I could have told you that back when... oh wait, I did. It was obvious.
4K is tough to run. The 1080Ti only just manages to run the latest AAA games at 60fps with Ultra settings & the XBoneX is much less powerful (& less expensive) that the top end card.
However, if the upcoming console can still manage new games at 1080P60, then it's still a huge improvement over their current offering.
@merwanor: I got 70+fps in TW3 at 1440P with 2 GTX970s. hairworks on because it looks better than with it off.
It's a demanding game but also very well optimised. Tweak just a few settings & you can get it running well on a range of machines.
I agree that a 1070 is a little overkill for 1080P if you don't have a high refresh rate monitor. Ever since Maxwell, Nvidia cards don't really stretch their legs until you hit higher resolutions. If you play at 1440P with maybe 2X AA you'll get similar performance to 1080P with 8X AA. You should look at high refresh rate monitors with G-Sync... it will change your life!
@asmoddeuss: Because they probably got given a free pre-built system & didn't want to fork out for the top-end card even though they were testing top-end graphics.
In the methodology, they stated that they maxed out AA even though it does't make much difference at 4K resolution. No word on the API, like even if they tested Doom on Vulkan or not. Many of these games will have different methods of AA too, might have been good to mention what was actually used.
@tonkinese: I think their idea for this test was just to max everything out. It's certainly not a good representation of what you can get if you tweak a few settings.
It's an interesting test in itself but it should really be put in context better. For many GS readers, this will just be evidence that the XBoneX is almost as good as a high end PC. If these results were shown next to what the PC could get if you lowered a couple of settings, it might show how well optimised these games are & be far more useful to consumers.
@gotrekfabian: I played it on PS3 because I didn't want to wait for a PC version that may never have come. It's a good game but not amazing. I give zero cares for the online portion, looks like it might be fun for 14 year olds to mess around in but it was hardly a polished experience, last I checked.
GTA San Andreas was an amazing game. Sure, it's dated now but I would rather play a remaster of that than GTA V again.
@VooDooPC: Yeah, they do that now. I saw Civ V Complete Edition for $1.37 or something but then I realised it was just because I had all but a couple of DLC items.
bbq_R0ADK1LL's comments