@jahnee: The X1X GPU will beat out a 1060 more often than not but a 1070 is a whole different story. It’s on average 40% faster than a 1060. The X1X is nowhere near that powerful. Probably around 10%. 15% at most.
In the middle of the scene below he says the only difference he notices is a slightly better rock on x1x hahaha
It’s as if he says that to draw your eyes away from the fact that the X1X version casts dynamic shadows from the branches being moved by the wind. Those same moving branches on the PC cast a static shadow.
What a joke of a review, the biased was obvious after Gears of War, so I stopped watching his crap there
Good eye. I didn't even pay that much attention to that, I just took this guy's word for it. I did realize that he is just assuming when it comes to graphics settings and wasn't scientific at all. Also he admitted he has no way of testing the framerates so this really was just his opinion. I think he made his point but after what you showed, this pretty much invalidates what this guy concluded and pretty much makes his video worthless. I am not sure if he is just outright biased or just not knowledgeable enough to be making these sorts of comparisons.
@GioVela2010: I like how you ignore the rest of my comment, so tell me how many X1X owners are there anyway in comparison to all the millions sold PC parts?
@Juub1990: Ok I admit I saw the Titanfall 2 benchmark wrong, my bad. At those resses the X version is well below 4K like you say. So Titanfall 2 in turn is actually a bad example ,and I will update my posts with the correct info.
I do believe in the other mentioned games. especially first party, the X sits a lot closer to the GTX 1070 while having locked framerates throughout the entire experience. This locked framerate and stability is simply tougher to achieve.
It's true that we can't narrow down the exact headroom available on these locked framerates, or the exact average the X runs it's dynamic resolution at. Hitman for example shows the same average fps in unlocked framerate mode on the X as the GTX 1070 (when not cpu limited) and that is for the GOTY edition with advanced effects and lighting present. I agree it's a tough call to make to say the X's scorpio architecture can outrun a stock GTX 1070. I believe down the road of it's lifetime you'll get to witness more titles matching or exceeding the 1070.
The GTX 1060 and 1070 both are a more stable deal if paired with a decent cpu when it comes to conssistency in performance. But that doesn't mean they are the better deal or that the X's GPU is on the level of a stock GTX 1060. Looking at the best case scenario's the X can match a GTX 1070 or more, if it weren't bound to it's aging CPU I am very sure it would do it a lot more often.
@GioVela2010: You do know someone had to buy those "New" X1X that are on the FB marketplace right
What a dumb comment, someone once had to buy the used PC Parts at new prices too
Anyway I’m not hung up on pricing, I’m the guy that gets made fun of for buying $2,000 AV cabinets and Receivers.
but this dude was clearly biased, going as far as to tell you to look at the rock while the staggering difference was occurring when the swaying tree branches casted shadows on the ground. The PC just couldn’t do it.
@jahnee: And you’re lying with "higher than Ultra settings"
Regardless if he was wrong about the settings this particular time(I haven't investigated), wouldn't you say the X is a beast and hell of a console for $499?
In the middle of the scene below he says the only difference he notices is a slightly better rock on x1x hahaha
It’s as if he says that to draw your eyes away from the fact that the X1X version casts dynamic shadows from the branches being moved by the wind. Those same moving branches on the PC cast a static shadow.
What a joke of a review, the biased was obvious after Gears of War, so I stopped watching his crap there
Good eye. I didn't even pay that much attention to that, I just took this guy's word for it. I did realize that he is just assuming when it comes to graphics settings and wasn't scientific at all. Also he admitted he has no way of testing the framerates so this really was just his opinion. I think he made his point but after what you showed, this pretty much invalidates what this guy concluded and pretty much makes his video worthless. I am not sure if he is just outright biased or just not knowledgeable enough to be making these sorts of comparisons.
This is absolutely brutal what you uncovered. Props to you.
@GioVela2010 said:
@GioVela2010 said:
This dude literally said “The PC has better Shadows“ in the middle of this scene ?
@GioVela2010 said:
In the middle of the scene below he says the only difference he notices is a slightly better rock on x1x hahaha
It’s as if he says that to draw your eyes away from the fact that the X1X version casts dynamic shadows from the branches being moved by the wind. Those same moving branches on the PC cast a static shadow.
What a joke of a review, the biased was obvious after Gears of War, so I stopped watching his crap there
Loading Video...
nobody is gonna comment on this? The difference in Shadows thru out the GOW comparison is staggering.
@Xplode_games: It’s a decent deal but then it’s unbalanced which is my problem. A system consistently capable of delivering 60fps at 1440p would have been preferrable to me.
@Xplode_games: It’s a decent deal but then it’s unbalanced which is my problem. A system consistently capable of delivering 60fps at 1440p would have been preferrable to me.
A system like that would be more harshly GPU limited and as a result you would have to drastically reduce settings in favor of framerate in some games. I think overall the better option and certainly the more "future proof" option is to have a much more powerful GPU even if you compromise the CPU power.
Remember, there is a budget so something has to give. Of course it would be great if the CPU and GPU were great but if you have to choose(and you do), I think they made the correct decision by choosing a lot more GPU power.
One final point I want to make is that on PC you usually have the GPU maxed out while the CPU has a lot of room to breathe. Of course in CPU intensive areas of games, that beast CPU makes a difference. However, it's ok to not fully utilize the CPU in a PC for games because you want a strong CPU anyway for everything else you do on a PC. On a console, you don't want to waste the budget $$$ on a CPU that again, will only really come in handy in CPU intense section of games.
Look, I want a strong CPU and I am sure we will get a much needed upgrade on next gen consoles. But what I really want is even more GPU power. 6 teraflops is great and kudos to MS for giving us the power but I think you will agree with me that 6 teraflops is at best absolute minimum for a 4k console. If the budget wasn't an issue, the CPU would be better but the GPU would be better, we really need around 10 teraflops.
A system like that would be more harshly GPU limited and as a result you would have to drastically reduce settings in favor of framerate in some games. I think overall the better option and certainly the more "future proof" option is to have a much more powerful GPU even if you compromise the CPU power.
Remember, there is a budget so something has to give. Of course it would be great if the CPU and GPU were great but if you have to choose(and you do), I think they made the correct decision by choosing a lot more GPU power.
One final point I want to make is that on PC you usually have the GPU maxed out while the CPU has a lot of room to breathe. Of course in CPU intensive areas of games, that beast CPU makes a difference. However, it's ok to not fully utilize the CPU in a PC for games because you want a strong CPU anyway for everything else you do on a PC. On a console, you don't want to waste the budget $$$ on a CPU that again, will only really come in handy in CPU intense section of games.
Look, I want a strong CPU and I am sure we will get a much needed upgrade on next gen consoles. But what I really want is even more GPU power. 6 teraflops is great and kudos to MS for giving us the power but I think you will agree with me that 6 teraflops is at best absolute minimum for a 4k console. If the budget wasn't an issue, the CPU would be better but the GPU would be better, we really need around 10 teraflops.
I wouldn't say drastically. The only reason the X1X is still stuck with the Jaguar is because choosing a CPU with a different architecture would have made porting a mess. A decent CPU is much cheaper relatively speaking than a decent GPU. By cutting 50$ off the GPU and adding it to the GPU, you would end up with a CPU 50% faster but with a GPU about 15% slower. Well worth the trade-off
I wouldn't say drastically. The only reason the X1X is still stuck with the Jaguar is because choosing a CPU with a different architecture would have made porting a mess. A decent CPU is much cheaper relatively speaking than a decent GPU. By cutting 50$ off the GPU and adding it to the GPU, you would end up with a CPU 50% faster but with a GPU about 15% slower. Well worth the trade-off
Is there any hard proof of this claim? Could it simply be that there isn't a stronger 8 core CPU and GPU solution on the market? That argument is akin to saying older games wouldn't work on Intel or AMD newer CPU because the architecture changed.
@04dcarraher: I thought it was actually running a dynamic resolution from 1800-2160p with only a few settings toned down. I still doubt the GTX 1060 can achieve a solid 60fps at those settings.
To get to 60 fps target they had to use screen and texture dynamic scaling to ensure the x1x gets to that frame rate mark. Now MP is a different story where we see the x1x's framerates dip more so and it tends to stay well below 4k mark. Now to say GTX 1060 cant achieve solid 60 fps with same settings as X1X is very narrow minded. If the time was taken to tweak the settings and have same upscaling and dynamic features as the X1X the results would be comparable
@04dcarraher: I don't believe using the term "narrow minded" is correct here. The dynamic settings that you state clearly falls under the console optimizations factor I mentioned before. Seeing as the GTX 1060 fps drops well below it's 32fps at ultra 4k on intense multiplayer scenario's too, it is safe for me to assume it won't even reach 50fps on X's settings. You have to keep in mind that textures have a big advantage on the X's big Vram and high memory bus platform. With some intelligent coding tricks they should be able to pull of some magic in the future with that.
The video he posted is a whole 8 seconds. You don't have 8 seconds of time to watch his video?
I already saw all of it in the first video. I do have questions about that shadow because it behaves more like someone watered the ground instead of like a real shadow especially when the strongest light sources are to the left of the player's character. Not a thing happens to the shadow on the bottom right corner. It stands out in a bad way like a sore thumb. It's better to keep things consistent and remove it.
@Xplode_games: I agree completely with this post. As it stands now, next gen will likely receive a 2.2-3.5x increase in CPU power (when looking at the Ryzen 5 2400g platform), depending on the core count and clock speed. I personally expect a 8 core again.
In case of GPU power I predict that of a GTX 1080ti with more available vram and perhaps a higher memory bandwith, in the shape of the upcoming AMD Navi APU + Ryzen architecture. It would be very sweet if they can cram a 7nm Ryzen in there. This would give birth to a crazy amount of wattage headroom for the GPU. A 512gb NVMe SSD with a 1/2tb second drive option would be great, but that idealistic spec is perhaps too far fetched. Hardware grows exponentially each year, here is to hoping and simply staying alive long enough to see such light of day.
Looking at Horizon Zero Dawn, developers are a long way from truely optimizing the available power on even this gen's launch consoles. I would be very much open to a 1800p quality+performance mode and 2160p quality+performance mode. 1800p would give that extra headroom in next gen that could enable many volumetric effects while the gpu can run it at stable framerates and looking tacksharp still.
@HalcyonScarlet: I think it's awesome analyzing a compressed package like the X and see where it shines and why.
PC is not a single system man, PC always wins in raw compute power. Doesn't mean developers will develop their games on that maximum compute power first then scale their games down to consoles. Console hardware releases decide the pace of where graphical engines move towards to. So yes, even PC gamers should be excited to see newer stronger consoles appear.
Fact the dynamic texture scaling is also on Pc version does not exclude the ability to customize the settings like consoles if devs were to take the time. Again your ignoring the fact that X1X is not running true solid 4k along with solid 4k textures. GTX 1060 at 1440p ultra setting can sustain 60+ even in MP when paired with cpu with more than 4 threads. Knocking the settings to medium and some low at 4k still allows GTX 1060 to get 60 fps averages. If the GTX 1060 was able to receive the same dynamic screen resolution ability as the X1X along with fined tuned graphics quality settings the performance and quality would be on par.
As it stands the GTX 1060 can not achieve the same levels of performance because it cant dynamically scale the same as X1X.
now about the X1X's vram and memory bus means squat with BF2...... BF2 at full 4k ultra settings it uses under 6gb..... Note that X1X only has 9gb to play with game cache and vram so which means X1X can not use more than you think for vram. And then memory bus of the X1X sits around 300gb/s for gpu with AMD's delta compression method around 380gb/s . While Pascal's superior delta color compression methods would allow GTX 1060 to get between 288-302 gb/s effective memory bandwidth which is fine.
The video he posted is a whole 8 seconds. You don't have 8 seconds of time to watch his video?
I already saw all of it in the first video. I do have questions about that shadow because it behaves more like someone watered the ground instead of like a real shadow especially when the strongest light sources are to the left of the player's character. Not a thing happens to the shadow on the bottom right corner. It stands out in a bad way like a sore thumb. It's better to keep things consistent and remove it.
That’s not even the same scene I posted a video about...
@04dcarraher: I wasn't ignoring the 1800-2160p the X runs at. But the simple fact is that it runs this at 60fps in comparison to 32fps 1060 ultra (which I clearly stated in my first post). Factoring in the % difference on settings and performance I still give a good edge to the X. It seems like we have reached a point where I guess only true scientific data can back up our claims for certain, though I do fully understand and respect where you come from. Your analogy is sound. I agree that a more optimized GTX 1060 would allow for closer results to the X, though that's really a console vs PC platform difference. Developers won't have the resources to target each card.
I realize only 9GB is available, that's still a tad more than the 1060. Hence why I said for future titles we can see the advantage better.
Glad to see your not blatantly ignoring the fact that 1060 is in the same ballpark as the X1X gpu vs others.we have to take into account when X1X drops both screen and texture resolution to keep the 60 fps while 1060 does not have the option as well it is not 1:1 comparison.
Now with the 9gb pool again it has to be shared between the game cache and vram which means the more open and complex the game is the less the gpu has for vram. So I would say with the X1X uses between 6-7gb if available.
So what’s your argument? The swaying tree branches shouldn’t cast moving shadows? Lol
I'm wondering what light source is it that caused the building to cast that shadow because it's looks out of place compared to the other objects nearby. It's even more so when a bright light source appears to the front left of the player...and that big shadow does nothing.
So what’s your argument? The swaying tree branches shouldn’t cast moving shadows? Lol
I'm wondering what light source is it that caused the building to cast that shadow because it's looks out of place compared to the other objects nearby. It's even more so when a bright light source appears to the front left of the player...and that big shadow does nothing.
Wether you think the buildings shadow belongs there or not is irrelevant. The fact is it’s taking up GPU power to render them on the X1X and it’s not on the PC, yet the frames are even.
Now stop harping on the buildings shadow and address why the moving branches cast moving shadows on the X1X, and on PC the moving branches cast shadows that don’t move
Wether you think the buildings shadow belongs there or not is irrelevant. The fact is it’s taking up GPU power to render them on the X1X and it’s not on the PC, yet the frames are even.
Now stop harping on the buildings shadow and address why the moving branches cast moving shadows on the X1X, and on PC the moving branches cast shadows that don’t move
Had to run an errand a while ago. I was more focused on the static image you posted earlier with the building shadow. However on the XB1X video with shadows emanating from the branches, it certainly looks like much higher shadow settings than the one on the GTX 1060.
Wether you think the buildings shadow belongs there or not is irrelevant. The fact is it’s taking up GPU power to render them on the X1X and it’s not on the PC, yet the frames are even.
Now stop harping on the buildings shadow and address why the moving branches cast moving shadows on the X1X, and on PC the moving branches cast shadows that don’t move
Had to run an errand a while ago. I was more focused on the static image you posted earlier with the building shadow. However on the XB1X video with shadows emanating from the branches, it certainly looks like much higher shadow settings than the one on the GTX 1060.
Cool glad we coulld come to a respectful agreement
This quote is from one of the youtube comments. I found it very interesting.
"GTX 1060 with 2 GHz OC is around 10-15 fps faster, so it's already close to stock GTX 1070 results at this point. But even with 2GHz OC 1060 has problems matching xbox X results, it's clearly slower GPU. Below interesting results:
Wolfenstein 2 gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/wolfenstein-ii-the-new-colossus-test-gpu-cpu GTX 1060 results 25-30 fps at 4K native and max settings. But of course xbox X is using dynamic 4K (although 2016p most of the time), and not maxed settings, so we should look for another test. So here's 4K dynamic gameplay https://youtu.be/ISvoRBR6JgI 2GHz OC GTX 1060 - 4K dynamic, LOW/MEDIUM settings, 45-55 fps XBOX X - 4K dynamic, almost maxed out settings, 55-60 fps GTX 1060 is not even close, and tha's even with 2GHz OC (at this point GTX 1060 is 10-15 fps faster). I dont want to upsed GTX 1060 owners, but results speak for themselves and clearly GTX 1060 is not even close to xbox X GPU results.
Rise Of The Tomb Raider https://youtu.be/r9q4V_eCx-Q GTX 1070 - 4K, Medium settings, dips below 30 fps. Xbox X also has dips below 30fps, but runs high settings.
When it comes to forza 7, I have GTX 1060 gameplay, even in one car race that card barely holds 60fps, 55-62 fps and during the more demanding scenarios it dips to around 45 fps. And here's interesting gameplay video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GwmE_fIzLY 40 fps dips in forza 7 on GTX 1060 and in another video the same GTX 1060 owner have said his GPU is simply not enough to match xbox X results, he addmited that. Xbox X version NEVER DIPS BELOW 60 fps, average fps is probably around 80-90fps as Digital Foundry have suggested. I'm not sure what settings xbox X runs, PCMR guys suggest dynamic settings, but digital foundry suggest maxed out settings, the only difference they were able to find was MSAA instead of EQAA, but the thing is EQAA works exactly like CSAA on Nv cards, so it's MSAA, but with additional samples on top of that. That way it gives MSAAx8 quality at the cost of MSAAx4, so it's much more efficient way. Below you can read about EQAA and CSAA modes http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/anti-aliasing-nvidia-geforce-amd-radeon,2868-4.html
When it comes to gears of war 4. I have seen GTX 1060 gameplay at 4K, that card indeed can run 4K and ultra settings, BUT WITH DYNAMIC RESOLUTION SCALING. Benchmark charts suggest lower fps https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2160p.jpg 21-25fps at ultra settings without dynamic resolution, and the thing is benchmark scenarios are usually not that demanding.
People may ask, why xbox X has GTX 1070 results, while xbox X specification on paper suggest RX 580. But xbox X GPU unlike RX 580 is totally custom build and at this point cant be compared to RX 580 (and RX 580 has already similar performance compared to GTX 1060, especially in DX12 code) https://gpucuriosity.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/xbox-one-xs-render-backend-2mb-render-cache-size-advantage-over-the-older-gcns/ Xbox X GPU has 7 billion transistors which points to GPU design not being RX-480/RX-580 and unlike RX 580 xbox X GPU has additional features. Xbox has polaris-based GPU with Vega features thrown in (for example delta color compression from vega), but not an entire Vega GPU. There are also additional DX12 features build into it. Digital foundry article in regards to xbox X clearly suggest xbox X 6 tflops GPU is much faster than numbers suggest. below interesting quotes from DF article https://www.neogaf.com/threads/xbox-scorpio-dx12-built-directly-into-gpu.1358475/#post-233477389
With these improvements it should be no surprise to you that xbox X GPU is much faster than RX 580. That's why developers suggest GTX 1070 performance level (war thunder developer even suggested performance level close to GTX 1080 as you already know). Looking at games, most xbox X enchanced titles shows results like GTX 1070 (it's not GTX 1060 performance level for a fact, because even GTX 1060 owners themselves say they cant match xbox X results). So IMO xbox GPU is comparable to GTX 1070 performance level and I base my opinion on articles, game results on xbox X, GTX 1060 users opinions and even developer opinions (they have much more knowledge about technology compared to gamers, that's why they making games!).
At 500$ no PC can match xbox X results. That guy in this video is using USED parts, and even keeping this in mind he still have just 8GB ram in that build (if you are buying used parts, you can very well buy used and much cheaper xbox X also). MaDz (that YT that recorded forza 7 gameplay on his GTX 1060) have spend 800$ on that PC, and that build cost doesnt even include windows 10 (around 100$), not to mention he still have 8GB ram (that's not enough for new games). In order to match xbox X results you have to buy GTX 1070, and if you are buying GPU like that realistically speaking you will not pair it with i3 or slower CPU, you have to buy at least i5. You are looking at 1000$ + PC build at this point. And the thing is, in order to get much better results compared to xbox X (60fps instead of 30fps on xbox x) you have to build high end PC with 1080ti, that costs much more than xbox X and even that PC will not get you 4K 60fps in most demanding games. I have 1080ti myself and my PC can runx xbox X games at the same settings at 60fps instead of 30fps, but I have paid 800$ for my GPU alone (asus strix OC version), not to mention other PC parts." - P Number8
This quote is from one of the youtube comments. I found it very interesting.
"GTX 1060 with 2 GHz OC is around 10-15 fps faster, so it's already close to stock GTX 1070 results at this point. But even with 2GHz OC 1060 has problems matching xbox X results, it's clearly slower GPU. Below interesting results:
Wolfenstein 2 gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/wolfenstein-ii-the-new-colossus-test-gpu-cpu GTX 1060 results 25-30 fps at 4K native and max settings. But of course xbox X is using dynamic 4K (although 2016p most of the time), and not maxed settings, so we should look for another test. So here's 4K dynamic gameplay https://youtu.be/ISvoRBR6JgI 2GHz OC GTX 1060 - 4K dynamic, LOW/MEDIUM settings, 45-55 fps XBOX X - 4K dynamic, almost maxed out settings, 55-60 fps GTX 1060 is not even close, and tha's even with 2GHz OC (at this point GTX 1060 is 10-15 fps faster). I dont want to upsed GTX 1060 owners, but results speak for themselves and clearly GTX 1060 is not even close to xbox X GPU results.
Rise Of The Tomb Raider https://youtu.be/r9q4V_eCx-Q GTX 1070 - 4K, Medium settings, dips below 30 fps. Xbox X also has dips below 30fps, but runs high settings.
When it comes to forza 7, I have GTX 1060 gameplay, even in one car race that card barely holds 60fps, 55-62 fps and during the more demanding scenarios it dips to around 45 fps. And here's interesting gameplay video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GwmE_fIzLY 40 fps dips in forza 7 on GTX 1060 and in another video the same GTX 1060 owner have said his GPU is simply not enough to match xbox X results, he addmited that. Xbox X version NEVER DIPS BELOW 60 fps, average fps is probably around 80-90fps as Digital Foundry have suggested. I'm not sure what settings xbox X runs, PCMR guys suggest dynamic settings, but digital foundry suggest maxed out settings, the only difference they were able to find was MSAA instead of EQAA, but the thing is EQAA works exactly like CSAA on Nv cards, so it's MSAA, but with additional samples on top of that. That way it gives MSAAx8 quality at the cost of MSAAx4, so it's much more efficient way. Below you can read about EQAA and CSAA modes http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/anti-aliasing-nvidia-geforce-amd-radeon,2868-4.html
When it comes to gears of war 4. I have seen GTX 1060 gameplay at 4K, that card indeed can run 4K and ultra settings, BUT WITH DYNAMIC RESOLUTION SCALING. Benchmark charts suggest lower fps https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2160p.jpg 21-25fps at ultra settings without dynamic resolution, and the thing is benchmark scenarios are usually not that demanding.
People may ask, why xbox X has GTX 1070 results, while xbox X specification on paper suggest RX 580. But xbox X GPU unlike RX 580 is totally custom build and at this point cant be compared to RX 580 (and RX 580 has already similar performance compared to GTX 1060, especially in DX12 code) https://gpucuriosity.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/xbox-one-xs-render-backend-2mb-render-cache-size-advantage-over-the-older-gcns/ Xbox X GPU has 7 billion transistors which points to GPU design not being RX-480/RX-580 and unlike RX 580 xbox X GPU has additional features. Xbox has polaris-based GPU with Vega features thrown in (for example delta color compression from vega), but not an entire Vega GPU. There are also additional DX12 features build into it. Digital foundry article in regards to xbox X clearly suggest xbox X 6 tflops GPU is much faster than numbers suggest. below interesting quotes from DF article https://www.neogaf.com/threads/xbox-scorpio-dx12-built-directly-into-gpu.1358475/#post-233477389
With these improvements it should be no surprise to you that xbox X GPU is much faster than RX 580. That's why developers suggest GTX 1070 performance level (war thunder developer even suggested performance level close to GTX 1080 as you already know). Looking at games, most xbox X enchanced titles shows results like GTX 1070 (it's not GTX 1060 performance level for a fact, because even GTX 1060 owners themselves say they cant match xbox X results). So IMO xbox GPU is comparable to GTX 1070 performance level and I base my opinion on articles, game results on xbox X, GTX 1060 users opinions and even developer opinions (they have much more knowledge about technology compared to gamers, that's why they making games!).
At 500$ no PC can match xbox X results. That guy in this video is using USED parts, and even keeping this in mind he still have just 8GB ram in that build (if you are buying used parts, you can very well buy used and much cheaper xbox X also). MaDz (that YT that recorded forza 7 gameplay on his GTX 1060) have spend 800$ on that PC, and that build cost doesnt even include windows 10 (around 100$), not to mention he still have 8GB ram (that's not enough for new games). In order to match xbox X results you have to buy GTX 1070, and if you are buying GPU like that realistically speaking you will not pair it with i3 or slower CPU, you have to buy at least i5. You are looking at 1000$ + PC build at this point. And the thing is, in order to get much better results compared to xbox X (60fps instead of 30fps on xbox x) you have to build high end PC with 1080ti, that costs much more than xbox X and even that PC will not get you 4K 60fps in most demanding games. I have 1080ti myself and my PC can runx xbox X games at the same settings at 60fps instead of 30fps, but I have paid 800$ for my GPU alone (asus strix OC version), not to mention other PC parts." - P Number8
At this point saying X1X will forever be equal to a 1070 in performance is a compliment towards A 1070
@i_p_daily: When do you think QuadKnight will buy an Xbox One X? he seem to can't stop talking about it non-stop. GPU prices are too high right now due to cryptocurrency and the PS4 Pro is a disappointment in power. He needs to cave in and admit he wants one.
@i_p_daily: When do you think QuadKnight will buy an Xbox One X? he seem to can't stop talking about it non-stop. GPU prices are too high right now due to cryptocurrency and the PS4 Pro is a disappointment in power. He needs to cave in and admit he wants one.
Isn't that what most of the Sony fannies spend their time doing? Talking about the Xbox. You are in thread about the PS4, Xbox Xbox Xbox. LOL they can't function with out it.
At this point saying X1X will forever be equal to a 1070 in performance is a compliment towards A 1070
Except the 1070 is a tier above the X1X GPU and no amount of console optimization will change that. The PS4 and Xbox One have to resort to use lower than low settings to run modern games lol.
@i_p_daily: When do you think QuadKnight will buy an Xbox One X? he seem to can't stop talking about it non-stop. GPU prices are too high right now due to cryptocurrency and the PS4 Pro is a disappointment in power. He needs to cave in and admit he wants one.
Didn't you know quack is an expert on all things Xbox One/S/X, he says he has a friend (to believe that we would also have to believe in Unicorns) and has played it extensively at this friends house (and to believe that we would also need to believe the Loch Ness Monster exists) so he is totally believable.
@FireEmblem_Man: ? I see you’re still mad I rekt you in the mediacreate thread so you’re in here trying and failing to “own” me, how cute. I don’t need a FlopBoneX. My GTX 1070 powered PC completely destroys and obliterates the FlopBoneX.
Thanks to my highend PC and PS4 Pro I can play all of MS’ lame "exclusives" at better settings than FlopBoneX as well as Sony’s true exclusives with the best settings.
? Hilarious to see Sheep and lems “join their powers” in a failed attempt to take me down.
At this point saying X1X will forever be equal to a 1070 in performance is a compliment towards A 1070
Except the 1070 is a tier above the X1X GPU and no amount of console optimization will change that. The PS4 and Xbox One have to resort to use lower than low settings to run modern games lol.
Sad reality for lems that they refuse to accept. Cows have already accepted their fate and now hype exclusives instead of power while lems continue to chase the pie in the sky known as "console optimization". ? All this shit because MS can't bring themselves to make any quality exclusives for the Flopbone.
@FireEmblem_Man: ? I see you’re still mad I rekt you in the mediacreate thread so you’re in here trying and failing to “own” me, how cute. I don’t need a FlopBoneX. My GTX 1070 powered PC completely destroys and wrecks the FlopBoneX in power.
Thanks to my high-end PC and PS4 Pro I can play all of MS’ lame exclusives at better settings than FlopBoneX as well as Sony’s true exclusives with the best settings.
? Hilarious to see Sheep and lems “join their powers” in a failed attempt to take me down.
You didn't rekt'd me on anything! You're just like AzatiS, just run your mouth and act like you know everything when you don't!
@FireEmblem_Man: ? I see you’re still mad I rekt you in the mediacreate thread so you’re in here trying and failing to “own” me, how cute. I don’t need a FlopBoneX. My GTX 1070 powered PC completely destroys and wrecks the FlopBoneX in power.
Thanks to my high-end PC and PS4 Pro I can play all of MS’ lame exclusives at better settings than FlopBoneX as well as Sony’s true exclusives with the best settings.
? Hilarious to see Sheep and lems “join their powers” in a failed attempt to take me down.
You didn't rekt'd me on anything! You're just like AzatiS, just run your mouth and act like you know everything when you don't!
? I completely rekt you. Why you following me around SW if I didn't?
Log in to comment