I think Xbox and Xbox Pro make the most sense to me. Just steal Apple's terms. People get what that means.
GPU is probably going to be the same/similar in performance to lockheart after taking new architecture efficiency. CPU will be much better than current gen.
Ray tracing on a console equivalent to 6 TFLOPs isn't worth it outside of minecraft and current gen games imo. If anaconda ends up being 4k ray tracing then lockheart can be 2k w/out ray tracing
$150-200 for the 7870. I bet your gonna need a RTX 3060 this time which is gonna be $350-400. Consoles are gonna be much better value this time due to Nvidia & AMD's greed.
The purpose is to give more options for consumers to get into next gen.
I think thats sort of where the perception problem with Lockhart comes from. Other than saving money on using the same chips as anaconda, SSD...........is it really doing anything different overall than what an Xbox one x can do?
Support for Xbox One architecture will be dropped at some point, most likely within the first two years. Relying on XB1X as a long term low cost console is not feasible. The goal with Lockhart is to get as many people on to the newer architecture as possible.
I will take the chance to use this post as what some people here still don't want to see for whatever reason - resolution is the biggest performance chunk on the GPU usually.Resolution is usually the most talked about, because it's easy to as advertise. Theres so much that can be configured that affects performance besides resolution.
Look at the "optimized xbox one x settings" for Rdr2 for PC per Digital foundry. Some of those settings are lower than the lowest settings available on PC, because Rockstar were able to scale to the hardware accordingly.
Per DF,
Changing Lighting Quality from Ultra -> Medium gave them a 14% performance increase. That's one setting alone.
Changing reflections from Ultra to their optimized X1 settings gave them between a 11 - 17% increase in performance.
Changing shadows from Ultra to their optimized X1 settings gave them a 7% increase in performance.
Theres are settings like anistrophic filtering and texture quality that barely change performance, with texture quality affecting vram usage, but when people talk about scalability in game development this is what they mean.
Yea I don't think he ever said that but I there was a rumor not too long ago about the same thing.
The question: What Xbox One X could give us in the future, what MS will do with Xbox one X.
Resolution definitely taxes the GPU the most a majority of the time, but the user I quoted seemed to be under the impression that large performance gains couldnt be seen from anything other resolution changes, which is not the case.I will take the chance to use this post as what some people here still don't want to see for whatever reason - resolution is the biggest performance chunk on the GPU usually.
As we can see by DF, yes, there are even more things that you can scale back but the easiest thing to gain performance back is to scale down the resolution.
I don't know why this is even a question, there are hundreds of benchmarks out there supporting this.
And no, there will hardly be games targeting 1080p on Scarlett or PS5.
The vast majority of the OneX's extra power is put toward the substantial resolution increase. While most XB1S games run at 900p, which is 1600*900 or 1,440,000 pixels, most OneX games run at or around 4K, which is 3840*2160, or 8,294,290 pixels. That's a 5.76 times difference, which is roughly in-line with the 5 times greater GPU.
