SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
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.
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.