Xbox One X Equivalent HTPC Build (2018)

[minervx]

I'm doing these comparisons in terms of performance and overall outcome.  Of course, there are differences between the architecture, but this comparison is more concerned with user-friendliness, compactness and so on.

 

Overall, the cost of this build is $750 (33% more) but it can double as a computer. 

 

CPU

Console CPU's aren't that powerful to begin with.  Yes, the architecture is different (closer to AMD FX), but this should be rather similar in benchmark, if not better.

X1X's CPU is substantially better than X1's, but it's still a tablet CPU.  This CPU can handle most daily tasks.  While not ideal, it would still at least be ABLE to run

creative and professional apps that X1X wouldn't even dream of running.

 

Cooler

Intel stock is not a fair comparison as its loud and Xbox One X is rather quiet.

 

Case

X1X is very compact, as well as aesthetically pleasing.  A cheap bulky MATX case is not a fair comparison.

 

Storage

1TB because that's what X1 uses, but 2TB costs only slightly more, so you may as well.  I'd  go for a SSD if I wanted to build this personally, but it's not a fair comparison.

 

RAM

Hard to do a comparison of 12 GB VRAM vs 8 GB RAM + 4 GB VRAM, but I doubt either is a bottleneck.

 

Peripherals

Using the cheapest possible K/M combo is not fair since X1X's controller is of good quality and a $50+ value anyway.

Since X1X's controller is portable, compact and wireless, the keyboard/mouse combo should be as well.

 

GPU

This is the most debatable subject.  Comparing X1X's GPU to the GTX 1070 just because it can game at 4K is a stretch.

X1X needs to lower its frame rate and graphical settings significantly in modern titles to achieve this.  However, I can't

say that a GTX 1060 or RX 580 is fair either because 4K is mostly out of the question for those cards.  The GTX 980

was benchmarked at having meaningfully better performance than a 1060.  Though it is more power-hungry.  Of course,

for those actually building this, GPU prices are a consideration, as well.

[STRESSMASTER]

 

16 minutes ago, minervx said:

I'm doing these comparisons in terms of performance and overall outcome.  Of course, there are differences between the architecture, but this comparison is more concerned with user-friendliness, compactness and so on.

 

Overall, the cost of this build is $750 (33% more) but it can double as a computer. 

 

CPU

Console CPU's aren't that powerful to begin with.  Yes, the architecture is different (closer to AMD FX), but this should be rather similar in benchmark, if not better.

X1X's CPU is substantially better than X1's, but it's still a tablet CPU.  This CPU can handle most daily tasks.  While not ideal, it would still at least be ABLE to run

creative and professional apps that X1X wouldn't even dream of running.

 

Cooler

Intel stock is not a fair comparison as its loud and Xbox One X is rather quiet.

 

Case

X1X is very compact, as well as aesthetically pleasing.  A cheap bulky MATX case is not a fair comparison.

 

Storage

1TB because that's what X1 uses, but 2TB costs only slightly more, so you may as well.  I'd  go for a SSD if I wanted to build this personally, but it's not a fair comparison.

 

RAM

Hard to do a comparison of 12 GB VRAM vs 8 GB RAM + 4 GB VRAM, but I doubt either is a bottleneck.

 

Peripherals

Using the cheapest possible K/M combo is not fair since X1X's controller is of good quality and a $50+ value anyway.

Since X1X's controller is portable, compact and wireless, the keyboard/mouse combo should be as well.

 

GPU

This is the most debatable subject.  Comparing X1X's GPU to the GTX 1070 just because it can game at 4K is a stretch.

X1X needs to lower its frame rate and graphical settings significantly in modern titles to achieve this.  However, I can't

say that a GTX 1060 or RX 580 is fair either because 4K is mostly out of the question for those cards.  The GTX 980

was benchmarked at having meaningfully better performance than a 1060.  Though it is more power-hungry.  Of course,

for those actually building this, GPU prices are a consideration, as well.

Though a intel is OK it's actually cheaper to do it with a ryzen 4/8 cpu. but if you want to stay intel for a what your using it for I highly recommend a 4/8 intel. but you can get away with a FX-8320 or FX-8350 and it would give you 8/8. My HTPC has this and works fantastic. Plus DDR3 is a lot cheaper than DDR4

[minervx]

Ryzen 3 is both more expensive and significantly more powerful than a X1X CPU.  And it's overkill.  The 4560 has no problem getting 30-60 frames in games as it is.  While you would save money on DDR3 RAM, Ryzen ITX motherboards are much more expensive than Intel's.

[Ithanul]

I see one issue.

 

Where is the UHD HDR player?

[minervx]

35 minutes ago, Ithanul said:

I see one issue.

 

Where is the UHD HDR player?

Right next to the VCR player.  But I do see your point.

[Ithanul]

34 minutes ago, minervx said:

Right next to the VCR player.  But I do see your point.

Considering the Xbox One S/X can play CDs, DVDs, Blu-Rays, and UHD HDR discs.  If you want to do a comparison, then an UHD HDR player is in order.

 

Microsoft built the console to act as an all-in-one media box.

 

Also, re-looking at the list, OS cost is not included either.  I sure hope you don't plan on Linux.  I can tell you right now, trying to get certain streaming sites to work in it is a big headache.

[minervx]

Neither is Xbox Live cost, but Windows can be evaluated for free or bought at discount. 

 

We're in a digital age of streaming and DLC, so discs for movies is outdated largely.

 

Games are distributed very differently on PC vs. Console.  A disc drive for a PC wouldn't offer the same utility as it would for the console because PC's don't use DRM-less discs to play games.  I can't go to a Gamestop bargain bin and get used PC discs of modern titles on sale.  I can't share PC game discs to a friend.  Likewise, Xbox doesn't nearly have as much of a robust selection of digitally distributed titles.  In this case, it's a fundamental difference between PC and console that's not necessarily worth copying outright.  I wouldn't get rid of the keyboard on this list and find a way to make it controller only just because X1X has a controller.

[tatte]

But where is:

- the HDMI cable

- the controller

- the GUI usable with a controller with all essential media consuming apps

- the couch master

- four monthly free games that only cost a subscription that's totally not forced on you

- the right to blindly praise your console and trash everything else (everybody has a PC, the PCMR is the easiest and most boring difficulty setting)

- the OS that forgets your unfinished download and leaves you with broken game if you completely shut down your device

- any originality and the point, who'd want to build that?

 

+ Why is this in console gaming? This is not console gaming. That is not a console. 

 

[minervx]

3 hours ago, tatte said:

But where is:

- the HDMI cable

now we're splitting hairs

- the controller

i just wrote before they're not directly comparable in every regard.  where's xbox one's keyboard?

- the GUI usable with a controller with all essential media consuming apps

this is a hardware build - not a software one

- the couch master

what??

- four monthly free games that only cost a subscription that's totally not forced on you

lol.  the majority of which people don't actually want but need to do so in order for half of their game library to be playable.

- the right to blindly praise your console and trash everything else (everybody has a PC, the PCMR is the easiest and most boring difficulty setting)

i dont really care about that?

- the OS that forgets your unfinished download and leaves you with broken game if you completely shut down your device

windows 10 is bad enough to meet your standards of mediocrity

- any originality and the point, who'd want to build that?

someone that wants a compact machine that can game well and work as a pc?

 

 

[tatte]

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

But where is:

- the HDMI cable

now we're splitting hairs

People who bought a printer that doesn't come with all necessary cables probably don't see this as splitting any amount of hair.

- the controller

i just wrote before they're not directly comparable in every regard.  where's xbox one's keyboard?

It's built in, and probably faster than the 1-2 finger typing of a new PC owner.

- the GUI usable with a controller with all essential media consuming apps

this is a hardware build - not a software one

With a console you get both. No extra charges for either.

- the couch master

what??

You need to watch more LTT.

- four monthly free games that only cost a subscription that's totally not forced on you

lol.  the majority of which people don't actually want but need to do so in order for half of their game library to be playable.

And it's the good half too, damn. But in all seriousness it's alright, expanding library helps you grow your virtual wee-wee faster.

- the right to blindly praise your console and trash everything else (everybody has a PC, the PCMR is the easiest and most boring difficulty setting)

i dont really care about that?

I don't believe you, the existence of this thread suggests otherwise.

- the OS that forgets your unfinished download and leaves you with broken game if you completely shut down your device

windows 10 is bad enough to meet your standards of mediocrity

That's a good point.

- any originality and the point, who'd want to build that?

someone that wants a compact machine that can game well and work as a pc?

But have we had a single verified instance of someone actually building something to imitate a console?

 

[minervx]

um.  the entire htpc market? 

 

also, im not really biased toward pc or consoles one way or the other.  i personally like my pc for gaming and any other task i want to do but i wish pc gaming had the convenience, compactness, user-friendly experience, and efficiency of consoles.

[tatte]

12 minutes ago, minervx said:

um.  the entire htpc market? 

This is not the HTPC subforum, and I doubt that. Building something to match a console as closely as possible is the wrong starting point. But going out of my way just to make a more concrete point, I looked up the dimensions of the GPU (10.1 x 4.37 x 2 inches) and the specs of the case (310 x 145 x 47 mm). Looks like the GPU pictured is 3.8 millimeters too fat to fit in the case. Not good. 

[Ithanul]

23 hours ago, minervx said:

Neither is Xbox Live cost, but Windows can be evaluated for free or bought at discount. 

 

We're in a digital age of streaming and DLC, so discs for movies is outdated largely.

 

Games are distributed very differently on PC vs. Console.  A disc drive for a PC wouldn't offer the same utility as it would for the console because PC's don't use DRM-less discs to play games.  I can't go to a Gamestop bargain bin and get used PC discs of modern titles on sale.  I can't share PC game discs to a friend.  Likewise, Xbox doesn't nearly have as much of a robust selection of digitally distributed titles.  In this case, it's a fundamental difference between PC and console that's not necessarily worth copying outright.  I wouldn't get rid of the keyboard on this list and find a way to make it controller only just because X1X has a controller.

And, one does not have to buy Xbox Live.

 

Funny you calling discs outdated.  Not everyone under the sky has high speed unlimited Internet available nor want to pay the price for it (also, 4K streaming is badly compressed).  Plus, if that was the case, UHD HDR discs would not be made at all.

 

I'm aware that the games are distributed differently which nothing about game costs where brought up.  The issue is about a working OS which is a requirement to even use hardware.  The Xbox One S/X comes with an OS.  To do a comparison an OS needs to be included with a HTPC that can take advantage of 4K HDR content considering you are wanting to compare to specifically the Xbox One X which is marketed as a 4K HDR enabled console.

[skywake]

On 4/25/2018 at 9:30 AM, minervx said:

We're in a digital age of streaming and DLC, so discs for movies is outdated largely.

Netflix's 4K service is under half the bitrate of a standard BluRay. So you can argue that it's "old tech" all you want but it still definitely has a market. And that's before you consider the fact that 1. Streaming services have a rolling catalogue so your favourite movies aren't always there and 2. the DRM on iTunes and Google Play for movies is garbage. Regardless, UHD BluRay is one of the main reasons why you'd want to get an XBOne whether it was an S or X so omitting it from an "equivalent" build kinda misses the point a bit.

 

Anyways, if you were to build a HTPC I think your approach is backwards. What I'd do is consider what I'd actually want to do with said HTPC and, honestly, it'd mostly just use it as a secondary PC if I was to build one. Maybe a bit of light gaming but I think 4K media playback would be the main point. And for the price an XBOne S absolutely demolishes anything I could build for that purpose.

[minervx]

Vinyl is better quality than Spotify and Pandora, but the latter are far more accessible, convenient and affordable to have a collection out of.

 

An HTPC may not be as living room friendly as an X1X, but it would at least have some advantages of an X1X yet still be a fully functional PC.  Herein lies the problem, people are comparing extremes (i.e. if a PC can't be as compact/efficient/convenient as an X1X, it may as well not try). There are a ton of innovations and improvements that can come to DIY PC's, but it's just a mix of bad coordination between companies, complacency and unwillingness to innovate.  A lot of companies don't view desktops as important anymore (laptops sell more) but eventually a company will figure out how to do it

[Ithanul]

10 hours ago, minervx said:

Vinyl is better quality than Spotify and Pandora, but the latter are far more accessible, convenient and affordable to have a collection out of.

 

An HTPC may not be as living room friendly as an X1X, but it would at least have some advantages of an X1X yet still be a fully functional PC.  Herein lies the problem, people are comparing extremes (i.e. if a PC can't be as compact/efficient/convenient as an X1X, it may as well not try). There are a ton of innovations and improvements that can come to DIY PC's, but it's just a mix of bad coordination between companies, complacency and unwillingness to innovate.  A lot of companies don't view desktops as important anymore (laptops sell more) but eventually a company will figure out how to do it

Not having UHD HDR player pretty much null and voids comparing a HTPC to a Xbox One S/X.  That player is a big selling point of the console.

 

And currently, consoles are more or less a very specifically built PC  (even more so now with them having X86 CPUs) with a set hardware configuration that devs know will not change in several years. 

 

At the end of the day, trying to compare is a waste of time.  Consoles and PCs each have their pros and cons.  We can type all day back and forth.  But, it won't change the fact that consoles sell.  If there was no market for them, then these items would not be around.

 

13 hours ago, skywake said:

Maybe a bit of light gaming but I think 4K media playback would be the main point. And for the price an XBOne S absolutely demolishes anything I could build for that purpose.

I actually original toyed with the idea of HTPC, but then I looked at the headache of getting a good UHD HDR player for it then getting such content to play ball on it.  Tossed the idea out, bought a refurbished Xbox One S for cheap.  Don't regret it.  It works great as a multi-purpose media machine (plus, it just works).

[Stefan Payne]

On 25.4.2018 at 12:36 AM, minervx said:

CPU

Console CPU's aren't that powerful to begin with.  Yes, the architecture is different (closer to AMD FX), but this should be rather similar in benchmark, if not better.

X1X's CPU is substantially better than X1's, but it's still a tablet CPU.  This CPU can handle most daily tasks.  While not ideal, it would still at least be ABLE to run

creative and professional apps that X1X wouldn't even dream of running.

 

No, that's bullshit.

The Puma Architecture has _NOTHING_ to do with AMD FX. Its much closer to the Zen Architecture than FX. Don't know how you came up with that...

Its like Intel Pentium M/Core and Pentium 4, that was the last case on the other side.

The Console APUs have many similaritys with Zen and we are talking about an 8 Core CPU at around 2GHz (±300MHz or so).

You really think that a Dual Core CPU with not even double the Clock is faster than that?! Hell no!!

 

Quote

 

GPU

This is the most debatable subject.  Comparing X1X's GPU to the GTX 1070 just because it can game at 4K is a stretch.

X1X needs to lower its frame rate and graphical settings significantly in modern titles to achieve this.  However, I can't

say that a GTX 1060 or RX 580 is fair either because 4K is mostly out of the question for those cards.  The GTX 980

was benchmarked at having meaningfully better performance than a 1060.  Though it is more power-hungry.  Of course,

for those actually building this, GPU prices are a consideration, as well.

 

It has 2560 Shader (40CU), though only clocked at around 1172MHz, somewhere between VEGA and Polaris but has a 384bit Memory Interface with 326GB/Sec bandwith.

The GTX1070 has only 256GB/sec.

And another thing you are missing: 12GB VRAM! 

 

So whatever you comparing that to, its wrong and makes no sense.

RX Vega has more Shaders and Bandwith, so this GPU would be somewhere between VEGA and Polaris, with the Data (and that Polaris is Bandwith Limited), the GTX 1070 is very close.

 

 

Sorry, but what you are making here makes no sense and has nothing to do with building a PC close to the XBox one X, its just building some random PC with some random arguments and no regard to the original Hardware.

You don't even use the closest CPU there is (AMD Ryzen), you don't use an AMD GPU, what's the point in all this?!

[minervx]

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

You really think that a Dual Core CPU with not even double the Clock is faster than that?! Hell no!!

It's reductionist to the point of fallacy to essentially weigh a CPU's performance is its clock speed multiplied by its core count.  X1X, in terms of central processing, is a beefed up tablet CPU.  It's not impressive by any means.  My S8's CPU has 8 cores at 2 GHz each: do you think its stronger than the G4560?

 

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

And another thing you are missing: 12GB VRAM! 

 

X1X's VRAM is shared between its central and graphical processing, whereas a PC's builds is separated between DRAM and VRAM.  There's 12 GB either way and the OS uses a portion of it either way.  Of course, X1X's RAM is faster overall, but how does this make a difference in performance?  Are you saying X1X should have higher frame rates from it?  Are you saying that a PC with 8 GB DRAM + 4 GB VRAM would become obsolete faster?

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

So whatever you comparing that to, its wrong and makes no sense.

RX Vega has more Shaders and Bandwith, so this GPU would be somewhere between VEGA and Polaris, with the Data (and that Polaris is Bandwith Limited), the GTX 1070 is very close.

 

 

Sorry, but what you are making here makes no sense and has nothing to do with building a PC close to the XBox one X, its just building some random PC with some random arguments and no regard to the original Hardware.

A gaming machine is tasked with running a game with a target goal performance.  It's completely glib to argue what kind of RAM is used or how many cores the CPU has if it doesn't make a consequential difference.  If X1X runs Witcher 3 at X resolution, Y graphics settings and Z framerate, and a PC like this could achieve very similar numbers, it offers an mostly equivalent gaming experience.  At the end of the day, the games are what matter.  If I showed you two videos of the same game: one on X1X and one on a HTPC build with similar performance, would you be able to spot the difference? 

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

You don't even use the closest CPU there is (AMD Ryzen), you don't use an AMD GPU, what's the point in all this?!

It seems like you're arguing a bunch of nitty-gritty technical points when there's no really any consequential area of objection and the overall point is missed.  These kind of arguments remind me of the console wars between the PS3/X360 when people were using very technical arguments to create substantial differences between the two consoles, when the gaming experience on both consoles was identical.  In that case, My point was that a PC with most (not all) of the X1X's benefits could be made.  Granted, using the word equivalent may have been deceptive, but if a mid-highish range PC can offer the same thing, does it matter the brand?

[Stefan Payne]

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

It's reductionist to the point of fallacy to essentially weigh a CPU's performance is its clock speed multiplied by its core count. 

And you make it worse by ignoring the Core Count...

That is something you always have to take into account, because there are many instances where you can use the more cores.

 

 

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

X1X, in terms of central processing, is a beefed up tablet CPU.  It's not impressive by any means.  My S8's CPU has 8 cores at 2 GHz each: do you think its stronger than the G4560?

What you are talking about is bullshit.

And I never said its impressive, I said that its further away from FX than it is from Zen. Just look at a Chip diagramm.

How good/bad the CPU is is something nobody can tell because there is NOT EQUIVALENT that can run Windows/Linux!

And don't come with Kabini because that one only has Single Channel Memory and that the others usually aren't benched with Single Memory Interface.

.html

 

And lets forget that there are games, that don't even start on Dual Core CPUs...

Its not as easy as you tell it, the Cores aren't as useless as you try to make us believe...

 

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

 

X1X's VRAM is shared between its central and graphical processing, whereas a PC's builds is separated between DRAM and VRAM. 

...and some stuff in VRAM is also in the CPU main Memory because that's how it works...

And it gets loaded from the harddrive to the system memory to the Graphics memory.

 

The unified memory architecture makes it just so much easier/better for the programmer....

That's what the reputable game develppers, that still post in the GERMAN 3DCenter Forum tell you...

 

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

There's 12 GB either way and the OS uses a portion of it either way. 

Yes but you only have one memory pool that every device can access, so you do not need to have multiple copys of the same data that might (or rather will) happen on a normal PC system....

 

 

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

Of course, X1X's RAM is faster overall, but how does this make a difference in performance? 

Depends on what you are doing and how you are using it.
I woudln't underestimate that point.

 

Especially for graphics.

And that you have 

 

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

Are you saying X1X should have higher frame rates from it?  Are you saying that a PC with 8 GB DRAM + 4 GB VRAM would become obsolete faster?

No, I'm saying that a unified Memory pool for CPU and GPU is an advantage because you can use it however you want.

Since most datas are textures anyway...

 

But the question for YOU is:

What if you need 10GiB Main Memory and 2GiB VRAM?

What if you need 4GiB Main Memory and 8 Gib VRAM?

 

What do you think the reason that 8 GiB Cards are advantageous in many modern games might be?

With a unified memory model you can do whatever you want, however you like, with two different pools that are connected with a darn slow, high latency connection like PCIe, you loose performance if you have to access the other memory pool.

 

So yes, the 12GiB unified memory pool is better than your low end 4GiB Graphics cards that has Problems with Textures right now, today... 

 

 

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

A gaming machine is tasked with running a game with a target goal performance. 

Yes and that is what the XBox/Playstation is for and optimized.
That is why they choose an 8 Core CPU instead of a 4 Core, because that's what they (more or less) used in the Last Generation as well. 

The XBox 360 had 3 Cores with SMT, the PS3 had some strange CPU Design...

 

And that's why it doesn't matter how you archieve the performance...

 

 

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

 

It's completely glib to argue what kind of RAM is used or how many cores the CPU has if it doesn't make a consequential difference.

Yes and the opposite is true as well.

You can't just look at the CPU and sey its crap because Desktop variants are shit.

You have to look at the whole unit and not just one Core of a CPU, especially in an enviroment, where you know what you are dealing with, you can optimize for that architecture better.

 

And that is what they are doing.

 

 

How they archieve the performance is irrelevant, the important part is that they do archieve it. Sadly at the Time (around 2011/2012) that was the best that was available and the predecessors were in desperate need of replacement...

 

However, the way you represent the CPU is just wrong, because of the Bandwith and so on.

 

 

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

  If X1X runs Witcher 3 at X resolution, Y graphics settings and Z framerate, and a PC like this could achieve very similar numbers, it offers an mostly equivalent gaming experience.  At the end of the day, the games are what matter. 

No, because you are missing the Software side.

The Consoles use other APIs, some say way closer to the Hardware than its the case on a PC.

And also way less garbage that the OS comes with, that you might (or might not) have installed.

 

Again, it comes down to optimization of the Software.

 

Just look at this:

https://www.golem.de/news/software-optimierung-was-amd-aus-einem-jahr-mit-ryzen-gelernt-hat-1803-133479.html

 

In short: Up to 30% more performance, just with some patches!

 

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

If I showed you two videos of the same game: one on X1X and one on a HTPC build with similar performance, would you be able to spot the difference? 

You can't because you don't know the graphics settings the developers used for the X1X.

Its an Apples <-> Oranges comparisation.

 

I agree that its not easy to bench the Hardware of the Plattforms or kida impossible right now.

But that's also why you are wrong. Because you assume that your dual Core CPU will be faster, although you have no basis for this theory.

 

If we would talk about a Quad Core (Ryzen for example), with SMT, then of course.

But not a Dual Core.

 

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

It seems like you're arguing a bunch of nitty-gritty technical points when there's no really any consequential area of objection and the overall point is missed. 

...because I disagree with what you are doing here and showed the people in the public space that you are doing it wrong??
And that what you are doing here right now has nothing to do with Console Hardware?!

 

 

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

These kind of arguments remind me of the console wars between the PS3/X360 when people were using very technical arguments to create substantial differences between the two consoles, when the gaming experience on both consoles was identical. 

Nope, it was not.

The XBox 360 is the better console. 

There is nothing that stutters as badly as it does on the PS3 - like the Playstation Store. The CPU is easier to use and the Graphics chip doesn't stall when doing Texturing Stuff. 

Some People say that some Games (like Red Dead Redemption) use 2x FSAA, while the PS3 does not...

 

But in the End, I have both consoles.

In hinsight, I'm happy that I got the 360 though when it was new and got the PS3 later...

 

And sorry, but Mugen Souls Z is no fun on the PS3 for whatever reasons...

 

2 minutes ago, minervx said:

In that case, My point was that a PC with most (not all) of the X1X's benefits could be made.  Granted, using the word equivalent may have been deceptive, but if a mid-highish range PC can offer the same thing, does it matter the brand?

Then why don't you get the AMD Components that are better for a (non Gaming) HTPC??

Why do you want Intel/nV so hard??

 

Especially when you have the choice.

But it seems you want to pay 150€ for a glorified Dual Core CPU, don't you?

 

As for the Hardware I have right now:
PS4 Pro

PS3 Slim (fat is on the Way)
Xbox 360

WiiU

AMD A10-7850

AMD Ryzen

Intel i7-3930K

Intel I7-3820K

Intel Xeon L5640

 

 

[minervx]

good points.  games are being designed for multicore cpu's and a dual core Pentium, while good for older titles will age worse than an X1X.

 

do you think a ryzen 3 1200 (not overclocked) and a vega 56 are a fair comparison to an X1X, in terms of performance?  (maybe fx is closer to it than ryzen in some regards, but its not a good processor and thermals are an issue).

[skywake]

14 hours ago, minervx said:

Vinyl is better quality than Spotify and Pandora, but the latter are far more accessible, convenient and affordable to have a collection out of.

Well I know the Vinyl fanboys say otherwise but CDs are in every sense technically better than Vinyl. And 320kbps mp3s are pretty much as good as a CDs given that CDs literally have no compression at all. So there's not really much of quality argument for music and these services pretty much have every artist on them at all times. It's purely a question of cost and/or collectability. I personally still buy CDs but only because I already have a decent collection of digital music and also because CDs are often cheaper than iTunes/Google Play.

 

Entirely different story with movies. It's literally the same technology whether you're using Netflix or a BluRay player it's either H.264 or, with UHD BluRay, H.265. So when I say that Netflix at 4K is less than half the bitrate of a 1080p BluRay? That's a measurable reduction in quality. So right there there's more of a market for BluRays than there is for Vinyl or CDs because that's one clear selling point it has. Ontop of that there's the question of availability, video streaming services have a rolling catalogue so what's on there one day might not be the next. If I get a disc of my favourite movie I can watch it whenever I want.

And don't get me started on the DRM nightmare that is purchasing digital copies of movies from iTunes/Google Play.
 

4 hours ago, Ithanul said:

I actually original toyed with the idea of HTPC, but then I looked at the headache of getting a good UHD HDR player for it then getting such content to play ball on it.  Tossed the idea out, bought a refurbished Xbox One S for cheap.  Don't regret it.  It works great as a multi-purpose media machine (plus, it just works).

I've always loved the idea of a HTPC but it has never really made that much sense and it makes even less sense these days than it ever has. I mean I could use it to both playback and rip movies but I have my main desktop for ripping disks and TVs have media playback built in these days. I could use it as a file server but I have a NAS for that. I could get a TV tuner card and setup a TV recording box but I don't watch enough free to air TV for that, TVs have recorders built in now and most stations have online catchup services anyway.

 

Between the functionality built into the TV, a non-UHD BluRay player, a Nintendo Switch and a Steam Link the only thing I'm missing is UHD BluRay playback. And for that a HTPC would not only be a huge PITA but it'd also be far more expensive than an XBOne S. Honestly, standard BluRay playback is enough of a PITA on PC I don't even want to think about going down the UHD BluRay route.

[minervx]

maybe the music comparison wasn't the best, but the main point is most people are okay with sacrificing some quality in order for something to be accessible and hassle-free.

[skywake]

@minervx
Maybe so but that wasn't really the point I was making. There are some people and I'd argue a non-insignificant number who still want higher quality movies. Likely even more than that who want a bit more control over their content than what you can get out of Neflix. Just to prove a point here are 10 randomly selected movies from my collection (selected via random.org) and their current availability on Netflix:

Wreck it Ralph - No
The Truman Show - No
Galaxy Quest - No
Star Trek Into Darkness - No
Kill Bill Vol 1 - Yes
The Avengers - No
Home Alone - No
The Incredibles - No
District 9 - No
Mars Attacks! - No

1/10 is currently on Netflix

I think it's fair to say that Netflix isn't necessarily as accessible in every sense all the time.....

[Ithanul]

4 hours ago, minervx said:

maybe the music comparison wasn't the best, but the main point is most people are okay with sacrificing some quality in order for something to be accessible and hassle-free.

Then you just defeated your argument for a HTPC.  Consoles exist for convenience and to be hassle-free.

 

If there one thing I learned while doing work in the IT field, especially help desk, is most of the average folks just want a PC to work and care not to learn to fix it themselves.  So, when it comes to a gaming/media machine, most turn to a console as it tends to be hassle-free and convenient.

 

12 minutes ago, skywake said:

@minervx
Maybe so but that wasn't really the point I was making. There are some people and I'd argue a non-insignificant number who still want higher quality movies. Likely even more than that who want a bit more control over their content than what you can get out of Neflix. Just to prove a point here are 10 randomly selected movies from my collection (selected via random.org) and their current availability on Netflix:

Wreck it Ralph - No
The Truman Show - No
Galaxy Quest - No
Star Trek Into Darkness - No
Kill Bill Vol 1 - Yes
The Avengers - No
Home Alone - No
The Incredibles - No
District 9 - No
Mars Attacks! - No

1/10 is currently on Netflix

I think it's fair to say that Netflix isn't necessarily as accessible in every sense all the time.....

Another added note, Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Video, rotate out content because of their license agreement.  Thus, at certain times through out the year, content will be taken off and replace with different content.  I mostly consider that a huge con of digital streaming.

[skywake]

3 hours ago, Ithanul said:

Another added note, Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Video, rotate out content because of their license agreement.  Thus, at certain times through out the year, content will be taken off and replace with different content.  I mostly consider that a huge con of digital streaming.

The same was true of the old video rental store model in a different kind of way. A fantastic service for when you don't know what to watch and want to just browse from a large library of content. Not that reliable if you wanted something specific. Even in the age of streaming video if you want a specific piece of content anytime you have to buy a copy. For that and the quality difference physical discs are far from dead, especially for enthusiasts.

 

2 hours ago, dieegoperi said:

So much hate in this post. Just wanted to see some constructive answers but man, this is...

...fair enough I think. Not every post has to have people agreeing with it. Every platform currently on the market has its own strengths and weaknesses. Ignoring those entirely and making a theoretical "equivalent" PC misses the point. Simple as that.