TR Forums

DancinJack wrote:

LostCat definitely loves his/her X1X and maybe got a little enthusiastic with that comment, but that machine can definitely do its job.

Yeah, it has a stronger GPU than the PS4P, sure. As you said previously, not sure why that's even an argument, it's just reality.

But it's not like something has suddenly changed here. It's a AMD 580 / Nvidia 1060 class GPU (and probably loses out overall even with those) with what's a essentially a thin-client CPU x 6.5

Sure, the CPU seems to matter less and less these days, but this thing is at best comparable to any mid-level gaming PC made in the last 4 years.

Which is fine, sure. I bought a PS3 solely to play uncharted. It did its job. I bought a PS4 for the same reason. It did its job.

I'm just asking for reality in technical comparisons.

It's not like a computer v. console thing with me, I literally bought a new i7-8770k after Thanksgiving. PS4 time versus it? Probably 10:1. I'm thinking I shouldn't have bought it now, cause I only use it to game and the few rate & random things in life that actually require windows (thus far, just itunes once to do a iphone 6S -> 8 backup/restore/upgrade).

So, sure, I take the point gladly: they are capable machines, we're in another time in which I seem to be doing all/most of my gaming on the console (this happened before to me like 5 or so years ago, I think), etc...

Glorious wrote:

...& random things in life that actually require windows (thus far, just itunes once to do a iphone 6S -> 8 backup/restore/upgrade).

I'm so sorry.

Yeah, totally agree with you. I would love to see what MS and Sony (and obviously game devs) could do with beefier CPUs though. Those "Jaguar" cores that are in both machines are ancient and, relatively, awful when you compare them to anything released within the past few years.

DancinJack wrote:

Also I don't care what anyone, literally ANYONE, says, a joystick (even on the wonderful (seriously) X1X/Xbone controller) isn't as accurate as a mouse/kb.

Sidenote - I use my Xbone Elite controller with my W10 PC all the time and it is seriously wonderful. Great controller, no fuss with W10. Love it.

Does anyone claim otherwise? Heh. I've never heard it.

I don't mind the difference anywhere near as much as in the Xbox 360 days. Ugh. But I'd still take m+kb anyday for shooters. Controllers are great for driving and quick actions, at least.

I used to love that Nostromo n50 thing because of that, but those hybrid keypad thingies have gotten a bit too expensive.

derFunkenstein wrote:

Let's not get hyperbolic. For this to even be remotely true of the X1X, it would have to be built with hardware that's beyond what's already available. And it's not; it's got a Radeon RX 580 grafted to an eight-core Jaguar CPU.

With both the CPU and GPU having more memory bandwidth than a 1070, and custom instructions on the CPU to cut rendering costs significantly.

And a strong hardware audio chip most PCs don't have.

If you look at the Steam hardware charts I suspect you'd see most PC gamers don't have better kit.

I suppose I am not sure I can cite a specific instance, but I have definitely heard people say to me (and read online) that they prefer a console controller to a mouse and keyboard. Now, that may just be preference due to any number of reasons (likely foremost being familiarity), but I have definitely seen/heard people say it.

I prefer gaming with a controller rather than keyboard mouse. This is why I ended up getting the XB1X. Plus I do not like to wait for a PC version to be made. FFXV PC version came out 1.5 years after console.

LostCat wrote:

With both the CPU and GPU having more memory bandwidth than a 1070, and custom instructions on the CPU to cut rendering costs significantly.

See, this is the kind of thing that induced me to post in the first place: this sort of thing reeks of misleading fanboyism.

More memory bandwidth isn't the only things that matter, and they don''t "both" have "more": It's shared.

And custom instructions for "rendering" on the CPU, erm, that sounds misconceived already, and since the cores in the X1X are (to my understanding anyway), the same ones in the X1 but clocked higher, that really sounds off the mark.

As DancinJack said, enjoy your X1X! It's great, awesome machine, etc... Faster than the PS4P GPU too, definitely. But, for my sake anyway, please don't spread fanboy misinformation/misunderstandings?

LostCat wrote:

And a strong hardware audio chip most PCs don't have.

Which really isn't meaningful--PCs have more CPU power than anyone seems to know what to do with when it comes to gaming.

LostCat wrote:

If you look at the Steam hardware charts I suspect you'd see most PC gamers don't have better kit.

I don't think a 970/1060 480/580 are uncommon amongst "PC gamers", sorry.

And, yes, this isn't just specs/design similarities, but semi-direct comparisons too. The X1X just isn't actually as powerful as a 1070.

DancinJack wrote:

I suppose I am not sure I can cite a specific instance, but I have definitely heard people say to me (and read online) that they prefer a console controller to a mouse and keyboard. Now, that may just be preference due to any number of reasons (likely foremost being familiarity), but I have definitely seen/heard people say it.

So I play the new Call of Duty online with a controller, and battlefield 1 (not as much lately) with Keyboard+mouse. So I'm talking FPS-to-FPS, not other games where a controller might be at less of a disadvantage.

Obviously the latter is "better" and more accurate, etc..

The controller is more casual. You just hold it, you know? No desk, etc...

I don't know... as long as everyone else has a controller too, I guess maybe I prefer it? Sort of ambivalent, I don't know.

I don't think someone flatly having the preference for controller is all that strange though.

---

I'm a strange case, because there are certain games on the PC in which I literally use both. Like, for just going around and doing stuff? Controller. If I really need accuracy in a shooting sequence? pause, put controller aside, mouse it up! This is seamless on a lot of titles these days.

We do live in awesome times for gamers.

LostCat wrote:

If you look at the Steam hardware charts I suspect you'd see most PC gamers don't have better kit.

Well, duh. It was true when this generation of consoles launched, too. In 2013, Steam's top graphics processor was the Ivy Bridge-era HD 4000. The top discrete cards were the GTX 660 and Radeon 7850. Mid-range cards have always been most popular. This isn't new or even particularly interesting.

Plus everything Glorious published in his book right above this post.

derFunkenstein wrote:

LostCat wrote:

If you look at the Steam hardware charts I suspect you'd see most PC gamers don't have better kit.

Well, duh. It was true when this generation of consoles launched, too. In 2013, Steam's top graphics processor was the Ivy Bridge-era HD 4000. The top discrete cards were the GTX 660 and Radeon 7850. Mid-range cards have always been most popular. This isn't new or even particularly interesting.

Plus everything Glorious published in his book right above this post.

I have him on ignore...I thought I mentioned that but whatever works.

And the 660 and 7850 were probably stronger than the X1 and PS4, except possibly for memory available. (Plus they were vastly cheaper than the consoles, unlike the 1070.) I wouldn't call that remotely the same.

DancinJack wrote:

Glorious wrote:

...& random things in life that actually require windows (thus far, just itunes once to do a iphone 6S -> 8 backup/restore/upgrade).

I'm so sorry.

LOL

There *may* have been some screaming.

LostCat wrote:

This is the first time I remember a console puts many gaming PCs to shame though. It's a really odd time to be a PC gamer (with all this GPU nonsense especially, but still.)

I think you have a short memory then
Every time a new console comes out, it tends to have reasonable GPU specs compared to GPUs of the time.

You also have to remember that 120Hz monitors are cheaper than 120Hz televisions
You also have to remember that the RX480 was released 18 months before the XB1X and at just $199, quickly dropping to less than that once street prices levelled out and deals popped up.

The XB1X GPU is technically wider (more shaders, wider bus) but with lower clocks and slower memory it actually has less fillrate and higher latencies (which hurt high-framerate gaming).
Effectively, the XB1X is a very close match for the old RX480 at 4K, but amusingly the 480 is probably the better option for 120Hz gaming by a non-trivial margin.

March 2018 Steam Hardware survey top 4 GPUs
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 13.62% -0.43%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 10.85% -0.62%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 9.91% -1.98%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 9.70% -3.35%

LostCat wrote:

I have him on ignore...I thought I mentioned that but whatever works.

A lot of fanboys have me on ignore.

I'm on that list, right next to "reality" with them, typically.

LostCat wrote:

And the 660 and 7850 were probably stronger than the X1 and PS4, except possibly for memory available. (Plus they were vastly cheaper than the consoles, unlike the 1070.) I wouldn't call that remotely the same.

The X1X isn't actually comparable to 1070, and you aren't actually even claiming that it is: You solely cited memory bandwidth.

Memory bandwidth isn't the only thing in the universe, sorry. But that kind of "THIS ONE TECHNICAL THING ON THE SPEC SHEET IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOREVER AND ALWAYS!" is very typical of fanboy arguments. Blah. No thanks.

Also, the 1070 was roughly 400-450 USD at the time of the X1X release (I know, I almost bought one then), totally in line with what a 7870 (the actual comparable GPU for the PS4) cost in 2013.

Like I said originally, if anything, this comparison you are making is actually the least favorable of the last three major generations. (because the X1X is actually comparable to 970/1060 480/580 in reality, not anything close to 1070)

Which isn't terribly surprising. The major vendors were bone-tired of the manufacturers trying to one-up each other with off-the-wall bizarre choices trying to get some elusive performance edge, and AMD was desperate for the design win and was willing to agree to 1) favorable pricing 2) a basically complete IP release. So long as they both took the deal, which each had vendor pressure and prior dismal experience with licensing/manufacturing to encourage them towards, the path forward was obvious. That was much more important to the manufacturers than strict performance, and so long as they kept an eye on each other and didn't rock the boat by only picking minor hardware differentiation, they could duke it out over software exclusives and ecosystem stuff. Way less risky.

But you don't just ignore me, but history and any other conflicting information...

I'm surprised it's taken this long to get back to that kind of low-risk strategy. Later 8-bit consoles (NES and Master System, in particular) used popular CPUs from home computers. Not much risk-taking there. MOS 6502 and Zilog Z80 for everyone. 16-bit consoles were more of the same, more or less. A 16-bit version of the 6502 and the same Motorola 68000 as the Macintosh. But then things get weird. The Saturn is the best example, but the PS1 and N64 used MIPS and some unusual (and new) 3D co-processors, and things stayed weird for a couple generations.

Chrispy_ wrote:

I think you have a short memory then
Every time a new console comes out, it tends to have reasonable GPU specs compared to GPUs of the time.

You also have to remember that 120Hz monitors are cheaper than 120Hz televisions
You also have to remember that the RX480 was released 18 months before the XB1X and at just $199, quickly dropping to less than that once street prices levelled out and deals popped up.

The XB1X GPU is technically wider (more shaders, wider bus) but with lower clocks and slower memory it actually has less fillrate and higher latencies (which hurt high-framerate gaming).
Effectively, the XB1X is a very close match for the old RX480 at 4K, but amusingly the 480 is probably the better option for 120Hz gaming by a non-trivial margin.

480/580 memory bandwidth is 256GB/s, X1X is 326GB/s. I've seen no indication you'd ever drive the *80s over 1440p (and even that is pushing it, going by my similarly performing 290.)

The *80s also have less compute units going by the specs I'm seeing.

So yes, I'm still comparing it to a 1070 rather than the 4/580 and 1060.

Meh. This discussion is tiring.

I like my Xbone and I like my PC. Like Glorious, I play with both a KB+M and a controller on the PC, and some games I just play on console. I think trying to compare the two, given all the differences with CPU, GPU, and integration/utilization (of those resources) is just foolish. Buy what you will PLAY (or what you can afford:) ) and be happy.

Most spec discussions are tiring. I didn't even imply the thing beat high end PCs just that it's a much better machine than people seem to think (especially compared to the PS4P.)

I love it, and I don't really expect to stop using it as my main machine before 2020. We'll see. The gaming PC market right now is a huge turnoff, but things could change.

DancinJack wrote:

Meh. This discussion is tiring.

I like my Xbone and I like my PC. Like Glorious, I play with both a KB+M and a controller on the PC, and some games I just play on console. I think trying to compare the two, given all the differences with CPU, GPU, and integration/utilization (of those resources) is just foolish. Buy what you will PLAY (or what you can afford:) ) and be happy.

NO YOU MUST CHOOSE! CONSOLE PEASANT OR PC MASTER RACE

derFunkenstein wrote:

NO YOU MUST CHOOSE! CONSOLE PEASANT OR PC MASTER RACE

I want to sell my PS4P but I don't know if Gal*Gun 2 is ever coming to PC or not

LostCat wrote:

With both the CPU and GPU having more memory bandwidth than a 1070, and custom instructions on the CPU to cut rendering costs significantly.

And a strong hardware audio chip most PCs don't have.

The CPU and GPU have to share that bandwidth. The shared memory is handy for CPU<->GPU communication, but PCIe isn't really a problem there in the first place. The custom instructions and audio help are useful because jaguar is so weak to start with, but those are small costs for decent CPUs.

card --- GFLOPS --- bandwidth --- fill rate
XB1X --- 6000 --- 326 --- 37
580 ------ 6100 --- 256 --- 42
1060 ---- 5100 --- 192 --- 96
1070 ---- 7200 --- 256 --- 121
V56 ---- 10500 --- 410 --- 94

The 580 and 1060 are about equal in the real world (as a way to bridge the comparison across architectures), and the XB1X doesn't really have so much bandwidth as this comparison indicates because the CPU needs some for itself. V56 is there for an example of what it really takes to beat a 1070.

LostCat wrote:

If you look at the Steam hardware charts I suspect you'd see most PC gamers don't have better kit.

Few have better kit, but many have similar kit (290/390/480/580 / 780/970/1060).

synthtel2 wrote:

The CPU and GPU have to share that bandwidth.

CPUs are usually fine with far less bandwidth than what the difference is, so I'm not seeing a problem there.

And none of what you list as similar kit would ever be good for 4K gaming from anything I've seen.

What CPU? What amount of bandwidth? How much less than that would be "fine"? What does that even mean? What happens when the CPU is not "fine"?

I'm not attempting to convince you of one thing or another, but this seems very much like an opinion stated as fact, and I fear we're in for another multiple page tangent on hand waving should this continue.

Well, he's not satisfied with the idea that the system is capable of playing games at a 4K resolution thanks to software optimization and specialized rendering techniques. It has to be the fastest thing on earth.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna go play a game on a 25-year-old system for a while. Because playing games is much more fun than fighting about how "my platform can beat up your platform."

LostCat wrote:

CPUs are usually fine with far less bandwidth than what the difference is, so I'm not seeing a problem there.

Not a problem with the hardware, it just looked like you were trying to claim that setup as some kind of serious advantage over a more conventional setup with 256 GB/s to the GPU. If you were merely trying to pose it as on par with a 1070, then you've got to dismiss that 1.2x shader power gap and 3.2x fill rate gap somehow, on top of Nvidia's usual efficiency advantage when comparing nothing but raw numbers.

LostCat wrote:

And none of what you list as similar kit would ever be good for 4K gaming from anything I've seen.

4K30 is about as heavy as 1440p60 (4K30 is slightly higher pixel rate, but less non-per-pixel work), and most of the people you'll find claiming those cards can't approximate 1440p60 are those who habitually max out all settings. Games may take a bit of settings tweaking to get there, but on consoles the devs are doing that tweaking for you. PC people just like to declare 4K all but impossible because they're trying for 60 fps with maxed settings. XB1X does also pull in some checkerboarding on some games, right?

LostCat wrote:

480/580 memory bandwidth is 256GB/s, X1X is 326GB/s. I've seen no indication you'd ever drive the *80s over 1440p (and even that is pushing it, going by my similarly performing 290.)

The *80s also have less compute units going by the specs I'm seeing.

So yes, I'm still comparing it to a 1070 rather than the 4/580 and 1060.

You're conveniently forgetting/ignoring that the 326GB/s is shared bandwidth with the CPU, and you're making the incorrect assumption that the Scorpio GPU has enough fillrate to be bandwidth constrained. Your argument falls apart when you realise that your R9 290 is matched by a stock RX 480 at 4K despite the extra 25% bandwidth. Why? Same number of ROPs and similar texture/pixel throughput.

As for the x80 series having fewer compute units, I already covered that; They are clocked higher.
Specifically, there are 9% fewer shader units running at an 8% higher clock. The net difference is trivial and not worth even bringing up again.

What *is* worth bringing up is that the Scorpio engine and RX480 both share the same geometry engine, rasterizer, cache, render back end, and shader engine interlink. shader count differences aside, ALL of these important functions are 8% faster in a stock 480 and 15% faster in a stock 580. With the common factory overclocks you're looking at a more realistic 10% and 20% faster, respectively.

I think perhaps the most obvious thing you're forgetting is that the 4K titles on XB1X are capped at 30fps, whilst the glorious PCMR sets the bar at 60fps. Not only that, but the XB1X only manages a med/high level of detail in the game at 4K30. There's some nasty close-range geometry pop, the shadow detail is obviously worse, and the draw distance LOD is obviously lower when you look at side-by-side comparisons. FWIW, the RX580 can almost manage Far Cry 5 4K ultra at 30fps. It's comfortably in the 40's when you drop it down to a mix of medium/high settings that look closer to what the XB1X runs at.

I don't want to rain on your parade, but your original comment

LostCat wrote:

This is the first time I remember a console puts many gaming PCs to shame though.

doesn't really match up with the $500 console being squarely beaten by a much older $200 GPU. Sure, you can't buy that GPU anymore because it's discontinued - and if you add the GPU price hikes from RAM/Crypto shortages, you'll have to spend $330 or so for an RX580, but that's still not being 'put to shame' by the console in any meaningful way.

Spoiled by a single quote/apostrophe!

To add something constructive, yeah, Chrispy is on point.

derFunkenstein wrote:

Well, he's not satisfied with the idea that the system is capable of playing games at a 4K resolution thanks to software optimization and specialized rendering techniques. It has to be the fastest thing on earth.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna go play a game on a 25-year-old system for a while. Because playing games is much more fun than fighting about how "my platform can beat up your platform."

Err, I never said it was the fastest thing on Earth? All I've been saying was I was amused that people still act like it isn't better than the competition.

Then, practically every person who buys one is shocked how good it is and people who already have one roll their eyes at them.

Chrispy_ wrote:

that's still not being 'put to shame' by the console in any meaningful way.

I wasn't referring to every gaming machine. I was referring to the market overall. Most gaming PCs in use today are far less capable.

synthtel2 wrote:

PC people just like to declare 4K all but impossible because they're trying for 60 fps with maxed settings. XB1X does also pull in some checkerboarding on some games, right?

That's actually fair. I don't like lowering details on my PC gaming either heh.

Maybe. It's capable of it but I haven't seen any X1X games do checkerboarding, it's much more common on PS4P.

LostCat wrote:

Maybe. It's capable of it but I haven't seen any X1X games do checkerboarding, it's much more common on PS4P.

This is definitely accurate, but the XB1X definitely uses some dynamic resolution wizardry to cope too. For instance, Witcher 3 has a "4K30" mode, which for the most part maintains 4K30 (like, actually 2160p30 locked) pretty well, and there is a "performance" mode that unlocks resolution and framerate and this mode definitely has to use some texture and resolution tricks to get something in the 40-60 FPS range. Just depends on the game.

DancinJack wrote:

This is definitely accurate, but the XB1X definitely uses some dynamic resolution wizardry to cope too. For instance, Witcher 3 has a "4K30" mode, which for the most part maintains 4K30 (like, actually 2160p30 locked) pretty well, and there is a "performance" mode that unlocks resolution and framerate and this mode definitely has to use some texture and resolution tricks to get something in the 40-60 FPS range. Just depends on the game.

Most games are close enough to 4K at least. The quality level is usually impressive, though it doesn't always seem like the devs actually try to use the hardware available.

I'm not really in the 'needs higher framerates' camp...it'd be nice, but it's rare I'm actually bothered either way. Would I prefer higher ones? Sure.

Some people like what they like.

For instance, I think 1440p and max details is the sweet spot. I don't really care about 4K if I'm being honest (and I have both a PC that could do some games at 4K and a 4K TV capable). After that I want dem FPS and VRR. Games running 120FPS on an 120Hz screen is so money.