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

But it is a true 4k console. That doesn't mean it can run everything maxed out in 4k 60 now and for years into the future. Nothing can do that. Even the best videocard on the PC, the GTX 1080 ti can't even run every game that is out now in 4k 60 max settings. But even if it could, maybe next month or in a few months or in a year, a game would be released that that GPU is no longer able to get 4k 60 in. My point is, there is no such thing as a 4k everything monster that carries into the future and no one is claiming that.

What we are saying is that the Xbox One X offers a ton of power for only $500. It's so much more powerful than other consoles that you really can only compare it to a high end PC. It's not the most powerful PC obviously or even close but it offers a heck of a lot of power for $500 and you can't build a PC for $500 with equivalent specs. And even if you could, it wouldn't perform as well even with the same specs because of optimization. That's why the Vega 64 even with 13.7 teraflops and paired with an i7 CPU gets drops to 28 frames per second at 1440p in this game.

@Xplode_games: So you define it as a "true 4K console" because it on occasion hits native 4K, and uses resolution scaling or checkerboard equivalents the rest of the time? Or because it can output a 4K signal even if the internal resolution is way lower?

By that logic every computer in my house, as well as my ps4 pro are all "true 4K" machines.

You can't compare an X1X to a high end pc at all. Not even a mediocre pc. The closest comparison would be a 5 year old optiplex/office pc with a crap processor, with a slightly above mid range grahpics card shoved in it.

The framerate and the graphical details answers that question. Take note of those and go watch videos showing a how an actual GTX 1070 performs in NATIVE 4k (no dynamic resolution bs) at near ultra settings.

And if you are interested, there is also a video by santiago-santiago showing the game's performance at 4k using a GTX 1060. Granted that some graphical details had to be toned down a little more than the Xbox ONE X version but you should also consider that it was running on native 4k, if going down a res between 4k and 1440p were possible you could easily achieve the same performance as the Xbox ONE X with similar settings with a GTX 1060. Bottom line is, the Xbox ONE X is no where near a GTX 1070 in performance, anybody with a clue about PC gaming could have told you that. Ron shot himself in the foot with this one. (and Xplode_games and the other guy with the Yoda avatar)

I showed you the chart that gives us the GTX 1070 performance. It's hard to say exactly but it seems to me as if the Xbox One X is running at about 1070 performance. Keep in mind that that would be amazing considering this game favors Nvidia and a 1070 actually outperforms a Vega 64 in this game.

If the Xbox One X can't perform like a high end PC with an i7 CPU and Vega 64 graphics card I should take it to mean the X1X is a waste of money and overhyped? Don't you understand, the fact we're even comparing a f@cking $500 console to such high end PC GPUs is freaking amazing and speaks volumes about it's performance.

Microsoft define true 4k console as a console that offers ultra 4k using checkerboard, Native 4k and Dynamic 4k that reaches 4k.

What does Sony mean by Dynamic 4k gaming. Cos the last wave of game comparisons on DF the PS4 Pro doesn't touch 4k at all.

Both companies big up statements and use marketing lingo to sound better than what it is. The difference is Xbox One X can back it up with games that can reach 4k. The pro fails miserably.

This is one thread I felt it didn't need to be locked at all and it's doing it's own thing.

I know I never made any such claim but even if I had I wouldn't apologize. Least of all to anyone here. Who are you? Queen NVidia the first?

Ok, go ahead and find me one of those optiplex/office crappy pcs from 2012 with benchmarks to prove that it runs this game better than the X1X. Show me benchmarks from any crappy PC that runs this game better than the X1X. Since finding a PC that beats it is so easy to find, this should be super easy for you.

@tdkmillsy: Games that "can" reach 4K doesn't make it a "true 4K" console. It makes it a better "dynamic 4K console".

What I think defines the Xbox One X as a true 4k console is the HARD FACT that it will run your games far better than any other console on a 4k HDR10 TV.

The problem with your logic is that there are no "dynamic" televisions out there. You can't market a console to a dynamic resolution. There are 1080p and 4k screens. You are either marketing to 1080p TVs or the fastest growing market which is the 4k TVs.

If you own a 4K HDR 10 TV, what is the console that will make games look the best on that? The answer would be the true 4k console, the Xbox One X.

lol @ the mental gymnastics the damage controlling lems in this thread are doing.

How hard is it to admit you were wrong?

What game in particular are you talking about?

Anyhow, here you go. Comparable 4K performance, and absolutely blows the X1X away in frame rates at lower resolutions.

Or, you could add the price of a few years of Xbox live into the price, and have a rig that absolutely blows it away.

You're welcome.

Says who?

Not all games reach 1080p on the original PS4 but its still a 1080p console.

I'm perfectly fine with a better "dynamic 4k console" but a console that barley reaches 4k in games shouldn't be called a dynamic 4k console at all.

I worded it wrong, I wasn't talking about a particular game, I meant modern games in general. But let's say Assasin's Creed Origins as an example so you have a specific game to compare.

No you didn't. You showed the X1X running at 1700-1800p has the same performance as a 1070 running in 4K at higher settings. Not to mention there is a huge gulf between max settings and the second highest preset. Your comparison wasn't even apples to apples. The 1070 at Ultra/4K averages 31fps and at its lowest 24fps in AC Origins which is exactly what the X1X does at 1700-1800p. Congrats, it does as well as the 1070 with a 40% decrease in resolution and lower settings.

We're comparing the Xbox One X to a "high-end" GPU and it getting trounced. Everything is in order here.

Ok I am so sorry that you are so butthurt and salty about the powerful cheaper Xbox One X!

System Wars. System Wars never changes.

Nobody gives a *BLEEP* what you think ??

Using a gtx 1070 and an I7 is not a good comparison with the xboxone x when you're comparing framerates. Certain people have said (including myself) that the xboxone x is close to gtx 1070 performance, we didn't say the cpu is the power of an i7.

There's isn't a face off in detail settings here either. A little bit less there, a litte bit less here, but you have to use a looking glass to see the difference with the pc. This is a lot of guesswork, and concluding that the xboxone x doesn't have gtx 1070 performance here is ridiculous. They mention the resolution is already 40 -70 percent higher than the ps4 pro.

There is no hdr on the pc as well, I doubt that comes for free in terms of performance. Heck even if it's just a feature, the pc doesn't have it and you don't need a looking glass to see that difference.

This is incredible, you can't really be serious? That piece of shat frankenstein PC costs more than $500. The GPU by itself costs $280. He tried to save money by starting with a used Dell with an i5 CPU in it. Yea, we all have those around so we can do what he did. You can cram a PSU, 16 GB of DDR3 1333 RAM, 1 TB HD and a 1060 GTX in a little old pre-built Dell PC you just happen to have lying around just so you can claim better than Xbox One X performance at a budget. The sad thing is that even with all of that, that PC performs worse than an Xbox One X console and for more money.

This is truly hilarious. I wonder if you're seriously serious or just putting me on.

@AdobeArtist: No matter how much you hate me, I'm still you're biggest GS fan :)

I'm not going to get into whether or not that budget PC is a good idea or comparable or what not

But to note: video was made in March and he notes the GPU was $240, and now it appears to be $260 not $280. Also the dell optiplex was bought for $90 so it wasn't something he had lying around

Just for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and the 1070 outperforms the Xbox One X in this game(it's closer than you think, 1070 drops to 23 fps). That is ONE GAME that is highly optimized for Nvidia cards. That is why the 1070 is outperforming a Vega 64 in this game. The Xbox One X is performing damn close to a high end PC with an i7 CPU and Vega 64 13.7 Teraflop GPU and you think people need to apologize to you for that level of performance?

What about the 1 TB hard drive, the 16 GBs of RAM and the EVGA PSU he purchased for that frankenstein piece of garbage? Add it all up and tell me what you get.

Yes it drops to 24.5fps at its lowest and the X1X drops to 25fps at its lowest. Difference is, one is constantly running at 3200x1800(not even, somewhere between 1700p and 1800p) and the other one at 3840x2160. The 1070 in this comparison is handicapped by a resolution bump of 44% and higher settings which may range anywhere from 5% all the way up to 20%(we have no numbers there). They perform close when the 1070 hits a native 4K with better graphics. Something the X1X is completely incapable of doing.

Vega 64 is a piece of shit card. Nothing new here.

No you need to apologize because you said the X1X would be close to the 1070 in terms of performance. It isn't. If it was, it'd be running native 4K with the settings it currently has. Instead it is running 1700-1800p. Or is a 44-50% difference in resolution "close" these days"?

well according to that video it was $499

I mean your answer is basically in the video title

why would they need to apologize , this thread proves nothing, they didn't even mention what system they were using. Yet it goes up to 70 percent resolution difference with the ps4 pro.

Your bias here makes you lose all credibility. Everyone knows there are games that favor Nvidia cards and others that favor AMD cards. To take a game that heavily favors Nvidia cards and then say the Vega 64 is a piece of shit because you want to win this argument?

Even if the Xbox One X performed the same as a high end PC with an i7 CPU and Vega 64 GPU (that has 13.7 Teraflops) which is pretty much impossible, you could still make the same points about how the 1070 performs better because it is optimized for Nvidia hardware and that is obviously reflected in the benchmarks.

It is absolutely ridiculous for you to expect a $500 console with 6 Teraflops to perform better than a $500 much more advanced AMD GPU with 13.7 Teraflops and somehow expect it to beat the 1070 which is optimized for this game. Deep down inside you know you're wrong.

The 1070 doesn't drop to 25fps at 1800p and has no issues running Ultra settings at 1800p either(something which the X1X does, judging by the fact it needs to drop some settings). The X1X is therefore not equal to it which makes the people who claimed otherwise wrong.

The 64 has always been a piece of shit. The Vega 56 was somewhat decent but the 1070 Ti made it irrelevant. The Vega 64 came too late with unimpressive performance and a huge power draw. It's a piece of shit and I would recommend it to nobody.

Yet you're the one always bragging about console optimization. Where has this gone? Oh wait... A quote from you in this VERY thread,

SLI support is not available yet because PCs are always poorly optimized.

Uh oh!!!

No deep down inside I am right. I even said in the OP the X1X does well enough for its price point. YOU were among those claiming it matched at 1070 and now that it's been proven it doesn't you're moving the goalposts to "oh well, it's not reasonable to expect it to match a GPU at that price" which is EXACTLY what we've been telling you all along. The X1X offers decent to good performance for its cost but you need to lay off the Kool-aid with the 1070 comparisons. A 1070 walk through this game at Ultra and 1800p, something which the X1X does not.

This thread is meltdown central lol. Anybody here who has popcorn?

On Topic: Great console for 500 bucks, honestly. But please be real and don't ever think that a 500 dollar console would ever have the capacity to perform equally with a PC equipped with a 1070.

First, this game is optimized for Nvidia cards, example the 1070. You ignore that like a pro. Second, the fact that the X1X performs so close to the Vega 64 is showing amazing optimization. How can a 6TF GPU perform even close to a 13.7 TF GPU without heavy optimization? You can't just dismiss those facts with Vega is a piece of shit comment. You're saying that because you don't have an argument to refute those facts.

But you wanted to bring up Vega so let's do that. Vega 56 is better than the 1070 and that is why Nvidia in a panic move brought out the 1070 ti to compete. The 1080 beat the Vega 64 in some and lost in some. It was about even at the beginning. With refinements to the latest AMD drivers the Vega 64 has pretty much pulled ahead of the 1080 GTX by now. If we follow up on these two cards a year from now I expect the Vega 64 to be the decisive winner like it always happens. That's why they call it red wine technology, because it only gets better with age.

You're a PC gamer with a GTX 1080 ti, you know all of this but you won't admit it because you want to be right. You are so damn shook by the release of the X1X. Chill out, it doesn't threaten your $2,000+ PC, it isn't even intended to do so.

>Performs close to a Vega 64

Huh what?

The Vega 64 averages 36fps in 4K/Ultra with its lowest dips being 22.1fps compared to 25fps for the X1X at 1700-1800p which averages around 30fps with lower settings. 36fps is 21% higher than 30fps and to top it all off Vega 64 boasts a 44-50% increase in pixel count and STILL outperforms the X1X. How the hell is this close?

Even a 1060 could probably average 30fps at 4K if you dropped the preset down to the second highest.

@Xplode_games: Whoa, whoa there sir. When did we define a budget? You merely asked for proof that an old crappy office PC could beat the X1X when a decent graphics card was thrown into it. Nothing more, nothing less. I have done just that.

But since YOU brought up the issue of budget, why don't we include at least 3-4 years of Xbox live into the price, raising the PC budget to what, $500 + another $55 per year?

So now we're talking between $665 (3 years) and $720 (4 years) for an apples to apples comparison. You DO plan to run your amazing future proof X1X for at least 3 years right?

Or are you now going to claim that being able to play multiplayer over the interwebs doesn't matter?

@Juub1990:

https://segmentnext.com/2017/10/27/assassins-creed-origins-benchmarks/

GTX 1070 also failed "solid 30 fps 4K" target i.e. 26 fps average not including minimum frame rate. GTX 1070 would need reduce graphics setting and resolution for near solid 30 fps.

Note why GTX 1070 Ti was released which has similar BOM cost as GTX 1070.

Hold on to your butts lads, Ron is here with his misleading charts.

@Juub1990 said:

@Xplode_games said:

First, this game is optimized for Nvidia cards, example the 1070. You ignore that like a pro. Second, the fact that the X1X performs so close to the Vega 64 is showing amazing optimization. How can a 6TF GPU perform even close to a 13.7 TF GPU without heavy optimization? You can't just dismiss those facts with Vega is a piece of shit comment. You're saying that because you don't have an argument to refute those facts.

But you wanted to bring up Vega so let's do that. Vega 56 is better than the 1070 and that is why Nvidia in a panic move brought out the 1070 ti to compete. The 1080 beat the Vega 64 in some and lost in some. It was about even at the beginning. With refinements to the latest AMD drivers the Vega 64 has pretty much pulled ahead of the 1080 GTX by now. If we follow up on these two cards a year from now I expect the Vega 64 to be the decisive winner like it always happens. That's why they call it red win technology, because it only gets better with age.

You're a PC gamer with a GTX 1080 ti, you know all of this but you won't admit it because you want to be right. You are so damn shook by the release of the X1X. Chill out, it doesn't threaten your $2,000+ PC, it isn't even intended to do so.

>Performs close to a Vega 64

Huh what?

The Vega 64 averages 36fps in 4K with its lowest dips being 22.1fps compared to 25fps for the X1X at 1700-1800p which averages around 30fps with lower settings. 36fps is 21% higher than 30fps and to top it all off Vega 64 boasts a 44-50% increase in pixel count and STILL outperforms the X1X. How the hell is this close?

Vega 64 dips to 22 fps at 4k Ultra. However, you get an average of 36 fps but you can't compare that to a consoles locked 30. The console can't go above 30 to increase it's average unless you could unlock the framerate to benchmark against a PC GPU. Since we can't do that then we can assume if there was a console with an i7 CPU and Vega 64 GPU, it would lock the framerate at 30 fps at 4k and have dips down to 22fps. That would give it similar if not worse performance to the X1X because the X only dipped that way in cut scenes which have zero affect on gameplay. But let's say the performance was exactly the same, ok. It's running at 40% higher resolution let's say but is running slightly higher settings we think. Well, with an i7 CPU and Vega 64 13.7 Teraflop GPU you get a 40% boost in resolution and that's it over the 6 teraflop X and you don't think the X is well optimized? WOW! :o

@quadknight said:

Hold on to your butts lads, Ron is here with his misleading charts.

Your post is misleading.

More clownish behavior from you. The benchmark you posted is from October 27th. The same day the game was released and prior to the 1.03 performance patch which was released earlier this week. This benchmark from today reflects the current state of the game. Not your outdated one.

@Juub1990 said:

@ronvalencia said:

@Juub1990:

https://segmentnext.com/2017/10/27/assassins-creed-origins-benchmarks/

GTX 1070 also failed "solid 30 fps 4K" target.

More clownish behavior from you. The benchmark you posted is from October 27th. The same day the game was released and prior to the 1.03 performance patch which was released earlier this week. This benchmark from today reflects the current state of the game. Not your outdated one.

? REKT!

I agree with you that we should raise the budget of the PC. I would raise it more to about $1,800. That would include an i7 8700K CPU and a $500 GPU and I would probably choose a Vega 64 if I were building right now due to the current GPU prices. I have nothing against PCs, I own one and will update my GPU when Volta releases.

What you don't get is that for $500 the Xbox One X is a beast!

Image quality wise, it is indeed a beast for $500, I've never said otherwise.

It would be even more beastly if it had a good CPU + a good GPU rather than a crap CPU + great GPU though.

I really wonder where you get this information

@Juub1990 said:

@ronvalencia said:

@Juub1990:

https://segmentnext.com/2017/10/27/assassins-creed-origins-benchmarks/

GTX 1070 also failed "solid 30 fps 4K" target.

More clownish behavior from you. The benchmark you posted is from October 27th. The same day the game was released and prior to the 1.03 performance patch which was released earlier this week. This benchmark from today reflects the current state of the game. Not your outdated one.

Failed solid 30 fps LOL. Different web sites has different benchmark game scene. The machine has to target near solid 30 fps for most game scenes. Try again.

X1X has 4K 60 fps which is about 1000 points score.

The XOXO ain't even more powerful than the PS4 Pro. That was proven when GT Sport looks better than Forza 7.

And considering the X1X saw dips below 30fps at 1700-1800p, averaging 36fps for it at 4K would be impossible. They both dropped way below 30fps mostly because of cut scenes and minor stuttering issues on PC. 25fps vs 22fps. Why the hell are you bringing up a console with a Vega 64 GPU? You said the X1X performed close to Vega 64. It doesn't. The X1X hits its limit at 1700-1800p(hence why it dips below the target frame rate), has worst AO than on PS4 and lower draw distance than on PC and also uses dynamic scaling to drop as low at 1564p(or some number like that). The X1X hasn't got any more headroom to spare. As it stands, on average it gets outperformed by 21% with 44-50% less pixels on average. We're probably looking at a 30% difference apples to apples. That's not close. Moving the goalposts again? Went from equal to a 1070 to cannot match a 1070 but close to a Vega 64 and now we're at "has good optimization". The X1X does well for the cost. However it doesn't tango with the high-end GPU's like the 1070.

Were you too lazy to do a 30 seconds google search? Your benchmark is OUTDATED. I posted the current one dating from today twice already.

@ronvalencia Your benchmark is outdated. There was a performance patch released AFTER it which reads.

Can you read this? IMPROVES STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE.

Maybe if Microsoft wasn't so behind Sony they could've lost money and put a Ryzen CPU in there but with the current state of Xbox, I don't think that would've been a good business move. They also didn't have much competition from Sony with the soup pro so why not save that money, release the X which is still damn good and a massive jump over the regular Xbox as well as competition. And then buy up some developers and expand their current first party studios instead?

In a few years it will be time for the next gen and by that time MS could be back in a big way. The X1X is the first move on this chess board.

Dude I'm pretty sure he still uses hotbot or askjeeves. That's when he can find his web browser among all the other super confusing icons on the task bar that is. :)

And @commander and @ronvalencia just to own you even worse. From PC gamer.

All of my current testing was done with the 1.03 patch, using Nvidia's latest 388.13 drivers and AMD's 17.11.1 drivers—which is an update from the initial testing I did at the time of launch. The 1.03 patch smoothed out some of the minimum fps problems, and Nvidia performance across nearly all GPUs improved substantially.

Source

Ouch...

Who the **** cares about Killer Instinct? So both GPU's can run a 2013 fighting game at 4K/60fps?