PS4 Pro level power at $399 vs X1X level power at $499? (not PS4 Pro vs X1X thread)

Look, there is no reason to play the crippled version of games. Why not just spend $500 on proper gaming hardware? Don't you want to game in 4K with HDR and 60fps? Just buy an X1X and save yourself the headaches.

Not every game on the X1X will be native 4K 60fps.

That's true but however a specific game runs on X1X, you can be sure it will run much worse on a PS4 Pro. Especially when you understand that X1X has 9 GB of GDDR5 RAM reserved for games while the PS4 Pro only has 5.5 GB of GDDR5 RAM. The memory bandwidth also is 326 GB/s on X1X vs 218 GB/s on PS4 Pro. Just that alone is colossal. The X1X is just a much more powerful machine and actually a bigger difference than the 50% most people are giving as the difference. It's a bigger difference than that when you factor everything in.

Much worse? Again 1800p checkerboard vs native 4K is barely discernible at normal viewing distances. Pro might run at lower resolutions, but the gap is not going to be as huge as you think.

For ARC Survival at 60 fps target,

X1X has 1920x1080p with near EPIC settings

PS4 Pro has 1280x720p

The gap is more than 42 percent.

Like anyone cares about Arc Survival and its literally worse case scenario. How about a more realistic comparison?

If a game runs at 1440p on the PS4 Pro do you expect the XB1 X version will always run Native 4K?

Or how about the fact that ...... they cant even get a Titan XP to run 1080p on full epic settings and get 60 fps average let alone a GTX 1080 averaging 40 fps.....

The ark devs statement shouldn't be taken at face value..... optimization is not their forte.....

near epic settings .. only a select few will be available, its more likely its going to use a slew of medium and high settings. And chances are X1X will not be able to to sustain a 60 fps average, because devs are shotty when comes to optimization. We can look at PC and even PS4 and Pro detailed mode frame rate still drops into the low 20's to see the truth.

If resolution, frame rate and not playing on "crippled" versions of games actually mattered that much to you, you'd be gaming on PC. It's just disingenuous and hypocritical for you to be "advising" anyone how to spend their money with 4K being the goal, only to endorse a system that doesn't consistently deliver it, relying on false representation via checkerboarding. It's even more so arguing for 60 fps when the system in question has far fewer games to meet that criteria than any with native 4K. In fact are there any besides Forza 7 confirmed to be 60 fps?

What settings does X1X need to use in order to run Destiny 2 at 60 fps?

Not my problem.

Just make up some more fake news

All hardware has limits and high end PC hardware is not immune to bloated shader programs. Near EPIC sounds like High Settings.

So you admit defeat?

Developer for D2 has 30 fps statement for X1X. Deal with it.

I feel like the $100 difference between the 2 consoles is justified. Both consoles offer a value and both are premium products over their older counterparts. The Xbox One X having the UHD bluray player AND power advantages are easily worth the $100. I would say they are even worth $150 if Sony drops the price of the Pro.

Who are you? You don't have both X1X and GTX 1070 to make the counter argument. The developer runs bloated shader code on both machines.

Using the word "equivalent" is due to X1X doesn't have the actual GTX 1070 GPU, hence "equivalent" is used.

This is not rocket science, X GPU being "kind of equivalent" of N GPU indicates GPU class performance range.

You are effectively arguing MS's 60 deep graphics pipeline changes are non-existent and they just rolled yet another Polaris 10/20 and call it a day.

Fallout 4. The R9-390 and RX-580 are already 4K +30 fps Ultra.

R9-390's 5.1 TFLOPS is showing RX-580's 6.17 TFLOPS being gimped by memory bandwidth.

Fallout 4 is already 1080p with 30 fps target on XBO.

That didn't really answer my question. If a multiplat runs at 1440p on the PS4 Pro does that guarantee native 4K on the XB1 X version?

Not necessarily. But you're only looking at one thing, resolution. If a game runs on PS4 Pro at 1440p, the X1X will run at a much higher resolution(not necessarily full 4K although maybe) and it will have much better assets due to the extra RAM and high memory bandwidth. You can expect better textures, lighting, shadows and framerate on the X1X. The difference is not just going to be a resolution bump.

I do game on PC as well. Even on PC, you cannot expect 4K @60 fps on every game unless you are willing to throw stupid money at the problem and upgrade every time a new taxing game comes out. On PC I game on a curved 34" Dell Ultrawide monitor that isn't even 4K. It's resolution is 3440 X 1440. However, I much prefer that to 16:9 4K so I won't upgrade to 4K until they make a 4k ultrawide.

The X1X is by far the most powerful home console in the world. It dramatically outclasses the PS4 Pro in every department. Games will always run way better on the X1X. Of course it's a great recommendation to say to someone that the X1X will play the best possible version of every game on home consoles. They will be playing the gimped version if they are not running the X1X version. Now PC is different but of course it's a different space and I don't think many console gamers are leaving consoles to build high end gaming PCs. The price would be prohibitive for a lot of people as well.

No one can give that guarantee.

There's only two data points for Fallout 4 X1X's 4K and these are

1. Programmer's claim

2. RX-580 and R9-390X examples.

As long XBO version is already has 900p or 1080p, there's a high chance for 4K on X1X.

AMD effectively claims GCN version 1.1's TFLOPS is 15 percent less effective when compared GCN version 1.3.

GCN version 1.3's 6 TFLOPS = ~6.9 TFLOPS GCN version 1.1

you dont have a X1X neither, so deal with it....lol

when they use words like "maybe" and "kind of equivalent" because of overhead reduction with OS..... it sounds like the gpu falls short of GTX 1070 when they have to take lower overhead as a factor.....

Also interpretation of near Epic settings can mean anything like the the word virtually.. your taking it as bold face fact and you shouldn't.

their optimization skills with PC and PS4 versions says it all . Their word means squat on what they think when it comes to their performance goals.

As usual, you did not refute my statement. You simply responded with a slightly related set of information that in no way negates my fact based post. This is not a proper way to debate.

Do you admit defeat by the fact that Destiny 2 only runs at 30 fps XB1X?

X1X doesn't have compute power and memory bandwidth to be like GTX 1080 Ti.

You are asking me for "What settings does X1X need to use in order to run Destiny 2 at 60 fps?" which I don't have the information for. You are setting me up for fall. So fck off.

ARC Survival devs has both X1X and GTX 1070 while you don't. deal with it.

ARC Survival devs claim X1X having GTX 1070 like GPU.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/58011/ark-dev-xbox-one-pc-gtx-1070-16gb-ram/index.html

As for the comparisons between the PC and Xbox One X, he said: "If you think about it, it's kind of equivalent to a GTX 1070 maybe and the Xbox One X actually has 12GB of GDDR5 memory. It's kind of like having a pretty high-end PC minus a lot of overhead due to the operating system on PC. So I would say it's equivalent to a 16GB 1070 PC, and that's a pretty good deal for $499".

Dev didn't state "If you think about it, it's kind of equivalent to a GTX 1060".

http://wccftech.com/ark-dev-xb1x-like-gtx-1070/

The interview is huge and we’re still transcribing it, but we’ve grabbed the technical info we know you love, starting with Rapczak’s thoughts on the Xbox One X console’s price and comparison with PS4 Pro.

Instead of targeting 30FPS like on the other consoles, we’re targeting 60FPS for the Xbox One X. I would say most of the time for PS4 Pro you would be seeing 30FPS on PS4 Pro at 1080P, whereas with the Xbox One X you’re going to see double the frame rate at 1080P, 60FPS. We might even allow the frame rate to go higher than 60 FPS, but we’re still looking into that. Right now it’s actually uncapped but on a TV it’s not that useful [because they’re locked to 60Hz].

Previously on PS4 Pro, we had the option to choose between frame rate (720P@60FPS) and resolution (1080P@30). We removed it because it’s a better experience for the users now.

Because ours is a multiplayer game, the complexity on the screen can be very unpredictable. Variable resolution is something we introduced this year to try and stabilize the frame rate on lower PCs and consoles so that when people go into a huge base and someone’s got a hundred dinosaurs, the resolution scales down but the frame rate stays smooth.

We’re not targeting 4K resolution or anything like that, instead we’re targeting higher quality pixels.

All GPUs has limits and devs can chose to have better quality pixels over resolution.

So you admit Destiny 2 only runs at 30 fps on XB1X?

What did the Dev claim? This is not rocket science. This is system war NOT GS poster war.

So XB1X Runs Destiny 2 at 30 fps? Confirmed? That sucks!

PS4 Pro version is lesser.

Anyway...

It depends on which PC. Robust 4K gaming = PC with GTX 1080 Ti GPU and modern quad core/8 threads CPU a 4 Ghz

http://gamingbolt.com/f1-2017-already-running-at-4k60fps-with-hdr-on-xbox-one-x-features-numerous-graphical-enhancements

F1 2017 is gunning for Forza M7's standard.

The thing is, if they actually manage to make the game run the game with a mix of high and epic settings and at solid 60 fps at 1080p on Xbox One X, that's not 1070 level of performance, that's beyond 1070 level of performance, and that's a gap that does not support PS4/PC examples of optimization now. I highly doubt they will deliver a solid 60 fps on X1 using near epic settings. When current versions reflect the lack of their optimization ability.

This is the mother of all hypocrite post,neither do you,you don't have a 1070GTX and a XBO X to know,you are running speculation based on a developers making PR for MS and i have to point out how shitty your assumptions and lobbying for companies who make PR for MS has been.

1-You used Rebellion claims of better ESRAM optimisation to claim the xbox one would reach 1080p more easy,when lack of power is the main reason it can't.

2-You use miss interpret Metro developer claims about CPU usage on xbox one,and ignored that the guy claim MS already had tool before DX12 to mitigate those problems.

3.You literally took a ride on Brad Wardell Nuts and hype PR about DX12 doubling the xbox one performance,despite many developers even making fun of such claims,including Activision who claim that he didn't even know how some one could say something like what Brad Wardel claim on record.

You like a loonatic still claim the gains were for its game,damage controlling it when he was clear he claim the xbox one would double its performance,and Ashes of Singularity is not on consoles.

4-Misinterpret Phil Spencer claims of doing something different than sony and Pro which prompted you to claim.

A-That Scorpio had a Vega GPU despite people telling Price and size was a problem.

B-That Scorpio would feature Ryzen,despite mi self and many others telling you that price and heat was to much.

C-That Scorpio would carry FP16 double pumped which is a Vega feature in GCN,and prompted you to pull charts and examples about how TressFX more than double its performance using FP16 and how Scorpio was 12TF using FP16,ignoring that FP16 could not be use on all process and more bolded claim it would exceed a 1080GTX.

D-That Scorpio Price would be $399 when all the indications for it to be $500 were there,bigger SOC,UHD drive,4GB more of ram,better cooling solution.

To be sincere i don't even know how you dare quote another PR crap defending MS,i guess you never will learn,your love for MS has blinded you to such a level that you simply can't have an argument in which you admit that you were wrong,and that pass speculations of yours turned into salt.

ARC Survival is NVIDIA Gameworks title, hence the bloat and Unreal Engine 4 is a known factor. ARC Survival wasn't the first title to associate X1X with GTX 1070 class GPU range.

Too bad for you, ARC Survival devs has both X1X and GTX 1070 hardware.

1. This is system wars NOT personality war. I have repeatedly shown W5000 (12 CU) being inferior to 7850 despite the same memory bandwidth. If you continue this debate, I'll will continue to post the same argument.

2. Metro dev was referring to multi-threading model i.e. non-deferred version. Furthermore, Metro dev didn't reveal the custom DirectX12 command processor with microcode feature that can reduce related CPU workload up to a half.

EA DICE revealed custom DirectX12 command processor with microcode can handle certain workload that PC's compute shader patch handles.

Thinner API layer is just a single factor for XBO's DirectX12.

3. Alien Isolation is one example that needs DX12 programming practices. Brad Wardell didn't reveal custom DirectX12 command processor with microcode that can takeover PC's compute shader patching.

4. Vega's double rate FP16 increases math operation while Polaris dual subword FP16 version keeps the same math operation rate, and both features are still missing on Pascal GP104. In the end, your argument against me is a big nothing burger.

My statement on double rate FP16 was made in clearly marked speculation topic thread and I thrown in the full Vega 11. Vega's improvements are more than just a single NCU feature and the important part is the non-NCU Vega improvements with graphics pipeline hardware i.e. basic purpose for the GPU vs DSP.

Despite the missing NCU's double rate FP16 feature, X1X is still superior to my old R9-390X and other poster's RX-480 OC.

A. Vega 10 is still a problem. Vega 11 is the cut-down version.

B. I already dismissed desktop Rysen and speculated mobile Ryzen R3 instead. To bad for you, mobile Ryzen R3 quad core/8 threads at 2.3 Ghz is similar to low latency Jaguar with 8 core/8 threads at 2.3 Ghz since two Jaguar cores nearly matches functional unit count in a single Ryzen core.

The custom DirectX12 command processor with microcode feature that can reduce related CPU workload up to a half was a bonus.

C. My statement on double rate FP16 was made in clearly marked speculation topic thread and I thrown in the full Vega 11. Vega's improvements are more than just a single NCU feature and the important part is the non-NCU Vega improvements with graphics pipeline hardware i.e. basic purpose for the GPU vs DSP. Despite the missing NCU's double rate FP16 feature, X1X is still superior to my old R9-390X and other poster's RX-480 OC.

Vega's double rate FP16 increases math operation while Polaris dual subword FP16 version keeps the same math operation rate, and both features are still missing on Pascal GP104.

D. Wrong, my estimate reach $449 without 8 GB flash storage and faster 7200 RPM 1 TB HDD standard.

Since you have converted this topic personality war.

You are wrong.

If you continue your out of topic debate, I'll will continue to post the same argument i.e. copy and paste. This is system wars NOT personality war.

Try again.

Yes with skewed poll responses.

Sure the X1X is more powerful than PS4 Pro. At least on paper, though we still end up with games that checkerboard to achieve 4K and can't get more than 30 fps with exception of games that can be counted on one hand... I do wonder where all that extra power is going. But yes, we can expect X1X games to perform better than on the Pro in a general sense.

And if you had gone with that argument I wouldn't have any beef with your post. BUT, this is where you actually went that I responded to - "Look, there is no reason to play the crippled version of games. Why not just spend $500 on proper gaming hardware? Don't you want to game in 4K with HDR and 60fps? Just buy an X1X and save yourself the headaches."

Yeah.... you're position for advocating X1X over PS4 Pro is 4K, HDR, and 60 fps. Sure you got the HDR support, but the 4K and 60 fps? Since the majority of games shown so far are checkerboarded, so it's not genuine 4K and again that 60 fps standard.... even less games achieving this frame rate than there are native 4K. You try to convince others that the gaming experience will be "crippled" on the Pro, yet X1X has the very same limitations of very few games being native 4K and 60 fps. But somehow the extra $100 is justified for a standard you establish, yet isn't even met. Can you see why this is so hypocritical now?

Hence my opening remark, if 4K and frame rate really mattered that much to you, you'd be advocating for PC over either of these consoles. And yes, getting 4K at 60 fps is obscenely expensive. But then if you're OK with 4K/30 on the consoles, then you can get that experience with PC for only slightly more the cost, in which case it'll be native 4K and not relying on cheating the resolution (checkerboard upscaling). But really how much 4K will cost on PC depends on what kind of settings compromise you're willing to make. If you decide that 4K Low settings are alright with you, you can still hit that 60 fps mark for a moderate cost. Even if not shooting for fully Ultra, if you won't settle for less than High and still wanting higher frame rates, then yeah be prepared to make a significant financial investment.

The point ultimately being that it IS possible on PC without render trickery, and fully within your control how you prioritize graphics settings over frame rate to game in 4K. How much it costs is all your prerogative. But since 4K/30 is more the standard with both the new consoles, 4K/60 need not be the "requirement" for PC.

And this second half of my response is also relevant to what @ronvalencia said;

If by "robust" you mean 4K, High settings (maybe even a couple at Ultra), 60 fps, then sure that needs a GTX 1080 Ti. Buuuuuuuut, if you're willing to tone things down for the sake of resolution, a GTX 1060 and RX 580 can both do the job with Med settings and anywhere from 30-40 fps in most cases. Battlefield 1 and Battlefront have actually been shown to run with higher settings with maybe 50-60 fps with a 1060, a testament to the optimization of Frostbite. It all depends on the scale of the game along with its engine.

And I do hope you're NOT suggesting that Forza 7 is somehow a model for performance consistency on the X1X.

My comment was for "If resolution, frame rate and not playing on "crippled" versions of games actually mattered that much to you, you'd be gaming on PC."

The PS4 Pros's lack of 4K Blu-ray, laughable controller battery life, and half assed graphical upgrade doesn't appeal to me personally.