Xbox Series X / S

Solitude said:
Those of you who are getting the new consoles. Will you be buying any games to start off with? If so, which ones?

Personally I want to see what will be on Game Pass when it comes out. And hoping for some specials. Just not prepared to pay R1200 a game. Really want AC Valhalla and Cyberpunk though. And since it's a new console it feels like I should get one of them at least.
Click to expand...

I have pre-ordered Cyberpunk, I will play GP games to keep me busy the first 9 days till the 19th.
 
When does the PS5 launch locally? Surely its only the 19th or 17th as part of "World wide launch"?
 
Sarg3_ZN said:
Click to expand...

I don't see the big deal, they're raving about a 6yr old game achieving 60fps @900p on a console not released yet while an old i5 with four cores & gtx 1060 could do that at 1080p max settings/txaa years ago and it's mediocre hardware.
 
ponder said:
I don't see the big deal, they're raving about a 6yr old game achieving 60fps @900p on a console not released yet while an old i5 with four cores & gtx 1060 could do that at 1080p max settings/txaa years ago and it's mediocre hardware.
Click to expand...

Cause its the pre-toned down version running at 60 fps. (Think of it a s a Crysis for consoles) When they over-specked the then new console. Oh and both PC and Console versions where toned down after this stuff up cause of the low frame rates the untouched game got on both. ;)

Which brings out my pet peve when consoles became mainstream (as a PC gamer)

Developers do not target top end PC specs when they make games, they target low end consoles. So when they make a new open world they don't see how many NPC's a 3090 can run before crashing, they check how many "polygons" the general console can handle, then slap on higher texture packs and say "Tada.. PC version"

So if a console can only handle a 1Km x 1Km map then PC games only get 1 Km x 1Km. Only PC games that don't follow this rule is games that will never run on console. This is why people complain about the Xbox Series S existence, as it will be the new target platform. Microsoft did say that is why the Series S has the "same CPU" so should technically be able to handle the same games as X but at a lower resolution. <-- Time will tell.
 
ponder said:
I don't see the big deal, they're raving about a 6yr old game achieving 60fps @900p on a console not released yet while an old i5 with four cores & gtx 1060 could do that at 1080p max settings/txaa years ago and it's mediocre hardware.
Click to expand...

Much like you can play an old game on an upgraded PC, this new console allows you to play older games which have not been optomized for it and you still get better performance, might not impress you, but as a old time PC gamer this is awesome news to me, I will get to play older games with better/smoother performance.

Edit : Bonus points for not having to buy the "remaster"/ "remake"/ "original" version of a game I already own to play on the new console
 
AlphaJohn said:
Cause its the pre-toned down version running at 60 fps. (Think of it a s a Crysis for consoles) When they over-specked the then new console. Oh and both PC and Console versions where toned down after this stuff up cause of the low frame rates the untouched game got on both. ;)

Which brings out my pet peve when consoles became mainstream (as a PC gamer)

Developers do not target top end PC specs when they make games, they target low end consoles. So when they make a new open world they don't see how many NPC's a 3090 can run before crashing, they check how many "polygons" the general console can handle, then slap on higher texture packs and say "Tada.. PC version"

So if a console can only handle a 1Km x 1Km map then PC games only get 1 Km x 1Km. Only PC games that don't follow this rule is games that will never run on console. This is why people complain about the Xbox Series S existence, as it will be the new target platform. Microsoft did say that is why the Series S has the "same CPU" so should technically be able to handle the same games as X but at a lower resolution. <-- Time will tell.
Click to expand...

That's part of what makes the new consoles so cool. Scaling for the GPU is relatively simple. Reduce the resolution, reduce the texture resolution and maybe draw distance / geometry, and some special effects, and you can scale from a 3090 to a 1030.
A weak CPU and too little RAM is much harder to scale back for. But now they have a R7K CPU in the consoles (with -100mhz, and less chache), which is better than the majority of PC gamers out there has.

They also have direct storage and fast SSDs. The "average PC gamer" spec will hold back consoles the beginning of this generation. Or the games will just run really badly on slower PCs.
88% of PC gamers have less than 8 core CPUs, and about 60% only have 4 cores.
On the Intel side, only 36% of PC gamers have CPUs 3.3Ghz or faster and for AMD it's much less.
 
Barbarian Conan said:
That's part of what makes the new consoles so cool. Scaling for the GPU is relatively simple. Reduce the resolution, reduce the texture resolution and maybe draw distance / geometry, and some special effects, and you can scale from a 3090 to a 1030.
A weak CPU and too little RAM is much harder to scale back for. But now they have a R7K CPU in the consoles (with -100mhz, and less chache), which is better than the majority of PC gamers out there has.

They also have direct storage and fast SSDs. The "average PC gamer" spec will hold back consoles the beginning of this generation. Or the games will just run really badly on slower PCs.
88% of PC gamers have less than 8 core CPUs, and about 60% only have 4 cores.
On the Intel side, only 36% of PC gamers have CPUs 3.3Ghz or faster and for AMD it's much less.
Click to expand...
Dont underestimate the average gaming PC out there:
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Capture.JPG
 
Last edited:
Barbarian Conan said:
I used the steam survey for my info, although I don't know where I got that 36% from, looking at it with fresh eyes its obviously quite a bit less.

From a CPU perspective, the average gaming PC is pretty terrible compared to the next gen consoles.
Click to expand...

Saw that after my post. In my defense it was made before my morning coffee. :D
Also started some reading (Rabbit hole) on Console vs PC. Releases.

Seems like every generation launch console marginally outperform the average gaming PC. Price to performance based and that the PC's tend play catch up and even overtake within a year. Guess with the recent AMD CPU launch we par to stay on course...

Personally I just look at it like this: I can't match the Xbox Series S performance for R7000 on my Media PC sitting on an outdated i5 3550 and ATI R9 370 that is up for an upgrade anyway.
 
AlphaJohn said:
Saw that after my post. In my defense it was made before my morning coffee. :D
Also started some reading (Rabbit hole) on Console vs PC. Releases.

Seems like every generation launch console marginally outperform the average gaming PC. Price to performance based and that the PC's tend play catch up and even overtake within a year. Guess with the recent AMD CPU launch we par to stay on course...

Personally I just look at it like this: I can't match the Xbox Series S performance for R7000 on my Media PC sitting on an outdated i5 3550 and ATI R9 370 that is up for an upgrade anyway.
Click to expand...

The PS4/Xbox One CPU was weak even when it was released. It it more or less equivalent to the AMD A5200 CPU:

AnandTech Forums: Technology, Hardware, Software, and Deals

Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
www.anandtech.com

And yes, I agree, the new consoles are such good value. Even the Xbox Series X is a bargain considering what you get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X