Support NeoGAF

[Phatosaurus]

Is that miss an HDD and an optical drive and a controller? I was able to double check as I'm on mobile. I agree with your general argument though.

As a pro owner, I'm jealous of the x. Only for the BC but still, Sony really needs to get on that.

Y’know I didn’t even notice the lack of HDD, chalk another £40 to the price. Still pretty close to £450, and a lot closer than many sites claiming it takes at least £600/$700/etc.
No controller either, but I did mention the price of a KB&M on top of that £450.
All in for a HDD, OS, M&KB, looking at about £520. Potential to save £20 on the RAM, and if you wanted to chance a cheap off brand PSU, another £20. The latter, I really wouldn’t do, but I also wouldn’t build a PC within that budget range either *shrug*.

No disc drive though, I mean if a UHD player and games are what you want, then you buy the X1X because it does both, it does both well, and is the cheapest way to get both done well in a single package.

If you just want games, then it’s more of a preference for console or PC and things like disc drives and controllers become a bit irrelevant.


One thing I will add, is that if you want to see what a $450 budget PC built with used parts can do, then JERMgaming on YouTube has a really excellent series of videos.
It mainly focuses on the PC vs PS4 and PS4 Pro, but X1X will be added to it soon. It also goes quite in depth on optimising the settings on PC for the best performance to graphical fidelity at 1080p/1440p/2160p.

 

[The_Dama]

Xbox >>>> PS4>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PC

 

[WaterAstro]

For just parts, you can match it quite easily, but then you've still gotta buy a cheap KB/M, and Windows (unless you like the watermark on the unverified version). So that's an extra say, £20-£30ish. Though, there's also some ADATA RAM that goes on sale regularly for like £40 for an 8Gb stick that'd almost balance that out.

A 1060? eh

If Nvidia was fair, that would be way cheaper so the PC has a chance. Of course ATi has better value.

 

[Bolivar687]

What’s the PC’s specs so I don’t have to give Linus a view?

i3-7100
1050Ti

Conclusion - at 4k, "mops the floor" with a $500 PC but it's more or less a wash against the $100 cheaper Pro.

I assume the differentiator here is only having 4GB on the 1050Ti, which probably isn't enough to load up the highest textures or maintain the resolution at playable frames. They also don't really get into dynamic resolution or checkerboarding, which gives the consoles another advantage. It seems they also kinda just guestimated the settings and did their best to match it.

 

[rokkerkory]

Good job pro and X for the price points

 

[Senua]

Xbox >>>> PS4>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PC

Lol.

 

[Bazookaxp]

Lol.

Value it's no contest. Console gaming is just cheaper. PC is a better value if you need it for work and gaming.

 

[amdb00mer]

Luke's comment about not recommending the X to 1080p users was a bit annoying. 1080p users benefit from any extra bells and whistles a dev may add to a game as well as supersampling. LTT of all youtube channels I would think would get this review right. Guess I was wrong in that assumption.

 

[llien]

@TLDW folks

i3 7100
GTX 1050Ti
8GB RAM
They didn't count windows license (which would make it $600)


So, "funky DRM stuff" affected PC version of Assassin's Creed:Origins, eh?
#denuvo

Matching PC's "ultra" settings (Xbox One X) is impressive.

 

[Sosokrates]

I just bought a 1070 ti for 450 bucks.

Is the X more powerful than a 1070 ti?

Yes, the 1070ti cant produce any graphics on its own.

 

[dragonfart28]

Value it's no contest. Console gaming is just cheaper. PC is a better value if you need it for work and gaming.

Not when you have to buy a new game library all over again and pay for online functionality.

For me, I'd gladly pay more for the hardware in the short term and the software sales and library are generally better.

If you want 1080p 60fps on Ultra settings, you can definitely get an affordable rig now.

 

[xStoyax]

Luke's comment about not recommending the X to 1080p users was a bit annoying. 1080p users benefit from any extra bells and whistles a dev may add to a game as well as supersampling. LTT of all youtube channels I would think would get this review right. Guess I was wrong in that assumption.

It's not a huge upgrade. Certainly not a $500 worth upgrade for 1080P

 

[L Corleone]

Building a PC is expensive, especially using high grade components, this is not news.

Consoles are purpose built and mass produced.

Everything is as it should be.

 

[LordRaptor]

Building a PC is expensive, especially using high grade components, this is not news.

Consoles are purpose built and mass produced.

Everything is as it should be.

The flaw in the comparison is that a PC is a higher initial cost, but then TCO is greatly reduced across the board, and incremental upgrades are always cheaper than buying an entirely new box every time.

To say "a $500 box is way better value for money" automatically presupposes that you own nothing right now and are buying your very first gaming device.
I doubt that that is true for anyone on this forum.

If you'd bought a gaming PC instead of an Xbox 1, you are not going to be talking about building a PC entirely from scratch for $500, period.

 

[nkarafo]

A good gamer PC is €1200 here in Europe... That's not even close.

You don't need that much. I built mine 2 years ago with 800 euros and upgraded the graphics card by selling the old one for 150 and adding 150 euros for a better one. So i spent 950 in total for a machine that already served me 2 years and it's still better than the XbX now.

 

[mad597]

Some people just dont want to play games on a PC. Their has been a console gaming market since the 1970s you'd figure people would realize this.

They are a different type of platform that appeals to a different type of gamer.

 

[dragonfart28]

Also, there are plenty of small form factor PCs that give you the convenience of comfy couch with the benefits of PC flexibility.

I used to game primarily on an Alienware Alpha and now have an MSI Trident.

I don't regret either purchase and have over 4 TBs of games installed on both.

Coupling those with an Nvidia shield tablet and those same games are taken to bed or bathroom as needed.

 

[DougWrynn]

Some people just dont want to play games on a PC. Their has been a console gaming market since the 1970s you'd figure people would realize this.

They are a different type of platform that appeals to a different type of gamer.

Yep that´s true, and PC Gamers tend to play more genres that simply are not playable on consoles, such as mobas, competitive fpses, rts and mmos. If you just want to play triple A titles with decent image quality you do not need a PC.

 

[amdb00mer]

It's not a huge upgrade. Certainly not a $500 worth upgrade for 1080P

I think it is. They also get the more stable framerates. In the end, though it is still just one person's opinion over another.

 

[Sizzel]

So as someone with a 1080ti rig and all consoles sans mid-year refreshes and Switch.

The comparison Linus is making makes sense. There is a caveat I have found. There is an initial investment in PC. CPU/BOX /OS etc.. from there on out you can really just upgrade the GPU for a good long while unless you buy garbage up front.

So whereas console are generally overall cheaper and better bang for your buck 1:1 $ wise in the immediate term. You have to rebuy the whole deal when you want to upgrade which makes a PC long term sounder. The PS5 comes out and you sell your old GPU and spend the money on a new GPU and you will smoke it.

I am wildly biased towards computers. I choose to upgrade all my stuff more frequently because I enjoy it. If cash was a more in demand for me than upgrading my PC, I could still be rolling on an old (3-5 year) MOBO, RAM, and CPU and just update my GPU.

In my mind, it is like leasing vs owning or paying a little now but paying more over time potentially. Console exclusives are the best though.

 

[Bazookaxp]

Not when you have to buy a new game library all over again and pay for online functionality.

For me, I'd gladly pay more for the hardware in the short term and the software sales and library are generally better.

If you want 1080p 60fps on Ultra settings, you can definitely get an affordable rig now.

See you ran into a flaw. Only fair way to compare this is if you have a hypothetical customer that does not own games in any economy system. If you are already invested in an ecosystem of course continuing with that line will always be better. People with large 360 libraries are much better off with an Xbox One and you can pick up used games for a few bucks off the shelf at ebgames/gamestop.

As a person that plays on both I see the value either way. However it is just straight out wrong to say you can match an Xbox one X feature for feature for $500 on pc.

 

[mario_O]

I rather have a PC than a closed box. Freedom. Also, free online and better game deals. In the long run you end up saving money.

 

[Journey]

But that's not the point. It's more of a hey I have 500 to spend what should I do.

I'm happy with my 1060 and it runs Oculus really well too. I did luck out and get the 2500k a long time ago and it's been kicking ass even with no overclock for like 8 years at this point.

Exactly. It seems like in every Xbox One X thread, either someone pops in to chime how $500 isn't worth it, or how you can always get that game on PC and it runs and looks better... yea but what kind of PC are we talking about here?

Just imagine the equivalent for a cars thread, whoa, the new 2018 Corvette ZR1 is so fast, beats the Nissan GTR Skyline.
Derp... who cares, the Bugatti is faster

 

[Sepultura]

That PC actually costs less than $400. Where is Linus Tech Tips getting their hardware?

 

[ReBurn]

What's great is that we have so many options these days. This thread shows that people have varying needs and the market supports them all. No one configuration is right for everyone and arguing over which one is best is a waste of time. What's right for me isn't right for everyone.

 

[Wonko_C]

This kind of comparison is nonsensical. It should be PS4 vs Xbone vs a $500 GPU since you're just comparing graphics in games. Virtually every other PC component you bought 10 years ago will hold up today against these consoles

Tell that to my Core 2 Quad Q9650 (that's a 9 year old CPU) LOL. Put a GTX 1060 in there and Forza Horizon 3 was a loading pause mess no matter the graphic settings, Quake Champions framerate wildly jumped between 60 to 20 fps all the time.

 

[Senua]

Tell that to my Core 2 Quad Q9650 (that's a 9 year old CPU) LOL. Put a GTX 1060 in there and Forza Horizon 3 was a loading pause mess no matter the graphic settings, Quake Champions framerate wildly jumped between 60 to 20 fps all the time.

Lol yea 10 years is hyperbolic, but my 3570k is almost 6 years old and still shits all over the "beast" XB1 CPU.

 

[Journey]

Lol yea 10 years is hyperbolic, but my 3570k is almost 6 years old and still shits all over the "beast" XB1 CPU.

Right... but the point is you can't just consider the GPU alone.

 

[Senua]

Right... but the point is you can't just consider the GPU alone.

You can if you built a good system 6 years ago like I did.

 

[Skelter]

Then just avoid the damn topic. What the fuck is the point of this awkward thread shitting?

He asked a very specific question, how about ignoring the poster or answering their question? What the fuck is the point of this awkward shitting on people?

 

[Sepultura]

Guys, I think its worth mentioning again that the PC assembled in this comparison is actually much cheaper. Head over to PCPartPicker.

Digital Foundry is more reliable in this regard since they compare with PC games based on console equivalent settings.

 

[JP]

Yeah, I mean this isn't a proper in depth Digital Foundry style technical analysis, it's far more of an average "people playing games" type comparison.

Interestingly though, it seems that nobody has mentioned that they say for third party games there isn't much of a visual difference between both enhanced consoles when you're actually sitting playing the games.

With Shadow of War they point out that "This game looked more or less equally nice on PS4 Pro and the Xbox One X, both in terms of frame rate and texture quality". With Assassin's Creed they say that it's "A very similar story to Shadow of War with the PS4 Pro and the Xbox One X looking nearly identical". The differences are certainly there when you examine the games closely but it's not really going to matter for most people who buy consoles.

Personally, I'm always happy to get extra pixels or get better performance due to the extra power in the extra power in the two enhanced consoles but I also do realise that my opinions and the opinions of many on here aren't really comparable to the majority of console gamers. It matters to me but if most don't care about these things I can understand that and I do understand that.

They're not saying that there aren't differences but what they're doing isn't to pixel count as Digital Foundry do but to compare the three platforms by just sitting there as people do and playing them.

Forza 7 is different, obviously they are very happy with that although they do pick up on the aliasing which has announced the hell out of me. Even though that does stand out for me it is still fantastic looking game and up there with the vest looking driving games of this generation.

 

[hikarutilmitt]

These will never stop happening, will they? It will always have PC people saying "duh" and making comments about hardware.

It will almost always be PC "winning" the thing.
It will always have console people saying "but configs and exclusives and comfy couch"
It will always end up with an argument about both points that are both equally valid.

Why do this?

 

[TLZ]

I can guarantee that those games were maxed out on PC, when of course console games are usually medium settings. 1080 TI shits all over the X, it doesn't even come close.

Hasn't DF confirmed a some of their videos that X versions were using High or Ultra settings?

These will never stop happening, will they? It will always have PC people saying "duh" and making comments about hardware.

It will almost always be PC "winning" the thing.
It will always have console people saying "but configs and exclusives and comfy couch"
It will always end up with an argument about both points that are both equally valid.

Why do this?

Humans. We love feeling superior, however puny and insignificant it is.

 

[Carlius]

What’s the PC’s specs so I don’t have to give Linus a view?

Then dont even bother posting

 

[ReBurn]

Then dont even bother posting

It's important for everyone to know how much they don't like something.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

Hasn't DF confirmed a some of their videos that X versions were using High or Ultra settings?



Humans. We love feeling superior, however puny and insignificant it is.

Some games have used a mix of high/medium/ultra settings with X enhancements. Some

 

[Mubrik]

But pc gamers say pc gaming is cheaper? Also every sony gamer alresdy has a monster pc rig they pull out of their ass when ever dealing wotj lower quality IQ. So obvisouly sony gamers always win.

Lmao. What is this??

Good video.
Xbone x is a good price point

 

[RainblowDash]

What’s the PC’s specs so I don’t have to give Linus a view?

Why, is it because he is a straight white male? Ugh come on kids

Anyway great vid.

I would never go with a budget route for a PC, better to get a console.

 

[Rellik]

Why, is it because he is a straight white male? Ugh come on kids

Embarrassing post

"New" NeoGAF really has become something else.

 

[mad597]

Embarrassing post

"New" NeoGAF really has become something else.

This place was always crap and had a much to high opinion of itself.

 

[Phatosaurus]

Then dont even bother posting

Leg it, mate.
I know how a 1050Ti/1060/1070/etc. will run games without wasting 10 minutes on a video to find out.

 

[EventHorizon]

The flaw in the comparison is that a PC is a higher initial cost, but then TCO is greatly reduced across the board, and incremental upgrades are always cheaper than buying an entirely new box every time

That's not true. I bought my PS4 in 2013 for $400 and I expect to play newly released AAA games 6 years later in 2019. That's $67 dollars a year for a prebuilt, no hassle, it-just-works compact gaming machine. In 2019 I'll pick up a $400 PS5 and continue playing.

Ok, let's say I wanted to upgrade to the Pro right now. I just checked eBay and used original PS4s are going for around $180. The non-sale, no hassle, just-walk-in-the-store-and-buy-it PS4 Pro price is $399. Subtract the $180 from that and I'd get an upgrade for $219. But wait, we can go lower. A used PS4 Pro goes for roughly (wide variance) $340. So back the $180 out of that and I could get a used PS4 Pro right now for $160.

In summary, here are my options...

• Door #1: $67 a year - Keep PS4 until next generation. Rinse. Repeat.
• Door #2: $219 - Sell PS4 now and buy new PS4 Pro
• Door #3: $160 - Sell PS4 now and buy used PS4 Pro

My personal choice is to stick with Door #1. In 2 years I'll keep my PS4 and get a completely new PS5. At that point the PS4 can be moved to another TV as a legacy, fully PS4 backward compatible, Plex/YouTube/Twitch client. Meanwhile the PS5 will be guaranteed to play newly released games til around 2025.

To say "a $500 box is way better value for money" automatically presupposes that you own nothing right now and are buying your very first gaming device.
I doubt that that is true for anyone on this forum.

If you'd bought a gaming PC instead of an Xbox 1, you are not going to be talking about building a PC entirely from scratch for $500, period.

That analysis presupposes you want to use your existing PC. A not too unlikely scenario is that you have your work PC in your office, and want to game on your big screen TV in the livingroom. However you don't want to try to use a spreadsheet from your couch looking at on a TV on the other side of the room. Another not-too-unlikely scenario is that your current main computer is a laptop, and you can't just pop in a new graphics card.

 

[MilkyJoe]

The flaw in the comparison is that a PC is a higher initial cost, but then TCO is greatly reduced across the board, and incremental upgrades are always cheaper than buying an entirely new box every time.

To say "a $500 box is way better value for money" automatically presupposes that you own nothing right now and are buying your very first gaming device.
I doubt that that is true for anyone on this forum.

If you'd bought a gaming PC instead of an Xbox 1, you are not going to be talking about building a PC entirely from scratch for $500, period.

you are living in la la land with that one.

 

[Journey]

You can if you built a good system 6 years ago like I did.

Great, you built a gaming PC that still has a viable CPU, in this special case, you're better off upgrading your GPU, but this isn't something general, we're talking about maybe you just have a laptop to browse the web and you want to either build a gaming PC, buy a PS4 pro or an Xbox One X for your 4K gaming needs. The best and cheapest way would be to buy an Xbox One X and enjoy 4K blu-ray as well while you're at it.

 

[Lister]

The comparison with the pc makes no sense. They keep running the games at native 4k on pc, while most of the games they tested are running at dynamic resolutions on the x. Many never hitting full 4k in any of the consoles.

 

[Sepultura]

That's not true. I bought my PS4 in 2013 for $400 and I expect to play newly released AAA games 6 years later in 2019. That's $67 dollars a year for a prebuilt, no hassle, it-just-works compact gaming machine. In 2019 I'll pick up a $400 PS5 and continue playing.

Thats $76/year if you want to play online. Sure the PS4 will play the games, but the thread is about price to performance ratio, and PS4 frequently struggles to perform at stable frame rates in taxing games now.

Ok, let's say I wanted to upgrade to the Pro right now. I just checked eBay and used original PS4s are going for around $180. The non-sale, no hassle, just-walk-in-the-store-and-buy-it PS4 Pro price is $399. Subtract the $180 from that and I'd get an upgrade for $219. But wait, we can go lower. A used PS4 Pro goes for roughly (wide variance) $340. So back the $180 out of that and I could get a used PS4 Pro right now for $160.

You will be paying a net amount of $160 for a machine that is still bottle necked by Jaguar CPU and cannot hit native 4K. Applying the same logic, the ROI on the PC hardware, with the ability to upgrade any part at any time you want, makes it much more affordable and flexible in the long run. An i3-7100/8GB/1050Ti 4GB rig on the other hand, will perform much better. And should you choose, you could prioritize smoother frame rates over image quality.

 

[MilkyJoe]

The comparison with the pc makes no sense. They keep running the games at native 4k on pc, while most of the games they tested are running at dynamic resolutions on the x. Many never hitting full 4k in any of the consoles.

PCs have dynamic 4K?

 

[dcll]

Hardcore pc guys just can't wrap their heads around people that don't want to play on a pc

 

[Sepultura]

PCs have dynamic 4K?

Only select games offer dynamic resolution scaling on consoles, not each and every title. Most top out at a sub-4K resolution or use checker board rendering to achieve that or 'full 4K'. A better technique for comparison would be to create custom resolution from a mid point of the scaling bounds on consoles where applicable.