Those who said the X1X GPU is a match for the 1070 come forward and apologize

From which kinds of PCs do you think he drew his benchmark charts from? they all had high end CPUs with different GPUs to compare their performance, what he did was look at the GTX 1070 bars, then compared the specs of that GPU (cuda cores, TFLOPs, etc) with the GPU chip of the X1X and from there said "this chart should give us an idea of how the X1X will perform". He obviously thought the X1X would have similar performance.

He was also warned about the CPU but then claimed that it has the same performance as an i5-2500k, which at the time was laughable (and its even more laughable now that we have confirmation of the machine's performance), he obviously thought the X1X would be on par with a high end machine.

And again, whether it has the performance of a GTX 1070 THEORETICALLY is irrelevant, the system runs on an APU with a discrete GPU, talking about what it could accomplish with a better CPU is pointless, because: IT WILL NEVER HAVE A BETTER CPU, what should be assessed is what the machine is ACTUALLY capable of, what the product ACTUALLY delivers, anything else is a waste of time to talk about.

And as for you last paragraph:

So are we done now?

@Dark_sageX: Of course not. No matter how many times he's proven wrong by numerous people, he'll continue to just move the goalpost, twist words, try to find fault with your evidence, even tho he himself used the same site when he erroneously thought it supported his case.

how did I move goalposts? you said they were comparable, they're not. end of story

The problem with lems is that they live in a fairy tale world hypothetical scenarios and bullshit like "teh power of teh cloudz". Even now that the Xbone is out and we have proof that it performs nowhere close to a PC with a GTX 1070 they are still arguing about theoretical scenarios.

Like "what would happen if the Xbone's CPU wasn't shit?" and "How do we know if its GPU is close to a GTX 1070's performance?". None this shitty questions matter because the Xbone's CPU is already a piece of turd and its GPU is already being bottlenecked by it. It doesn't have a discrete CPU and GPU so none of these stupid questions matter. It's not like you can suddenly upgrade its CPU to get better performance from the system, you're stuck with it because it's a closed system. In other words, you got what you paid for. A compromised system that had to be compromised to allow MS to only charge $500 for it. Is it good value for money? Yes it is but it's not gonna deliver high end PC performance, and all the idiots who spent time hyping it as a rival to high end PCs have been owned. End of story.

Star Wars battlefront 2, gears 4, and wi Cher 3 were supposed to run 4K/60 ultra.

I remember that. Where is Ron?

He's been missing from this thread and most of SW lately. I wonder why.

No to mention it can't even run Halo 5 at native 4k60..... it has to use dynamic resolution.

@quadknight: Thats what I've been telling Commander, but his response is "well its not a fair comparison, its not a fair comparison", honestly how do you even expect to get a "fair" comparison anyway? would he like me to pair a GTX 1070 with an Athlon II or a Pentium? on what bloody planet would anybody build a PC with such incompatible components? anybody who is thinking of getting something like a GTX 1070 would be sure to have components that would not bottleneck it, because thy would want the card for its performance. You won't find anyone with a GTX 1070 with a CPU lower than an i5 2500k.

People like him are hopeless.

I don't even try to waste my time trying to reason with them. I just point at them and laugh these days.

Well I wouldn't say the xboxone x has similar cpu power as the I5 2500, since the cpu power is spread across 8 cores. But The jaguar chips are faster clock for clock than the fx chips from amd though. I'm not sure how many cores are reserved for the os. I think it's just one for the xboxone and then another 15-25 percent of 1 core for other non gaming tasks. I don't know if they retained this setup. I do know that it was initially 2 cores for the os for the xboxone.

So either way it's hard to compare the cpu power of the xboxone x with a desktop counterpart. Games tend to prefer cpu speed over cores/threads. So if ron was comparing the xboxone x with a pc that has a decent I5 or up with a gtx 1070 then it's probably not going to get the same performance but purely in gpu power only I can see it come close to gtx 1070 performance. The optimizations put in place by microsoft with the memory bandwith and the dx12 chip will have an impact as well and at this time I think it's still to early to say what's what, we need more games for that.

They can do a lot of software optimization as well, I mean they say they can run the witcher 3 at a steady 60 fps. I have now an I3 4170 with a gtx 970, even with everything on low and 900p I cannot get 60 fps steady. I'm actually on the fence now of buying a I5 4460 because I can get a lot of free games with it for my vr setup. The I5 4460 is on the same level as the i5 2500 but I really doubt I'm going to get a steady 60 fps with it. I once ran the witcher 3 with an I5 2500 and a gtx 950 on the lowest settings and I couldn't get 60 fps either.

I still have to see how well the xboxone x will run games at 60 fps, because I'm more interested in 60 fps than 4k or even 1440p. If it can do that, I might go for it. If it's only half assed with drops into 40's and 30's, I might buy a second pc for my single player games because at this time I have to move my pc to my vr room and back everytime I want to play vr.

I don't think the dell optiplex pc is good comparison, second hand parts are always cheaper and the xboxone x looks a lot better than that dell case. Not to mention it's much smaller. There's still the console vs pc debate as well, but if the xboxone x cannot run games at a decent framerate, then a pc will still be a better option for those single player games. At least I'm able to tweak the setting myself to get the framerate that I want because sub 60 fps gameplay is something that I just can't stand anymore.

Oh not just goalpost moving.

As far as this discussion goes, you have displayed at least one, if not more examples of every type of intellectual dishonesty we have a term for.

1. backpedalling

You wen't from this:

"It will be a cold day in hell before the 7700k comes close to 8600k performance"

"It will be significant enough to put the 8600k in whole different range of performance"

"the two extra cores on the I5 8600k will dwarf the two extra threads on the I7 7700 and blow it out of the water."

"The I5 8600k has 50 percent more cores, the I7 7700k 50 percent more threads. That's 50 percent vs the half of 15-30, so that's like what 8-15 percent.

Sure it narrows the gap a bit, but the I5 is still about 35-42 percent faster."

"But it does get murdered..."

to this:

"when I5's hexacores become more mainstream the differences are going to get bigger."

"Sure the I5 8600k won't give that much performance difference today when you compare average benchmark results"

"I don't need benchmarks to know this"

"50 percent more cores is 50 percent more cpu power, it might not translate directly into real world applications like games"

"I may have exagerrated a bit when I said murder"

As if one would EVER compare CPUs on anything besides average performance spread across as many games as possible. And as if we were talking about anything other than the fucking REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE IN GAMES.

2. Strawman

"@appariti0n also thinks 20 percent performance difference is comparable , which is ridiculous."

combined with a backpedal for bonus points

"You didn't think it would be 20 percent, but that's doesn't change the fact that you called it comparable."

3. Being a massive hypocrite

First, you post a chart from eurogamer.net, showing a substantial difference between the 7700K, and the 8700K, instead of the 8600K. oops.

Yet when I posted a chart from the same site, in the exact same format, using the same fucking games, showing the 7700K within a few fps of the 8600K, suddenly you switched your evidence to a random youtube guy with cherry picked multi-thread heavy benchmarks.

Then, you post a chart showing lost planet at 480p, showing the difference between the 7600K (instead of the 7700K) and the 8600K. Which predictably performs about 50% faster.

I post the same damn chart, from the same damn website, on the same game, with the same settings, with the 7700K instead, and it's 50% faster. Suddenly this benchmark is also irrelevant now that it doesn't back up your argument.

Then later, when I posts results from userbenchmark.com, you respond with this gem.

"They don't show the benchmarks seperately as well, what are they using to test all this, lost planet at 480p?"

Did you forget you tried to use that exact benchmark against me or something?

"The problem with this site when you want to do a proper comparison is that it isn't in a closed environment, warping the results. The users could be running all sorts of stuff while doing these tests, this while the pc hardware apart from the cpu differs completely."

And random youtube guy, your only evidence is a closed environment? How many times did he run the test? The 7700K and the 8600K can't even run on the same motherboard. How do you know he wasn't running shit in the background as well?

With no straws to grasp at, you try....

4. Pedantics

"that's doesn't change the fact that you called it comparable."

com·pa·ra·bleˈkämp(ə)rəb(ə)l/adjective

1. (of a person or thing) able to be likened to another; similar."flaked stone and bone tools comparable to Neanderthal man's tools"

   synonyms:

   similar, close, near, approximate, akin, equivalent, commensurate, proportional, proportionate;

And of course, you focus on the one synonym out of 9 that allows you to convince yourself I'm wrong, rather than the other 8.

equivalent: equal in value, amount , function

try again...

And the best part of all of this, @ronvalencia whom you expected to come in and rescue you, comes in and echos the sentiments of myself, and @04dcarraher to a T. But you're still not convinced.

You go for the:

5. Change the subject

"so he must be right about 1070 performance then?"

I guess using some sort of Commander logic that if Ron is correct about one thing, he must be correct about all things, so at least you're right about a completely separate argument!

6. Moving goalposts

"well it's the only benchmark that compares the two overclocked so unless you got any other benchmarks you got no case"

oh, so only overclocked benchmarks count, even though earlier you said:

"Most people don't go for max overclock and even if the quad core is able to dish out a couple of 100 mhz, it will still get murdered by the hexacore."

Which is it then?

and finally

"You will get a lot of benchmarks with older games and older synthetic benchmarks that brings the I7 7700k close to the coffee lake chip because of the hyperthreading.

But games that scale well across 6 cores will take advantage of that extra cpu power, like you've seen in games like watch dogs 2, crysis 3, gta V and this is only going to be with more games in the future."

And now you JUST posted this, which is contradictory:

"Games tend to prefer cpu speed over cores/threads"

Gotcha, so I'm wrong, because you were secretly only talking about new games in the future that benefit from the extra cores. Older games, or new games that are focused on lower thread counts don't count. Except when you're arguing in favor of the X1X CPU. Then it's different.

Also, suddenly you're downplaying synthetic benchmarks, which you were using earlier on to make your case.

Overall gaming performance always uses as many games as possible, from all types of genre. Both new and slightly older. Overclocked, and non overclocked. On a variety of systems. Both single core heavy, and multi-thread heavy.

When you're talking about X1X enhancements, why aren't you limiting yourself to only new games optimized for X1X then? Older games receiving enhancements shouldn't even be discussed by your logic.

Goalpost move confirmed.

Actually Jaguar is not that much faster than FX series, but the fact that they are only clocked at 2.1 and 2.3ghz in both current consoles still hinders them vs 3.5+ghz FX 6/8's. It would take an FX series cpu to be at 2.6ghz to match 2.3ghz jaguar clock per clock. Compared to an stock 2nd gen i5 2500k, a 2ghz Jaguar is oover 2x slower clock per clock. However with proper multithreading at 2.3ghz jaguar could give it that 6 year old cpu run for its money.

X1 and X1X reserves 1 core for OS and part of another upto 70% usage available if needed for games... Larian Studios' co-founder and CEO Swen Vincke said:L "You can only use 60 or 70% of it so that is not big of a difference. Essentially it won't make much of an impact."

The only thing DX12 command processor does is buffers the flow of queues, prevents the gpu from idling "waiting" for work queues from the cpu. It helps but not enough to overcome that 2.3ghz Jaguar cpu. This is why games even on the X1X framerates dips into 20's on 30 fps targeted games for 40's or low 50's on 60 fps targeted games. Also there is a reason why they are pushing 1440p+ "fake 4k" or 4k on the X1X because it shifts the most of bottleneck to the gpu and not the cpu. The Memory bandwidth means squat if the gpu itself is incapable to push high or max settings with 4k 8.3 million pixels at solid 30 or 60 FPS.

when it comes to game optminzation it also includes using a slew of graphical settings from below the lowest preset to maximum settings available to get to a set framerate target. The Witcher 3 is one of those games that likes 8 threads, that 4170 since its a dual core with HT it is really holding you back. FX 8350 is able to push a Titan x max settings at 1080p to 56 fps min /75.2 fps average while a Core i5 4690K – 52.0 min 79.2 avg while an i3 4130 gets like 38.0min 68.9 avg fps. With that i3 and 970 your cpu bottlenecked, and when you had GTX 950 you were more gpu bottleneck.

@appariti0n: lol, epic rebuttal

@xantufrog: :)

@appariti0n: That rekage....

well thanks for helping me out with that witcher 3 problem, I actually made a thread about it, it's keeping my busy lately because I really don't know what to buy. It seems like a 4460 won't fulfill my needs, even a 4690 doesn't seem like it's going to fullfill my needs (I don't have a mobo that supports overclocking) That means I probably going to have to buy kaby lake motherboard and an I5 7600 or something.

@Zero_epyon: thank you! Always niceto be recognized for my work :)

@appariti0n:

? Damn, that was seriously savage rekting.

@commander:

@quadknight: /bow

I appreciate your hard work but when it comes down to it you said they were comparable and this is how this discussion started, my exaggeration in the performance difference by calling it murder doesn't change the fact you're wrong and I'm right.

1. You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty but you back pedalled the moment we started this discussion.

2. Strawman tactics

I said performance, synthetic benchmarks show 20 percent difference in performance, you brought up the games part not me and games that make use of that power show 20 percent difference

3. Hypocrisy: I posted the chart from eurogamer because carraher was comparing a hexacore with hyperthreading with a quadcore with hyperthreading. Talking about taking stuff out of context. But really hypocrisy?, we're only at point 3 and it's already quite obvious who's the hypocrite here.

4. Pedantics.

You asked what I thought comparable was after I confronted you with benchmarks that settled this discussion, you alway do it when you run out of arguments, this isn't the first time.

again 20 percent difference is not comparable. these are different tiers in gpu's and cpu's, it's not close it's not similar and it's certainly not equivalent.

5. Change the subject.

You're arguing with ron over all sorts of things but suddenly he's vegeta when he supports your case.

I think my comment "so he must be right about 1070 performance then?" was quite striking

and he thought we were talking about stock clocks

the 8600k is a k version, that means overclocking does matter, there's no non k version.

6. moving goalposts.

Are they comparable are not? I pity the people you talk to that are on the fence of buying a new cpu, would I buy the I7 7700k or or I5 8600k?

apparition: well, they're comparable

lmao

I think commander is done. lol Finally...It is actually hard to make people be quiet on here as no matter what evidence you jam down their throat, they are right in their mind. I think you did it.

@Diddies: nah, it's impossible when someone is in such heavy denial.

I will take the number of positive responses as a sign that this contest is over though.

@commander notice how nobody is backing you up? At what point do you consider maybe you're wrong, not everyone else.

We're done here.

lol your two cow friends quadknight and zero. I also debunked all your arguments for the tenth time already.

and what evidence?

Do we really have to read through this entire thread again or can you put your big boy pants on and do it yourself?

And damn I started the shit show up again. @appariti0n maybe you can own him again...maybe this time he will be quiet, but I doubt it.

Only 7 more pages to reach 20 for TC.

Hey there goes another lem calling me a cow. You guys were arguing PC CPU's. What does that have to do with Sony?

this is the only evidence there is

and they're not comparable. but it guess you didn't bother to read the reply to his so called ownage

and you don't need to use abusive langue because you feel bad, I'm sure your mummy will comfort you.

@commander: Yes, we're all well aware of the only evidence you consider reliable. Random youtube guy with shitty trance music.

sponsered by instant gaming and 43k subscribers, there's no comments that dispute these benches as well.

You have no benches only a lot of energy to spin this argument. They're not comparable end of story.

but you can't handle it, go get your friends, maybe you can cry all together because I ridiculed the pc in a funny pic.

https://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/european-ps4-price-drop-imminent-32686483/

Price drop

There yo go

https://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/so-who-is-getting-ps4-xone-and-which-games-30927464/

Getting the PS4 with BF4 to start. Might pick up KZ after a price drop. Debating on whether to get AC4 on PS4 or PC.

KZ = KillZone which is only legally available on PlayStation.

Is that supposed to be impressive lol? This guy is a nobody.

@Juub1990: But, he has no comments that question his results, so he MUST be right. :)

8 core Jaguar CPU has more FPU resources when compared to 8 core FX series CPU.

8 core Jaguar CPU has 8 FADD and 8 FMUL units, hence there's 16 total FPU/SIMD units. There's 16 ports for SSE/AVX.

8 core FX CPU has 8 FMA/SIMD (can operate either FMUL or FADD or fused MAD operations) units. There's 8 ports for SSE/AVX. Not including two ports for MMX/X87 port which is not use for X86-64 ISA.

The difference shows in 3D particle benchmarks where Jaguar has IPC superiority over FX series CPU.

Both stock Jaguar and FX series CPUs has similar latency. FX series CPUs has Pentium IV Northwood length pipeline.

Ryzen is near double Jaguar scaled with similar medium length pipelines i.e. Ryzen's origins comes from Jaguar.

DirectX12 command processor with microcode support moves higher level DX12 instructions into GPU for GCN instruction decode. In PC DX12, CPU decodes DX12 API commands into GPU's instruction set.

XBO's DX12 is more efficient when compared to PC's DX12, but X1X DirectX12 command processor with microcode support wouldn't solve AI/Physics/game world simulation bottlenecks.

@ronvalencia: what in the world are you talking about?

X1X having better CPU wouldn't make any major difference at high/4K resolution or situation when the GPU is over-committed.

X1X wasn't designed for under-commited GPU with low resolutions.

X1X's DX12 command processor has microcode support.

Example of microcode is X86 instructions being decoded into native RISC CPU's custom instruction set since Intel Pentium Pro or AMD K5.

X1X's DX12 with microcode support operates in a similar fashion for DX12 API calls being decoded into GCN instruction set.

Microcode is a specific technical term for complex hardware decoder/translator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcode

Microcode is "a technique that imposes an interpreter between the hardware and the architectural level of a computer"

PS4: programmer talks directly to GCN instruction set.

PC DX3D: programmer talks to DX3D instruction set which causes double re-compiler stages. PC DX12 will never be efficient when compared to XBO's DX12.

X1X DX12: programmer talks to DX12 command processor with microcode.

PC DX3D with AMD GPU: programmer talks to GCN direct access method at critical speed sections with DX3D instruction set.

PC DX3D with NV GPU: programmer talks to NVAPI direct access method at critical speed sections with DX3D instruction set.

@ronvalencia: Nothing to do with anything. Stop it.

@Zero_epyon: lol I'm as lost as you are. Good ole Ron.

It has everything to do with claims PC DX12 being efficient as XBO's version which is not the case.

he stil has 43k subscribers, that's lot for just benchmarks, if anyone would think the review is wrong, they would say it.

and why would he warp the review in the first place next thing you know you're going to say it's a conspiracy . I wouldn't be surprised lol

@ronvalencia: 1. I haven't brought up dx12. 2. I was referring to your comment about me buying a PS4 from a few years ago

@appariti0n: right? Ron must have glitched out.

His circuits must be overheating lol.

@commander: You've already been T-rekt. I have nothing more to say to you.

It seems like you're the one that got rekt though lol

When I said...

you replied

you argued and argued and then said this

When you got your hands on one benchmark you even made a thread calling me out

then more benchmarks came in and guess what your house of cards started to crumble,

then started clinging on the fact that it wasn't the 8700k but the 8600k buhuhu

Wel of course not....

now find me one benchmark where the I7 7700k beats the 8600k overclocked lmao

who's rekt? lololol

@commander: Keep spamming random youtube guy all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you got rekt hard. Everyone in here understands that, except for you.

No everyone that reads this knows that you got rekt hard, especially when they see you actually made a thread calling me out , got rekt, then came back here and got rekt again. I've seen people make a fool of themselves but you really take the cake.

and that youtube guy is a respected benchmarker, I can't wait till more benchmarks arise lmao.

@commander: Nope. As i said, this contest is over. Give it up.

Edit: Actually one last question.

@commander said:

"where are your benchmarks come boy where are they big mouth."

Were you beating your chest like an ape while you typed that? Just curious.

I have to admit I was making tarzan noises.