Except you are using it to try to avoid what I am saying. The XBO X isn't a completely different beast compared to the XBO. It is a similar scenario of going from the Series X to the Lockhart. The same CPU, but a weaker GPU. That's why topdown can be done on them. You can't do the same thing with a completely different CPU that is weak as hell and a GPU that is 88% weaker.
Of course you can, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here and I don't mean you specifically but in general with the amount of times in which things need to be repeated.
Early generation games rarely encompass meaningful mechanical differences to their predecessors and most of it comes down to flash and glam. Take Ryse and Killzone for example, both beautiful games which as they stand could not be rendered on either previous console without being heavily stripped. However, mechanically speaking nothing of note in relation to the function of those games and how they play could not be done on the 360 and PS3 devoid of graphics.
I mean you say the One X isn't a completely different beast compared to the One, well neither is the Series X, it's all iterative architectural improvement stemming from the same line of long running development. These consoles coming from Microsoft and Sony are going to be more like their predecessors than any generational hardware change we've ever seen because they are simply an evolution stemming from the same architectural format.
Also you seem to forget that CPU load can be dramatically scaled back by limiting physics simulation, halving the FPS, reducing geometry complexity, limiting on screen AI and a number of other aspects of a game which press the CPU.
This isn't some revelation, you guys all know this, this isn't a trade secret so why act dumbfounded, surprised and in total denial when someone brings it up?
You're not getting a super-computer with an alien architecture in the Series X and PlayStation 5, you're getting an iterative extrapolation on what we already have.