• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

An 8 tflops $399 Series S and a $599 16 tflops Series X would've been a far better sell.

Oct 16, 2017
1,405
2,192
405
Series S is the cheapest "next gen" console and will appeal for that reason alone. I got one for the kids room, I know a PS5 owner got one as a Game Pass (and Xbox library) box, people who travel a lot appreciate the small form factor, others with limited space or budget feel the same.

Just because you don't want one doesn't mean others are the same. Trying to equate it to a Nintendo console shows how misinformed you actually are.
You put next gen in quotes. You did that for a reason. it isn't really a next gen box, not yet. And as such if you already own an Xbox One then you don't need to spend anything at all. $300 is not that cheap when Xbox One would do for gamepass and Multiplat mainstream games. You can get a 2nd hand Xbox One for way less than $249.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kyliethicc

Hix

Banned
Jul 24, 2011
4,071
7,091
1,030
Belfast, NI
You put next gen in quotes. You did that for a reason. it isn't really a next gen box, not yet. And as such if you already own an Xbox One then you don't need to spend anything at all. $300 is not that cheap when Xbox One would do for gamepass and Multiplat mainstream games. You can get a 2nd hand Xbox One for way less than $249.
It's a next gen box in that it'll be supported for the entity of the generation, unlike the One. A year or two down the line and support ends for last gen, so just when all 23 MS first party studios start producing content, boom, your console won't play them. Never mind third party games, which will drop support earlier.

FYI I put "next gen" like that because it should really be called current gen, we just haven't switched to using that term yet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OrtizTwelve

UnNamed

Member
Dec 21, 2006
1,162
1,789
1,365
Somewhere in Bananaland
I think Series S is now suffering from an unoptimized code, unoptimized dev kit and time. I imagine Codemasters porting the game on nine platforms, four of them are Xbox only, you have different dev kits for those platforms, and those dev kit are not fully complete yet. A nightmare.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
43,689
14,717
1,770
Best Coast
How? The S is a significantly weaker (GPU is weaker than the One X FFS and the CPU is clocked lower as well as almost half the RAM speed and less ram at that) console all around than the PS5 Digital Edition, which is only $100 more, AND on top of that the thing only has like 300GB which necessitates buying the +$200 memory expansion to play more than 2 games (Cold War and Warzone both take up about that amount together). Its a fucking horrible value. The X is fine (although it proving to be weaker performance-wise than PS5 kinda completely destroys the point of it existing) but the Series S is terrible at its current price, maybe at $250 it would be acceptable but in the long run AND short run theres literally no benefit from getting it over just spending the extra $100 for a PS5 DE.
How? Build me a PC that can game as well as a Series S for $300. Oh wait you can't.

"only $100 more". A hundred bucks is a lot of money to some people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrtizTwelve

Redefine07

Member
Apr 15, 2019
142
144
260
0 Tflops console XCloud only would had been better with no internet required to play only the power of the CLOUD !
 

OrtizTwelve

Formerly 'WhetPharts'
Aug 11, 2020
261
537
415
USA
The amount of ignorance on here is shocking.

The Series S was designed for a reason: to present a next gen gaming experience targeting 1080P/1440P 60/120 FPS for a mass market approach. $299 is the sweet spot for video game consoles.

The tech and hardware inside is nearly identical to Series X with major differences being less internal storage but still same SSD tech, less ram and less gpu power. You don’t need 12TF of graphical power to achieve what the Series S is targeting. Go find me a comparable PC build for $299. You can’t. It doesn’t exist.

The engineers at Microsoft aren’t morons.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mrmeh

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
17,027
8,064
2,055
The amount of ignorance on here is shocking.

The Series S was designed for a reason: to present a next gen gaming experience targeting 1080P/1440P 60/120 FPS.

The tech and hardware inside is nearly identical to Series X with major differences being less ram and less gpu power. You don’t need 12TF of graphical power to achieve what the Series S is targeting. Go find me a comparable PC build for $299. You can’t. It doesn’t exist.

The engineers at Microsoft aren’t morons.
Nobody said they were morons, most of those engineers designed the Xbox One too and PS3 engineers were not morons either.

We also all know the marketing PR (your post is copy-pasted from the one you made in another thread, also quoting the condensed PR line about what the box is sold as) aside from the fact that the 1080p or less target is revisionist history and that the same exact version at a lower resolution (and with just slightly lower resolution textures perhaps) implies there would not be other graphical differences and so far it is not clearly always the case. MS either talked about 1440p with no compromises or was very generic about the resolution differences, they never called it out as 1080p or less. None of the consoles out there are the 100% 60 FPS Native 4K machines PR winked and smiled at to be fair yeah although some are closer to that.

Differences are: lower clocked CPU (in SMT mode it goes below PS5 too), lower clocked GPU which also has less CU’s (having less CU’s is one thing, but the lower clocked affects other components shared* on the GPU outside of the CU’s, assuming it has two Shader Engines and thus 4 Shader Arrays like XSX else it would have even less ROP’s, Primitive Units, and Rasteriser units), considerable less RAM and reduced bandwidth (especially on the non GPU optimised region which could be an added bottleneck), and half the SSD.

XSX has 26 active (28 total) DCU’s split across 2 Shader Engines and with two Shader Arrays per Shader Engine: 7 DCU per Shader Array.

XSS has 10 Active DCU’s (not sure how many total, let’s assume 12 or more easily 14). This leads me to think they cut the XSX GPU in half and reduced the clock. It sounds easier to customise it that way than changing the amount of DCU’s per ShaderArray (it would be 4 DCU’s per Shader Array... but then again I have not see a die shot of the XSS, it could be the same chip downclocked and with lots of HW disabled, it would seem very expensive though unless yields were atrocious and thus the XSX would be a giant loss leader). You can see the amount of non CU resources that get cut that affect fill rate and geometry processing if we went from 4 Shader Arrays and 2 Shader Engines to 2 Shader Arrays and 1 Shader Engine.

*See RDNA high level diagram here for common parts outside of the single DCU’s (2 CU’s fused into one like AMD’s Bulldozer CPU):
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kyliethicc

Ev1L AuRoN

Member
Oct 30, 2020
108
178
270
I think what Microsoft needs is to stop promising the heavens and under delivering.

The only reason people are upset with the Series consoles is because Microsoft set unrealistic expectation about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roronoa Zoro

kyliethicc

Member
Mar 14, 2020
2,863
15,673
480
The amount of ignorance on here is shocking.

The Series S was designed for a reason: to present a next gen gaming experience targeting 1080P/1440P 60/120 FPS for a mass market approach. $299 is the sweet spot for video game consoles.

The tech and hardware inside is nearly identical to Series X with major differences being less internal storage but still same SSD tech, less ram and less gpu power. You don’t need 12TF of graphical power to achieve what the Series S is targeting. Go find me a comparable PC build for $299. You can’t. It doesn’t exist.

The engineers at Microsoft aren’t morons.
600p

 
  • Triggered
Reactions: M1chl

paypay88

Member
Jan 13, 2018
85
149
255
The amount of ignorance on here is shocking.

The Series S was designed for a reason: to present a next gen gaming experience targeting 1080P/1440P 60/120 FPS for a mass market approach. $299 is the sweet spot for video game consoles.

The tech and hardware inside is nearly identical to Series X with major differences being less internal storage but still same SSD tech, less ram and less gpu power. You don’t need 12TF of graphical power to achieve what the Series S is targeting. Go find me a comparable PC build for $299. You can’t. It doesn’t exist.

The engineers at Microsoft aren’t morons.
1440p/60fps

more like
560p
 

mrmeh

Member
Sep 8, 2020
63
52
165
@120fps.... which only a tiny minority will be able to play due to their TV. The fact It can still offer that mode for £250 is crazy!

The S is not about getting the best visuals or highest modes, it's giving people who don't give a shit about 4k(or highest quality) a less expensive way in to this gen.

PS4 is the same price.
 
Last edited:
Aug 6, 2010
2,139
1,213
950
Hello, my name is Freddy Francesco.
I'm rich enough to buy one 16 tflops Series X with one Game Pass subscription.

...Are you?
 

mrmeh

Member
Sep 8, 2020
63
52
165
I think what Microsoft needs is to stop promising the heavens and under delivering.

The only reason people are upset with the Series consoles is because Microsoft set unrealistic expectation about it.
That's just all marketing from any company :messenger_winking:

I don't think Series X is showing itself fully yet, whether that's down to devs (MS studios included) or MS not being as good with the SDK/tools. But.. I haven't seen any Xbox people saying their upset? Lots of Sony peoples with much concern though! very altruistic bunch.
 

Soapy Wooder

Moderator
Staff Member
Aug 12, 2020
122
1,087
365
Don't care a out your curiosity. Mods handing out warnings and bans for console waring shouldn't be participating in it.
Now I am curious. What part of any of my posts in this thread is console warring?

Also I have not moderated this thread. Only answered the OP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrtizTwelve

recursive

Member
Feb 4, 2014
421
343
530
Now I am curious. What part of any of my posts in this thread is console warring?

Also I have not moderated this thread. Only answered the OP.
Your statement that X is the most powerful console ever. With all the threads and warring going on, especially with the all the performance threads, it sounds like picking sides. Nitpicky sure, but that is how I read it.
 

Soapy Wooder

Moderator
Staff Member
Aug 12, 2020
122
1,087
365
Your statement that X is the most powerful console ever. With all the threads and warring going on, especially with the all the performance threads, it sounds like picking sides. Nitpicky sure, but that is how I read it.
Does it not have the most GPU and CPU power of the consoles? Is it not marketed as such? Is it not at $500? Everything I said is well known and isn't disputed by Sony themselves.

So no I don't think increasing the advantage Microsoft already has is going to be meaningful. That is what the OP suggested and I replied on topic.

Perhaps how you read it was biased with your own side you picked?
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrtizTwelve

recursive

Member
Feb 4, 2014
421
343
530
Does it not have the most GPU and CPU power of the consoles? Is it not marketed as such? Is it not at $500? Everything I said is well known and isn't disputed by Sony themselves.

So no I don't think increasing the advantage Microsoft already has is going to be meaningful. That is what the OP suggested and I replied on topic.

Perhaps how you read it was biased with your own side you picked?
I own both and have no bias. Nice bait.

My point was that the results are not showing this most powerful slogan you used regardless of the paper specs you mention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roronoa Zoro

Garani

Member
Oct 22, 2014
509
1,753
555
I think MS should've released an 8 tflops Series S GPU to compete with Sony, and an OP $600 console for the hardcore that can really do native 4k 60 fps.
Even current XSX is on par (if not worse) with the PS5, an XSS with 8 TF would not have made things much difference.

The issue is not just with the APU, but with the system design as a whole.
 

OZ9000

Member
Aug 21, 2019
93
263
285
Why do we need a 600 USD Xbox?

The Series X is powerful enough.

Is this thread a reaction to the fact the XSX is failing to crush the PS5 in multiplat games?
 
Last edited:

Soapy Wooder

Moderator
Staff Member
Aug 12, 2020
122
1,087
365
I own both and have no bias. Nice bait.

My point was that the results are not showing this most powerful slogan you used regardless of the paper specs you mention.
They used. So increasing from 12 TF to 16TF wouldn't change anything from their marketing. Which was part of the OP's question.

Why do we need a 600 USD Xbox?

The Series X is powerful enough.
This guy/gal/heli gets it.
 

Vae_Victis

Member
Mar 4, 2020
547
2,426
375
TFLOPs are the least of Xbox's issues, and adding more and more could not even help all that much, if there is a bottleneck somewhere else.

If the questions is "should have XSX costed $600 to actually be tangibly better than PS5 in multiplatform games?", I still think the answer is no. Having some games run at 4K vs dynamic 4K, or pushing ray-tracing or shadows a bit higher, won't be worth $100 more to most people, especially if PS5 still also has a massive advantage in exclusives portfolio, brand recognition and going forward possibly loading times in some multiplatforms.

A XSS that costs as much as a PS5 DE but performs flat-out worse (even if not as worse as the one we have now) would be 100% dead in the water. The only possible real appeal of XSS right now is "it costs $100 less than the cheapest PS5, it will be fine for kids or as a second console down the line".


The prices Microsoft went for are fine. The issue is that, from what we can see so far, they simply engineered their machine worse than PS5 in a couple of ways, and that is biting them in the ass.
 
Last edited:

geordiemp

Member
Sep 5, 2013
11,552
23,417
1,010
UK
Maybe it's the tools, maybe it isn't, but what's clear now is that we are not going to have a 1440p vs native 4k difference between the PS5 and XSX.

Series S is doing even worse. Slightly above 1080p at half the framereate in Valhalla, 900p in Watch Dogs Legion and can only do 120 fps at 576p in Dirt 5. Despite the more powerful CPU and a RDNA 2.0 GPU, clearly 4 tflops wasn't enough.

I think MS should've released an 8 tflops Series S GPU to compete with Sony, and an OP $600 console for the hardcore that can really do native 4k 60 fps. The 60 CU at 16 tflops RX6800 is that card. Only 8 more CUs than the XSX and only 250 mhz higher clocks. Costs with infinity cache would've been far higher, but they dont need the full 128mb of cache on consoles. You can easily get better cooling, and a bigger APU for an extra $100.

I know I would've picked up a 16 tflops gpu with even a smaller infinity cache in a heart beat. People are willing to pay almost $2,000 for consoles and GPUs, i think the $600 console would've really been attractive to the hardcore gamers.

What does gaf think? Too expensive? I am sure the Series X will go to sell millions. I dont see the console flopping in anyway, and it might even make a comeback like the 360 did back in the day. However, as something MS marketed as a power leader, I find it to be lacking whereas a more expensive console would've offered the kind of performance they were promising.
Microsoft delivered on their primary goal, a server class CPU and 4 shaders array APU with a split board that is designed to run 4 instances of xb1s games. They also put the design in a console.

Hence the fixed clocks, the CPU design with 2 halves either side of the die, and larger than standard shader arrays which will give bottlenecks (I can post on technicalities if anyone wants it).

If Microsot had added even more CU to the 4 shader arrays, great for mining, would of given even less back per CU in gaming work loads. This arrangement is one focused on other things.

If Microsoft were serious about the XSX ONLY, they would of had 6 shader arrays of 60 CU (56 active) with variable pervasive fine gated clocks, front and back end to match 6 shader arrays and 3 SE, CPU together on die and not a mile apart in silicon terms, and > 2 GHz.

Having the dual purpose die was a big compromise IMO, but MS goal is clear they want to rule the cloud and all devices and not focus on one box. You and I are not the main target here.
 
Last edited:
Oct 7, 2019
1,060
1,533
445
I don't think sales would've been significantly better, nor do I think the games would have looked significantly better due to diminishing returns.

The teraflop numbers aren't an issue.
 
Last edited:

geordiemp

Member
Sep 5, 2013
11,552
23,417
1,010
UK
Does it not have the most GPU and CPU power of the consoles? Is it not marketed as such? Is it not at $500? Everything I said is well known and isn't disputed by Sony themselves.

So no I don't think increasing the advantage Microsoft already has is going to be meaningful. That is what the OP suggested and I replied on topic.

Perhaps how you read it was biased with your own side you picked?
For mining purposes the XSX is indeed the most powerful. However, we are running game code not mining, so no it is not the most powerful so far as that is determined by game code benchmarks.

If you read my post above, I dont even think console performance is MS purpose, or MS would not design an APU like the XSX - I dont design chips, more front end semi myself, and yet its easy to see the compromises

Sony do not comment on MS marketing or boasts, Sony stopped that years ago. I think this is correct, show dont tell is better.

And yes its fine to debate and discuss as a mod, healthy debate and discussion is fun.
 
Last edited:

Soapy Wooder

Moderator
Staff Member
Aug 12, 2020
122
1,087
365
For mining purposes the XSX is indeed the most powerful. However, we are running game code not mining, so no it is not the most powerful so far as that is determined by game code benchmarks.

Sony do not comment on MS marketing or boasts, Sony stopped that years ago. I think this is correct, show dont tell is better.

And yes its fine to debate and discuss as a mod, healthy debate and discussion is fun.
They market it as the most powerful. My only point is increasing that power doesn’t do much for how the public sees it.

Currently Xbox weakness is seen in their first party studios, not their console (since One X) not Xbox Live or Game pass.

Changing hardware doesn’t fix or address the issues with the Xbox brand. People don’t hesitate in investing in Xbox because they are unsure of their console TFlops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geordiemp

geordiemp

Member
Sep 5, 2013
11,552
23,417
1,010
UK
They market it as the most powerful. My only point is increasing that power doesn’t do much for how the public sees it.

Currently Xbox weakness is seen in their first party studios, not their console (since One X) not Xbox Live or Game pass.

Changing hardware doesn’t fix or address the issues with the Xbox brand. People don’t hesitate in investing in Xbox because they are unsure of their console TFlops.
I am not so sure, I was a Ps gamer and switched to 360 as it played multiplats better, people do, and I switched back to Ps4 when I saw the Xb1 design. I am sure both Sony and MS Know this. And Sony themselves said they brought out the pro purely to keep enthusiasts from migrating to PC as original boxes were not cutting the mustard.

BUt I agree with Xbox first party, the only game I missed that I wanted to play last gen was Sunset overdrive. This gen hopefully MS can deliver. But Gamepass means small game budgets by default logic, and to get me to add XSX I want polished big experiences. Maybe we will get that...Jury is out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Soapy Wooder

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
328
431
330
@OP I don't think that was ever in the cards. The XSX APU is already pretty huge, how on earth were they going to realistically make that thing a 16TF monster and release in 2020? I think people seem to forget that discreet graphics cards are just that- self contained graphical units you plug into a motherboard. That isn't what the PS5 and XSX (or the consoles prior) are doing. They have everything integrated on one giant chip, and that causes certain limitations (and benefits) when it comes to design.


geordie or someone else with more knowledge can speak up to correct me, but I don't think this was ever a viable option for either machine.
 
Last edited:

Nvzman

Member
Dec 23, 2013
2,070
124
440
How? Build me a PC that can game as well as a Series S for $300. Oh wait you can't.

"only $100 more". A hundred bucks is a lot of money to some people.
You can say the exact same thing about the PS5 DE. For its specs the DE is far more impressive at $400 (a good 4K gaming console) than the Series S at $300 (a 1080p/1440p gaming console). Thats a pretty weak argument.

Considering how many people are willing to drop almost a grand on a new phone, i think you are overestimating the percieved value of saving $100, the reality is spending the extra $100 winds up saving you far more in the long run and I think most people are going to realize that. The Series S is going to borderline require the $230 drive expansion, at that point you may as well just buy a PS5 or Series X.
 

Mr Moose

Member
Sep 10, 2013
4,295
8,105
815
England
It's fine how it is (the Series X, not the Series S), priced well for the power/speed, good upgrade over last gen.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Member
May 31, 2020
2,508
4,867
445
TF don't matter as long as it's a decent upgrade there. An extra few TF are meaningless.

Price and games are what matter.
 

BootsLoader

Member
Nov 21, 2018
395
443
420
No I think a 399$ Series S would be a very very bad choice because a 399$ PS5 digital is doing better than a 499$ SERIES X. Something doesn’t makes sense.
 

SkylineRKR

Member
Jun 22, 2011
9,797
908
825
Holland
Series S is next-gen. Just not in resolution.

But boots faster than my PS5. Has the same lack of load times, has quick resume. Hell, I meddled with HDR settings on the OS while my game kept running in the background. PS5 cannot do that. It has everything the next-gen systems stand for, but just not 4k rendering (well I think Ori is native 4k though).

Thing is, PS5 DE costs only 100 bucks more. And it does have much more horsepower for that small price deficit. But, PS5 has no GP, no quick resume. The Series S got more mileage yesterday and today. I played some Yakuza and Gears 5 online. PS5 is going to be more of a money sink, I have to fork over 80 bucks for DeS. But I like both systems.

Openings post is a dumb idea. 399 8tf is same price as PS5 DE. Making the Xbox Series X 100 more expensive won't do it anything good against any Playstation SKU. It will struggle enough as is. The PS5 is in demand.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
43,689
14,717
1,770
Best Coast
You can say the exact same thing about the PS5 DE.
You can say the same thing about PS5 DE and I do say the same thing about the PS5 DE. All the consoles are a great value.

For its specs the DE is far more impressive at $400 (a good 4K gaming console) than the Series S at $300 (a 1080p/1440p gaming console).
That only matters to people who care about 4K. There are enough casuals out there who who don't.

Thats a pretty weak argument.
Irrelevant because that's not the argument I was making. I'm addressing the OP's argument, not the one you're making up in your head.

Considering how many people are willing to drop almost a grand on a new phone, i think you are overestimating the percieved value of saving $100
Considering how different those two pieced of hardware are and what they are used for, I think you are overestimating how relevant that comparison is.

the reality is spending the extra $100 winds up saving you far more in the long run and I think most people are going to realize that. The Series S is going to borderline require the $230 drive expansion, at that point you may as well just buy a PS5 or Series X.
The reality is that there are many people out there who will be more than happy with the specs of the S, and who can more easily afford it due to the lower cost of entry, and that your "long run" scenario doesn't apply to everyone.