Project Cars 2 On Xbox One X Will Look "Significantly" Better Than PS4 Pro, Dev Says

The racing game will look best on Xbox One X, unless you're using a high-end PC.

358 Comments
Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: Project Cars 2 - Difficult But Rewarding Racing Gameplay

Microsoft has been saying for a while now that Xbox One X versions of multiplatform games will look and run better than any other console edition. While that remains to be seen, it looks like Project Cars 2 will at least look better running on Microsoft's Xbox One X.

Speaking to TrustedReviews, game director Stephen Viljoen said people playing on Xbox One X will see the best-looking version of the game on console. "I can't tell you exactly what all the various sliders will be at when you're on Xbox One X versus on PS4 Pro, but obviously they'll be higher [on Xbox One X], so there will be a significant, a noticeable improvement, because you have better hardware."

This is no surprise to hear, as the Xbox One X is the most powerful console ever made. According to Microsoft, it has 40 percent more power than the PS4 Pro.

While the PC edition of Project Cars 2 will look and perform the best if you have a beefy enough rig, Viljoen remarked that the Xbox One X is a "great piece of hardware." The developer is looking forward to "making the most of it," adding that Project Cars 2 will look and run better on Xbox One X than any other system out there apart from a high-end PC.

You can read the full interview here at TrustedReviews.

Project Cars 2 launches on September 22 for PC, Xbox One, and PS4. GameSpot is meeting with the developers next week and we'll have more on the game soon. For now, you can check out all the cars and all the tracks through GameSpot's new videos below.

The Xbox One X launches in November, priced at $500. Internationally, it will go for £449, €499, CA$599, and AU$649.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 358 comments about this story
358 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
JoshRMeyer

@toonarmy20: Are you saying Nintendo has been in second place this gen? I don't get the third place to first place thing... It's certainly not in sales, or power, or games. So what did they go from third to first in?

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: That's true; it is snapshot hardware, but so is any particular PC build. It is also true that PCs are upgradeable, but you can only upgrade a build significantly for so long, before having to start from scratch.

I disagree with the "peasant hardware" point. The One X is a powerful current snapshot build for $500, more so than a current snapshot PC build for twice that.

You also have to factor in the fact that you simply do not get a 1:1 performance ratio of console to PC. The One X has customized chips and architecture that allows offloading of common CPU gaming tasks to free up resources. It is specifically tailored for gaming to get the most out of the hardware. PCs are much more general purpose.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: PS4 uses the same AMD APU architecture as Xbox One. The PS4 was not on par with a high end PC at the time, but was much more on par with the Xbox One. I assume you meant PS3, rather than PS4?

Which is silly, because the PS3 was never able to keep up with the 360 in real world performance. Both the 360 and PS3 were on par with high end PCs, and they were both sold at a loss.

I don't know what you're talking about with Witcher 3, since I can't find any details about it beyond that it's getting a patch for Pro/One X.

Even if you bring up valid cases of individual games, there are also those cases on PC as well, where it just doesn't perform like it should.

The One X is on par with a much more expensive PC build.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: Well, I consider a $1500 PC a lot more expensive than a $500 console. That's the point. What you get for $500 is impressive.

Xbox 360 actually was on par with PS3, and slightly edged it. The 360s AMD GPU was, in fact, superior to the PS3's NVidia GPU. It's true that the best NVidia cards are superior to the best AMDs now, but not all NVidias are better than all AMDs. And in this instance it was not the case. The 360 was less complicated to develop for but both 360 and PS3 are far more "difficult" to optimize than the PS4 or One X currently. The PS3 had a stronger CPU on paper, but was actually not as practical for game development.

The PS3 also did technically overheat and cause issues. Far more original 360s were sold than original PS3s, so the problems were not as well known, but they were also there. An original, phat PS3 definitely has heating issues, and will cause the solder to crack, causing the "yellow light of death". The slim version of PS3 came out sooner than the slim 360, even though PS3 launched a year later. These designs significantly reduced heating problems for both.

Whatever the problems with Witcher 3 on console, there are also problematic games on PC rather than console as well. It just depends on the development of the game.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: I agree with the estimation, but I have to disagree that a 1070 is mid range. The card is literally in the top ten list of most powerful cards on the market right now and costs $400. I wouldn't call that "mid range". Granted it's not "top of the line", but I would consider it a "high end" card.

The idea of using new methods as "tricks" is kind of hit and miss. Dynamic resolution scaling, for example, makes a lot of sense and is directly comparable to more traditional rendering.

Traditionally, if a game gets too demanding to render at a given resolution, it will drop the frame rate. Res scaling simply reverses that. If a game gets too demanding to render at a given frame rate, it will drop resolution. Honestly, I think that makes more sense, and most people seem to agree that frame rate, at this point, is more important than resolution.

Checkerboard rendering is another matter. Of course native 2160p, for example, is preferable to 2160cp, but is native 1440p preferable to 2160cp? I'm honestly not sure; I haven't seen the comparison. Regardless, the Xbox One X gives a certain level of performance for $500, and it is equivalent to a high end PC.

There are plenty of games that had trouble as PC ports, especially in multiplayer scenarios.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: Meh, a site says it's a mid-range card. Other sites say it's a high end. But it's not like websites are the authorities. The fact that it's number 8 in the most powerful cards on the market and costs $400, I think attributes it to be a high end card. NVidia's naming scheme has been traditional that the x50/60s are mid range cards and the x70s/80s are high end. This is just arguing semantics, though. If you really want to insist that it should have the mid-range label, it doesn't really concern me.

The point is that you're getting rough performance to a $1200-1500 PC (high-end price) for $500. What's to argue? Of course people will be excited by that; who wouldn't, besides brand loyalists/haters? By the way, One X performance is somewhere around the RX 580/GTX 1070 now, but when it is more optimized, it will end up notably better than its current performance. It hasn't even launched yet. We all know that console performance is improved toward the end of its life cycle.

The One X is absolutely comparable to a PC. You just did it yourself. Condemning new rendering practices just because they don't fit into the mold of traditional rendering makes you look like you don't fundamentally understand them. We are now in the era of high-density pixels. Dropping resolution in spots is superior to dropping frames. PC development needs to catch up and use dynamic resolution scaling, because it's better than the old method. Obviously developers see the value of it and keep using it, even if spec traditionalists don't.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: Nah, the fact that you refuse to address these techniques on the basis of what they are actually doing, and slap them with a label of "tricks" betrays you.

If you honestly believe the PS4 Pro and One X ought to be "lumped together" and PCs are on some pedestal, regardless of these facts:

that the power to dollar ratio of a PC is less than current consoles,

that the vast majority of PCs sold are not as capable in gaming performance as current consoles,

that all arguments of PC being superior are based on the premise that you must spend significantly more money,

and if you think a PC is better because it drops frames when it can't adequately handle rendering,

then you are fooling yourself. Period.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: "PCs don't drop framerates because unlike a console a PC has the brute force to run games at any resolution or framerate without the help of a developer dollar ratio or not it doesn't matter."

This pretty much captures and sums up your entire basis for argument. This blatantly false and absurd declaration shows you as just another fanboy, of the super-hero PC image. Unfortunately for you, romanticized and idealized fake images crumble at the onslaught of facts.

No wonder you're tired.

Play your omnipotent PC and try to be happy.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: "and a PC Gamer sets his own framerate, not the devs, so think about what is false or absurd."

This statement (along with your previous ones). Nobody sets their own framerate, lol. You can set resolution and graphic effects though. Pretty cool. The devs try to hit targets with given settings.

"PC games don't require dynamic resolution or checkerboard rendering,"

What a profound statement. No games "require" dynamic res/checkerboarding. Could it be that developers see a benefit from using them?

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: I'm aware. I game on my own PC. Your track record of assumptions and statements hasn't been all too accurate thus far. Not sure what your point of all this is, though.

So I can choose graphics settings and customize them. Great. But a given hardware configuration will have its limits, and certain settings will be "best" for the game, given a particular PC build. This is no different than what developers do with console games, though they sometimes give options if you prefer resolution or frame rate.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: Nice of you to bog down these comment boards with your pathetic cheers, but this statement you made is pretty insightful since it actually applies to you (instead of whom you thought). "Any rational person reading this discussion would laugh your ass off this site because you've proven nothing that is definitive or concrete."

lol

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: Here is the honest essence of a fanboy.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: . . . and he's back with another pointless post. But it fits right in with the rest of them.

"I'm through with you."

LOL

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: ooh. More cheerleading drivel from the anti-Xbox fanboy.

"what do you have on Xbox, nothing."

"They have hardly any games from their own devs worth looking at, and certainly nothing from other places."

"enjoy having nothing to play on your shiny 30fps checkerboard console,"

So your claim is that Xbox has no games, even though there are over 1,700 games to play?

And then you back it up by saying Xbox has no games three different ways, and that Switch has more games?

LOL

"since I have done nothing else except provide proof and data"

LOL

Your entire post was SHATTERED by one little fact (1700+ games).

You're hopeless! Get some pom-poms and continue your pathetic rant. "Boo Xbox!"

lol

"I'm through with you."

Let's hope.

LOL

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: No worries. No bad news. Just pointless news.

"Yep I'm a fanboy,"

Exactly. I'm glad you recognize that. Fanboy opinions ("platforms that actually are fun") are typically dogmatic statements that are not based on reality, but fandom. You see, platforms are not "fun". Games are fun.

lol

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: "Xbox One X and PS4 Pro are no different from one another."

It's a bit like saying the GTX 1070 and RX 480 are no different from one another. But of course there's a lot more to it than that.

"As I said, the Switch is the only worthy console."

This statement is pretty hilarious, and your supporting points even more so. Not a single fact in there, apart from "it's a mobile console." Convincing. Ah well, this is the way fanboys roll.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: Uh huh. Yet more baseless fanboy opinions, and yet more inability to distinguish fact from opinion. And of course, yet more double standards.

"The console can't do anything different," after raving about "extra power" on PCs. You'll acknowledge a little bit more power on PC, but not one console from another.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: Yeah, you've said a lot of things. Accuracy isn't your forte.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: "You don't even have the console and you're already seeing compromises, that's sad,"

Your logic is flawed here. Console performance gets better over time, not worse.

So you have money to spend. Goodie for you. Just because you're willing to waste money on a few percentage points doesn't negate the fact that this console is a great value. Not everyone who has "plenty of spending money" is willing to blow it on a slight improvement, but they actually appreciate a good performance to cost ratio. The fact that 25% more than a 1070 is the cutting edge makes all your PC talk way overblown and exaggerated. The fact is that the best PCs just aren't that far above what the One X offers in terms of gaming. The only reason that consoles aren't doing three monitors is because they're designed for TVs. Nobody puts three TVs together. But the One X is certainly capable of doing three screens; 1070s and less powerful cards can pull it off fine.

And there's more to this Bungie PR than what they claim. It goes beyond just performance for sure. If they're that concerned with rendering space and objects, all they'd have to do is drop some resolution. Their textures on all the other consoles are low res anyway. Besides, they always refer to running it "on console". In terms of capability, there's nothing stopping them from getting a better performance on just the one console that has more power than the rest.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: You missed the point. I realize this may be hard to grasp for you, so let's go ahead and use your suggestion.

1070 vs. Titan XP. A $400 card vs. a $1200 card.

Going from a 1070 to a Titan, you're looking at 200% increase in cost, with roughly a 25% increase in performance. Is this perhaps starting to sink in now? So where is the value? Those little percentage points of increase after a certain point of saturation are getting very costly.

So you can (hopefully) see, then, why the One X is such a great value. You're not merely getting a GPU. You're getting a package deal; a whole system, with all that it entails, including peripherals, for $100 more than a 1070. That's called a good value.

I realize you'd like to distract the topic into talking about puppies and fanatics, but this console just happens to be a really good value, unlike your future PC builds you've been drooling over. Maybe think on that.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: You were done a long time ago. It's pretty simple. $500 Xbox One X vs. $2000 PC. The One X is a much better value. That extra $1500 doesn't accrue much more performance; certainly not even closely proportionate to the extra cost. It's four times the cost, but is it four times the performance? Not even close.

It's somewhat like deciding between the 1080 Ti vs. the Titan Xp. Sure, the Titan is more powerful, but is it "almost double the cost" more powerful? Nope. The extra performance just doesn't justify the price.

"These upgraded consoles, like the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X, just feel out of place"

This is the statement of a threatened fanboy. Nothing more nor less. Although it's a mistake to lump PS4 Pro with the One X.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: Oh, so a PC isn't a product. Your claims just keep getting better.

You're right, though. The One X is definitely outclassed by a PC that costs four times as much. Most people would consider that "expected", though.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: lol

So your entire premise is based on a "we shall see"? Might as well call Microsoft liars now.

lol

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: Ah, so which in-house games are upscaled?

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1:

Oh. So if you say that your in-house games (the ones you control) will be in 4k, but the others will be up to developers, you'd better be sure that all of the games are actually 4k, or it's a lie.

Got it.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1:

Oh okay, so this console that's $500 but performs like a $1500 PC is crap because it won't do 4k/60 like the next-gen GPUs that haven't come out yet?

Good point.

"Microsoft, they really shouldn't be promising you guys the impossible."

Are you seriously claiming they did? Maybe you can show me this "famous promise" that all you fanboys keep parroting. Where's the "4k/60 on all titles" promise?

lol

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: "It doesn't matter what your hardware is like, you control the performance outcome, no matter the GPU or CPU."

Um, yeah it matters.

"My track record is stellar,"

lol

"You can't win this."

Win what? You don't even have a primary claim. The fact is that the One X offers an incredible performance value at $500. End of story.

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
JoshRMeyer

@lonesamurai1: The baits set... I wanna see if he actually thinks Xbox one x is more powerful than PC. Read my above comment.

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
JoshRMeyer

@toonarmy20: Dad, I don't know what link you're referring to. You didn't answer my question about Xbox One being in third place and somehow now they're the master race aka 1st place. Makes absolutely no sense. All I can picture when I see your user name is a bunch of little cartoon figures on your bedroom floor ready for battle. Oh that's right, you already admitted you're a kid. Guess I can't be your son after all... Darn.

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
JoshRMeyer

@toonarmy20: Link is a fictional character in a video game called Zelda. Are you even old enough to produce the needed fluids for me to be your son? No clue what link you're referring to as I just said. Many comments in 3 weeks to remember anything you have to say. It's cool your parents are buying you the X. When you get a car payment, mortgage, family, etc, you might understand why some of us aren't getting the X, or the Pro.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: "Man it's a racing game"

This statement of ignorance you just made tells me a lot.

Look, there are so many standalone and comparison videos available of Forza 7 and GT Sport. If you honestly believe that "Gran Turismo Sport looks much better", I simply can not take your argument even remotely seriously. That is blatant and embarrassing Sony or anti-Xbox bias; nothing more nor less.

Not only that, but it devastatingly weakens your argument for PCs. If a 1440p game of the same genre "looks so much better" than a 2160p game with 2160p assets, then clearly resolution and texture bumps on PC are not nearly as significant as you might be trying to claim.

And to say that the GT series is at all competitive with the Forza series, is, again, sheer brand loyalty/hate. Given that they are of the same genre, it is not difficult to immediately understand which one is way behind. It is well known that Forza is way ahead of GT in almost every aspect, and at least slightly ahead in all of them. Only brand loyalists/haters (fanboys) will argue otherwise.

Avatar image for willnulife
willnulife

@lonesamurai1: "Between the two games GT has better looking car models and track surfaces, plus GT utilizes better TV technology that will carry it through for a long time. Gran Turismo in terms of the technology that a TV uses was built to last, ie nits of brightness, wide color gamut and HDR support. What really stands out to me is the car models between the to games. Forza car models just look weird."

Wow. This is all just laughably false. TV models? Forza also has HDR. But at least you admitted that your points are based off of brand loyalty to Project Cars, instead of factual comparisons. Obviously, GT is 2nd place. Forza car models look "weird"?

Uh, good luck to you.

Avatar image for dlCHIEF58
dlCHIEF58

@lonesamurai1: And keeps increasing in cost/investment to do that.

Avatar image for girlusocrazy
GirlUSoCrazy

@dlCHIEF58: Not only that but it doesn't even always work like it's supposed to, and software updates can even break games, f that

Avatar image for dlCHIEF58
dlCHIEF58

@lonesamurai1: Your first sentence sums it up "...for those that want it." Most of us do not want to continually upgrade our PC to keep up with gaming or (like myself) choose to "Think Different" and use Macs or Linux machines. I am not about to invest around $1000 in a machine just to game nor continue to invest in it just to keep up.

You may think it is worth it, I certainly don't and am not alone in that assessment.

Avatar image for dlCHIEF58
dlCHIEF58

@lonesamurai1: And from Steam's own statistics only a fraction of those users have a PC capable of running the most current games - something you elitists frequently forget or ignore.

Avatar image for dudebropartyyo
DudeBroPartyYo

@toonarmy20: Haha