TR Forums

In case anyone hasn't heard/read about it yet.

After months of rumors, Microsoft has finally announced its next-generation gaming console, the Xbox One S. The new Xbox will go on sale this August and will start at $299. One of the biggest advantages over the original Xbox One is 40% smaller design with built-in power brick.

You can also place the new console vertically thanks to the optional new stand. The Xbox One S comes with 4K Ultra HD video support (including 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray) and HDR capabilities for both gaming and video playback. Some ports have been re-positioned and there is a new built-in IR blaster. The Kinect sensor port is removed so to connect it you will have to use a separate USB adapter.
..
The 2 TB version will cost $399, while the 500 GB edition and 1 TB models are $299 and $349, respectively.

Source: http://www.nextpowerup.com/news/28510/m ... s-usd-299/

Way less interesting than Project Scorpio.

edit: and the new 4K Xbox One upgrade isn't all that interesting, hardware wise. Speculation is that it'll be Zen + Polaris 10 on an APU. the announced 320GB/sec figure is basically the same as the Xbox One's current bandwidth, assuming more marketing tricks of "low-latency, high bandwidth cache + DDR3" today.

It's all very meh. The Xbone gets smaller (predicatbly so, and necessarily so) and the new one isn't really going to do what they're planning for it to do. I bet it brings native 1080p60 gaming and hopefully resolution/framerate preferences. But at that point it's basically a PC Lite

The only elements confirmed for Project Scorpio are the eight cores, >6 TFLOPs, 320 GB/s, and it is coming in 2017.
Here’s an announcement at E3 for you. Microsoft just announced Project Scorpio, an internal project to develop the next generation Xbox set to be released in 2017. Project Scorpio is to be backwards compatible with Xbox One, and seems to be directly in line to compete with whatever Sony are supposedly releasing in the near future.
..
In the presentation, Microsoft states that the Project Scorpio SoC will have eight cores, up to 320 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and over 6 TeraFLOPs of power. To put this into context, this is more processing power than the recently announced AMD RX 480 GPU using a GCN 4 based architecture, set to be launched later this month.
...
The memory bandwidth of Project Scorpio, 320 GB/s, is also relatively interesting given the current rates of the RX 480 topping out at 256 GB/s. The 320 GB/s number seems round enough to be a GPU only figure, but given previous embedded memory designs is likely to include some form of embedded memory. How much is impossible to say at this point.

Check out the picture with the exposed die, looks smaller than I would of expected. Also speculation as to whether the 8 Cores are Zen (Zen-lite?)

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10418/mic ... -or-jaguar

biffzinker wrote:

The only elements confirmed for Project Scorpio are the eight cores, >6 TFLOPs, 320 GB/s, and it is coming in 2017.
Here’s an announcement at E3 for you. Microsoft just announced Project Scorpio, an internal project to develop the next generation Xbox set to be released in 2017. Project Scorpio is to be backwards compatible with Xbox One, and seems to be directly in line to compete with whatever Sony are supposedly releasing in the near future.
..
In the presentation, Microsoft states that the Project Scorpio SoC will have eight cores, up to 320 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and over 6 TeraFLOPs of power. To put this into context, this is more processing power than the recently announced AMD RX 480 GPU using a GCN 4 based architecture, set to be launched later this month.
...
The memory bandwidth of Project Scorpio, 320 GB/s, is also relatively interesting given the current rates of the RX 480 topping out at 256 GB/s. The 320 GB/s number seems round enough to be a GPU only figure, but given previous embedded memory designs is likely to include some form of embedded memory. How much is impossible to say at this point.

Check out the picture with the exposed die, looks smaller than I would of expected. Also speculation as to whether the 8 Cores are Zen (Zen-lite?)

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10418/mic ... -or-jaguar

2017 ought to be an interesting year for console technology. I wonder if they’ll call this a whole new generation since the spec update from XBox 360 to XBox One was 4x in terms of compute power and this seems to be the same ratio. Either way it’s supposed to be 100% backwards compatible so they can call it whatever they want. I feel like this was MS trying to steal some of Sony’s thunder and get people to hold off on buying the updated PS4 until the new XBox is out. Interesting move.

6 TeraFlops is off the **** chain lads.

Other than cost there really is no reason why consoles shouldn't have whacking great GPUs in them though. It looks like this trend of PC and console convergence is about to take another step with multiple GPU options/pricepoints.

They are not changing certifications, at least not the PS4 Neo.

You still certify min. frame rate, ... blah against the original. The additional power is not there to help you meet requirements.

That's what keeps it from fragmenting.

What would be fun and practical is if the "advanced" versions of these consoles allowed you to choose a target resolution and then pumped out the best framerate it could. You know, like a PC.

I can't imagine buying a 4K TV any time soon. My current 1080p TV is only about 2.5 years old. A PS4 Neo or Scorpio would be interesting in my living room as (possibly an an affordable) 1080p/60 system, at least for games that are aware of it.

If MS can get a good VR system going Project Scorpio could be my next AMD purchase. Imagine GTA V in VR! Much as I like the "feel" of in-car driving I mostly play third person view because of field of view issues. VR would totally fix that.

i realize they modify the graphics and give HDR 4k resolution to the new 8 gen console

Microsoft continues to use silly naming conventions. XBox One X, or XBOX for short, right? Should've just called it Xbox One Scorpio.

Why not:

Xbox One 2

Wow, I can't believe this isn't leading the headlines: Microsoft includes 12 gigs of memory in the Xbox One X (50% more than the original, which had 8 gigs)!

This isn't an enhanced version, this is a successor console.

It just also happens to have perfect backwards compatibility.

EDIT: YUP!

Microsoft wrote:

12GB GDDR5 of graphic memory add speed and power to game performance to enable bigger worlds, further horizons, and quicker load times.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one-x

That isn't better frame-rate, or better graphics, that is an entirely different game on a fundamental level.

Glorious wrote:

Wow, I can't believe this isn't leading the headlines: Microsoft includes 12 gigs of memory in the Xbox One X (50% more than the original, which had 8 gigs)!

This isn't an enhanced version, this is a successor console.

It just also happens to have perfect backwards compatibility.

EDIT: YUP!

Microsoft wrote:

12GB GDDR5 of graphic memory add speed and power to game performance to enable bigger worlds, further horizons, and quicker load times.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one-x

That isn't better frame-rate, or better graphics, that is an entirely different game on a fundamental level.

The reason it isn't a successor is because it is still part of the Xbox One Family. The Xbox One X will sell side by side along with the Xbox One S. Games are still being developed for both, there's no exclusivity to one another (apart from mixed reality stuff, but that's still in the works).

The name doesn't really bother me as much because it's not really a next-gen Xbox, it's the faster brother to the Xbox One. I mean, if Apple can have C and S in their Iphone nomenclature, why can't MS have it with their Xbox, right? I'm relatively certain that if there's a next-gen Xbox (akin to the future PlayStation 5), it will be called the Xbox Two. Then again, I could be wrong.

EzioAs wrote:

The name doesn't really bother me as much because it's not really a next-gen Xbox, it's the faster brother to the Xbox One. I mean, if Apple can have C and S in their Iphone nomenclature, why can't MS have it with their Xbox, right? I'm relatively certain that if there's a next-gen Xbox (akin to the future PlayStation 5), it will be called the Xbox Two. Then again, I could be wrong.

Looks like it uses the same controllers. Supports the same games and apps (including backwards compatibility.)

But holy **** that is definitely a new console. The original X1 is a complete and utter joke in comparison.

As I've said elsewhere, the only reason I understand calling it that is they want people to know it supports everything the X1 did, and consider it a 'Pro' model for people who want to pay for it.

Still doesn't seem right, at all.

Glorious wrote:

Wow, I can't believe this isn't leading the headlines: Microsoft includes 12 gigs of memory in the Xbox One X (50% more than the original, which had 8 gigs)!

This isn't an enhanced version, this is a successor console.

It just also happens to have perfect backwards compatibility.

EDIT: YUP!

Microsoft wrote:

12GB GDDR5 of graphic memory add speed and power to game performance to enable bigger worlds, further horizons, and quicker load times.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one-x

That isn't better frame-rate, or better graphics, that is an entirely different game on a fundamental level.

It plays the same games at higher resolution, with some higher quality assets. It won't get any exclusives, all the games will also work on XBox One S. It's not a new generation.

What's a generation at this point? The XBOX is basically an XBO is basically a low-end PC. You're targeting a platform and an OS now, rather than specific hardware. For the forseeable future you'll have to test that lower hardware spec, but in 3-4 more years the XBOX will be $300 and Microsoft will release an XBox One Y for $500 and we'll just do it all again.

EzioAs wrote:

The reason it isn't a successor is because it is still part of the Xbox One Family. The Xbox One X will sell side by side along with the Xbox One S. Games are still being developed for both, there's no exclusivity to one another (apart from mixed reality stuff, but that's still in the works).

Not now, no.

But, again, their marketing is *explicitly* talking about "enabling bigger worlds".

That's not framerate. That's not higher resolution. That's not better graphical fidelity.

That's something that you either have, or don't.

Again, this is not Glorious spouting some wild conspiracy theory: I am *LITERALLY* repeating their own *FRONTPAGE* marketing blurb which is promising something which fundamentally differentiates a game.

NTMBK wrote:

It plays the same games at higher resolution, with some higher quality assets. It won't get any exclusives, all the games will also work on XBox One S. It's not a new generation.

Again, what initially aroused my suspicion was the inclusion of more memory. Why? Because that opens the door to games that simply *cannot* be played on the previous version of hardware.

A long time ago I was away somewhere and I brought my Xbox 360 only to discover that the only TV available used composite. So, well, I got most of the co-op stars in COD:MW2 playing at an *incredibly crappy* 480i instead of 600p upscaled to 1080p or whatever.

Heck, let's say it was also more laggy, just because. Never the less, it was still the same game. It looked like crap, it ran like crap, and hey, the enemies were even more polygonal and single-colored flat-shaded too (cause more magic!), but where's the fundamental difference to the gameplay?

Now, let's talk about Skyrim. Is Skyrim¹ the same game as Skyrim² when Skyrim² has a bigger game world?

No. It is not the same game.

---

Again, I ask, can someone tell me how the explicit promise of "enabling bigger worlds" isn't exactly what I intuitively feared from the outset?

I repeat, how is this a conspiracy theory when it is what they are promising?

Glorious wrote:

NTMBK wrote:

It plays the same games at higher resolution, with some higher quality assets. It won't get any exclusives, all the games will also work on XBox One S. It's not a new generation.

Again, what initially aroused my suspicion was the inclusion of more memory. Why? Because that opens the door to games that simply *cannot* be played on the previous version of hardware.

A long time ago I was away somewhere and I brought my Xbox 360 only to discover that the only TV available used composite. So, well, I got most of the co-op stars in COD:MW2 playing at an *incredibly crappy* 480i instead of 600p upscaled to 1080p or whatever.

Heck, let's say it was also more laggy, just because. Never the less, it was still the same game. It looked like crap, it ran like crap, and hey, the enemies were even more polygonal and single-colored flat-shaded too (cause more magic!), but where's the fundamental difference to the gameplay?

Now, let's talk about Skyrim. Is Skyrim¹ the same game as Skyrim² when Skyrim² has a bigger game world?

No. It is not the same game.

---

Again, I ask, can someone tell me how the explicit promise of "enabling bigger worlds" isn't exactly what I intuitively feared from the outset?

I repeat, how is this a conspiracy theory when it is what they are promising?

More memory enables larger framebuffers and higher quality textures, which you need/want (respectively) at 4K. As for "bigger worlds"... they could just be talking about draw distance Remember the radical difference in draw distance between Skyrim on 360, Skyrim on PC, and Skyrim on modern consoles? http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... off-skyrim http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... n-face-off

NTMBK wrote:

More memory enables larger framebuffers and higher quality textures, which you need/want (respectively) at 4K. As for "bigger worlds"... they could just be talking about draw distance Remember the radical difference in draw distance between Skyrim on 360, Skyrim on PC, and Skyrim on modern consoles? http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... off-skyrim http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... n-face-off

The straight-forward interpretation of "enabling bigger worlds" is what I've said, and by including 50% more memory (which the PS4 Pro did not do), it is technically possible for them to do it.

Yes, we can say that they "just won't do that" and we can say that "oh, but they really mean draw distance" but if you find that satisfying, well, I don't.

Why?

Let's talk about a top-5 best-selling Xbox 360 game that got ported to Xbox One.

You might already guess where I am going with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unVcuWYW0GI#t=0m38s

"Bigger Worlds"

Sure, they "could" just be talking about draw distance, which I assume was further, but the game world itself was larger and, yes, that's exactly what they meant because that was much bigger complaint/restriction than the former.

Glorious wrote:

The straight-forward interpretation of "enabling bigger worlds" is what I've said, and by including 50% more memory (which the PS4 Pro did not do), it is technically possible for them to do it.

Yes, we can say that they "just won't do that" and we can say that "oh, but they really mean draw distance" but if you find that satisfying, well, I don't.

Why?

Let's talk about a top-5 best-selling Xbox 360 game that got ported to Xbox One.

You might already guess where I am going with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unVcuWYW0GI#t=0m38s

"Bigger Worlds"

Sure, they "could" just be talking about draw distance, which I assume was further, but the game world itself was larger and, yes, that's exactly what they meant because that was much bigger complaint/restriction than the former.

But if we also go off what they've told us:

And now Microsoft have looked to clarify the subject of Scorpio exclusives today, with Head of Xbox Marketing Aaron Greenberg confirming that console exclusives would ONLY apply to VR titles.

"We said we're not going to have console-exclusive games for Project Scorpio,” Greenberg told Engadget.

“It's one ecosystem--whether you have an Xbox One S or Project Scorpio, we don't want anyone to be left behind, Now, with the power and capabilities we have, we'll be able to do high-fidelity VR.

“Now, that space, we don't think of that as console gaming, we think of that as high-fidelity VR, and so with the VR experiences those will be new things that you will get on Project Scorpio."

So VR exclusives, but it sounds like nothing else should be. Of course it's Microsoft, so they could well go back on their word, and you might well be right in the end. But I'm an optimist

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to provide a link for that quote: http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/ ... amescom-VR

I wonder, if the two consoles will coexists and play the same games, if the Xbox One X will play games perceptibly better at 1080p than the original Xbox One. Or will frame rates, draw distances, etc be locked to "1080p mode", the only real benefit of the Xbox One X being for those with 4K or VR?

NTMBK wrote:

But if we also go off what they've told us:

I was not aware of the VR distinction, so that's certainly a wrinkle that assuages my concerns.

NTMBK wrote:

course it's Microsoft, so they could well go back on their word, and you might well be right in the end. But I'm an optimist

I'm just more of pessimist.

Thanks for bringing that VR thing to my attention, as that provides a viable explanation that I was previously lacking.

cynan wrote:

I wonder, if the two consoles will coexists and play the same games, if the Xbox One X will play games perceptibly better at 1080p than the original Xbox One. Or will frame rates, draw distances, etc be locked to "1080p mode", the only real benefit of the Xbox One X being for those with 4K or VR?

I think it depends on the game. Some games already use dynamic resolution scaling, so should perform and look better already...but their upper limits probably won't be anywhere near what the X1X is capable of. But a lot of stuff will get patches and yes, games will look amazingly different at 1080p with resolution, lighting and FSAA improvements as well as no obvious dropoff in foliage or other LOD issues.)

All that aside, "bigger worlds" are technically possible as it is. You're limited by device storage at this point. The Xbox 360 and PS3 did pretty astounding things to run Grand Theft Auto 5, for example. Keeping track of what's going on in those worlds is another story, of course, but I'd be hard-pressed to think Rockstar was constrained by 512MB of memory.

I think "Bigger worlds" is just marketing speak and completely meaningless. Really, though, I don't think we should take them at face value when they say "bigger worlds" or "games will still have to be able to run on the One S."

cynan wrote:

I wonder, if the two consoles will coexists and play the same games, if the Xbox One X will play games perceptibly better at 1080p than the original Xbox One. Or will frame rates, draw distances, etc be locked to "1080p mode", the only real benefit of the Xbox One X being for those with 4K or VR?

Yes, the two consoles will coexist for the foreseeable future until at least MS announce a sort-of next-gen console. I'm guessing then at that point, that the minimum requirements would be push even further so current consoles (probably including the One X) won't be able to run them but current games will be forward compatible with the console's successor. MS has push hard on this front and it's certainly something I can agree with.

For the Xbox One X, games running at 1080p will benefit from downscaling super sampling but I've not heard much about frame rates yet.

David wrote:

I think "Bigger worlds" is just marketing speak and completely meaningless. Really, though, I don't think we should take them at face value when they say "bigger worlds" or "games will still have to be able to run on the One S."

Idk about bigger worlds but games are still being developed for the original Xbox One but now optimized/enhanced for the Xbox One X. This isn't all that different compared to the PS4 and PS4 Pro. At this point, these two are just like low-mid PC and a mid-high PC. And I know the thought of running modern games on weak PC might seem dumb to some of us here but the truth is, games often have minimum requirements because when those conditions are met, you can actually enjoy game decently.

However, I think MS will focus their mixed-reality on console only for the Xbox One X because of the lack of horsepower from the Xbox One and Xbox One S. News on this topic is a little scarce but the Xbox team did say they will talk about this in the upcoming months.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/06/ ... ow-factor/ Apparently Minecraft has bigger draw distance

I dunno if that's quiet right. The PS4 has much larger market share because of major miss steps on MS's part.

As an over reaction, every single facet on the Xbox One X is better/bigger than PS4 Pro. More RAM, more CUs, higher CPU hertz, higher CU hertz, UHD blu-ray player,... if reports are correct.

The question is, will the $500 Xbox X be able to compete with the $350 PS4 Pro or even $250 PS4. Say what you will, its 2017, you shouldnt get a machine that realistically has problems hitting 1080p in most harder games(Xbox One/S) purely because of business decision mistakes. (Kinect, super home media, except for everybody outside US that cable stuff wouldnt work with anyway, took too much of budget, so couldnt afford GDDR5 and went with super cache+DDR3, couldn't afford as many CUs...)

I think the gap will remain and continue.

I think its the little things that clearly show why. The launch PS4 controller is the one that introduced the headphone port on it. Not Xbox one(until controller was redesigned). Sony listens to input from gamers/devs. You cant really be sure that the XBox X isnt purely a top down, Dilbert scenario, make every number bigger; not based on technically valid/viable decisions and with gamers in mind. Really, no matter the console low level advantage, its not a real 4k machine.

However, i would not feel sorry for kids getting Xbox One X for holidays this time around, it will be capable as a 1080p console. Overpriced, but at least it's competent at its job in 2017.

Ofcourse, as PS had Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted, Saints Row, Last of Us, Alpha Protocol, Darksiders,.... tons of awesome games with good stories and action and has continued with good games...

I will say, it wasnt until PS3 Slim came out or maybe even a year after that, that developers got really comfortable and made a lot of awesome games for PS3. With PS4, a lot of near launch AAA games sat gathering dust(GTA, AC, Witcher,...) but a year later with those massive patches, are pretty good now. Developers are getting comfortable much faster. MS needs to think about long term so developers can get chance to get comfortable with their design.

blahsaysblah wrote:

will say, it wasnt until PS3 Slim came out or maybe even a year after that, that developers got really comfortable and made a lot of awesome games for PS3. With PS4, a lot of near launch AAA games sat gathering dust(GTA, AC, Witcher,...) but a year later with those massive patches, are pretty good now. Developers are getting comfortable much faster. MS needs to think about long term so developers can get chance to get comfortable with their design.

I imagine all their first party X1 games will be updated for the X1X, just like with Sony. Forza Horizon 2 already looked far better than you'd expect from the Xbox One and felt so much smoother than Need for Speed when at high speeds, but I'd still love to see it updated.

I'm not a 4K gamer yet but considering I already have the PS4 Pro and am preordering an X1X (bad idea but we're runnin with it anyway) I'll be getting a 4K screen soon enough.

I have a slightly different take on the X1X, and hear me out for a minute. Although X1X is being promoted as a true 4k system, I categorize it the same way I do the PS4 Pro. I view both devices as true 1080P@60fps systems. The machines that both MS and Sony failed to deliver at the beginning of this generation. In their original forms neither system could do 1080p with full eye candy, high quality AA, AF, and 60+FPS. Compromises were made in order to hit 1080 at decent framerates (30 fps), with titles using dynamic scaling, upscaling, inferior lighting, low or no AA, and other forms of image quality reduction just to stay above 720. Both new machines I feel are more compelling with advanced rendering techniques and effects at 1080p, as opposed to 4k where again, compromises must be made with image quality to deliver true 4k. The final reason I believe that that PS4P and even the just released X1X are the high quality 1080p machines we should have gotten, and not all new systems is simple. Its in the hardware, by which I mean the god awful low power, low performance Jaguar cpu cores. Even with 6 or 8 cores with clocks cranked up over 2.0ghz the ipc is abysmal. These cores were getting stomped by Atoms when they were release years ago. They are just not enough CPU to make these systems anything but the half steps in this generation. If Sony or MS had decided to use a stripped down version of the FX chip initially (Bulldozer), there would have been a decent amount of headroom to be gained in a 14nm version of Excavator just by upping clockspeeds. Of course this architecture was probably too power hungry at the time the original SOC was engineered. I am no MS fanboy, but the think the X1X has been taking a beating by the wing of the tech journalism community that still believes things like ATI drivers suck and the IPhone is always the best phone ever. Its really MS's fault for going full bore 4K with marketing, I would be happy with complex lighting, high quality tessellation, AA, particle effects, and high quality textures, at 1080p, like both original systems were originally supposed to deliver without a version 2 being launched mid generation. And the CPU still sucks. Really bad.