Depends.

For example, someone gaming on a 30 inch monitor at 1080p has the same pixel density as someone gaming at a 60 inch at 4k, or a 40 inch at 1440p. Though many PC gamers do indeed use their regular TV to game, most (at least that I know) are gaming around 24-27 inches. On screens that size, people simply can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k, or if they can It's not nearly worth the price jump. It's not until you start getting in the display range north of 40-48" that you start seeing a real difference.

Still, I agree that I prefer graphical improvements over silly increases in resolution all day.

@glez13: @UssjTrunks: If I'm including start up programs, sure, Windows takes about a minute-2 minutes to fully boot up (though I am able to use Steam and Chrome almost immediately), but to actually get Windows 10 to start up, it doesn't take much time at all - unless you count the time to scan my face to log in, which is probably another 15 seconds.

Point being that outside of load time, which is only a few seconds to begin with, SSD has pretty much no effect on gaming performance at all, and it's definitely not worth the price.

EDIT: Oh I see, I have Windows 10 on "Fast Startup Mode". That's why it boots up so quickly. Which is even more reason why you shouldn't spend money on an SSD.

Still, the point stands that spending $200 more for an extra 15 seconds of game-play is utterly asinine. It simply makes no sense. And often, with games that take a millennia to load, will often boot up quicker the second time you play it. Like in BF, maps I play frequently often times load up much quicker - 15-30 seconds often - than maps I infrequently play, or never play at all.

I never understood why any sane individual would pay 3-6x more for something that will only load your games faster; it doesn't even PLAY games at higher frames, you simply load them faster. And even for that, you don't need to waste money on an SSD. I have a 7200 RPM 1 TB HDD that boots up my computer in like 15 seconds. I mean you can literally get a 10 TB HDD for only $100 more than you could for a 1 TB SSD. What a complete waste.

Most AAA games require 80 GB??????

Since when?

Why is anyone even paying this clown any attention?

All my NVidia settings are on high or are favoring high quality and maximum performance.

Set the game to 4K at 60Hz

Game set at highest graphical settings, with everything on Ultra or High (but who are we kidding, we all know XB1X won't have Ultra level graphics, but let's go along anyways).

I took screenshots so that I would not have any deflated FPS numbers.

At 4K WET TRACK (LIKE YOU GUYS SO OFTEN LOVE TO USE) I was getting a stable 54-60 fps, with a few drops to 45 and a few highs of 62.

When alone, I was hovering around 63 fps, with drops rarely getting below 55 and highs at 68.

In 16 man races, I got a stable 58-62 fps, with lows at 48 and highs in 65 (it seems that other racers more than anything cause the fps drops. Maybe if I capped the game at 60 fps it'll hold better).

FPS while alone were holding consistently at 64 fps, with drops into the mid 50s and highs in the low 70s.

And when I changed the camera angle view to first person, I, could get FPS highs in the 80s (though the drops were more drastic.)

And keep in mind that Forza is basically the perfectly optimized game for XBox. As Destiny and Rise of the Tomb Raider prove, MOST games won't be able to run at 4k, high-maxPC settings, at 60 fps. Destiny will only be at 30 fps, and there's no guarantee it will even be 4K. ROTR will have PC equivalent high settings, but only at 1080p and it won't be at 60 fps; and the option that does have 4K is at 30 fps, and basically has the same graphical fidelity as the XBox One. I've seen an AMD FX-8320E 3.2 GHz paired with a 1060 6gb rig eat through ROTR at max settings, 1080p and maintain consistent fps in the high 60s-low 70s, and never get below 60 fps (and maintain FPS around 80 during cinematic scenes). The 1060 6gb can average 95 fps at high settings at 1080p and 42 fps at 4K high settings. For the love of God, the XB1X will be at 30 fps, won't be high equivalent graphics, and there's no guarantee if it'll even be 4k.

So there you have it, the XB1X has a single game that can keep up with a 1060 6gb, I7-7700HQ rig (and this is due to the fact that the PC version was more a port. Forza 7 will fix the optimization though).

The reality is that the XB1X is not sniffing the 1060 6gb. Destiny shows that, ROTR shows that, and even Forza 6 shows that, despite Forza being XBox's baby.

There's no shame in the XB1X not being as powerful as a 1080ti, 1070, or 1060 6gb. If it's even as powerful as an RX 580, that'll still be an accomplishment. But the idea that it can hang with any of the NVidia 1000 series big boys is ridiculous.

A good way to fix it is have the player go into first person mode while under cover. No cheating there

@gamecubepad:

-X1X has 8-core 2.3GHz CPU with custom GPU command processor. Your shit build has half the cores and in practice is slower core for core.

Now you're simply just blabbering.

Clock speed>>>>>>amount of cores when it comes to gaming. Now, when it comes to editting, software design, or stuff like 3d modeling, cores can become important, but in gaming they're FAR LESS. That's why often times AMD CPUs get blown out the water by Intel CPUs with less cores, because they have faster clock speeds.

Clock speed is clock speed, and the XB1X CPU is severely lacking in that department. It's slower, get over it.

And do you even know what core for core means? A CPU with superior architecture doesn't need as many cores, AS IS THE CASE WITH THIS CPU. In four cores it get's 2.4 GHz, compared to XB1X's 8 core 2.3 GHz. Now, let's do a little math; 2.4/4 is .6 GHz per core, while 2.3/8 is .2875 GHz per core. So how is it core for core faster? Do you even HEAR yourself?!?!?!

-X1X is up to 30% faster than a FX 8350 @ 4GHz paired with either OC RX 480 8GB or OC GTX 1060 6GB. You believe your shit $800-900 build can match with RX 470/570 4GB you are wrong.

Where are you even getting this from?

Graphs are to show up-to-date 4K performance on modern GPUs. Your 570 4GB is 40% weaker than the X1X GPU in 4K performance. X1X GPU offers Fury/980ti stock performance.

As I've previously said over and over again, THEY ARE NOT AT THE SAME GRAPHICAL SETTINGS, SIMPLY THE SAME RESOLUTION. Resolution =/= graphical settings. Get this through your thick skull. On most of the XB1X games that are even capable of running at 4K - like ROTR - they essentially do it at the XB1 graphical settings but at 4k; for them to even run at high PC settings (or "Enhanced Graphics" preset) they have to do it at 1080p and even then it's still in the 30-45 fps range. Most of the 4K PC benchmarks are on maxed out, or at the very least high settings. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING! So stop comparing them like they are.

I have both RX 480 8GB and GTX 1060 6GB. You allegedly have i7 paired with GTX 1060. Run the tests on Forza Apex as described and show what you get. That simple.

Fine. And I'll show you that even on "Wet Track" like you and Ron love to point out, it's still at, if not near 60 fps at maxed graphics (unlike the XB1X).