Here is the metacritic article

Not only did PC get more good exclusives but also multiplatform games. This likely has to do with the fact PC has access to a lot of console "exclusives" like Cuphead and Hellblade.

"Only three PC games achieved a Metascore of 90 or higher in 2017, down from five in each of the two prior years. But the overall number of good PC games actually increased in the past year: 205 titles landed a green Metascore in 2017 compared to 178 in 2016. That means there were more good PC games to choose from than in any year since we began compiling these year-end surveys in 2009. And no console had that many options."

Dem Xbox One numbers are almost as sad as the Vita.

Inb4 PC got no games.

Don't **** with my scorestreaks.

Just kidding. Also, he should be charged with murder.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/35-Watt-and-65-Watt-mobile-Ryzen-processors-might-be-coming-soon-according-to-a-product-slide.271964.0.html

But also very likely it will be a custom 8 core once more, since developers would appreciate such a design from past experience with the current gen. We will likely be looking at a rough estimate of 2.2x the cpu power. This should allow for more AI controlled activity, physics and dynamic destruction.

Question is, will Xbox one X still be supported by next gen?

I was considering getting a 1TB ssd for 300 bucks, and after careful consideration i realized it's not worth it. Now that most AAA games nowadays require 80GB, how many games i will be able to install on it? 11. When my Steam library of 400 games would require much more than that.

The advantages are very few, the cost / value of ssd drives is abysmal. In order to safely clone my OS to an ssd, it would require 2 TB of ssd. I checked the cost. 800 fucking dollars.

Yes, the tests of ssd performance look yummy. But in reality, i didnt see much improvement over hdd, considering i can wait extra 10-20 seconds of loading times.

But in practice, these performance tests are bullshit as they don't mention that those loading times are only when you load games for the first time. Consequent loading screens are much shorter afterwords.

Its pretty much established that X1X will have a slighly higher resolution than the Pro and it would be around the performance of a GTX 1060... Seeing as a 1070 runs this game at 4k/60.

Nothing new and this trend wont change, time to end these threads in all honesty. Its blah, as long as the game isn't broken it will just be same thing over and over.

• PS4 = 1440p console, runs on par with a under clocked RX 470 with a bad CPU
• X1X = 1600-1800p console, 90% of the time on par with a GTX 1060 and 10% on par with a GTX 1070 along with a bad CPU

Its blah.

@airraidjet said:

Project Scorpio development kit!

6.6 teraflops (44 CUs at 1.172 GHz)

24 GB GDDR5 memory at 326 GB/s bandwidth

Phil has one of those but we only get the 6 teraflop, 12 GB retail versions :P

Shouldnt that LCD say 30FPS because we know damn well nothing runs at 60FPS on the X. (sorry my inner cow was getting out) :P

The point of the topic is when will we have a PC for $500 that matches a X1X.

Not when will a GPU like the X1X be released, while yes the Vega 11 chip does seem to match the X1X SOC its still not a GPU that will likely be possible to use in a $500 for reasons you mentioned miners.

You need a Sub $200 GPU which is not what V11 will be, it will take two to three generations to get Vega 56/ GTX 1070 GPU performance from a GPU sub $200. Like a GTX 1050 Ti did to a GTX 770 three generations half the price and same performance. To get X1X performance your looking at a $300 GPU... It will take 2-3 generations for a $150-200 GPU to out perform that and then you could build a PC for $500 that will be on par or better than a X1X.

Again, Vega 11 will not be a sub $200 GPU with X1X performance... It would make Vega 56 redundant. It will be a $300 GPU with a cut down verson a X70 for $250 and X60 varient for $200 or less.