The Mighty Xbox One X already has to resort to low settings

@Juub1990: You mean this?

"Pretty much puts it at GTX 1070 Performance or better, Not bad at all."

Nope. Pretty much means about there, around there, kinda.... He even says "maybe I'm jumping to conclusions (because there was no mention of settings) so bump me if I'm wrong"

He simply said that the performance was "not bad at all", not that it kicks a high end pcs ass.

He's right, and you're furious which is why you use hyperbole to the point of looking ridiculous.

Id rather play a game at 1080p max setting than 4k at ugly low.

Except he's wrong. The X1X doesn't perform at GTX 1070 level or better. The DF video has already proven that statement to be wrong.

A bunch of settings have to be turned down to low/medium to maintain 4K @ 30fps on the 1X while the GTX 1070 maintains 30fps at Ultra Settings. That's not around the same performance "or better" any how you look at it.

That's also the best way to compare the speed of cars and literally every other metric ever.

"Here we have our Bugatti which can bottom out at 0 km's/hr. Now you might think this is impressive, but let me blow your mind *wink*. This 1985 Mitsubishi Colt, can MATCH that speed of 0 km's/hr... also. Now how about you tell me again, what's the better deal!!"

- GioVella2010

That looks similar to the specs I built my last PC from early last year.

Except I have more RAM, better CPU, more HDD space and an SSD to boot.

Plus a better soundcard, Blu-Ray, already have 2 controllers and i'm better looking than you.

Way to catch up a year later by purchasing the parts on discount.

PCGamer.com benchmark you keep using is using SMAA and not TAA like consoles in the 4k Benchmark.

PCGamer.com says 2.5% performance increase switching from TAA to SMAA

The MSI Gaming X 1070 is 6% faster than a GTX 1070 Founders Edition

These numbers above suggest that a X1X at 4k is 8.5% faster than a 1070 Founders Edition at 4k, But we still have the rest of the settings below to look at.

X1X Settings are below for the following assets:

Shadow: X1X uses High (PCGamer.com says 6% performance increase dropping from Ultra to Lowest Setting from Ultra)

Environment: X1X Uses High (PCGamer.com says 13% performance increase dropping to Lowest Setting from Ultra)

Geometry: X1X uses High (PC Gamers.com says 4% performance increase dropping to Lowest Setting from Ultra)

Volumetric Fog: X1x Uses Low (PC Gamers says 3% performance increase dropping to lowest Setting from Ultra)

Terrain: X1X Uses Low (PC Gamers says 1% performance increase dropping to lowest Setting from Ultra)

That leaves performance right about on par with a GTX 1070 FE, and that's only if we're discrediting Techpowerup for whatever reason.

I do belive Techpowerup went above and beyond to try and stress test the GPU, not unlike Digital Foundry did in the X1X video. (They did not perform the same stress test for PC video)

Techpowerup got 25.6 FPS AVERAGE, and PCGamer.com states that the newest drivers give a 5% performance boost. 25.6 FPS + 5% boost = 26.9 FPS AVERAGE

Techpowerup uses a GTX 1070 FE (for the record)

ha i payed $370

Just a thought, but I could buy the X1X and probably do a clean boot and drop linux (free) on it. So yeah, answered you question there.

what a stupid analogy

Hehehe, it's meant to be. Let me have my fun.

But in defense of my dumb analogy there is very little point to comparing lowers FPS to lowest FPS.

@jereb31 said:

@GioVela2010 said:

@jereb31 said:

@GioVela2010 said:

@zaryia said:

He's trolling.

Not that it matters, since DF destroyed him and there is nothing left to debate, but note he's purposefully being deceptive in writing the "lowest fps" number instead of "average fps" number. This is some climate denier level data bullshittery.

A weasel through and through. He deserves this inferior experience.

Why would you compare X1X Minimum vs 1070 Average?

you compare lowest FPS vs lowest FPS

That's also the best way to compare the speed of cars and literally every other metric ever.

"Here we have our Bugatti which can bottom out at 0 km's/hr. Now you might think this is impressive, but let me blow your mind *wink*. This 1985 Mitsubishi Colt, can MATCH that speed of 0 km's/hr... also. Now how about you tell me again, what's the better deal!!"

- GioVella2010

what a stupid analogy

Hehehe, it's meant to be. Let me have my fun.

damn it dont be nice

@jereb31: you're broke and don't own anything, lying gets you no where here.

Quite funny coming from an alt account.

Hey hey, I haven't been called that yet. This marks a milestone for me as a person. Kudos.

Now for my come back.

Your mother!

@nethernova: nope real account, nice try though.

But it can :/

Is the Xbox One X all you lems have got going on? Pretty sad...

When it comes from the same guy over & over again who doesn't even own the console we start to wonder where MS touched you as a child :(

30, low, stripped assets.

These threads are very amusing.

A graphics card that costs the same as the Xbox One X provides a better experiance when you spend the extra money required to make a working system. Its not a surpise and isnt a negative against the X.

Yes 60fps would be great but the X is a mid gen upgrade a 4k upgrade gives the X an advantage but 60fps over 30fps would be a step to far and totally unfair to gamers playing against each other accross the S and X.

Plus the X and Pro was brought out to match 4k TV's which is what mainstream will look for above fps.

Meanwhile Sony advertises the Pro as a 4k console and totally gets away with the fact its not hitting 4k in more and more games, even with low settings.

Its fun to have a fanboy debate, but this constant comparison of PC costing much more than the X is just stupid and is an actual credit to the X for being so good.

Lems: PC is much more expensive, oh wait, i have bought two Xboxes already.

What a fucking waste of money, should of just bought a PC.

Could say the same about PS4

You couldnt buy a 1070 when the first Xbox/PS4 came out and thefore would need to upgrade to compete with the X.

Plus how many house holds want a PC in their front room. Console has a place in many households.

Concept of value is different for everyone.

@Random_Matt: why do you assume every Xbox owner has bought 2 consoles. Does the same apply the PS4. Do you have both?

Where exactly are you getting the benchmark isn't using TAA? As soon as they hit 1440p/Ultra, TAA gets enabled lol.

Of course you believe they went above and beyond, they expose you for being a cheater and a liar lo. Now you have to resort to cherry picking cards and using the shittiest version of the 1070 that nobody buys any more to prove a point when you've already lost. Deal with it kid, you've been defeated ONCE AGAIN. Every single time it's the same story. You get destroyed and come back for more. Plus you can overclock a stock 1070 to easily gain a meager 6% performance. In fact, overclocking the 1070 gives it on average a 12%performance increase.

"The average performance advantage we experienced was 12% over default performance."

So let's do so math like you do. 25.6 +5%(drivers)+12%(overclock average)=30FPS average.

And that's with a garbage FE. So nah, nice try but GTFO.

Latest benchmark and DF prove the 1070 can handle Ultra/30fps/4K. The Xbox One X can't. Furthermore, you're cross-referencing results from different sites which is extremely flawed. You don't use TechpowerUp's numbers to then attribute 5% to PCGamer's numbers.

Wrecked again. Are you even trying bro?

The PS4 Pro is getting left out of these resolution and graphics comparisons, Cows must be furious their half assed fake 4K PS4 Pro is not giving the mighty X any competition

Must be difficult to accept that the most visually impressive console games are on Pro....

They don't call'em Pee Salty Seas for nuttin ya know....

Lolol Good stuff, keep it comin. :P

Remember the days when some lemms claimed the xbox one X = a 1070GTX and even exceed it.

Tormentos remember..lol

Some also said it was in between 1060 and 1070 and got shot down.

Yet here is another game showing that.

Didn't you learned anything what Phil Spencer said almost a year later? The majority of console gamers don't give a damn about better framerates (60fps) and this gen, console gamers only care about raw resolutions, that's it! I mean, compared to the amount of people who really want 4K, the amount of people who want 60fps probably isn't that insignificant. There are gamers who just want to jump-in, play games and not care about framerates.

Xbox One X was always advertise as a raw resolution graphics whore, this isn't rocket scientist and any PC gamer saw this from the get-go!

That 1060GTX is running the game at 30FPS in 4k is not locked,but just like it drop to 29 and 28 it rise to 31 and 34FPS with most settings on medium including environments and texture filter on high.

But at $500 the xbox one X is making a great showing,i think what is holding it back is its CPU.

It drops to 26 and below in places and is locked so could go higher than 34FPS.

And drop below it as well,when you are on the 30+ frame rate line but you know you will not make even close to 60,you lock because those same spikes can make your game fall under 30,unlocked frames on any version would mean the possibility of drops below 30.

Wasn't it demonstrated that the 1070, not even a ti, can run 4K ultra at 30fps locked?

Boy, do I remember catching metric tonnes of shit for saying that a console would need, at the bare minimum, 8tflops on current graphics architectures to call itself a "True 4k Console"... The crabwalking in this thread is fucking delicious!

You answered my craply put statement with an even better craply put statement.

Nice one :)

They marketed this thing to have "uncompromised power". When you make a loaded statement like that, you better believe people want to see if this thing is up to the challenge. And they purposely led by giving Digital Foundry Forza 7, a low-ceiling game that's misrepresentative of the experience you get with the product. People were screaming "4k/60" at the top of their lungs and crowed that PC gaming was dead. Then the thing came out, and the cracks started to show.

Phil Spencer said they weren't trying to compete with PC gaming, but that didn't stop the rest of the Xbox cronies like Aaron Greenberg and Mike Ybarra from going out touting that misleading Tomb Raider comparison that makes Xbox One X look like the best version. They know what they're doing, and it's bullshit.

Anyone with a brain knew they where not competing with PC.

Seriously stop with this Xbox One X having the power of a 1070. It is a $500 box that has a graphics card that mimics the 580. It will never and I mean never touch the power of a 1070 and guess what that is okay. It was never attended to compete against a $500 video card. No way in hell Microsoft could of sold a box that could match the power of the 1070 with everything else they included and keep the price at $500. What you do get is a decent spec machine that can't be built in the PC space for the same price. They built some nice hardware and we should just all enjoy it for what it is.

I agree with that statement 100%. I honestly didn't think we would see an open world game running full 4K on this box from a 3rd party. The CPU will always hold back the box, but that is the case with all of the consoles right now. I hope the hardware makers get that right next time around.

@Pedro:

Well ain't it a great thing that us people who plays on that "400 dollar sub 4k console" have other options (more games) than just FC5.

But everything I just wrote proves it does.. in fact OP is now admiring as much...

Everything you wrote is from outdated benchmarks using flawed logic to piece together a false narrative. I asked you to find a benchmark from April 3rd or GTFO, you went back to an old benchmark from Kitguru that was using old drivers lol. The most recent analysis from DF and PCGamer proved the 1070 can handle the game at 4K/Ultra/30fps. You tried to cheat and still got destroyed. Now you have no HDR to fall back on.

....For a console. What, they can't own true statements about their class of product? You know, the sun is probably the most powerful thing in our solar system. Maybe no one should use "power" to market anything that isn't the sun?

And yet here we are, having these dumb conversations about how X1X measures up to PC.

The most up to date test, DF, has 1070 at 30 locked on 4k Ultra. Latest vids show mid 40s when unlocked.

This is a non starter. He literally lost.

I'm curious to see 1070s performance with lower settings. 60 fps?

It’s clearly SMAA just like the SLI Benchmark

Notice the Matching results for single cards.

And I’m glad we’re now coming to an agreement that it’s about equal to a GTX 1070 FE, which is a $440 dollar GPU. (If comparing average frames to minimum lol)

You must be really proud that other stock GTX 1070’s can average 1-2 frames better @ 4K and equal settings.

game set and fucking match

@GioVela2010 said:

It’s clearly SMAA just like the SLI Benchmark

Notice the Matching results for single cards.

And I’m glad we’re now coming to an agreement that it’s about equal to a GTX 1070 FE, which is a $440 dollar GPU. (If comparing average frames to minimum lol)

You must be really proud that other stock GTX 1070’s can average 1-2 frames better @ 4K and equal settings.

game set and fucking match

And let's do some math. 2.5% performance drop results in 35.49 of frame rate average. Lowest 3% at 29.8fps lol. So the 1070 is at worst 30fps on Ultra. Nothing on Low.

18% higher on average despite using higher settings. If you dropped the settings to Xbox One X level, it'd be averaging in the 40's and dropping to the mid 30's.

Over and out.

@GioVela2010:

My goodness, haven't you made the Pee Salty Seas salty as the Pacific? Keep it up and soon it's gonna be so salty I'll need to rename to the Pee Salty Dead Seas. lol :P