Xbox Series X: A Closer Look at the Technology Powering the Next Generation

ArchedThunder

Uncle Beerus
Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,559
If we're to guesstimate that Xbox One's final LTD will be somewhere in the 50-55 million range I can see next gen Xbox (Series X and whatever else comes) as being in the 60-70 million range if they are able to nail it on games. Lockhart could be a major factor too, especially with the recession. If PS5 is 499 and Lockhart is 349 or lower that could actually result in some market share gains for Xbox.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,289
There will be plenty of room to reduce resolution, plus reconstruction techniques are quite good.

Also I sincerely doubt we see 20FPS specifically given the fast CPU in Lockhart. 720p and downgraded effects are much more likely.
Fair enough, that’s true. But I think they need to be super aggressive with the pricing and have crystal clear messaging and naming so people know what they’re buying. A coworker bought a Xbox One S thinking it was the Xbox One X, you know S like on iPhone 6S etc :p wasn’t too happy about that but buying an Xbox thinking it would be an 8K capable monster and come home with a 720p Lockhart would be brutal.
 

RingRang

Member
Oct 2, 2019
1,687
Why is Brad Sams making up a "typical" power output scenario with the PS5? We don't actually know what typical would be in a real-world application yet, but going by what Cerney himself has said 10+ TFs seems to be the "typical" power output.
It truly begs the question that if the PS5 could maintain lets say 10 teraflops exactly they would have just locked the clocks there. The fact that they chose to go with variable clocks suggests it’s going to go lower fairly often.
 

Governergrimm

Member
Jun 25, 2019
1,415
It truly begs the question that if the PS5 could maintain lets say 10 teraflops exactly they would have just locked the clocks there. The fact that they chose to go with variable clocks suggests it’s going to go lower fairly often.
I think Sony could have saved us a headache if they would have given us the floor operating frequency instead of saying the max then being non-committal about how low it goes. I will take their word that it doesn't dip much lower but they could have explained it much better.

Edit: I mean a floor frequency for standard in game operation.
 

RingRang

Member
Oct 2, 2019
1,687
I think Sony could have saved us a headache if they would have given us the floor operating frequency instead of saying the max then being non-committal about how low it goes. I will take their word that it doesn't dip much lower but they could have explained it much better.

Edit: I mean a floor frequency for standard in game operation.
Of course they could have done that, but as I said, the fact that they didn’t is telling.
 

rokkerkory

Member
Jun 14, 2018
5,017
I think Sony could have saved us a headache if they would have given us the floor operating frequency instead of saying the max then being non-committal about how low it goes. I will take their word that it doesn't dip much lower but they could have explained it much better.

Edit: I mean a floor frequency for standard in game operation.
They aren't going to do that because the divide will be even greater than xsx.
 

Trup1aya

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,036
Sounds reasonable and lines up perfectly with PC GPU tests.
I don’t think a difference might be seen if a game is well-optimized to a locked framerate though, unless you’re Digital Foundry and notice that the magic they did really wasn’t magic at all.
But that’s a whole other thing. It’s the all too common scenario when a game is struggling to maintain a locked framerate that will show the hardware differences the most. That’s when pure hardware specs usually matters.


That sounds good in theory but don’t really make teraflops matter any less, the target resolution is just lower. It happens on Xbox One today, and Switch, even PS4 Pro. And if the strategy is to simply target 1080p instead of 4K, then what happens on Lockhart when a game comes along that can’t quite reach 4K at the targeted framerate on the XSX so they go for a lower resolution?
720p on Lockhart? 20fps? Downgraded visuals?

I just don’t think there is any magic that makes hardware limitations disappear, there is only smoke and mirrors and clever compromises.

In the end I understand that the end user might not care anyway depending on why they bought the cheaper console. But that’s not why I quoted what Brad said, I just found it interesting that the teraflops count would matter between PS5 and XSX but not between XSX and Lockhart. They might actually matter in exactly the same way, just not on the same degree, all depending on how much the higher spec console is pushed and how clever the dev is when it comes to hiding the required compromises on the lower spec console.
DF will have plenty of work next gen that’s for sure! ;)
Highlighting Lockhart doesn't counter the narrative around how important TFlops are. Graphical processing power is an important part of the final image and performance. No one is saying hardware limitations magically disappear. The hardware limitations of the lockhart are the reason its targeting 1080p. That's not smoke an mirrors, that's a transparent compromise for making a smaller, more affordable nextgen console.

Teraflops between PS5 and XSX will "matter" in a different way than the comparison between XSX and Lockhart. PS5 and XSX are competing for Ultra HD consumers - and GPU power is going to influence how the fight for UHDTVs plays out. Lockhart's teraflops will "matter" because this processing power will determine how well it achieves its goal of playing 1/4 resolulion XSX games. Is 1/3 of the gpu power enough for that task? Seems like it.

What if a XSX game is under native 4K? My guess is anything able 1440p will be just fine on Lockhart. Source: 720p upscaled to 1080p looks just fine these days. Alternatively, devs will downgrade the visuals in other ways. Again, this isn't smoke and mirrors - These are expected compromises in- line with buying a cheaper device.

It appears to me that Lockhart was specced to have headway, just in case an xsx game is sub 4k... perhaps devs won't have to be so clever with how they make a port.
 

Governergrimm

Member
Jun 25, 2019
1,415
Of course they could have done that, but as I said, the fact that they didn’t is telling.
They aren't going to do that because the divide will be even greater than xsx.
For sure, if it's much lower then they would get roasted for it but now it's just bad optics. Hopefully we will get concrete information soon enough but I feel like we won't get straight answers until we are watching digital foundry comparisons of 3rd party launch titles.
 

RingRang

Member
Oct 2, 2019
1,687
For sure, if it's much lower then they would get roasted for it but now it's just bad optics. Hopefully we will get concrete information soon enough but I feel like we won't get straight answers until we are watching digital foundry comparisons of 3rd party launch titles.
It’s really not a problem for them as most people see the number and move on, and that was the point. They get to post a maximum figure without anyone knowing what the real number is. It’s dishonest IMO, and I think if the roles here were reversed and Microsoft had announced a variable number like this there would be a furor like no other.
 

Morgan J

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,217
It’s really not a problem for them as most people see the number and move on, and that was the point. They get to post a maximum figure without anyone knowing what the real number is. It’s dishonest IMO, and I think if the roles here were reversed and Microsoft had announced a variable number like this there would be a furor like no other.
Yepp, 100% this.
 

Governergrimm

Member
Jun 25, 2019
1,415
It’s really not a problem for them as most people see the number and move on, and that was the point. They get to post a maximum figure without anyone knowing what the real number is. It’s dishonest IMO, and I think if the roles here were reversed and Microsoft had announced a variable number like this there would be a furor like no other.
If the roles were reversed Teraflops, ram speeds, and LOCKED speeds would be way more important. MS would be on the receiving end of a scorched Earth media response.
 

rokkerkory

Member
Jun 14, 2018
5,017
It’s really not a problem for them as most people see the number and move on, and that was the point. They get to post a maximum figure without anyone knowing what the real number is. It’s dishonest IMO, and I think if the roles here were reversed and Microsoft had announced a variable number like this there would be a furor like no other.
I wonder if MS updated xsx to say floor is now 12.2 TF and they introduced same boost concept as PS5, what would folks say? Let’s say even just for the gpu and upper bound was like 13.5 TF how would peeps react?
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,590
It truly begs the question that if the PS5 could maintain lets say 10 teraflops exactly they would have just locked the clocks there. The fact that they chose to go with variable clocks suggests it’s going to go lower fairly often.
This is an assumption. There is nothing that indicates this to be the case. In fact, Cerney's word is the only thing to indicate one way or the other; and so far, what he's indicated is that it will sustain near max clocks the majority of the time.

If this is a lie, so be it. But I'd doubt he'd lie about that. They've engineered the system around a sustained/continuous "boost" clock. If they couldn't sustain it the vast majority of the time, they wouldn't have engineered it the way they have.

But again, this comes down to semantics. What do you mean by "fairly often"? 5% of the time...10% of the time...25% of the time?
 

Governergrimm

Member
Jun 25, 2019
1,415
This is an assumption. There is nothing that indicates this to be the case. In fact, Cerney's word is the only thing to indicate one way or the other; and so far, what he's indicated is that it will sustain near max clocks the majority of the time.

If this is a lie, so be it. But I'd doubt he'd lie about that. They've engineered the system around a sustained/continuous "boost" clock. If they couldn't sustain it the vast majority of the time, they wouldn't have engineered it the way they have.

But again, this comes down to semantics. What do you mean by "fairly often"? 5% of the time...10% of the time...25% of the time?
That's the problem though. It may be at close to Max settings at all times but so what is the floor then? Sony wasn't clear on what that means. Just that it'll operate at close to Max boost regularly.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,590
That's the problem though. It may be at close to Max settings at all times but so what is the floor then? Sony wasn't clear on what that means. Just that it'll operate at close to Max boost regularly.
This is fine if you can design your game where the workload leads to predictable outcomes. This is why a workload profiler is baked in and is supposedly deterministic in nature. If that solution indeed works, it won't be much different than how devs currently profile their game's resource utilization.
 

RingRang

Member
Oct 2, 2019
1,687
This is an assumption. There is nothing that indicates this to be the case. In fact, Cerney's word is the only thing to indicate one way or the other; and so far, what he's indicated is that it will sustain near max clocks the majority of the time.

If this is a lie, so be it. But I'd doubt he'd lie about that. They've engineered the system around a sustained/continuous "boost" clock. If they couldn't sustain it the vast majority of the time, they wouldn't have engineered it the way they have.

But again, this comes down to semantics. What do you mean by "fairly often"? 5% of the time...10% of the time...25% of the time?
It’s clearly an assumption, but I don’t think it’s an outlandish one. It’s just a funny thing that we had a real leak that indicated they were working on a 9.2 tf GPU, and then when they officially reveal it we’re told it’s 10.3 but with variable clocks. We’ve never seen a GPU with clocks this high, which makes you wonder how sustainable they really are?

Ultimately I don’t feel this is a big deal, the PS5 will likely be a great console regardless. I’m just pointing out that the way this has played out is only being shrugged off because it’s Sony.
 
Dec 31, 2017
653
It’s really not a problem for them as most people see the number and move on, and that was the point. They get to post a maximum figure without anyone knowing what the real number is. It’s dishonest IMO, and I think if the roles here were reversed and Microsoft had announced a variable number like this there would be a furor like no other.
Everywhere you had people saying MS needed to take the power crown or it they failed. They now have, so it’s just a matter of keeping their messaging on point (so far so good) and matching Sony on price. If specs were reversed honestly I guarantee you’d have people shouting everywhere that MS has failed and that we’d have another Xbox One generation.
 

TeKFaN

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,503
Trying to understand why some people are trying so hard to point out this major bottleneck design flaw that has not been identified as a bottleneck by any reputable, established site. A thing which Goosen has explained. Theres no goofy Esram setup for devs to ignore. Outside of that one time, no Microsoft console has been bottlenecked on RAM. Seems illogical to add a beast of a GPU that will never be able to run as fast as it should because a much cheaper component was skimped. A lot of work to downplay.

Moving on...at this point doesn't matter what other plastic is doing. This one is a step beyond bad ass. What I'm curious about is the ML capabilities. We've seen some limited examples. It seems like this console was optimized for ML by being able to use a lot more of the less precise floating point operations. Am I off base in that? Anyone here have insight or guesses to how it may be used next gen? Is primarily used to upscale and add HDR or do we expect that's just the start?
I don't know about it being a bottleneck but XSX's ram pool is split in two with both running at different speeds.
 

NippleViking

Member
May 2, 2018
1,664
If we're to guesstimate that Xbox One's final LTD will be somewhere in the 50-55 million range I can see next gen Xbox (Series X and whatever else comes) as being in the 60-70 million range if they are able to nail it on games. Lockhart could be a major factor too, especially with the recession. If PS5 is 499 and Lockhart is 349 or lower that could actually result in some market share gains for Xbox.
Sounds reasonable. Sony will almost assuredly lead this upcoming generation, though I'm expecting the gap to shrink e.g. Xbox at 70m, PS5 at 110-120m.

Lockhart is obviously the major variable. If they can get that to <$200 in a few years (i.e. by 2024), then that coupled with a strong library + strong gamepass growth could see that sales disparity massively reduced.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,590
It’s clearly an assumption, but I don’t think it’s an outlandish one. It’s just a funny thing that we had a real leak that indicated they were working on a 9.2 tf GPU, and then when they officially reveal it we’re told it’s 10.3 but with variable clocks. We’ve never seen a GPU with clocks this high, which makes you wonder how sustainable they really are?

Ultimately I don’t feel this is a big deal, the PS5 will likely be a great console regardless. I’m just pointing out that the way this has played out is only being shrugged off because it’s Sony.
I doubt it wasn't intended. Remember, we saw data associated with Steppings A0 and B0, which were a year old or older by the time the leak got out months ago. At that time they were already at E0 stepping (many revisions of silicon later). i believe a dev (or someone who had spoken with a dev) actually mentioned they intended to target 2.3 Ghz but settled on a slightly more conservative 2.23 Ghz. We have heard for a while now that their design philosophy was "narrow and fast". This would be in lines with that.
 

Governergrimm

Member
Jun 25, 2019
1,415
This is fine if you can design your game where the workload leads to predictable outcomes. This is why a workload profiler is baked in and is supposedly deterministic in nature. If that solution indeed works, it won't be much different than how devs currently profile their game's resource utilization.
And that's fine and could very well work out but it's not as defined as saying "locked" of varies from X to X. It's not that it can't be basically locked it's just that from the presentation the amount it varies is ill-defined.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,590
And that's fine and could very well work out but it's not as defined as saying "locked" of varies from X to X. It's not that it can't be basically locked it's just that from the presentation the amount it varies is ill-defined.
Yeah, well the proof will be in the pudding. I hypothesized in the other thread that the design philosophy Cerney took while architecting the system and considering tradeoffs was to drive decisions on component choices with maximizing i/o throughput and minimizing bottlenecks all along the i/o pipeline from the perspective of the system's weakest link (it's storage), all while maintaining coherency, in mind. That's how they arrived at narrow and fast: it's easier to more fully saturate a GPU with less CUs (less parallelization of workload means more efficient use of resources by default), the GPU caches' high bandwidth are driven by the high GPU clock speed, and a high clock speed still enables it to be very powerful despite the lower number of CUs. This seems all intended and driven by the main goal of maximizing throughput and coherency all along the pipeline, as well as minimizing bottlenecks the whole way through.

The continuous boost / variable clocks and the associated novel cooling and power management paradigm are also a function of that main goal, as the main goal necessitated narrow and fast to be effectively achieved with cost in mind. It's definitely a much different approach. Hopefully, it will pay off.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,289
I wonder if MS updated xsx to say floor is now 12.2 TF and they introduced same boost concept as PS5, what would folks say? Let’s say even just for the gpu and upper bound was like 13.5 TF how would peeps react?
They talked about the upsides of having a consistent clockspeed so if they would do something they would likely clock it higher all the time, which today seems unnecessary since they’re well ahead on GPU power even though some pretend they are not.

I would rather see them have a stable and silent console and focus on deliver games that are well-optimized with great art direction. The hardware is good enough I feel, that box is checked this time. This time the real PR battle will start when both Sony and MS show their first nextgen games. If Sony show Horizon Zero Dawn 2 as a launch game then MS better have something to counter that with or nobody will care about the hardware win.
 
Dec 31, 2017
653
They talked about the upsides of having a consistent clockspeed so if they would do something they would likely clock it higher all the time, which today seems unnecessary since they’re well ahead on GPU power even though some pretend they are not.

I would rather see them have a stable and silent console and focus on deliver games that are well-optimized with great art direction. The hardware is good enough I feel, that box is checked this time. This time the real PR battle will start when both Sony and MS show their first nextgen games. If Sony show Horizon Zero Dawn 2 as a launch game then MS better have something to counter that with or nobody will care about the hardware win.
MS already has Halo Infinite for launch, I think that is more than appropriate of a counter.

Yeah, well the proof will be in the pudding. I hypothesized in the other thread that the design philosophy Cerney took while architecting the system and considering tradeoffs was to drive decisions on component choices with maximizing i/o throughput and minimizing bottlenecks all along the i/o pipeline from the perspective of the system's weakest link (it's storage), all while maintaining coherency, in mind. That's how they arrived at narrow and fast: it's easier to more fully saturate a GPU with less CUs (less parallelization of workload means more efficient use of resources by default), the GPU caches' high bandwidth are driven by the high GPU clock speed, and a high clock speed still enables it to be very powerful despite the lower number of CUs. This seems all intended and driven by the main goal of maximizing throughput and coherency all along the pipeline, as well as minimizing bottlenecks the whole way through.

The continuous boost / variable clocks and the associated novel cooling and power management paradigm are also a function of that main goal, as the main goal necessitated narrow and fast to be effectively achieved with cost in mind. It's definitely a much different approach. Hopefully, it will pay off.
The thing is even the 5700XT is a 40CU card at lower frequencies, and the upcoming high end cards will most likely be in the 50CUs range, and looking at Nvidia cards like the 2080 with 48SMs, it seems to me like more tasks in parallel is the way to go looking at high end cards and if that is the way developers are optimizing on PC (and let's face it, almost every dev is on PC these days), then it made sense for MS to go larger and slower as if that is what devs are optimizing for, it'll give them the advantage on Series X. And when reading about it online (for PC GPUs) what I mostly see is that running more tasks in parallel raises the compute performance of the processor. My feeling is wide and slow seems to be a more common approach for a reason, unless Sony's approach was all about trying to shave a few dollars off the cost of their system.

Maybe I'm completely wrong here as I'm not expert, just going off of what I read on PC oriented websites about the new architectures.
 

cyrribrae

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,097
Brad: - ”What I am saying is that you can’t compare the TFlop output of next-gen consoles to existing hardware as it’s not the complete picture. For next-gen consoles, it’s a fair comparison but when Microsoft does finally announce Lockhart, don’t lock-in on the raw performance as it’s not the complete story.”

Lol Lockhart will turn into a lovely trainweck here when/if it’s announced. Unless I’m completely out of the loop on Lockhart it’s 100% based on the XSX, but scaled down. So dodging the teraflop difference is every bit as wrong here as doing it with PS5 vs XSX, or even worse. No? Seems like common sense to me.
I may be misunderstanding, but I think you misunderstood what Brad meant. Lockhart is absolutely relevant and the 4TF vs the 9-10 TF vs the 12.2 TF is fair. But comparing the Lockhart 4TF vs the 6TF Xbox ONE X is misleading. That's his point, which is exactly what you're saying too. Regardless, even One X was aiming for something higher than 1080p. If MS pushes hard on the "same great games at 1080p" narrative, I think the marketing is far easier than people think. (I daresay, much easier than explaining boost clocks on the PS5. If even DEVS and industry professionals are this confused right now, I really hope Sony has found a good way to teach people about this tech.)

May be challenging for some devs based on their goals and methods, but if anything, I think the spirit of affordable home consoles is honestly a more worthwhile vision than "the box under my TV is the best computer in my house". But that's not this forum, so whatever.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,289
Yeah, well the proof will be in the pudding. I hypothesized in the other thread that the design philosophy Cerney took while architecting the system and considering tradeoffs was to drive decisions on component choices with maximizing i/o throughput and minimizing bottlenecks all along the i/o pipeline from the perspective of the system's weakest link (it's storage), all while maintaining coherency, in mind. That's how they arrived at narrow and fast: it's easier to more fully saturate a GPU with less CUs (less parallelization of workload means more efficient use of resources by default), the GPU caches' high bandwidth are driven by the high GPU clock speed, and a high clock speed still enables it to be very powerful despite the lower number of CUs. This seems all intended and driven by the main goal of maximizing throughput and coherency all along the pipeline, as well as minimizing bottlenecks the whole way through.

The continuous boost / variable clocks and the associated novel cooling and power management paradigm are also a function of that main goal, as the main goal necessitated narrow and fast to be effectively achieved with cost in mind. It's definitely a much different approach. Hopefully, it will pay off.
The higher clockspeed on PS5 could definitely show itself in some scenarios. We’ve all tried clocking our GPUs I assume, and seen that the benchmark score absolutely increase (after 10 hours of clocking and crashes) and we ended up with 5 or so extra fps. This is with the same amount of compute units though.

To simplify things PS5 runs faster but still does fewer things per clock cycle than XSX. And there is a reason why both Nvidia and AMD are upping the compute units in their GPUs, the pay off is that they can lower the clocks and keep the card cooler, while still getting increased performance.

Sony’s cooling solution will be interesting to witness... or hear. Maybe DF should add a noise meter in upcoming DF Face-Offs lol ;)
 

Terbinator

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,662
It’s clearly an assumption, but I don’t think it’s an outlandish one. It’s just a funny thing that we had a real leak that indicated they were working on a 9.2 tf GPU, and then when they officially reveal it we’re told it’s 10.3 but with variable clocks. We’ve never seen a GPU with clocks this high, which makes you wonder how sustainable they really are?

Ultimately I don’t feel this is a big deal, the PS5 will likely be a great console regardless. I’m just pointing out that the way this has played out is only being shrugged off because it’s Sony.
Let's be real, this isn't Sony's first rodio and they're not going to be putting out a product which has discernible performance day to day, box to box.

The backlash would become a quagmire.

As a side note for me personally, pricing is now going to be really interesting I feel. There seems to be a consensus XSX will be dearer, but I'm not sure that will be the case and if it is, I don't think it will be at more than the £/$50 mark.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,590
MS already has Halo Infinite for launch, I think that is more than appropriate of a counter.



The thing is even the 5700XT is a 40CU card at lower frequencies, and the upcoming high end cards will most likely be in the 50CUs range, and looking at Nvidia cards like the 2080 with 48SMs, it seems to me like more tasks in parallel is the way to go looking at high end cards and if that is the way developers are optimizing on PC (and let's face it, almost every dev is on PC these days), then it made sense for MS to go larger and slower as if that is what devs are optimizing for, it'll give them the advantage on Series X. And when reading about it online (for PC GPUs) what I mostly see is that running more tasks in parallel raises the compute performance of the processor. My feeling is wide and slow seems to be a more common approach for a reason, unless Sony's approach was all about trying to shave a few dollars off the cost of their system.

Maybe I'm completely wrong here as I'm not expert, just going off of what I read on PC oriented websites about the new architectures.
Again, Sony are definitely trying something different. They are trying to achieve and balance 4 things in the following order of priority: scope change in terms of game design and interactivity, accessibility, high performance, and reasonable price.

I think MS is prioritizing visual fidelity and high performance at the top of their list at the expense of price and to a lesser but somewhat significant degree game design / interactivity scope and accessibility.
 

ThatNerdGUI

Member
Mar 19, 2020
170
Again, Sony are definitely trying something different. They are trying to achieve and balance 4 things in the following order of priority: scope change in terms of game design and interactivity, accessibility, high performance, and reasonable price.

I think MS is prioritizing visual fidelity and high performance at the top of their list at the expense of price and to a lesser but somewhat significant degree game design / interactivity scope and accessibility.
Well, Sony went with a more expensive RAM and Flash storage setup (and maybe cooling?) while MS went with the more expensive GPU. Can those prices offset and the consoles end up similarly priced? The APU silicon will still be more expensive regardless. One thing I've heard is that MS have somewhat "subsidized" the Series X manufacturing cost with Xcloud so I guess we will have to see how everything plays out in the future.
 
Oct 28, 2017
14
Again, Sony are definitely trying something different. They are trying to achieve and balance 4 things in the following order of priority: scope change in terms of game design and interactivity, accessibility, high performance, and reasonable price.

I think MS is prioritizing visual fidelity and high performance at the top of their list at the expense of price and to a lesser but somewhat significant degree game design / interactivity scope and accessibility.
How is that?

My guess is that you are making that statement based on the difference between the ssd speeds. The Series X ssd is slower than the ps5’s, but it still magnitudes faster than the hard drives in the PS4 and Xbox One.

Overall I think the Series X is well balanced console in all fronts. A massive jump from Xbox One and PS4.
 

bananas

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,001
I may be misunderstanding, but I think you misunderstood what Brad meant. Lockhart is absolutely relevant and the 4TF vs the 9-10 TF vs the 12.2 TF is fair. But comparing the Lockhart 4TF vs the 6TF Xbox ONE X is misleading. That's his point, which is exactly what you're saying too. Regardless, even One X was aiming for something higher than 1080p. If MS pushes hard on the "same great games at 1080p" narrative, I think the marketing is far easier than people think.
Xbox Series S
The ultimate 1080p console.
The most affordable way to experience the next generation of gaming.
$299



Xbox Series X
The world’s most powerful console.
Power your dreams.
$499
 

Scarlet0Pimp

Member
Feb 4, 2018
41
I can definitely see myself getting one of each new xbox, well as long as the difference is just the screen resolution.
Currently I have 2 4k tvs one with a 1x connected and 1 with an original fat x1. I get a fair amount of use from the x1 even though its just a backup. When friends come over one person can get on that or if my wife is working in the office I will get on the old xbox and more recently my sun who is only 5 has been using it and we have been playing sea of thieves together.
So for me I'll definitely be intreasted in what lockhart has to offer but will definitely be getting the xsx day 1 and then either keeping the 1x or swapping out for a lockhart.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,590
How is that?

My guess is that you are making that statement based on the difference between the ssd speeds. The Series X ssd is slower than the ps5’s, but it still magnitudes faster than the hard drives in the PS4 and Xbox One.

Overall I think the Series X is well balanced console in all fronts. A massive jump from Xbox One and PS4.
Everything is relative. Specialized SSDs and supporting custom i/o hardware will significantly increase high speed storage's usefulness in the context of a closed box console ecosystem. It will enable things not even possible on the PC at the moment.

Both have competent solutions. Sony just spent more of their budget there while MS spent more on the APU...and you can count on both companies playing to those relative strengths.
 

PianoBlack

Member
May 24, 2018
708
I can definitely see myself getting one of each new xbox, well as long as the difference is just the screen resolution.
Currently I have 2 4k tvs one with a 1x connected and 1 with an original fat x1. I get a fair amount of use from the x1 even though its just a backup. When friends come over one person can get on that or if my wife is working in the office I will get on the old xbox and more recently my sun who is only 5 has been using it and we have been playing sea of thieves together.
So for me I'll definitely be intreasted in what lockhart has to offer but will definitely be getting the xsx day 1 and then either keeping the 1x or swapping out for a lockhart.
I'm in a similar boat - One X is my main machine but I have a One S for streaming in the house or playing on a monitor for multiplayer/if someone else is using the TV. Plan to get an XSX near launch and kick the One X down to the One S role, but could absolutely see replacing it with Lockhart at some point.

I imagine after a couple weeks of using the SSD/resume features, going back to "last gen" is going to feel extremely painful!
 

Justsomeguy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
756
UK
That's not what the PS5 does. The PS5 operates at boost clocks by default and then when overloaded, as first option, tries to shift power from the CPU/GPU (depending on which chip is loaded) if it has power to spare. If there isn't sufficient power available to shift from the other part of the chip to prevent the overall chip from consuming too much power, the system drops the CPU and/or GPU clocks to keep the system's power consumption under control.
Yikes - is that how it's going to work? Sounds hellish for devs to manage (=random frame rate drops for us end users) unless the power drops are deterministic and repeatable.
 

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,834
Yikes - is that how it's going to work? Sounds hellish for devs to manage (=random frame rate drops for us end users) unless the power drops are deterministic and repeatable.
They are. However it behaves on one machine is how it will behave on every PS5. It doesn’t vary with ambient temps or manufacturing variations.They were at pains to make that point.
 

Laver

Member
Mar 30, 2018
349
Well, Sony went with a more expensive RAM and Flash storage setup (and maybe cooling?) while MS went with the more expensive GPU. Can those prices offset and the consoles end up similarly priced? The APU silicon will still be more expensive regardless. One thing I've heard is that MS have somewhat "subsidized" the Series X manufacturing cost with Xcloud so I guess we will have to see how everything plays out in the future.
XSX has the better RAM setup though.

How is that?

My guess is that you are making that statement based on the difference between the ssd speeds. The Series X ssd is slower than the ps5’s, but it still magnitudes faster than the hard drives in the PS4 and Xbox One.

Overall I think the Series X is well balanced console in all fronts. A massive jump from Xbox One and PS4.
I wonder if people realistically expect next-gen games to swap 5GB of assets every second. I see a ton of obstacles of that not happening:
1)just think of an effort it would take to create such a game. Yes, some aspects of game development will be streamlined, but developing AAA games with such asset density would probably extend dev time from 3-5 years this gen to 5-7 next-gen.
2)games would balloon in size from 100-150GB this gen into hundreds of gigabytes next-gen. I don't think users will be paricularly pleased with being able to install only one game at a time.
3)games would balloon in size. Downloading hundreds of gigabytes would require days on many connections, plus a lot of countries have bandwidth caps.
 

retrosega

Member
Jun 14, 2019
315
I really do think MS will want to match the PS5 on price.

It now looks like the XSX is "quite a bit" more powerful that PS5, so matching the price too would be a double win. I doubt MS could undercut PS5 with XSX, as the losses would be horrific per unit.
 
Last edited:

Trup1aya

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,036
Fair enough, that’s true. But I think they need to be super aggressive with the pricing and have crystal clear messaging and naming so people know what they’re buying. A coworker bought a Xbox One S thinking it was the Xbox One X, you know S like on iPhone 6S etc :p wasn’t too happy about that but buying an Xbox thinking it would be an 8K capable monster and come home with a 720p Lockhart would be brutal.
I can't reconcile that people think this is confusing.

Like, your coworker had two options, chose the cheaper one, and was surprised that they didn't get the premium console? Makes no sense. I can't believe this was or ever would be a common occurrence.

Generally, I think consumers have been proven able to make the distinction between a 1080p device (xbox one S) and a 4K device (xbox one X) and MS can use the EXACT SAME approach to marketing and naming convention without worrying about confusing people.

Given the form factor and price of XSX compared to a hypothetical Lockhart, I'd say the distinction will be easily made by all but the most clueless of consumers.
 
Last edited:

Axel Stone

Member
Jan 10, 2020
850
I really do think MS will want to match the PS5 on price.

It now looks like the XSX is "quite a bit" more powerful that PS5, so matching the price too would be a double win. I doubt MS could undercut PS5 with XSX, as the losses would be horiffic per unit.
It’ll be a tricky move to make seeing as Sony appears to be waiting on what Microsoft announce on pricing. I think that Sony’s plan is to come in cheaper no matter what Microsoft announces. I think the only way for MS to be sure of matching Sony on price is to come in at $399, which would mean a sizeable loss on every console sold.

$449 doesn’t seem out of the question for me. I can’t see Sony going much below $399, so an extra $50 for the most powerful console seems reasonable.

$499 vs $399 is where things get tricky. It doesn’t feel like there’s enough of a performance gap for that sort of price difference.
 

Laver

Member
Mar 30, 2018
349
I wonder how much smaller PS5's APU is? Most people are commenting like everything between them is identical minus the difference in CUs, which is 56 VS 40. Assuming CUs take 50% of the area in XSX's APU, it would make PS5's APU 14% smaller.

Better doesn't always mean more expensive. 8 x 2GB QDR modules are more expensive than 4 x 1GB and 6 x 2GB modues.
How does the bus width factor into the price?
 

cyrribrae

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,097
Everything is relative. Specialized SSDs and supporting custom i/o hardware will significantly increase high speed storage's usefulness in the context of a closed box console ecosystem. It will enable things not even possible on the PC at the moment.

Both have competent solutions. Sony just spent more of their budget there while MS spent more on the APU...and you can count on both companies playing to those relative strengths.
Absolutely. I think the question is that we don't know HOW relative they will be. By the end, 1X and Pro ended up being even more similar in architecture (if not function) than X1 and PS4, which were already closer than any one before. From how we're talking about them breathlessly on this forum, it seems like XSX and PS5 may be diverging a bit again - and yet, when we take a step back, it seems almost a given that they're more similar than ever (again, in overall approach, not necessarily in frames or resolution or whatever).

Ultimately, it matters less what each company wants us to focus on - and much, much more on what devs are willing and able to take advantage of. THAT is still very much up in the air.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,289
I can't reconcile that people think this is confusing.

Like, your coworker had two options, chose the cheaper one, and was surprised that they didn't get the premium console? Makes no sense. I can't believe this was or ever would be a common occurrence.

Generally, I think consumers have been proven able to make the distinction between a 1080p device (xbox one S) and a 4K device (xbox one X) and MS can use the EXACT SAME approach to marketing and naming convention without worrying about confusing people.

Given the form factor and price of XSX compared to a hypothetical Lockhart, I'd say the distinction will be easily made by all but the most clueless of consumers.
Yeah it obviously wasn’t a wellplanned purchase, she essentially just impulse bought the console at a sale after remembering that we had talked about it at work, might not have payed attention to the X at all, then came to work proud about finding it at such a low price. :p
She bought an X too later on though. So Yay MS!
/s

Seriously now, personally I think the naming for Xbox consoles are crap. And having Xbox One X and Xbox Series X on the shelf the same time will be hilariously bad for less informed customers. Both probably has some ”Most powerful” slogan on the box.
 

Trup1aya

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,036
Yeah it obviously wasn’t a wellplanned purchase, she essentially just impulse bought the console at a sale after remembering that we had talked about it at work, might not have payed attention to the X at all, then came to work proud about finding it at such a low price. :p
She bought an X too later on though. So Yay MS!
/s

Seriously now, personally I think the naming for Xbox consoles are crap. And having Xbox One X and Xbox Series X on the shelf the same time will be hilariously bad for less informed customers. Both probably has some ”Most powerful” slogan on the box.
I imagine all XB1S and XB1X will be fire sold before next gen consoles release. I really don't think either will be on the same shelf away the same time as XSX. Not to mention all the advertising a person will consume on their way to pickup their next gen console.

Also the price difference will be a clear indicator

Also I think people grossly underestimate consumer competence when it comes to making these sort of decisions. Microsoft, the retailer, and the gift recipient will all be heavily vested in making sure grandpa gets the right thing.
 
Last edited: