Xbox Series X | S

[Revival]

2 hours ago, monkeydog said:

 

Literally nothing.    The power/feature gap between the two systems is less than between the X1S and PS4.  It doesn't enable fundamentally different graphics.  Anything the XBX can do the PS5 can do at 80% of the resolution. 

 

The real differences between the two systems will be either talented developers, lavish budgets or a combination of both.

 

 

 

Not quite, You're not taking into consideration the rather large CU gap and the real time usuability of global world ray tracing vs just shadow rt. Which'll probably be quite prominent this gen.

[Dudley]

 

3 hours ago, JPL said:

You’re right, everything should be named literally so people don’t have to think for more than a couple of seconds.

 

I’d like a pint of beer 3 to go with my curry 2, please.

 

Yeah, no-one has ever ordered food by number in a takeaway....

 

Basically this whole thread is 50% people saying "There's no confusion at all" and 50% of people in a games forum getting either the name or the details wrong.

[TehStu]

I mean, extrapolate that to this whole site. 

[Stanley]

42 minutes ago, Hitcher said:

No it's not; it's coming later.

 

EDIT: The Series X version.

The patch you mean? Still reckon a hell of a lot of people are going to be playing it on either Series S/X or PS5 anyway. 

[Alex W.]

47 minutes ago, Revival said:

 

Not quite, You're not taking into consideration the rather large CU gap and the real time usuability of global world ray tracing vs just shadow rt. Which'll probably be quite prominent this gen.

The performance gap isn’t that large; even the Series X won’t have enough GPU power to use ray tracing everywhere developers want to, and conversely the PS5 has enough power to do ray traced reflections and indirect lighting where developers choose to do so. (The PS5 game showcase was full of it.) They’ll differ by degrees, and degrees that I might even expect to shrink as the generation advances. (Cerny made comments about the difficulty in using large numbers of CUs when you have small polygons that were initially baffling but make sense in light of UE5.) In any case, you’ll be looking at games that draw out detail a bit further on Series X, run at a proportionally higher resolution, or have a higher frame rate. Not games that look markedly different.

[Clipper]

1 hour ago, TehStu said:

Like the One S replaced the One, etc. Even if slim wasn't the official name, go search for it - plenty of retailers label it as such. 

 

Does anyone think you'll genuinely have to brief grandparents on whether to buy a One, One S, One X, Series S, or Series X console come later this year? It'll all speak for itself. And there's literally no "grandpa bought me the One S, doh" use case mentioned elsewhere in this thread, because it's all the same thing and pulls the relevant assets for you. 

 

 

I mean as long as those grandparents don't buy a ps5 in their confusion then it's all good surely

 

right?

...

right?

...

 

(debates how many smilies to put on this to indicate "joking")

(oh no is that sarcastic laughter?)

[TehStu]

Has anyone been able to benchmark the Velocity Architecture? It says 40x XB1 throughout, but the spinning rust in that machine is a pretty low bar. Like, some real world sequences showing it in action and the difference it makes would be nice. 

[Down by Law]

1 hour ago, TehStu said:

Does anyone think you'll genuinely have to brief grandparents on whether to buy a One, One S, One X, Series S, or Series X console come later this year? It'll all speak for itself. And there's literally no "grandpa bought me the One S, doh" use case mentioned elsewhere in this thread, because it's all the same thing and pulls the relevant assets for you. 

 

This is perceived nonsense, just like the PS5 design. I get this is par for the course in hardware threads. 

 

So if someone buys that Series X Nba game by mistake and put it in a One X, it'll download the correct version? Cus that's pretty good if that's the case !

[Revival]

15 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

The performance gap isn’t that large; even the Series X won’t have enough GPU power to use ray tracing everywhere developers want to, and conversely the PS5 has enough power to do ray traced reflections and indirect lighting where developers choose to do so. (The PS5 game showcase was full of it.) They’ll differ by degrees, and degrees that I might even expect to shrink as the generation advances. (Cerny made comments about the difficulty in using large numbers of CUs when you have small polygons that were initially baffling but make sense in light of UE5.) In any case, you’ll be looking at games that draw out detail a bit further on Series X, run at a proportionally higher resolution, or have a higher frame rate. Not games that look markedly different.

 

It's large enough for people to try and downplay it at every opportunity.

 

[TehStu]

4 minutes ago, Down by Law said:

 

So if someone buys that Series X Nba game by mistake and put it in a One X, it'll download the correct version? Cus that's pretty good if that's the case !

I don't know about that game specifically, especially as you're paying an extra $10 for  Series X/PS5 versions, but their Thing With A Name I Forget pulls down the relevant assets, yeah. 

 

I assume we'll find out on the 23rd. 

[Alex W.]

11 minutes ago, Revival said:

 

It's large enough for people to try and downplay it at every opportunity.

 

It is genuinely smaller and less challenging for developers to manage than the difference in hardware between the PS4 and Xbox One, two consoles which - and I’m getting tired of saying this - were basically exactly the same thing, except one of them came with Kinect and the other one came with $100 in cash. 
 

Now, we can’t rule out the possibility that Sony will do what Microsoft did* and conjure up a box that is both slower and more expensive than its rival, but until the prices show up I don’t think anyone should get too carried away about the power difference in those specs.

*And also what they did with the PS3, come to think of it

[Hitcher]

 

[rafaqat]

27 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

It is genuinely smaller and less challenging for developers to manage than the difference in hardware between the PS4 and Xbox One, two consoles which - and I’m getting tired of saying this - were basically exactly the same thing, except one of them came with Kinect and the other one came with $100 in cash. 
 

Now, we can’t rule out the possibility that Sony will do what Microsoft did* and conjure up a box that is both slower and more expensive than its rival, but until the prices show up I don’t think anyone should get too carried away about the power difference in those specs.

*And also what they did with the PS3, come to think of it

 

Gotta be honest. The difference in games will be minimal.  It'll be highly amusing to watch people wave away the differences one way or another in whatever thread it was where the DF game comparisons are posted.   Where hours and hours of work are summarised into  "PC > Console X > Console Y"  and then a bunch of people try to pretend they don't care but you can tell they do really.  I fucking love that thread.   Roll on console and new GPU  launch

[TehStu]

It only "mattered" when the resulting resolution was 900p vs 1080p.

[Transient Curse]

7 minutes ago, TehStu said:

It only "mattered" when the resulting resolution was 900p vs 1080p.

Or when grass was randomly generated.

[layten]

15 minutes ago, TehStu said:

It only "mattered" when the resulting resolution was 900p vs 1080p.

Team 1080p got quite upset when team PC joined in the fun.  

[TehStu]

Anyway, Flight Simulator is going to look astonishing on this thing. I hope they support HOTAS. 

[Uncle Mike]

I didn't know you had an expensive PC, layten - you've never mentioned it.

[HarryBizzle]

31 minutes ago, TehStu said:

It only "mattered" when the resulting resolution was 900p vs 1080p.

 

I genuinely think it did matter. The resolution difference between early Xbox One and PS4 games is the most noticeable resolution gap of the generation, easily (and don't forget all the 720p games on Xbox One in the early days). It was and still is immediately apparent when games are not at least 1080p. Buying a new generation of consoles to play games at sub-HD resolutions was a massive disappointment to me.

 

The PS4 Pro and Xbox One X had the advantage of launching when there was much better AA and honestly the difference between a good 1440p and full 4K image isn't that noticeable to me. I remember playing AC: Origins on my PS4 Pro and being amazed at not being able to see a single jaggy despite it rendering an internal resolution way, way lower than that of my 4K TV.

[layten]

6 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

I didn't know you had an expensive PC, layten - you've never mentioned it.

You should read a few more threads then. Pretty sure I've mentioned it a few times.

 

That thread was a troll thread to annoy Bone owners, seeing 'team 1080p' get so salty and demanding that PC owners stay out of it was hilarious. It suddenly became serious discussion of important resolution matters.  

[Clipper]

[Clipper]

2 minutes ago, HarryBizzle said:

 

I genuinely think it did matter. The resolution difference between early Xbox One and PS4 games is the most noticeable resolution gap of the generation, easily. It was and still is immediately apparent when games are not at least 1080p.

 

 

[NecroMorrius]

Thing is right, I'm a proper PC nutter too, and I think resolution is massively less important than framerate. 

 

My new TV (LG CX) will do 4k 60hz or 1440 120hz with my current GPU. Without question I'm playing everything at 1440p/120hz except for games which are locked to 60hz. 4K is a silly amount of pixels to be pushing especially when you're sat further away from the screen versus a monitor. I'd love the next gen consoles to do 1440p/60fps minimum but I'm pretty sure it's gonna be 30fps 4K with lipservice raytracing. If either of the manufacturers guaranteed 60fps in all games at a minimum, even if I had to run it in 1080p, I'd buy that console in a heartbeat. 

[Uncle Mike]

10 minutes ago, layten said:

That thread was a troll thread to annoy Bone owners, seeing 'team 1080p' get so salty and demanding that PC owners stay out of it was hilarious. It suddenly became serious discussion of important resolution matters.  

 

I don't remember this specific thread. 

[layten]

4 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

 

I don't remember this specific thread. 

It was the early days of what is now the general game comparison thread I think. I may be wrong, but I'm not sure it's worth spending much time playing with the awful forum search function.

[David Kenny]

2 minutes ago, layten said:

It was the early days of what is now the general game comparison thread I think. I may be wrong, but I'm not sure it's worth spending much time playing with the awful forum search function.

You're right. It was originally set up as part of the light ribbing going on about the Xbox tending towards lower resolution games. It became an unholy monster and has thankfully been mostly forgotten. We should remember the wise words of a certain author though, and be ever vigilant; "That is not dead which can eternal lie...".

[HarryBizzle]

I was just having a look at that thread and it's an interesting trip down memory lane, at least in the early pages. For the most part it's actually fine.

 

The "1080p gang" appears to be like one guy:

 

 

[TehStu]

37 minutes ago, HarryBizzle said:

I genuinely think it did matter

Ok. It never bothered me, nor does the Switch being scaled from 900p to 4k at 55 inches. And I stand right in front of my TV to play, as I have weird neck issues.

 

Horses for courses. 

 

But, it's not like we all AREN'T going to appreciate stuff being native 4k now.

[Alex W.]

1 hour ago, TehStu said:

It only "mattered" when the resulting resolution was 900p vs 1080p.

And you paid $100 extra for the privilege. I really don’t think anyone would have cared if they were both $399.

 

The minute Cerny said “eight gigabytes of GDDR5” Microsoft should’ve been throwing Kinects in landfills and dropping the planned price. They had a great, competitive console product - they could’ve spun it as a more familiar, PC style architecture or whatever - and they blew it.

 

Edit - Well, I suppose the answer is they must’ve thought the PS4 would need to cost $499 too, but this is getting off topic.

[TehStu]

While we have nothing to talk about, I bought a replacement Kinect. Not only did they tank performance but, long term, they overheat and break. Just to rub salt in the miscalculated product.

 

Although I only paid $399.