XBL, and higher average game costs every 3 years. All while having the superior system.

Scorpio is only a much better price if you are completely new to gaming with no new System this gen, but only in the short term. Eventually your XBL, lack of game deals, and having to buy a new Scorpio will catch up to the cost of upgrading that PC you would have gotten instead. PC eventually will close in the cost but with the caveat of being considerably better at gaming.

The brand new PC route WILL still end up a bit more expensive overall at first for this new gamer (not nearly as much as you state by 3 years time) - there is no doubt about this. Better quality costs more in all markets. You're getting all of XB's games on top of several Sony console exclusives and tons of PC exclusives, and multiplats that actually run at 60 frames and better gfx. I'd say a 20-30% more overall cost for the first 3-5 years is worth double the yearly library alone, and possibly visits to the optometrist for having to put up with 30 frames.

Please it has a 6TF GPU if sony would have not drop the speed of the Pro GPU it would be 5.8TF with the 36CU it has that on PC this days is mid range not a beast at all.

Scorpio is cheaper upfront but on the longer run is not live is $60 and is something you don't have to pay for on PC.

Developers who are not getting 4k is because the xbox one X simply can't handle every game at certain settings which is the same happening on the Pro side the XBO X just have a higher peak but ultimately is bound by the same bottleneck lack of power.

@tormentos:

You can't have the increase in power without the proportionate jump in memory bandwidth and VRAM. PS4 Pro has 218GB/s on a 256-bit bus and 5.5GB VRAM for games, while the X1X has 326GB/s memory bandwidth on a 384-bit bus and 9GB VRAM for games.

Pro is fine for what it is...a double-PS4 at $399.

Could also say PS4 pro is to a RX 470 as X1X is to a RX 580. That near 40% gap can make or break the ability to do 4k/30 without too many compromises.

A part of me thinks that we need to wait for the Vega architecture first. One major flaw i see about the "consoles vs PC" comparison is that game journalists always default to the best rig they have in their offices, rather than the most comparable. Perhaps the lower-end cards in the RX Vega line could give us something closer to what the Xbox One X offers than an RX 480 or GTX 1060?

I dunno, i just think that a like for like comparison is far more interesting than "underpowered AMD APU vs computer you wish you could afford"

Is it me or the XBX is not out yet?

Plus why put a $400 CPU vs a $60 CPU in XBX?

Lets wait and see if a 2050ti matches the XBX...

From what I can tell the Xbox 1 X certainly outperforms any PC at around that price point, but what peasants fail to realize is that these situations are always temporary, in a few months new hardware will be introduced and with that comes price drops, and bam PC becomes the better option again. Sorry but tech advances very fast in the PC world, consoles never stay a better offer for too long. Plus it is very likely that MS will be facing the same problem sony did the PS3, is that they lose in profit for every console they sell because they are sold at a low price, the price of games on those systems will be jacked up to compensate and lets not forget about online subscription. Why even bother ever bringing up these discussion? we have already been here before, truth to the matter is consoles will never catch up to PCs.

Well could you please hurry up and release vega 11 id rather not buy another nvidia card

Volta is basically around the corner at this point. Might as well wait for that cause that's what I'm gonna do. As far as Vega goes, I really didn't want to pay the Nvidia premium, but it just seems like AMD can't give me what I desire for a GPU wise.

This is the most annoying thing about PC gaming you always "might as well wait for xxx". If that is the case I will sit with my 980ti for another year or so. I am looking to start using freesync because I dont want to by into gsync. Nvidia is way overpriced, so now I have to wait for AMD to pull their head out of their ass and stop releasing cards that can be bios flashed into the next version. We need a AMD solution for 4k 60 fps because right now one does not exist.

So umm, no. That would be the Mighty Scor.., er, I mean Mighty X1X with FM7 at 4K 60 fps. I wouldn't hit a dog in da azz with a nerdy Pee Cee Office machine for gaming, yuck. lol :P

http://www.vg247.com/2017/06/13/destiny-2-is-also-30fps-on-xbox-one-x/

Destiny 2 is also 30fps on Xbox One X

Wouldn't want to bo caught paying $700 per 4 years on a machine with so few games and still being stuck at 30 fps. This isn't even factoring in the more expensive games. I would much rather spend that saved $800-1000+ on upgrading a PC to be better than said XB Model while being a superior gaming device.

What part of MS saying; 3rd party devs can do whatever they want do you not get? Also how'd you miss Forza Motorsport 7 at 4K 60fps? And lastly, since when did $499.99 become $700.00?

Are you sure you're not just supah salty because you paid $1500.00 for a PC that Mighty X1X does the same or better for a third of the cost? lol :P

1. What part of games still running 30 fps after spending a whopping $700 every 4 years do you not get? http://www.vg247.com/2017/06/13/destiny-2-is-also-30fps-on-xbox-one-x/ . "Same or Better", right. 30 fps is certainly better than 60. This is called putting money in the toilet.

2. XBL. This objectively costs $50 a year. Each XB model is released at around 4 years. Hence, $200 on top of $500. This is $700, you are bad at math. Please do not insult our intelligence by saying this is not a required cost.

3. Upgrading a PC for $700 every 4 years gives you a superior system than a brand new XBOX + XBL every 4 years. Please stop acting like I buy a $1500 PC every 4 years. This is not consoles, you do not buy an entirely new system every 4 years now. Upgrades exist, and make up a significant % of PC hardware sales compared to full premade PC rigs. I did not pay $1500 on my PC. I payed $600 of upgrades this gen though. Cheaper than XB System + XBL, on top of having a superior gaming device with higher frames, still better gfx in many cases, and double the aaa/aa library.

4. I'm not even factoring in game costs difference and money saved on PC in this facet, so you don't cry yourself to sleep. I don't even have to though.

But you are right, for a brand new gamer XB1x is a bit cheaper. But after three years, the prices of free online and cheaper games on PC + the ability to simply upgrade rather than buy an entirely brand new model will catch up for this new gamer. But Like I've stated before - If you want the superior product, you pay more.

XBL Gold is not required to play games. Adding XBL to the cost is artificial padding.

##

1. Only ones spending $700.00 every two years are you and your ilk.

2. I pay about 35-40 bucks a year for the superior, safer service of XBLG plus the 48 games a year I get at no additional cost making them less than a buck a piece. Best deal in town baby.

3. Covered on #1

4. I've got more great games at less than a buck a piece than I could complete in the next few decades. ( cry mooaar lolol )

But like I sated,; if it makes you feel better to spend all that additional money every couple years for a lessor product, hey, what can I say, it's your money, go nuts.

This is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. You can not play online games with Silver. This is a large portion of XB's small library. No one in SW is going to allow this talking point to be turned into reality, so I'm going to continue to add the XBL price onto the price of your Quadrennial XBOX model. Unless you can give me citation showing onlin gaming with XB is free I will simply strike out this spin.

~$700 on PC upgrades every 4 years > $700 on XB costs every 4 years.

Better fps, better gfx, double the high scoring library.

1. Upgrading PC > XBL + XB in terms of cost and superior gaming product. Enjoy your 30 fps, worse online, dead competitive scene, and far less games.

2. Covered in #1, even with $40 a year, upgrading PC is still superior at a closer cost. Also no one cares about the shit free games you have, none of those deals touch PC's deals. BTW, many pay $60. I simply used an average.

3. Covered in #1

4. I did not ask for empirical evidence :

It is padding. Don't be foolish. You have the opportunity to not be foolish. You can still opt to not be foolish.

@zaryia:

Look man, I understand, you have buyers remorse with that underpowered one year old PC you bought after seeing the powah of Mighty X1X launching in mere months for a fraction of the price but eh, live and learn baby, I always say. lol :P

I didn't buy a brand new PC....you are making up false information, and bogs down any semblance of an "arguement" you had.

I bought upgrades. They factually cost close to a XB1X + 4 years of XBL. It will run Destiny 2 at 60 fps (among all other games - unlike XB) and have considerably more 80/90%+ scoring titles. It will have superior online and deals. It will have more features. It will have exponentially more competitive scenes and games. These are facts, which can be confirmed by tech sites and MC/GS.

The same will hold true for X12, X13, etc. Upgrades > Your fisher price rig.

XBL is required to play games online. This is not padding. Don't be silly. Don't be a blind fanboy.

To not include that price is being extremely disingenuous, and coming off as some MS talking points bot sent out by some XB fan forum.

The Internet is required to play games on PC. Are you including that in your cost? No because it dumb. The fact is that you DO NOT need XBL Gold to play games on the Xbox but you NEED internet to play games on PC but you don't include that cost. If you are comparing hardware compare hardware. Padding OPTIONAL services is foolish and you are doing an excellent job so far in the foolish department. Calling me a fanboy would not change anything because my point holds its own. :)

The XBOX1X device can not be fully played without XBL. You need XBL to play XB1X games online. To not include the cost of such a service is foolish, and makes you sound like some kind of MS salesperson rather than a gamer. You aren't plopping down $500 and not using the system's full functionality without the required XBL.

Upgrading a PC > XB*X + XBL. In terms of price to gaming superiority. If you want the best possible gaming device, PC won't cost you much more than a XB system.

I'm simply stating facts.

$700 Quadrennial cost to keep with the best of XB1X products.

People act like gold is not always on sale.... and consoles dont get game sales as well.

With that said you get what you pay for, PC has much better performance, pc also has more exclusives then all the consoles combined.

You are dancing around the fact that XBL Gold is NOT NEEDED to play games on the system. However, the Internet is NEEDED to play all modern games on the PC but you don't include the price because that will be padding even if there is more of a reason to add that to the price that XBL Gold. But you are still being foolish about your artificial padding to the cost by including an OPTIONAL service when comparing hardware cost. Also don't skip the fact that XBL Gold is NOT REQUIRED.

XBL Gold is required to play XBOX products to its fullest capacity. This is the base functionality of online gaming. Online is a tech feature.

Striking out base online gaming from a system's technical/hardware feature is impractical, illogical, and down right stupid.

And yes, the superior product costs more in this situation. I stated as much. PC is without a doubt still more expensive. But these people saying XB1X destroys PC for a fraction of the price are pretending that upgrades and xbl do not exist. Console gets game sales, but nothing on par with PC. They are also pretending these upgraded PCs still won't stomp XB1x into the ground.

To put it simply, I upgraded my PC for slightly more than xb1x + xbl costs and it will run games better and have much better online and library on top of other features.

I will do the same for XB2x, 3x, 4x, cycles. I will always be ahead with a far superior gaming device with minimal cost differences.

Including an OPTIONAL service in hardware comparison and in overall cost to play games on the Xbox (or PS4 with PS+) is silly no matter how much you try to twist the logic to fit your agenda. You have yet to address the fact that you CANNOT play games on the PC without Internet but you can still play games on consoles without the need of the Internet. All platforms benefit with the inclusion of Internet but one wouldn't work without it but you opt to not include the price. LOL. You are padding the cost to fit your agenda. Own up to it.

You are paying for the tech inside XB1X that allows online. You have to pay $40-60 a month to unlock this base feature. Steam is Free on PC.

This is not padding. It is a base feature, required to simply play video games online. A majority of XB exclusives have major online selling points. The person who has an agenda is the person telling us to not include base online functionality into a system. It's safe to assume me and secretpolice play games online, the two of us were having the price argument no?

To put it simply, I upgraded my PC for slightly more than xb1x + xbl costs and it will run games better and have much better online and library on top of other features.

I will do the same for XB2x, 3x, 4x, cycles. I will always be ahead with a far superior gaming device with minimal cost differences.

Point remains the same.

My point remains the same as well.

If you plan on online gaming, buying the latest XB model isn't much less than upgrading PC which will still runs games better.

@navyguy21 said:

Nothing on that post was stupid alto i understand that you lack of knowledge on this subject and your double standard is quite an impediment for you.

I know but my point is the GPU inside the Pro can reach an even pass 6TF on PC,is obvious that it would have been a waste for sony without bandwidth and also would have require better cooling system,but what i try to say was that scorpio GPU isn't a beast is basically mid range now.

The amount of charts is off the charts.

Sony needed the mirrored 18CU setup and Polaris 10 was basically built around being just that. MS needed a 6TF GPU with high memory bandwidth to get to 4K and Polaris 10 is capable of that in the 40CU form you see it in X1X.

The wildcard is still whether X1X has direct pixel engine to L2-cache access like Vega. That's a big reason, paired with higher memory bandwidth to FLOPS ratio, why Nvidia has superior performance to AMD in many titles despite AMD's FLOPS advantage.

Direct pixel engine to L2 and higher mem bandwidth has a much broader impact than async/FP16. I think DOOM and AoTS are the only async games I have and I don't know of any others aside from TimeSpy, and double-rate FP16 had minimal impact on BF1 for Pro

In the case that X1X might have this Vega feature paired with high mem bandwidth, it would be a class above a RX 480/GTX 1060, so $300-400 current price range that GTX 980ti and GTX 1070 currently occupy. PS4 Pro occupies the $100-200 price range, so it's 2 tiers below the X1X if it has direct L2 access.

I think that if they had that everyone would know it by now,MS is not the kind of company who hold secrets specially when they have something over your platform,just like we know it doesn't have FP16,i think MS has been rather silent about the so call Vega and i am starting to think it was all vaporware,just like trying to pretend that the CPU they have is not a Jaguar simply by stop calling it a jaguar and just like they try to pretend the command processor modification they did was something different or game changing.

Yes but FP16 depend on the amount of workload offloaded to it,and few games have use it to much extent.

The more you can run on FP16 the better but not everything is good for FP16.

The PS4 Pro has less power than an RX480 so i think sony didn't push more bandwidth because it would have been a waste.

@Pedro: Internet isn't required to play any games on PC but most games do require it, this is the same with console so you factor out the cost of internet because it varies and all systems kinda need it. However you don;t need to pay to play online on PC, you do on consoles.

The vast majority of PC games bought in the store requires Steam activation. Steam activation requires an internet connection.

GTX 2060 is coming...

@Pedro: Do you not download games on consoles? Does that also factor in?

@Pedro: Also, there's been multiple times where i could "login" to steam without internet, just unable to search their store or update games.

Did you miss the fact that you can play games without Internet activation on the consoles? Do not confused required and not required.

@Pedro:

It's a clear cut $740 quadrennial purchase if you choose to keep up to date with the latest XBOX Model and use it's full base capabilities of online gaming.

Upgrading a very high end gaming rig every 4 years is not far off this price. With the added benefit of actually running more games at 60 fps, potentially at higher gfx, and a significantly larger high scoring library.

I'll make the jump to 4K next year for PC possibly...for now I'll enjoy the ease of use with the Xbox One X when it releases...

Yeah, there's no way you're going to convince me that 500 dollar consoles are supplementary to PC gaming. Not when you add annual online fees into the mix as well as the 60 dollar base price for games. The way you get nickel and dimed for peripherals that work with these closed-source systems also goes overlooked.

There is a law of diminishing returns going on here. If the 1 or 2 hundred dollar gap between a decent build with access to an infinitely better range of games and owning a derpbox multiplat console is breaking you, frankly, you deserve the results.

The main problem with RX-580 is memory bandwidth and Pixel Engines being connected to memory controller instead of faster L2 cache.

Every major mobile GPU vendors has GPU designs with Geometry/Compute/Pixel Engines being connected to faster L2 cache, except for AMD!

AMD half-assed update GCNs with just Geometry and Compute engines connected to L2 cache. AMD's "TFLOPS per $$$" is a load of BS when Pixel Engine runs into memory controller bottleneck. This is why current AMD GPUs has unstable performance between GpGPU and classic GPU results.

1. RX-VEGA's improvements are not limited to just NCU. VEGA's Pixel Engine improvements are very important for classic GPU processing e.g. alpha/transparencies effects and texture-to-ROP render loop.

2. https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4xueli/polaris_up_to_15_faster_than_tonga_but_480_is/

Outside of system wars, PCMR already identified RX-480's memory bandwidth bottlenecks and AMD's bad relationship with Micron hence missing GDDR5X.

http://monitorinsider.com/GDDR5X.html

GDDR5X in a nutshell

The standard goes out of its way to mention that GDDR5X is very much built on and an evolution of GDDR5, and those who are familiar with the latter will feel right at home.

Here are some key points:

• QDR mode: data can be transferred at up to 4 times the rate of the word clock. (New!)
• Both QDR and DDR mode available. (GDDR5: DDR only)
• 16n prefetch (64 bytes per read or write) / burst length of 16 in QDR mode. (New!)
• 8n prefetch (32 bytes per read or write) / burst length of 8 in DDR mode. (Same as GDDR5)
• pseudo-independent memory accesses with 32 bytes (QDR) or 16 bytes (DDR) granularity. (New!)
• GDDR5 address compatibility mode.
• 1.35V supply for core and IOs. (GDDR5: 1.35V or 1.5V)
• 190 ball BGA package. (GDDR5: 170 ball BGA)
• memory sizes are defined up to 2GB per device. (GDDR5: up to 1GB)

The most important feature is the new QDR mode, but there are some interesting aspects about the other points as well

From https://www.linkedin.com/in/jiapinghu

AMD's GDDR5X R&D failed to arrived for RX series GPUs. Notice "14 nm" which refers to GoFlo's 14 nm FinFET process node.

20 nm refers to TSMC's 20 nm process node.

X1X's 384 bit GDDR5 is the workaround for the missing 256 bit GDDR5X.

How could you conclude "i think sony didn't push more bandwidth because it would have been a waste." when PS4 Pro game programmer has identified PS4 Pro's memory bandwidth bottleneck problem? Who are you?

http://gamingbolt.com/ps4-pro-bandwidth-is-potential-bottleneck-for-4k-but-a-thought-through-tradeoff-little-nightmares-dev

X1X's results for Forza and ARC Survival are above my MSI R9-390X. If somebody claims X1X is just RX-580, then they don't know shit i.e. X1X is doing something above my MSI R9-390X and easily rivals my MSI Gaming GTX 980 Ti (7.7 TF with factory overclock).

API overhead occurs on the CPU side and I have thrown my fastest Intel Haswell CPU (up to 4.6 Ghz) at MSI R9-390X. My Intel Haswell CPU can play games at 4.6 Ghz but it couldn't pass multi-threading super-pi test i.e. hits 130 watts power consumption = force reboot. Motherboard's VRMs are very hot, it's almost one way ticket to motherboard's destruction. I reduce clock speed back down to 4.5 Ghz.

The main reason why dumped my MSI R9-390X and carried on with GTX 980 Ti is the performance stability with Unreal Engine 4 and I couldn't wait for further AMD "software optimizations".

I hated the half-assed nature with the current AMD GPUs.

If X1X used up to 326 GB/s memory bandwidth to rival GTX 1070's 256 GB/s memory bandwidth, then there's a high probability RX Vega 64 (with 480 GB/s or 500 GB/s HBMv2) will not beat GTX 1080 Ti/Titan XP.

The wildcard is VEGA's high bandwidth cache (HBC) next to L2 cache to augment HBMv2's memory bandwidth.

VEGA 10's main improvements

1. NCU.

2. Pixel Engine to L2 cache connection. For classic GPU workloads. This area relates to tile rendering.

3. High bandwidth cache (HBC) next to L2 cache. HBC could act like L3 cache with goals to further reduce external memory hit rates.

Points 2 and 3 are very important to reduce memory bandwidth bottleneck for NCU.

@ronvalencia:

This is all good in theory, but you need to learn human nature and how to read between the lines with marketing as much as technology.

For instance, MS has not detailed their Vega enhancements and to my knowledge, has never mentioned pixel engine to L2 cache direct access. It's entirely possible that Forza 7's wet track result is happening independent of that feature.

The same marketing inference can be made for the lack of any other 1st-party title at the reveal. Same with the "True 4K" misdirection and labeling gameplay "4K" during the reveal that was checkerboarding and in some cases cbr and dynamic res.

You might be surprised at how much parity an OC'd RX 580 8GB will maintain.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-project-scorpio-tech-revealed

We quadrupled the GPU L2 cache size, again for targeting the 4K performance."

Existing AMD GPU's Pixel Engines are not even connected to L2 cache.

Forza's wet track heavy alpha effects are Pixel Engine based originated. This effect is bias towards tight texture fetch and ROPS render loop. RX-580/RX-480 OC gets smashed in Forza's wet track with heavy alpha effects.

Unreal Engine 4 based ARC Survival Evolved... well known deferred render engine.

http://techreport.com/review/31224/the-curtain-comes-up-on-amd-vega-architecture/3

To cure this headache, Vega's render back-ends now enjoy access to the chip's L2 cache in the same way that earlier stages in the pipeline do. This change allows more data to remain in the chip's L2 cache instead of being flushed out and brought back from main memory when it's needed again, and it's another improvement that can help deferred-rendering techniques.

ARC Survival Evolved is known to smash AMD GPUs.

@gamecubepad said:

You might be surprised at how much parity an OC'd RX 580 8GB will maintain.

RX-580 is the worst 6.x TFLOPS GPU. 1070 (6.5 TFLOPS) and 980 Ti (6 TFLOPS) and R9-390X(5.9 TFLOPS) remains superior to RX-580.

RX-580 is memory bandwidth gimped and Forza wet track heavy alpha effects has shown it's inferiority with Pixel Engine path.

I degraded my GTX 1080 Ti to 6.5 TFLOPS and it still delivers 4K/60 fps Forza's nurburgring wet track, hence X1X's improvement areas are with Pixel Engine path.

RX-580 has yet to convince me to ditch my GTX 980 Ti in my secondary gaming PC (ground floor).

X1X murders RX-580 OC (ASUS ROG STRIX GAMING RX580 DirectCU III TOP OC 8GB).

ARC Survival is 3rd party game with well known Unreal Engine 4 which has very high chance for hardware profile target for X1X.

MS also uses Unreal Engine 4 for Gears of War 4, State of Decay 2, Sea of Thieves, Crackdown 3 and cancelled Fable Legends and Scalebound.

"Ori and The Blind Forest", Cuphead and ReCore uses Unity 3D, hence there's very high chance for hardware profile target for X1X.

My argument is not 4K resolution.

@ronvalencia:

We'll see. At this point I think X1X is more powerful than a RX 580, but I'm not convinced it has Vega's pixel engine to L2 just yet. I think the hardware is well worth the price, but games have yet to convince me. Hopefully we'll get a look at Gears 4 and TW3 soon. At 4K they tend to perform better with Nvidia, so it might give a better perspective.

Mainstream Vega 11 is coming... http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-11-mainstream-gpus-late-2017-launch/

For Gears of War 4's campaign mode.

GTX 980 Ti Hybrid at 1228 Mhz has 6.9 TFLOPS

GTX 1070 SC at 1784 Mhz has 6.85 TFLOPS

MSI R9-390X at 1100 Mhz has 6.0 TFLOPS

MSI RX-480 GX at 1316 has 6.06 TFLOPS.

Btw, scale MSI RX-480 GX's result by an extra 27 percent memory bandwidth difference, it lands on GTX 1070 class. GPU's L2 cache must be used to give memory bandwidth time for the CPU.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-gears-of-war-4-face-off

we recommend using the highest possible anti-aliasing quality with your own desired level of temporal sharpening. The differences are extremely subtle to the point where it's not clear where Xbox One falls but it does appear to at least match the high setting.

Xbox One appears to use the high setting, which is made evident by additional artefacts in motion

Interestingly, Xbox One seems to use a custom value here with results closer to the high setting but still falling short in a few areas.

Lighting and shadows

Xbox One actually appears to use the medium option here

Then we have light scattering quality, which controls the volumetric lighting used in various portions of the game. Increasing this option improves the precision of the effect resulting in cleaner results without additional artefacting along its edges. Xbox One actually appears to use the medium option here, which still looks quite nice, but lacks some of the precision of the higher quality settings.

Bloom and lens flare quality are two rather subtle options, then, that influence the intensity of said effects and both of these appear to operate at the high setting on Xbox One.

Capsule shadows are another nice feature and something that was introduced in Unreal Engine 4.11. Essentially, these act as indirect shadows which help root characters more firmly in the scene. The high and ultra settings produce the same quality of capsule shadows but the former limits the number of characters per scene using the higher quality effect. Xbox One appears to be a match for the high setting

https://gearsofwar.com/en-gb/community/gears-4-xbox-one-x X1X version is higher than PC's high settings.

Mike Rayner: The first and probably most noticeable improvement is, of course, that we render the game at native 4K resolution. Not only does that mean a 4x increase in our native rendering resolution compared to 1080p on Xbox One, but it also means much higher resolution textures across the board – from characters to environments, visual effects, everything! Bringing that incredible level fidelity to the console for the first time, which so far has really been limited to top-spec PC rigs, has been incredibly exciting for us.

Mike Rayner: I guess that means we’re doing our job well!

We’ve worked on bringing a number of additional technical improvements that really bring our world to life more than ever before that are exclusive to Xbox One X. We have fully dynamic shadows now – so for example, if a tree is blowing in the wind, on the ground you’ll see that shadow of that tree dynamically move as you’d expect it to. We’ve also enhanced the detail in these shadows so they’ll look crisper and more detailed. The new Shadow improvements really add a lot to the feel of our environments.

One of the things you were probably gawping at (while you were busy dying, let’s not forget) in the Outsider Village are our real time light shafts – sometimes referred to as ‘God Rays’. You’ll now see shafts of sunlight or moonlight poking through statues, moving helicopter blades, the branches of trees and so on as they would in real life. It’s one of my personal favorite features because it’s just so visually eye catching and atmospheric.

We also have other features like improved reflections, longer draw distances and higher poly counts to further bump up the fidelity of our world.

As long the CPU is not a bottleneck, X1X's version still points to GTX 1070 class.

Any future GPUs should be profiled against multi-game vendor 3D engines e.g. Unreal Engine 4, Unity 3D, CryEngine 3 and 'etc'.

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

Witcher 3 is next on the list.