Jump to content

Xbox Series X | S


djbhammer
 Share

Recommended Posts

RE: Downsizing of the Series S in the future mentioned above, I can see Microsoft doing some shit with embedded Ryzen SoCs when manufacturing processes mature over the generation. It's worth looking at today's market of AMD single-board computers (Udoo Bolt, Beelink GTR) to get an idea of the sizes and how incredibly capable they are for tiny boxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ethers said:


To be fair, the BBC are a load of bollocks, especially with this sort of stuff. 
 

However lots of people will read that as gospel. 

 

The message I take from that is "no power,  no games- aside from one that people laugh at (fairly) and a service that only has old games,  but if you are still interested,  get a pc. Sony are making amazing first party games."

 

That sort of fanboy stuff being presented as an expert's fair assessment is an issue for Microsoft.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Halo said:

 

That's very competitive.

 

For the Series S, that works out as a total of £503.76. The console is £249, so £254.76 for 24 months of game pass ultimate, or £10.62/mo.

 

For the Series X, that works out as a total of £695.76. The console is £449, so £246.76 for 24 months of game pass ultimate, or £10.28/mo.

 

The standard retail price for Game Pass Ultimate is £10.99, although you've been able to get it cheaper in various ways in the past.

 

 

 

What's neat for them here is you hit 2 years and it's a no brainer to keep paying £10.99 for Game Pass if you're a normal punter.  Because it's not £10.99, it's "My monthly outgoings just fell by £17".

 

17 hours ago, Sarlaccfood said:


Oh crap don’t they?

 

I skipped this gen, I thought it was the disc games that had a list of compatible games and the digital news were all gravy <_<

 

Nope, same list. In fact that list of original xbox games is massively smaller on One/Series than it is on 360.

 

16 hours ago, JPL said:

Where are the cost savings coming from then? It has to be the GPU right, as I can’t see the removal of the Blu-ray drive and the smaller SSD saving that much?

 

That CPU is more than you think, because it means they can put the Series X CPUs that fail testing into the S.  It happens all the time in PC world.  The most famous example being the original Pentium launch at 66 and 60mhz chips.

 

The 60s were literally the 66s that couldn't run stably at 66.  Same with PS3 Cell, they built them with 8 cores and only used 7, meaning one could be shonky on any given machine.  If they'd had a PS3 lite with 6 that's more chips they don't have to throw away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not really been paying attention to the launch news, I kind of got bored waiting I think. I saw the 24.99 headlines and assumed that was some kind of top of the range Game Pass, only now reading up on it this morning have I realised YOU GET A FUCKING CONSOLE THROWN IN AS WELL!!!

 

Given my shitty furloughed year I was expecting to wait this launch out until next year but since my phone contract ends in November I am totally on this. We'll played Uncle Phil, well played.

 

Shame it’s only Smyths and Game doing it in the UK, both not the most reliable of retailers. The MS website is a bit confusing on the process though; presumably you don’t need to sign up to AA now, there will be an option to pre-order for it on the 22nd?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Dudley said:

That CPU is more than you think, because it means they can put the Series X CPUs that fail testing into the S.  It happens all the time in PC world.  The most famous example being the original Pentium launch at 66 and 60mhz chips.

 

The consoles don't have seperate CPUs, the CPU and GPU are on the same chip. The X chip has 4 redundant GPU compute units to help with yields.  The S is using a dedicated chip, unless they have a second type of motherboard for binned XSX chips that they've not shown.  Doesn't seem likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say I'm very impressed with the price point, size and apparent difference from the Xbox One X (which I have just now). I'm almost tempted if it weren't for the fact that I don't think the majority of games at the moment even push the One X, so I'm really not too sure if I could justify 250 bucks for some faster loading. Once in a blue moon you get an outstanding AAA game, but they aren't really my thing anyway for the best part.

 

I can see Microsoft picking up a lot of new customers with this though, and the teen demographic should swallow this up. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I don't really understand the tech anymore, this all makes me wonder what else people could do with the X GPU if so much of it wasn't dedicated to just getting 4k. A bit more resolution seems a little wasteful. Isn't there much more fun stuff we could be getting with what seems to be boatloads of GRAFIX POWER?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, hereticboy said:

Even though I don't really understand the tech anymore, this all makes me wonder what else people could do with the X GPU if so much of it wasn't dedicated to just getting 4k. A bit more resolution seems a little wasteful. Isn't there much more fun stuff we could be getting with what seems to be boatloads of GRAFIX POWER?

 

We had this conversation on Twitter, but yeah absolutely. However what's worth remembering is that even though that particular white elephant has been catered for, removing the capability significantly reduces the cost. And if they are aiming for 4K 60 as they keep telling us there's no reason they won't hit 1440 60.

 

I guess the other thing is you can have all the power in the world but games are expensive to make and take longer the more they have to play with. I'm assuming this is why tech like ray tracing is starting to be important, because you let that do all the heavy lifting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, moosegrinder said:

 

We had this conversation on Twitter, but yeah absolutely. However what's worth remembering is that even though that particular white elephant has been catered for, removing the capability significantly reduces the cost. And if they are aiming for 4K 60 as they keep telling us there's no reason they won't hit 1440 60.

 

I guess the other thing is you can have all the power in the world but games are expensive to make and take longer the more they have to play with. I'm assuming this is why tech like ray tracing is starting to be importing, because you let that do all the heavy lifting.

It is 100% right that a huge chunk of the power in the PS5 and XsX will be going to push out the raytraced shinies at 4k. The S "proves" that by having less trhan half the gpu pushing the same shinies at 1440p.

 

pc owners have known this for years you run ultra settings on a 2070 and get 60fps @ 1080p - if you want to run a 4k display doping that you newed a 2080ti etc. (random example but principle is the same). Part of that Digital Foundry video is Richard simply telling us that this push for 4k is using huge quantities of power for no increase in shinies (beyond the IQ improvement of 4k itself as a res).

 

Part of me does wonder if it is worth it an maybe that power shoul dbe spent elswhere. Maybe ps5 will do that? decide where to spend the "power budget"? has it confirmed 4k native or is it doing checkerboarding again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Calashnikov said:


All this just makes me believe you’d be a mad cunt to shell out an extra £200 to bump things up from 1440 to 4K.

 

But by the same token I’d believe you to be a mad cunt if you didn’t just shell out the extra £8 a month for one of those sweet Series X + GPU contracts as opposed to one of those £8 cheaper a month sweet Series S + GPU contracts.

 

This is soooo me. We don't (currently) have a 4k set, so the S makes total sense. But for £8 extra a month, I can't see me not getting an X. They've nailed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Clipper said:

It is 100% right that a huge chunk of the power in the PS5 and XsX will be going to push out the raytraced shinies at 4k. The S "proves" that by having less trhan half the gpu pushing the same shinies at 1440p.

 

pc owners have known this for years you run ultra settings on a 2070 and get 60fps @ 1080p - if you want to run a 4k display doping that you newed a 2080ti etc. (random example but principle is the same). Part of that Digital Foundry video is Richard simply telling us that this push for 4k is using huge quantities of power for no increase in shinies (beyond the IQ improvement of 4k itself as a res).

 

Part of me does wonder if it is worth it an maybe that power shoul dbe spent elswhere. Maybe ps5 will do that? decide where to spend the "power budget"? has it confirmed 4k native or is it doing checkerboarding again?


Nobody’s quite sure what PS5 devs are doing, but I recall Digital Foundry doing pixel counting on the trailers and concluding many games were running at less than 4K. Some games are confirmed to have performance and quality graphics modes too, but we only have details on Miles Morales, which has an option to play at 4K60 instead of 4K30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, moosegrinder said:

 

We had this conversation on Twitter, but yeah absolutely. However what's worth remembering is that even though that particular white elephant has been catered for, removing the capability significantly reduces the cost. And if they are aiming for 4K 60 as they keep telling us there's no reason they won't hit 1440 60.

 

I guess the other thing is you can have all the power in the world but games are expensive to make and take longer the more they have to play with. I'm assuming this is why tech like ray tracing is starting to be important, because you let that do all the heavy lifting.

Yeah, and with stuff like that video emphasising that the targets are 4k/60 and 1440/60 I've no doubt that any resolution or framerate drops on either box will be proportionate on the other one, which is reasonable and meets the 'same box, different res' message.

 

It just makes me wonder what we could get if it wasn't focused on 4k for the sake of 4k. But thinking about it, I guess that's a PC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ethers said:


Fuck me, they’ve even got that right!

 

I think the only thing they’ve done wrong is not opening pre orders NOW. 

 

Yeah that's pretty huge, I've got 18 months left but suddenly a Series X now seems interesting.

 

19 hours ago, Wahwah* said:

 

Yeah, everyone's upset that the console is coming in £50 less than expected (may actually be true in other threads, I suppose).

 

 

And to be fair, that was based on mostly correct $ guesses, we didn't realise they were going to go all Leroy Jenkins with currency conversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a lot of "4K doesn't matter/is a waste of time" talk going on and I don't really get it.

 

Yes, 4K uptake is perhaps not totally ubiquitous yet (you may not have one yet), but it is the current standard for most new TV purchases now and over the next 7 years pretty much everyone will go that way so it makes total sense for consoles to have a solid answer for it from the beginning of this gen.

 

I was fairly indifferent about it to be honest but bought a 55" 4K HDR when we moved house and needed a new one and frankly it's bloody lovely in the flesh, especially when sitting on my gaming chair about 5ft from it with headphones on. :wub:

 

Ironically I'm still looking at an 'S' initially but that is more because of other factors like it being a second console and that I may move it into another room which only has a 1080p screen. But in a couple of years (perhaps when I've got 12 months left go GPU and the new games will be out) I could definitely see myself taking up an 'X' on All Access to make the most of the 4K alongside the PS5 (and donating the 'S' to my son).

 

What Microsoft have done brilliantly here is provide options and upgrade paths that can suit lots of different customer circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we may have the choice to see 1440p native upscaled to 4k at 60/120fps versus 4K native at 30/60fps.

 

It may be diminishing returns with respect to resolution and the extra fps might swing it in the favour of the lower res version for many people.

 

Not sure if "smart delivery" or whatever it's called will allow for that level of graphical options on all games? (I.e. do you need an entirely different texture pack to allow for a 4K->1440p 'downgrade'?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, K said:

I feel like you could probably do something a bit more interesting with all that processing power than a marginal increase in resolution.

 

They still might have better settings on PS5/XSX vs the S.  Like resolution, can't see it's such a big deal.  Can most folks spot the difference between medium and high PC settings after playing for a few minutes? 

 

One thing that should be good next gen that helps the S is that anti aliasing/image quality has got so much better than it was at the start of this gen.   S games might look a softer on a bigger display, but they won't be a horrid shimmery mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been tempted to go back to Xbox next gen and this price and all access deal has probably sealed it, still have my live login with no active sub and never had game pass.... 

 

Can I get a cheaper gold > all access conversion deal and buy the console separately to make it cheaper than All access?


Ive not really followed this thread so another quick question around headsets... I currently run an Astro mixamp TR on my PS4, I know that won’t work on Ps5 or Xbone and I assume series X... what’s the headset deal on the new beast!?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, monkeydog said:

 

They still might have better settings on PS5/XSX vs the S.  Like resolution, can't see it's such a big deal.  Can most folks spot the difference between medium and high PC settings after playing for a few minutes? 

 

One thing that should be good next gen that helps the S is that anti aliasing/image quality has got so much better than it was at the start of this gen.   S games might look a softer on a bigger display, but they won't be a horrid shimmery mess.


If the settings are different then the graphics will be different as well. It doesn’t matter much to the average consumer but you really don’t need negativity when launching a new product like this and especially when you have claimed as a company that the only difference will be the resolution. This whole things rests on the ability of the S to deliver what the SX delivers but for a non 4K. crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

If it turns out that you can in fact make a fully capable 1440p box that does everything else in full and has the same frame-for-frame performance in every other aspect for £250 at retail, it makes the wisdom of even trying for a 4K box pretty questionable. Very few people are sitting around counting the pixels on the PS4 Pro releases and saying they don't look good enough.

Personally I'm more than happy with upscaled 1440p so long as everything runs at 60fps... Native 4K is a nice to have but in real terms its often hard to tell the difference between upscaled 1400p or native 4K. Certainly from a personal point of view not fussed about effectively paying £200 more for an X just to move upto 4K. Not even fussed about a drive either - don't own any physical media on the Xbox anymore anyway... its all digital. S is a no-brainer for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Purin said:

How does the S compare to a PS5 if the PS5 game is pushing 1440p rather than 4K?

noone knows yet :D

 

if S and X push same IQ at two different resolutions then either PS5 is pushing the same IQ at 1440p (maybe because it can't quite match the horsepower of the X or it goes for a higher framerate?) OR they are checkerboarding OR they add extra shinies to the PS5 and spend their GPU budget that way.

 

Way too many hypotheticals we'd need a real world example which is likely quite a long way away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.