1 of 3: Xbox One at native resolution compared to performance at 2160p from a barebones Xbox One X port. Higher is better. The data is expressed here in terms of percentage. 1080p scales well, 900p holds up better than you might expect. 720p? Predictably not.
2 of 3: Here are the frame-rates, converted from frame-times (seen in the next slide). Higher is better. 1080p titles gain frame-rate moving to 4K, with two out of three 900p games within five to six per cent of matching performance at 4K.
3 of 3: This is the original Microsoft data based on frame-time measured in milliseconds from PIX GPU captures. Lower is better. Title D is a 900p game with scaling issues, but everything else looks promising bearing in mind the very basic nature of the ports.
1 of 3: A percentage increase comparison showing base Xbox One performance (blue at 100 per cent), followed by back-compat (red) and native Xbox One X code compiled under the latest XDK (green). Older titles can be recompiled to get a big performance boost.
2 of 3: Here's the same data, this time in basic frame-rate terms. Only Title A doesn't see a huge improvement in performance with back-compat, while the boost with native Xbox X code (a barebones port it should be noted) is massive in all cases.
3 of 3: Just like the 4K captures, the original data is based on PIX captures measured in frame-time (milliseconds). Here's that data - lower is better here. You might say we're looking at 1.31TF vs 3TF vs 6TF performance here at the same resolution.
Well, if we're talking about Assassins Creed, they cranked the settings up to "PC High" rather than "Console High", so I think it's fair to say it'd be fine running at 4K if it used the same settings.
That's not what that quote says. It indicates that the 4x scenario is met--i.e. 1080p to 4K. But as they say next, the "stretch goal" for 900p to go to 4K (more than 4x) is much harder, and the games don't make it. In some cases optimization will get them there, but devs may settle for lower resolutions instead, as we're seeing with ACO and Anthem. Since a significant portion of Xbox One games are at 900p, this may result in fewer native 4K titles than originally projected.
Yeah, this directly contradicts
Andrew Goossen said:
We originally thought that "some games" using fewer resources would be rare.The idea was this would be only ones that ran badly under boost, and from PS4 Pro we know that won't be many. But it turns out that every single unpatched game already released falls into this category!Andrew Goossen said:
Both run dynamic 4K CBR, one has the settings cranked higher.
Wait till it launches. We are going to have Grass Wars Part Deux especially with Red Dead Redemption 2.
Joking aside, it is quite a bit more powerful than the PS4 Pro. Cpu still the bottleneck so you'll probably see more stable framerates at 4k or checkerboard 4K versus PS4 Pro as the main change. The improved gpu and increased RAM will help a bit too.
Unless it is a Microsoft specific title or they have marketing and the dev wants to utilize the power of the console, the differences could be negligible. Either way, PC gamers win the most because their Play Anywhere titles now have much better ports than what they were getting. As devs will probably just port over Xbox One X versions.
I can't wait. I'll need to start stocking popcorn.
Wait till it launches. We are going to have Grass Wars Part Deux especially with Red Dead Redemption 2.
I've created a visual aid.
You're ignoring here that unpatched games will still have access to more GPU cores on the XB1X than they do on the base XB1. LelouchZero already pointed out the power differences between boost modes on both devices. They might not have access to the full GPU, but they benefit more than just a clock speed increase which you try to imply.
If it's got pro support then it will probably get a 1X patch too.
Is this a silly semantics argurment? They'll take advantage where they can, but games are absolutely not built with these systems in mind.
