Xbox One X(Scorpio) Launches Nov. 7

[dalekphalm]

20 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Except according to MS and the pundits it will. The revised way MS has the GPU and CPU interact and the D3D12 intermediary they claim to have cut the CPU overhead for rendering by half. With good compression textures for 4k will be fine, with a streamlined render and command pipeline it will have an easier time keeping up with geometry and draw calls, and with it being 40CUs, "customized," and well clocked? I don't see an issue with properly optimized games running a native 4k60 without too much trouble.

Will it look good as Ultra PC settings at 4K60? No probably not. But it can in theory still look damn good.

 

I remember how the XBOX 360 looked with the original Mass Effect, when that was new, back in 2007, it was jaw droppingly good looking for a console.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Will it look good as Ultra PC settings at 4K60? No probably not. But it can in theory still look damn good.

 

I remember how the XBOX 360 looked with the original Mass Effect, when that was new, back in 2007, it was jaw droppingly good looking for a console.

A case in point is GTA V on my 1070. Obviously my 1070 can't max GTA V at 4K however its still much better looking when playing at 2160p high than it is at 1440p Ultra.

 

In modern games increasing resolution seems to have a bigger impact on visual fidelity than increasing texture and post processing effects do.

 

1440p to 2160p is better than High to Ultra, at least in my experience.

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

A case in point is GTA V on my 1070. Obviously my 1070 can't max GTA V at 4K however its still much better looking when playing at 2160p high than it is at 1440p Ultra.

 

In modern games increasing resolution seems to have a bigger impact on visual fidelity than increasing texture and post processing effects do.

 

1440p to 2160p is better than High to Ultra, at least in my experience.

ya most games it is very hard to see the difference between high and ultra but it would have a big impact on FPS. so games can also be optimized for more efficient levels of effects so it will not crush the machine to gain 1% extra.

 

[tsk]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Please format that quote for Day Theme users. Almost impossible to read without highlighting the text.

 

Fixed.

[RotoCoreOne]

Let me just say I love my PC i built but I gotta say, with a $499 pricing, the xbox one x is a very compelling offer. Especially when it comes with performance and bluray

[tsk]

11 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Spec seem like low power FX CPU along custom RX580 with different CU/clocks for power.

 

9 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yeah, I think they have done some proprietary shit to minimize CPU load, but in games like GTA V, Watch_dogs 2 the CPU will definitely be a bottleneck, which makes me think, why on earth did they not use Ryzen?

 

8 hours ago, Dash Lambda said:

But the part choice is part of the value. Let's say we have access to exactly the same parts as the Xbox and putting them together costs $500 -What if you can make something that performs better for $300 if you use different parts?

When comparing different machines in these circumstances, you compare performance.

 

Also, do we even know anything about the CPU aside from Microsoft saying "customized"? We can infer all day, but I haven't seen anything specific...

EDIT: About the architecture, I mean. I know it says 8-core.

The CPU in this box is the same as the Xbox One, Ps4 and Ps4 pro; AMD Jaguar. 
It's a pretty weak CPU, comparable to Intels Atom line, a Pentium 4560 will outlap the Jaguar by leaps and bounds.

Ryzen isn't ready until next year for custom implementations, and picking Jaguar made it very simple for Microsoft to have the console be backwards compatible.

One has to realize the overhead on a console will usually be much lower than on a PC so CPU power matters much less.
Just because a game is DX12 on PC does not mean the overhead is low or that it's a good API implementation, if you want to see a PC game done right, look no further than DOOM on Vulkan.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, tsk said:

The CPU in this box is the same as the Xbox One, Ps4 and Ps4 pro, AMD Jaguar. 

The PC equivalent is the Q6600

[Jumper118]

and rx580 in a potato, would have been made better use of in a mining rig. #Xboxminingbox720p

[Mira Yurizaki]

Oh hey, there's no front OLED screen.

 

Not that I wanted it, but I was shaking my head at the demand for it.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Also yay! Ars Technica (and probably some others) took a picture of the guts:

[Jumper118]

Wow not even a black pcb. That would add 5fps right there. 

[dalekphalm]

14 hours ago, Majestic said:

i'd still say you can tweak games to run 4K30 on something like this

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/sLQZ7h

 

And that's only 70 bucks above the MSRP of the xbonex. But it can also choose to run some games at 60 by sacrificing resolution or fidelity (or both). What does this machine have that makes it worth $499, i'm not seeing it.

I know this has been somewhat commented on, but you're missing storage (1TB HDD), a WIFI Card, peripherals (M+KB at minimum, since XBO comes with a single controller), OS ($100 for a legit copy of Windows - or, say $50 built into the price of an OEM prebuilt), and a UHD Blu-Ray drive.

 

If we're going to make a comparable PC, lets make it actually comparable.

 

EDIT:

I edited your parts list to add in the missing items:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/QGPXzM

 

For the record, I chose the cheapest Blu-Ray drive available, which isn't even guaranteed to play UHD Blu-Rays, just standard 1080p ones (You still might be able to rip UHD discs mind you, just not actually play them via playback software).

 

I also chose the cheapest 1TB HDD, the cheapest logitech KB + M, and the cheapest non-"no name" WIFI card.

 

Total price? $802...

11 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

@Majestic

• Ease of use 
• Split screen
• Exclusives
• UHD Blu-Ray
• Size

Consoles have basically always only made sense for the subset of people that care about something that is simpler to use and offers better local split screen along with the exclusives they care about. 

 

The point of the comparison was to compare what $500 gets you with an Xbox X vs. a similarly priced PC. Although he should have also added in an HDD, wifi, and the cost of windows+peripherals.

Agreed - many people don't care about those factors, but you can't ignore them just for the sake of an unfair comparison.

[goodtofufriday]

Why are we comparing a games only OS to something that can run nearly every application needed for daily life in the modern world? 

One does games. The other does games and daily task. Even if it cost 100 or 200$ more, the usability makes it a non-comparison. 

[AdmiralMeowmix]

 

According to ToT the GPU is comparable to a 1070 and it's using a brand new processor not a jaguar.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

Why are we comparing a games only OS to something that can run nearly every application needed for daily life in the modern world? 

One does games. The other does games and daily task. Even if it cost 100 or 200$ more, the usability makes it a non-comparison. 

An XBOX - or a PS4, for that matter - is not a gaming only OS. It's a Media Center device. It'll do Games, Streaming (Netflix, YouTube, Plex, etc), music playback, Blu-Ray player, etc.

 

You need to factor those things in - calling it simply a gaming OS is just as disingenuous as someone not giving PC points for being able to run productivity software.

 

But if you consider that a comparable PC, as per the PCPartPicker link provided by @Majestic, modified for all the stuff he missed or omitted, is quite a bit more expensive compared to an XBOX One X. You could potentially build a productivity software centric PC for the cost difference, thus getting the ability to play games and do media stuff on the XBOX, and use a low end PC for other software.

 

Or you can get one PC that does everything.

 

Neither is an incorrect choice.

 

That's the great thing, is that this will give us more choice, and then people can decide what's better - one badass gaming computer, an XBOX + a low end computer for non-gaming uses.

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

An XBOX - or a PS4, for that matter - is not a gaming only OS. It's a Media Center device. It'll do Games, Streaming (Netflix, YouTube, Plex, etc), music playback, Blu-Ray player, etc.

 

You need to factor those things in - calling it simply a gaming OS is just as disingenuous as someone not giving PC points for being able to run productivity software.

I dont consider what they can both to do be selling points. Nearly anythiny is a media device these days. You can even just use your phone to a tv if need be. 

 

What can one do more so over the other is the important question. 

I have nothing against the xbox, but as a games console it doesnt make sense to me without exclusives. 

 

 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

I dont consider what they can both to do be selling points. Nearly anythiny is a media device these days. You can even just use your phone to a tv if need be. 

 

What can one do more so over the other is the important question. 

I have nothing against the xbox, but as a games console it doesnt make sense to me without exclusives. 

 

 

One of the biggest selling points is the integrated UHD Blu-Ray drive - this is a huge selling point, because Set-Top UHD Blu-Ray players are damn expensive still. In Canada, they're often still over $300. Even in the US, seems like $200 is the going rate for a really good price.

 

Yeah, some people won't care about that, but then again, enough people still do.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, goodtofufriday said:

Why are we comparing a games only OS to something that can run nearly every application needed for daily life in the modern world? 

One does games. The other does games and daily task. Even if it cost 100 or 200$ more, the usability makes it a non-comparison. 

I literally only use my desktop to game on. I use my laptop for everything else and that's probably how most people who would switch from console to PC would use their desktop for seeing as they more than likely already have a laptop for everything else anyway.

 

It's an advantage of a PC over a console (albeit consoles are more than just for gaming), although just like every advantage of a console it's not necessarily applicable to everyone. 

[tsk]

2 hours ago, AdmiralMeowmix said:

 

According to ToT the GPU is comparable to a 1070 and it's using a brand new processor not a jaguar.

He's mistaken, the GPU is more comparable to a gtx 980 and the CPU is still very much Jaguar based. 

[Shreyas1]

wait so if you find a way to install windows 10 and buy a usb hub, you've got yourself a somewhat 4k gaming pc for 500 dollars.

[Drak3]

45 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

wait so if you find a way to install windows 10 and buy a usb hub, you've got yourself a somewhat 4k gaming pc for 500 dollars.

Nope, full fat Windows 10 is quite a bit more intensive to run than the cut down version on the Xbox, and the Xbox's 4K gameplay is partially do to how optimized the games can get and because it runs less intensive graphics settings. You'd hit a CPU bottleneck with Windows 10, and you'd have to turn down settings slightly without the optimization that some games get.

[goodtofufriday]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

One of the biggest selling points is the integrated UHD Blu-Ray drive - this is a huge selling point, because Set-Top UHD Blu-Ray players are damn expensive still. In Canada, they're often still over $300. Even in the US, seems like $200 is the going rate for a really good price.

 

Yeah, some people won't care about that, but then again, enough people still do.

You can get an internal uhd drive for pc for about 100-150 USD. 

I think that just overall, even if say an equivalent PC was 800$, its more worth it in the long run to get the PC, just for productivity difference between the two.

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

You can get an internal uhd drive for pc for about 100-150 USD. 

I think that just overall, even if say an equivalent PC was 800$, its more worth it in the long run to get the PC, just for productivity difference between the two.

You're making the assumption that the PC will be more productive. I would never use my desktop for general productivity work since I already have a laptop. So, for me, and I'm not the only one in this position, a console would be equally productive. 

[f22luke]

19 hours ago, SeraphicWings said:

You forgot one little fact

This is a game console plus a 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray player that supports Dolby Atmos surround sound and HDR10 high dynamic range color

FYI, a cheapest 4K UHD BD player with the same spec above will set you back for about $270

Also the one spec that stood out most to me was freesync support.  No body is talking about that but I think this could be the biggest boon to AMD and could push freesync market saturation like never before.  It may not do 4k 60 stable but with freesync it could get away with a few dips.  This could mean that developers would be ok pushing hight quality settings than the previously would have been comfortable with and maybe just maybe better PC ports.

[goodtofufriday]

12 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

You're making the assumption that the PC will be more productive. I would never use my desktop for general productivity work since I already have a laptop. So, for me, and I'm not the only one in this position, a console would be equally productive. 

I dont really understand why youd do that though. Maybe its just my perception as an office worker? I have a laptop but only use it for light web browsing or Skype. Anything else is done in my pc.