Those games are running at higher settings than the XB1X versions. Also most of the time the "4k" is not native on XB1X.
Well the link you posted for Wolfenstien 2 was using the "Mein Leban" setting which is 2 steps above the Ultra preset.
Not impressed with a 1080ti? Damn.
I'm rocking a 970 and I still feel it's a powerful card. I do mostly CG renders with it though, but if I ever upgrade I'm more concerned about RAM.
I game on PC (3770 + 1080ti), but I also game on consoles (xbox X and PS4P). For that reason I dont hate consoles like many people do, and I can look at facts without pink glasses.. The thing is, in order to match xbox X settings in games, you have to own GTX 1070, because in GPU bound scenarios Xbox X GPU is faster compared to GTX 1060 without any doubts.
As I remember there was CPU performance patch (multithread was added) for forza horizon 3, but even before that CPU patch forza should not dip as low as 31 fps. You suggest results would look 2x better now after the patches, ok so please provide a proof. Keep in mind that laptop gameplay shows no AA at all, with MSAAx4 that laptop would most likely tip to 20fps.
Wolfenstein video shows dynamic 4K (like xbox X), low-medium settings (xbox X version use much higher settings for sure) , and even with settings like that thag game runs clearly worse compared to xbox X version, 45-55 fps vs 55-60 fps.
That list is not accurate, most of these games use upscaled/dynamic and checkerboard resolutions (call of duty WW 2 use checkerboard for sure). Here on neogaf we have much more accurate list and only very few game use 4K native. Games with 4K native (and not to mention running at 60fps) are very demanding, and even my 1080ti barely runs games in quality like that with maxed out details, and xbox X is cheaper than my GPU alone. But the thing is, when it comes to resolution, there's a point of diminishing returns. So Xbox X is not running many games at 4K native, but it doesnt have to. Picture quality on 4K HDTV still looks stunning in comparison to standard xbox one. Playing back and forth on my PC and xbox X, I have to say anything near 1800p looks perfect to me on my 4K HDTV anyway (even from up close), not to mention normal viewing distance (at normal viewing distance I cant tell if I'm playing 1440p or 4K nativie game). IMO 4K native is a totall waste of GPU resoursces, not only on consoles, but olso PC also. It would rather play games at 1440p + 60fps, than 4K + 30fps. Xbox X GPU is powerfull enough to run many games at 1440p 60fps, but unfortunately fast GPU in xbox X is paired with very weak CPU, so 60fps is out of question for most games. The only thinig developers can do on xbox X is to implement framerate scaling, GPU would render 60 fps normaly and game would feel like true 60fps title, there would be only very few artifacts.
Off the top of my head Tomb Raider uses it in one of its modes.
Mobile GTX 1070 is not as fast as desktop version, and I know desktop GTX 1070 runs that game at solid 30fps maxed out at 4K + MSAAx4 (exactly like xbox X). But the thing is, some GTX 1070 owners (I'm talking only about PCMR guys) say that their GTX 1070 can run that game easily maxed out with 60 fps instead of 30 fps on xbox X (and for that reason they laugh from xbox X owners calling them poor peasants). I'm PC enthusiast, and although I prefer to game on PC, I also game on consoles from to time. I dont like when PCMR guys call console owners poor peasans, I also have xbox X and PS4P for myself. Seeing something like that I'm feel obliged to post honest opinions in regards to consoles, so when I can see PCMR guys posting fairy tales in regards to consoles, I will react and post real results, and talk about facts.
Not sure why you edited your post but that video you posted was pretty old, Forza 7 has had performance patches since then and 4k 60 is easily attainable with a 1060.
On the same track as you posted in the same conditions it never drops below 60fps in race.
Same spot at 1440p which is my preferred resolution as I prefer to reap the FPS benefits.
That particular video also shows later on high settings + MSAAx4, still 45 fps dips. Xbox X is using EQAA, but I dont know what settings, EQAAx2 or EQAAx4. EQAAx2 is basically MSAAx2 + aditional coverage samples, and EQAAx4 is MSAAx4 plus additional samples. Seeing MaDz gameplay with 45fps dips at MSAAx4 and high settings, I highly doubt MSAAx2 (EQAAx2) will improve performance drasticly (by 20fps), and on top of that I think xbox X verison runs higher settings than "high" like in MaDz gameplay (Digital foundry suggest Xbox X settings are very comparable to PC maxed out except AA). Santiagosantiago (one youtuber) made MSAAx2 gameplay on 2GHz GTX 1060 and game still dips into 45 fps, but that video is old (unlike MaDz gameplay video), so most likely he wasnt using optimised nv drivers for that game that improved performance by up to 25%, and for that reason I will not link his video.
Exactly
We dont need to talk about xbox X, but you have said forza 7 runs 60fps without any problems on your GTX 1060, and it's hard to belive in results like that. So far I have seen too many gameplays and benchmarks from this game, and all of them contradicts what you are saying. Of course I'm willing to belive you, but I have to see a proof first. You can use shadowplay to record forza 7 gameplay, just remember to show use game settings (and set resolution scale to 100%, because otherwise game will not run at 4K).
But I actually have the game and a 1060, I have no reason to lie.
