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

LMFAO!

The $300 price for Xbox live for 5 years also includes 240 free games. How much does it cost to buy 240 PC games?

You failed to read the other posts after.

I am not even going to count the 360 games as that is a waste of time. And I don't think you realize how many free games PC gamers get as well. Ubisoft gives free games, Humble Bundle gives free games for PC, GOG gives free games...hell I could go on. You get free games and so do we without even paying a subscription so I don't really include it. And the games they do give away for free are usually very very cheap on the PC end.

@Diddies: You get lots of free games all the time in your pc? damn either a pirate or you still holding on to that 1 game you got for free last year.

I own a pc and heck you cant compare the free games with gold to what you get on pc. Is like comparing a mountain to a tiny little rock.

A lemming talking about shit CPUs. Now I've seen it all.

Don't do drugs.

Cool, 240 games which most are probably shitty games that were probably $1.99-$9.99 anyway.

@pcmasterrace69: What happens when you stop paying for gold? Do you still own said 240 games?

@appariti0n: $8 a month that to much for you? After the money from the slip and fall settlement was all spent on your pc?

@moosewayne: xbox live gold is $8 now?

@appariti0n: I wait for the amazon deals. But if you need $2 I got some yard work you can do.

???

What color is the sky where you live? Is this on a flat Earth?

I also need to add that you KEEP those PC games you buy.

Soon as you stop paying PSNOW ... you lose your games.

You are renting games, and you are renting access to play your games online! (LOL).

Xplode... you fail in pretty much every way... time to step down, your arguments suck, and your trolling is even worse.

sad.

I've read your nonsense, it's the same as accussing someone of a crime without proof and say he's going to say there's no proof. What a load of bs.

Newer games make advantage of more cores and it will be like that in the future as well. Hyperthreading isn't going to make up for 50 percent more cores. end of story.

and I doubt those benchmarks are all done with an overclocked 8600k, the stock clocks are lower on the coffee lake chip, warping the results.

We already had this discussion and you had to leave in shame, don't make it worse lmao.

@moosewayne: O_o someone is triggered enough to resort to personal attacks now.

What's next, calling me gay, fat, living in my mom's basement, etc? We gonna post pics of our abs/pecs?

Funny how the $60 per month is nothing, yet supposed "enthusiasts" like you balk at spending more than $500 on what is essentially an underpowered multi-plat box.

While this is true, the 360 games you actually do get to keep.

@appariti0n: $60 a month dude you getting robbed.

I own thousands of movies and 100s of complete TV shows

Until I cancel Netflix that is.

@appariti0n: I have life until I’m dead. We rent everything.

@commander: It says very clearly at what clocks both cpus were benchmarked at..... you just fail at reading.

even then it doesn't really help your case, games that take advantage of more cores leave the i7 7700k in the dust.

and that's only normal, like I said, hyperthreading isn't going to make up for 50 percent more cores.

See you on page 10.

Just to name a few, I have gotten a few AC for free, Outlast with DLC, and many more I passed on because I already owned them. I get these for free and you pay $60 a year for yours that most are complete trash and you never play as I didn't when I use to see them every month even on PS.

lol who is this fakeboy trying to fool with this account?

I don't know about that. Both are never new games and are pretty old. I have got a couple of the AC, Outlast with DLC, Syberia, Dragon Age complete, and have seen numerous but already owned some games.

That's complete bullshit. These games aren't free. We just got Watch Dogs for free on Uplay though. Also had The Crew for Free. Also The Witcher and The Witcher 2 on GOG. Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil as well. These were actually free in the sense you didn't need to pay a cent for them. You saying these games are free is akin to saying Netflix movies are free. Bollocks.

What if I told you that you get over 1000 "free" movies on Netflix for $9.99 a month?

I don't have 10$/month to spare. Can I still get them?

This is exactly why I didn't throw in the games that Xbox got into the conversation I did because PC gets free games too. As soon as Xplode made another fool of himself by saying "well we get 240 games in those 5 years." I knew that he was being dumb yet again. lol It shows that PC will cost you more at the beginning, but you get a better experience, cheaper games, no online fee to even play, and it will be cheaper long run to play on PC and also have a better experience.

I hate to say this but generally more hardcore gamers make less money than the national average. It sucks but it true. There have been studies on this. What happens is these people want the now experience and get what is cheaper now instead of the long run to invest in a better experience at a cheaper price. Generally most of these hardcore gamers do not have a $1000+ to just go drop it at one time to build a PC that will destroy the consoles. It sucks but it is true.

He's also lying. Xbox One X gets about 2 free games per month. Over a year that's 24 games and over 5 years that's 120 games. Not 240. Since its release 4 years ago, the Xbox One X offered 75 games with Gold. You can find the complete list here.

Note how many games that are about 2-3 years old by the time they hit Games with Gold and after that long on PC, a game that old can be found for 10$ so you may as well just buy it and own it rather than rent it. Not to mention among those 75 games I counted, only 5 interested me and there's also a lot of garbage on that list. Goat Simulator? The Deer God? Yeah shit games. Games with Gold is an added value but don't kid yourself, the main attraction of Xbox Live is the ability to play online, something that is free on PC. If you attempt to get your gaming fix solely by relying on it, you're gonna be very disappointed.

Netflix is a hell lot better then paying Cable TV, that's for sure! I can watch Netflix movies/TV Shows anytime or do a marathon of my own time, it's so much easier the first time Netflix came into Streaming. TV sucks nowadays, Netflix is really great to have and I can watch anything on the go while on Mobile.

that's not exactly correct, you get four free games per month, albeit two of them are for the xbox360 but a lot of them work on the xboxone as well. Games with gold didn't start when the xboxone released either, it was already on the x360 as well, and the games you got there for free, if they become bc compatible with the xboxone, then you can play them on the xboxone too.

As for the offerings, we all know that the offerings for xbox are better than what you get on playstation, mostly the offerings are not that interesting, but you're not paying xboxlive for those extra games, those extra games are just an extra.

Your paying for xboxlive to use microsoft xbox live network, which isn't only better in most features than what you find on steam, it's also better regulated and it's one standardized platform. You don't have that on the pc, not every game that releases on the pc is on steam, and we're talking about major multiplats here. With xbox that's not the case. If you make a friend through a game on xbox, you can join him in any game he plays on the xbox.

You may be able to play free on the pc, but it's not exactly the same experience. In a lot of ways, xbox live is a lot better.

Also let's not exaggerate the price here, I pay 50 bucks a year, sometimes 40 when there's a sale.

@commander: Xbox live is not what it use to be. It use to have the edge over ps back in the ps2 Xbox era. But that is a thing of the past. You failed to mention ways it was better. You just mentioned it was. Lol. Keep wasting your money on live.

Except in games which can handle more than 6 threads, which @04dcarraher explained quite succinctly in the other thread. Yet you chose to ignore.

From what I understand of Hyperthreading, it's a great benefit, if a game can send one type of instruction to say... virtual cores 1-4 and a different type of instruction to virtual cores 5-8. That makes great use of the unused operations on all cores.

TLDR: I would rather have a true 6 core over a 4C/8T processor of course, but hyperthreading can most definitely help narrow the gap significantly.

Man, what a thread. Thanks for helping kill the last hour at work!

@popgotcha:

Yup, the x1x isn't quite hitting a 1070 (6.49 TFLOPS) but its close behind it (6TF). Its so close that Jub1990 and QuadKnight are clinging to a game that has a clear bias for nvidia and a patch that IMPROVES the nvidia performance and not the amd and acting like its ownage.

I think the x1x compares a lot better than most people were expecting to the 1070, we'll likely see x1x improve in performance as the drivers/os stabilize and people get used to writing specifically for x1x... I don't see improvements happening with 1070 though so the gap will just get a little closer. Its going to be an amazing year.

This is where you completely owned yourself. You don't compare cards with different architectures by using Tflops, it means jackshit when the cards have completely different architectures. It's almost like comparing clock speeds on an i7 to an an AMD FX, it's stupid and nobody does that. Nvidia's cards consistently outperform AMD cards of similar Tflop rating because AMD's architecture is garbage compared to Nvidia's.

6 Tflops Nvidia =/= 6 Tflops AMD

You just destroyed your credibility with your first sentence and proved you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Leave the hardware discussion to people that actually know what they are talking about. It's irritating when lemmings try to sound smart about hardware, they end up saying stupid things that out them lol.

There's no discussion here. The 1070 completely obliterates the X1X and they aren't comparable at all. The gap isn't gonna get "closer" lol. You lems should quit now while you're behind.

@quadknight said:

@waahahah said:

@popgotcha:

Yup, the x1x isn't quite hitting a 1070 (6.49 TFLOPS) but its close behind it (6TF). Its so close that Jub1990 and QuadKnight are clinging to a game that has a clear bias for nvidia and a patch that IMPROVES the nvidia performance and not the amd and acting like its ownage.

I think the x1x compares a lot better than most people were expecting to the 1070, we'll likely see x1x improve in performance as the drivers/os stabilize and people get used to writing specifically for x1x... I don't see improvements happening with 1070 though so the gap will just get a little closer. Its going to be an amazing year.

This is where you completely failed at life. You don't compare cards with different architectures by using Tflops, it means jackshit when the cards have completely different architectures. It's like comparing clock speeds on an i7 to an an AMD FX, it's stupid. Nvidia's cards consistently outperform AMD cards of similar Tflop rating because AMD's architecture is garbage compared to Nvidia's.

6 Tflops Nvidia =/= 6 Tflops on AMD

You just destroyed your credibility with your first sentence and proved you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Leave the hardware discussion to people that actually know what they are talking about. It's irritating when console fanboys try to sound smart about hardware, they end up saying stupid things that out them.

Actually no.. I pointed out the TFLOPS because clearly the 1070 regardless of architecture, has higher peak processing power. Then went on to point out a game that is biased to a particular architecture... so noting the differences in architecture. If they both had 100% utilization the 1070 is factually superior.

But thanks for undermining your own argument about games being compared 1:1, if a game has a bias it will perform better on a particular architecture. Something you guys seem to be missing with what was presented. But since your couldn't contain yourself to try to jump on me... You should try harder not to self own your self.

Secondly why are you assuming I'm a console fanboy? Wouldn't that be like the pot calling the kettle black?

edit: And speak of my credibility, 80% of the market share is nvidia, why do you think PC games consistently perform better on nvidia or they are likely to get a patch first. Its the majority of every PC developers fan base. Its not hard to see that AMD is usually second thought here. Although that may change with the amd/intel soc if they can get significantly more PC share.

@waahahah said:

@quadknight said:

@waahahah said:

@popgotcha:

Yup, the x1x isn't quite hitting a 1070 (6.49 TFLOPS) but its close behind it (6TF). Its so close that Jub1990 and QuadKnight are clinging to a game that has a clear bias for nvidia and a patch that IMPROVES the nvidia performance and not the amd and acting like its ownage.

I think the x1x compares a lot better than most people were expecting to the 1070, we'll likely see x1x improve in performance as the drivers/os stabilize and people get used to writing specifically for x1x... I don't see improvements happening with 1070 though so the gap will just get a little closer. Its going to be an amazing year.

This is where you completely failed at life. You don't compare cards with different architectures by using Tflops, it means jackshit when the cards have completely different architectures. It's like comparing clock speeds on an i7 to an an AMD FX, it's stupid. Nvidia's cards consistently outperform AMD cards of similar Tflop rating because AMD's architecture is garbage compared to Nvidia's.

6 Tflops Nvidia =/= 6 Tflops on AMD

You just destroyed your credibility with your first sentence and proved you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Leave the hardware discussion to people that actually know what they are talking about. It's irritating when console fanboys try to sound smart about hardware, they end up saying stupid things that out them.

Actually no.. I pointed out the TFLOPS because clearly the 1070 regardless of architecture, has higher peak processing power. Then went on to point out a game that is biased to a particular architecture... so noting the differences in architecture. If they both had 100% utilization the 1070 is factually superior.

But thanks for undermining your own argument about games being compared 1:1, if a game has a bias it will perform better on a particular architecture. Something you guys seem to be missing with what was presented. But since your couldn't contain yourself to try to jump on me... You should try harder not to self own your self.

Secondly why are you assuming I'm a console gamer? Wouldn't that be like the pot calling the kettle black?

Is that why the X1X gets a heart attack in GeOW4 at 1080p and drops to 44fps while GTX 1070 hits as high as 115fps and doesn't drop below 92fps? This is a first party MS game BTW...

"Teh Nvidia bias!!!1".

? Is that gonna be your excuse everytime the GTX 1070 destroys XboneX in performance? You're gonna find that every game will be biased then lol.

@quadknight said:

Is that why the X1X gets a heart attack in GeOW4 at 1080p and drops to 44fps while GTX 1070 hits as high as 115fps and doesn't drop below 92fps? This is a first party MS game BTW...

"Teh Nvidia bias!!!1".

? Is that gonna be your excuse everytime the GTX 1070 destroys XboneX in performance? You're gonna find that every game will be biased then lol.

If you say your a "smart" PC gamer.. you should realize the comparison your making? You know a cpu limited system that is likely not going to stack up against 60 FPS is... not stacking up against 60FPS.

You know your video clearly explains the cpu limitation as the console isn't drawing that much power, at least not as much as it should be so its being under utilized.

So unfortunately if we are looking video card to video card your example is dumb. Its better to compare the 4k locked 30fps to the desktop which won't be as bottle necked by the cpu...

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3128346/software-games/tested-gears-of-wars-4-pc-benchmarks-yield-glorious-graphics-options-galore.html

Whats this? A 1080 is only 15 fps more than the xbox? Double on high?

Whats xbox settings for this game again? I'm not actually sure. I couldn't find a 1070 version of this bench mark nor do I care about owning fanboys online that much. But this illustrates that the xbox is closer to a 1070 than what most PC gamers are comfortable with... clearly. And since you can't help yourself reacting to every bit of information without thinking it through, its not helping your image as a 'smart' pc gamer, and not an unintelligent console fanboy.

8 pages of garbage well done guys.

@i_p_daily:

I believe SP and myself brought some intelligent discussion to this thread. :(

The performance increase of hyperthreading goes from 15-30 percent, doubling the cores is 100 percent.

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.

TLHBO

I don't understand why he's even arguing this. a 4 core processor is low end now. Ok it has hyperthreading but so does a Ryzen 1500, it has 4cores, 8 threads and is only $150 now.

These people can't admit when they're wrong. I personally wouldn't buy an 8600k because I think it's moronic to not buy the 8700k but I think it's obvious it's a lot better than the obsolete 7700k.

You're right, hypberbullshit can't overcome a 50% increase in actual cores. No one would argue against that other than someone who's just trolling or maybe legitimately ignorant on the subject.

@waahahah: Do you now understand what it's like to present facts and a logical argument to these rabid fanboys? I was literally hitting the TC over the head with facts for pages in this thread and he just ignored it and went back to his fanboy talking points.

HT performance totally depends on the cpu load and multithreading coding done. You can see upto 50% increase in minimum framerate going from i5 to an i7 from the same generation. For example Gears of war 4 using a GTX 1080 at 1080p (making it more cpu bound) an i5 4670k get 52 min 118 avg while a i7 4770k gets 102 min and 148 avg. so we see 50% increase in min and 21% increase in avg, when both cpus have nearly the same processing power per core and same amount of real cores.

Having that extra 2 cores dont mean that your going to perform any better nor majorly better... i5 6 core vs an i7 quad core with HT, If a game is coded to use 8 or more threads that i7 can concurrently handle eight threads of work at one time while the i5 6 core can only handle 6 threads at one time. Meaning the next task waiting will have to wait abit longer to get done on the i5 until one thread is done with its current task.

Lets look at Battlefront 2 SP, With a GTX 1080ti an i7 6700 gets the same performance as a i7 6850k and the game uses 8 threads well. That extra two cores and 4 threads didnt do anything for i7 6850k over the quad core i7 in SP. Even with Battlefield 1 cpu testing where it uses upto 16 threads using 64 player multiplayer both cpus here at 4ghz i7 6950k 10 core 20 thread vs i7 i7 6900 8 core 16 thread there was only a 2% difference on min and avg. again two real cores didnt really help.

While the new Call of duty WW2 which can use 16 threads, the performance difference between the i7 6850k and i7 6700 was only around 10% difference in min and avg framerates even with two extra cores and 4 threads.... ie 50% more processing power did not translate to 25+ percent more performance.

Like I said depends on cpu load and the multithreading balancing. your estimates on performance betyween HT vs real cores is wrong because of case by case differences.

So wrong.. your clearly ignorant on the subject as well

I'll quote my earlier post.....

"Lets look at Battlefront 2 SP, With a GTX 1080ti an i7 6700 gets the same performance as a i7 6850k and the game uses 8 threads well. That extra two cores and 4 threads didnt do anything for i7 6850k over the quad core i7 in SP. Even with Battlefield 1 cpu testing where it uses upto 16 threads using 64 player multiplayer both cpus here at 4ghz i7 6950k 10 core 20 thread vs i7 i7 6900 8 core 16 thread there was only a 2% difference on min and avg. again two real cores didnt really help.

While the new Call of duty WW2 which can use 16 threads, the performance difference between the i7 6850k and i7 6700 was only around 10% difference in min and avg framerates even with two extra cores and 4 threads.... ie 50% more processing power did not translate to 25+ percent more performance."

Even with synthetic benchmarks i7 7700k beat out i5 8400 6 core however with i5 8600k (clocked higher )only edged out i7 7700k by 8% on avearge. Most games the difference is virtually nil. while a few its less than 10% difference between 8600k and i7 7700k.... cpu load and multithreading coding with games does not mean 50% more cores and threads equal alot more performance if any at all

@04dcarraher: And that's because games are coded for console hardware first. All the multiplatform titles need to work on those console cpu's. The moment next gen comes, those better cpu's will come into play and thus have a better lifespan.