Leaked GPU Specs Suggest Xbox Series X Substantially More Powerful Than PS5

[leadeater]

36 minutes ago, williamcll said:

AMD must be having a supply issue if all the big Navi chips are sent to console manufacturers. 

Doubt it's a supply issue, fill existing contract for product before trying to release a new product with no existing obligations.

 

Discrete GPU sales is about 20-25 million per year, PS4 has sold 103 million units and Xbox One has sold 47 million units. Console sales have largest sales in first 2 years (18+ million each year for PS4) and the consoles are built well in advance to meet that demand. So rough estimate upcoming consoles are going to need say 50 million ready to sell in the first year (assuming both release in the same year roughly same ish time, 6 months) which would mean AMD is focusing on supplying Sony and Microsoft 50-60 million of what ever they need, or 2-3 years of total market sales of discrete desktop GPU sales.

 

No way AMD is going to mess around the console supply for measly sales they do get in the desktop market in comparison, even if consoles aren't actually high profit margin.

[Commodus]

7 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

If I remember correctly halo infinite is launching on pc as well so I wouldn't even really call it an exclusive. I guess it might be considered an exclusive if you don't have a pc capable of playing it and can only afford to buy a console. 

It is -- it's a console exclusive, let's put it that way.  And let's face it, many people would rather buy a console than drop much more on a PC that can keep up, so these kinds of exclusives make a difference.

[Doobeedoo]

Well, that would be quite a difference, interesting if it ends like it. I do wonder how much they'll differ elsewhere. First it was that both would be around same hardware with each having their "special sauce" improvements hardware side. Well these will be fun to see I gotta say. Really from technical side I'm really interested to see how these new upcoming consoles end up. 

There's still a whole year befoe they're released though. Also by then we'll have new Zen 3 and flagship RDNA2 Navi too. Now how many CUs will they target, potentially shouldn't be a limit like before so 80 would be amazing to see. With it, die size would be decent too. 

 

[GoldenLag]

29 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Now how many CUs will they target, potentially shouldn't be a limit like before so 80 would be amazing to see. With it, die size would be decent too. 

To do that they would need like 512-bit memmory bus at the minimum........

 

Unless they go HBM2, which would be very expencive. 

 

 

The diesize isnt really the limit.

[The Benjamins]

10 hours ago, Deli said:

A 56 compute units Navi can easily perform on par with a 2080 Super. Plus a 3700X for CPU. Maybe you can build one for less than $800.

Consumer PC Part cost is not the same as what Microsoft will be charged for its BOM cost. They arrange price contracts with the requirements that MS will buy millions of parts, so that means they are able to negotiate fairly low cost for parts.

 

Also the Pricing of this Xbox is also design to be sustainable for a 5 year+ life cycle (2021-2026)

 

Also if you look at the components for a console you will see they are being simplified over the generations, they no long need expensive BD drive (now they are cheap) no longer need a HDD or the space and connectors for it, storage will be a onboard SSD, PSU have gotten better, smaller and power requirements have gotten smaller. (a bit) Basically for this generation all of the cost of the machine is in the GPU and CPU which is made by the same vendor which also incurs price savings.

 

I also assume it will be a APU so that means 1 heatsink vs 2 

[Totallycasual]

The current generation top tier X-Box is heaps more powerful than the PS4 Pro too but Playstation absolutely crushed this generation, so long as Sony keeps focusing on their amazing first party single player games, they can have my money

[Doobeedoo]

2 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

To do that they would need like 512-bit memmory bus at the minimum........

 

Unless they go HBM2, which would be very expencive. 

 

 

The diesize isnt really the limit.

Oh I know, just mentioned the die size that it wouldn't be a problem if they went with it. But I would expect them to use possibly HBM2E though. It would make sense only for flagship no doubt.

[GoldenLag]

7 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

But I would expect them to use possibly HBM2E though. It would make sense only for flagship no doubt.

It would barely make sense for a flagship GPU at 1200$. 

 

Also the die would need to be humoungous to drop the voltage. You simply dont make a card that is 350w continous powerdraw

[Mister Woof]

Consoles are interior no matter what hardware they have.

 

The amount of stuff they lock down on them to create exclusivity makes them shit.

 

This is why pc is superior. 

[Doobeedoo]

5 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

It would barely make sense for a flagship GPU at 1200$. 

 

Also the die would need to be humoungous to drop the voltage. You simply dont make a card that is 350w continous powerdraw

I mean HBM is a better tech, it is said that it would get cheaper with newer generations over time. I mean it still is more pricey and I guess we'll see what happens, if it ends up in 'worth it' cost/perf wise. The die size would probably be around what we've seen up to date I'd say.

[SteveGrabowski0]

On 1/4/2020 at 12:27 PM, Commodus said:

And let's face it, Microsoft still has trouble making compelling exclusives for its systems.  Halo Infinite would have to be really, truly exceptional to justify buying an XSX just for that game, and I can't see it happening.

Thankfully Microsoft has done something to address that glaring weakness from this generation: namely buying two seriously talented studios in Ninja Theory and Obsidian. I'm pretty excited to see what those two can do with Microsoft's money behind them now. I thought Obsidian did Fallout way better than Bethesda did (I'll take New Vegas over 3, 4, or especially 76 any day) and Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice was a pretty remarkable game that seemed to come out of nowhere.

[b8a]

I do think it will be very interesting to see how this all pans out. I'm personally a pc gamer but I do love my consoles too. The only down fall is that they have been so underpowered in comparison to pc imo. If they made something that could have the simplicity and efficiency of a consol but pack the power of a pc that would be epic.

 

And yes Xbox dose not have many exclusive's but if they where able to pack that much power into it they could very well have exclusives that even low end gaming pc's could not handle much less a ps5. This could open up a new era of console gaming.

[Commodus]

9 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Thankfully Microsoft has done something to address that glaring weakness from this generation: namely buying two seriously talented studios in Ninja Theory and Obsidian. I'm pretty excited to see what those two can do with Microsoft's money behind them now. I thought Obsidian did Fallout way better than Bethesda did (I'll take New Vegas over 3, 4, or especially 76 any day) and Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice was a pretty remarkable game that seemed to come out of nowhere.

Yeah, that's a definite help -- I just think Microsoft had (and to a degree, still has) what you could call "ReCore syndrome." That is, a tendency to buy middling studios and promptly wonder why those studios produce middling games that wouldn't convince a single person to buy an Xbox over a PlayStation.  It's gradually realizing that it needs to swing for the fences if it's going to counter Sony-friendly studios like Naughty Dog and Guerrilla Games.

[Brooksie359]

16 hours ago, Commodus said:

It is -- it's a console exclusive, let's put it that way.  And let's face it, many people would rather buy a console than drop much more on a PC that can keep up, so these kinds of exclusives make a difference.

True but not to people who already own a gaming pc. I know quite a few people who have a gaming pc but also have a ps4 simply for some of their exclusives which I cant really say about the xbox one. 

[LeSheen]

A lot of people bought into the PlayStation ecosystem this generation. If the rumors (already confirmed?) about backwards compatibility are true then I don't see many people make the jump over to xbox. Especially as a computer gamer, since most if not all Microsoft exclusives also appear on their pc store. And to be honest Microsofts exclusives aren't really my cup of tea.

 

This gen I bought a switch (most switch games are exclusive) and a refurbished ps4 so I could play ps exclusives (god of war, spiderman, uncharted,...)

[WereCatf]

I can't bring myself up to caring about which console has nominally better specs. I'll be buying a PS5 anyways because Sony has more the kinds of games I care about. I don't know if Microsoft offers anything similar to Steam's Remote Play, but Sony does and I happen to find that feature a really nice one as well. Then there's the whole PSVR-thing, namely that Sony has a good selection of VR-titles and ecosystem already and it's almost guaranteed that they'll do a whole new PSVR-headset and controllers for the PS5.

 

As for XBOX...well, there's just nothing I'd care about there. No interesting features, games or anything.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, WereCatf said:

I can't bring myself up to caring about which console has nominally better specs. I'll be buying a PS5 anyways because Sony has more the kinds of games I care about

Really it's going to make little difference just like it has this generation and the last, lowest bar is the upper limit so outside of some small differences in internal render resolution games are going to be the same. And unlike PC, chasing frame rate isn't really a thing and for the average person you have no way to even know what it is exactly.

 

I'm not sure either Sony or Microsoft is willing to tip the scales greatly knowing this and even so if both ask AMD for the best they can do, even with slight differences in requirements, they will both equally get the best AMD can do.

 

Bringing to market a $800 console versus a $500 you will lose. Having a $800 option limited by a $500 cheaper option of your own means you will not sell the $800 option. Having both a $800 option and a $500 option but having certain games exclusive to the $800 isn't going to happen, without huge bankrolling from Sony/Microsoft and won't justify to buyers to get the more expensive one anyway.

 

I just can't see anything other than status quo happening, flipping of most popular excluded.

[Unixsystem]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

Really it's going to make little difference just like it has this generation and the last, lowest bar is the upper limit so outside of some small differences in internal render resolution games are going to be the same. And unlike PC, chasing frame rate isn't really a thing and for the average person you have no way to even know what it is exactly.

 

I'm not sure either Sony or Microsoft is willing to tip the scales greatly knowing this and even so if both ask AMD for the best they can do, even with slight differences in requirements, they will both equally get the best AMD can do.

 

Bringing to market a $800 console versus a $500 you will lose. Having a $800 option limited by a $500 cheaper option of your own means you will not sell the $800 option. Having both a $800 option and a $500 option but having certain games exclusive to the $800 isn't going to happen, without huge bankrolling from Sony/Microsoft and won't justify to buyers to get the more expensive one anyway.

 

I just can't see anything other than status quo happening, flipping of most popular excluded.

There's no guarantee that the Series X is going to be the only MS console on shelves, and there's no guarantee it'll be $800. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Series X be $600, with a $400 option which is more in line with what the PS5 offers (possibly also digital only). 

 

Keep in mind that Xbox as a brand is currently in the underdog position, so I wouldn't be surprised if they are willing to take a loss on hardware in order to gain some early market share. I doubt we'll ever get back to the era where every console was just a loss leader like it used to be, but if MS loses $50 per unit for the first year or two until a slim revision comes out, that would probably be worth it to overcome the still lingering bad perception around the Xbone. 

[leadeater]

51 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

There's no guarantee that the Series X is going to be the only MS console on shelves, and there's no guarantee it'll be $800. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Series X be $600, with a $400 option which is more in line with what the PS5 offers (possibly also digital only). 

It doesn't matter, pick what ever price points you want the point still stands, two options of different prices released at the same time is dooming one of them to failure. There is no way the more expensive one will have exclusive games to the cheaper one and any performance or resolution difference is going to result in nothing as well.

 

The only way the current generation was able to release new variations was due to time between each one and little price difference compared to the original releases and there was, as mandated by both Sony and Microsoft, zero core differences between them. And Microsoft also had the most variance between their models and it made no difference in games offered and their strategy amounted to half that of Sony.

 

Why would Microsoft take a loss against their own product, it doesn't make any sense. Forget Sony, why have two models of different prices at the same time offering the same game play options? Once you can give a compelling realistic explanation as to why that would work then it might be worth thinking about more, till then this is all typical unfounded rumor mill that to me lacks critical thinking. 

 

Edit:

Note this is about two models with actual different hardware configurations and performance, not ones with and without optical drives or the like.

[Unixsystem]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

It doesn't matter, pick what ever price points you want the point still stands, two options of different prices released at the same time is dooming one of them to failure. There is no way the more expensive one will have exclusive games to the cheaper one and any performance or resolution difference is going to result in nothing as well.

 

The only way the current generation was able to release new variations was due to time between each one and little price difference compared to the original releases and there was, as mandated by both Sony and Microsoft, zero core differences between them. And Microsoft also had the most variance between their models and it made no difference in games offered and their strategy amounted to half that of Sony.

 

Why would Microsoft take a loss against their own product, it doesn't make any sense. Forget Sony, why have two models of different prices at the same time offering the same game play options? Once you can give a compelling realistic explanation as to why that would work then it might be worth thinking about more, till then this is all typical unfounded rumor mill that to me lacks critical thinking. 

 

Edit:

Note this is about two models with actual different hardware configurations and performance, not ones with and without optical drives or the like.

It's for the same reason that Nvidia selling Titans matters. Almost no one buys them (in the regular gamer market), but the fact that exists has a halo effect on the entire product line. The Xbone X is more powerful than the PS4 Pro, but it came on the heels of the original which was notibly less capable than the PS4. Granted, that was the least of the original X one's problems with regards to public perception, but being seen as the weaker console didn't help it. While Xbox absolutely could use more good exclusives, they have plenty of franchises that could get people excited except that after the Xbone the brand is kind of in the shitter. Coming in with a top end console that beats the pants off the PS5 would at least be a start, even if it's not the entirety of a winning strategy. 

 

Also, we're already seeing the console makers pushing more into PC gaming territories with regards to marketing. Things like variable refresh rate, "real 4K" instead of checkerboarding, VR and 120fps are all on the table for next gen. Doesn't mean that those are all going to definitely happen or be common, but they are marketing points nonetheless. 

 

As for taking a loss on consoles, we spent something like 20 years with console makers taking a loss on every console sold. They made up the losses on game and accessory sales. Most consoles didn't become profitable until well into their lifespan when the hardware had become much less cutting edge and often after a redesign (see all the Playstation slim models). To my knowledge, the first console in decades to come out and make money day one was the Wii, and that started the trend of profitable hardware being the norm (which is likely why the original PS4 and Xbone were so underpowered compared to contemporary PCs).

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

It's for the same reason that Nvidia selling Titans matters. Almost no one buys them (in the regular gamer market), but the fact that exists has a halo effect on the entire product line.

Consoles don't care, PC market is vastly different. The actual buyers don't give a damn which is more powerful, nobody has ever cared in any of the generations. I myself and others like me do because it's interesting to look at but yes, well all know, it doesn't matter which is.

 

Microsoft did not have a brand problem or was seen as the lesser. Xbox 360 sold just as many as the PS3, they were near as much exactly equal sales.

 

24 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

Also, we're already seeing the console makers pushing more into PC gaming territories with regards to marketing. Things like variable refresh rate, "real 4K" instead of checkerboarding, VR and 120fps are all on the table for next gen. Doesn't mean that those are all going to definitely happen or be common, but they are marketing points nonetheless. 

These make the game play experience actually better and is also easy to market. A more power version of your own console is not, unless you cripple the cheaper one. Only one is going to sell well and the other is going to be nothing but cost, it's a losing strategy in the console market, Microsoft already shows this now this generation.

 

24 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

As for taking a loss on consoles, we spent something like 20 years with console makers taking a loss on every console sold.

No you missed the point, loss against their own console. NEVER has any console brand competed against themselves, when they do the core hardware is the same so there is no development cost and the difference in price is minimal. Each hardware revision means the old one stops being made, PS4 vs PS4 Pro. Or for Xbox One:

 

This is not a point about taking a loss on a console sale this is about taking a loss against yourself, compounding stupidity that will strategically fail. Xbox One X sales are such a joke Microsoft will not talk any numbers.

 

You haven't given me in your post an actual good reasoning for two consoles with different hardware at ~$200+ price difference at the same time, 2-3 years later sure.

 

Focus on two models from the same brand, how does that make any sense?

[Bombastinator]

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Consoles don't care, PC market is vastly different. The actual buyers don't give a damn which is more powerful, nobody has ever cared in any of the generations. I myself and others like me do because it's interesting to look at but yes, well all know, it doesn't matter which is.

 

Microsoft did not have a brand problem or was seen as the lesser. Xbox 360 sold just as many as the PS3, they were near as much exactly equal sales.

 

These make the game play experience actually better and is also easy to market. A more power version of your own console is not, unless you cripple the cheaper one. Only one is going to sell well and the other is going to be nothing but cost, it's a losing strategy in the console market, Microsoft already shows this now this generation.

 

No you missed the point, loss against their own console. NEVER has any console brand competed against themselves, when they do the core hardware is the same so there is no development cost and the difference in price is minimal. Each hardware revision means the old one stops being made, PS4 vs PS4 Pro. Or for Xbox One:

 

This is not a point about taking a loss on a console sale this is about taking a loss against yourself, compounding stupidity that will strategically fail. Xbox One X sales are such a joke Microsoft will not talk any numbers.

 

You haven't given me in your post an actual good reasoning for two consoles with different hardware at ~$200+ price difference at the same time, 2-3 years later sure.

 

Focus on two models from the same brand, how does that make any sense?

So I take it you are saying that the Xbox1 X is microsoft’s Nvidia Titan, with a smaller halo, sort of, and though it has different colored plastics and a slightly different case shape it is production wise nearly identical.  They weren’t marketed that way though hardware wise it may be the case. They did look very different though plastic is just plastic. The ps4 pro does seem to be slightly more different from its predecessor than the Xbox one X is.  All of them claim publicly to play all the same games though I do know someone who claimed she was told she had to buy a pro to make an expansion for one of her games work.  She may have been lied to.  She was still quite angry about it over a year later.  I do not know how common that was.  She claims she will not be buying another PlayStation.

[Unixsystem]

@leadeater The Xbox One S and the Xbox One X are both on the market being sold right now. The PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro are both on the market. There are multiple Switches as well.

 

Even before that, there have always been tiered console releases at the same time. People were just fine with a $400 and $500 360 relasing at the same time, same with the PS3. The difference at the time was only hard drive size and a handful of other minor changes, but why is it suddenly impossible for that to extend to other aspects? AMD knows a thing or two about cutting down dies for use in a lower performance/cost segment, who's to say they can't take the defective or less performant SOCs they make for the Series X and repurpose them for a "Series S".

 

Also, I never said they need to release day and date. Depending on how the PS5 pricing/release date lines up, they could push one or the other back, although I really don't see the problem them releasing both for the holidays. No one who is already interested in an Xbox is going to switch to PS because they have two options instead of one.

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Microsoft did not have a brand problem or was seen as the lesser. Xbox 360 sold just as many as the PS3, they were near as much exactly equal sales.

I'm not talking about the 360, I'm talking about the Xbone. They completely squandered all goodwill that the brand had before the One even launched with all of the weird statements about always online, no used games, TV passthrough, etc. The fact that it cost more than the PS4 for a less powerful console was just icing on top. 

[leadeater]

35 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

@leadeater The Xbox One S and the Xbox One X are both on the market being sold right now. The PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro are both on the market. There are multiple Switches as well.

And like I already addressed none of these came on to the market at the same time and prices slid down on introduction and all games must be on both. When, ever, has a company released two new consoles at the same time and in the only time so far that revisions with faster hardware sold at the same time resulted in price decreased of the original. 

 

35 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

People were just fine with a $400 and $500 360 relasing at the same time, same with the PS3.

These are literally the same console with differences in what you get with it, and $100 difference. How does this apply to $200+ difference with actually different hardware?

 

35 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

I'm not talking about the 360, I'm talking about the Xbone.

I know you were but what you missed was people argued the Xbox 360 was slightly better (GPU) yet overall the performance of both was on par, and as I pointed out earlier games are made to lowest bar for consoles, and the same is true for the PS4 and Xbox One. Performance and specs had so little to do with sales performance of the console. Literally nothing would make me switch to the Xbox without the games only found on PlayStation, nothing. The one exception was if it had a PCIe AIC RTX 2080 Ti and the console cost $500, then I'd pull out the graphics card and put it in my PC, then buy the PlayStation.

 

Please explain to me, literally only address this point, how it is a good idea on release of new console to have two different hardware configurations of significant performance difference and significant price difference where both the consumers and game developers would somehow pull off some magic good will to support both. Why would anyone not just buy the cheaper one to play exactly the same games, why would developers support the release of two different hardware configurations (even within a year) knowing one of them is going to sell much worse. Do they support the better faster one or the cheaper slower one? If Microsoft somehow allows games to only work on the faster one then the slower console is doomed, there would be a direct reason not to buy it and this faster one would be the one supported by developers. Then Microsoft is potentially back in to pricing themselves out of the market. Please how does any of this make sense?

 

35 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

No one who is already interested in an Xbox is going to switch to PS because they have two options instead of one.

This has nothing to do with Sony, everything to do with both being stupid. Only one will sell, the other will be a giant waste of money with no impact. In brad halo specs doesn't exist, between brand halo hardware has no discernible difference.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

So I take it you are saying that the Xbox1 X is microsoft’s Nvidia Titan, with a smaller halo, sort of, and though it has different colored plastics and a slightly different case shape it is production wise nearly identical.  They weren’t marketed that way though hardware wise it may be the case. They did look very different though plastic is just plastic. The ps4 pro does seem to be slightly more different from its predecessor than the Xbox one X is.

Not at all, these are actually different hardware configurations and like I said Xbox One X was a dismal failure. This is the only time ever two different hardware configurations have been sold by the console brands, many years apart from original release, and added some minor feature improvements with them but nothing that would break the game ecosystem as that was specifically not allowed.

 

What I'm saying is evidence shows halo product specs have no real impact on the sales of the consoles at all and creating some $800 "we are the best" to compete with a $500 offering from the other side while also yourself offering a $500 option is the worst idea ever. No I'm not saying a $800 console is a bad idea either, a $800 and a $500 is.