No, no, no. That developer is wrong. I'm the real expert here, the XBEASTX is on par with SLI'd 1080Ti's because it's 2007 and all PC games are poorly optimised, and only consoles can fully take advantage of the hardware inside them.
I'll just leave this here by the way.
Developers arnt sure for themselves, one developer suggest GTX 1060 performance level, another developer GTX 1070, and war thunder developer even suggested GTX 1080 (and indeed there are games that suggest performance like that, for example wolfenstein 2). Because one developer have compared xbox X GPU to 1060, you will now ingore all the other developers who suggest otherwise? The thing is, because developers arnt sure for themselves, all we can do at this point is to look at multiplatform games (and only GPU bound games, not CPU bottlenecked) and see what it takes to match xbox x settings in games. Games like rise of the tomb radier, wolfenstein 2, gears of war 4, forza horizon 3, forza 7, dishonored 2, ethan carter xbox X shows much better performance than RX 580 and GTX 1060 can provide on PC.
As MaDz gameplay video clearly shows, Forza 7 dips below 60fps even at 4K and high settings (I'm sure at this point xbox X settings are even higher, so that argument suggesting that xbox X games are always compared to higher settings on PC is useless at this point). GTX 1060 would need additional 20 fps to provide locked 60fps experience in this game (and I think minimal fps on xbox X is even higher than 60fps, otherwise we would see dips below 60fps rarely). GTX 1070 can indeed match xbox X results in that game, but the thing is, there are also games like wolfenstein 2, where even GTX 1070 have troubles
Even with turned down details, even with lowered resolution scale (so again, PC verison is not maxed out and can be compared to xbox X settings), GTX 1070 have troubles matching xbox X experience in that game.
it is basically still the same chipset,
The same chip? Compared to RX 480 xbox GPU is even build differently
https://gamingbolt.com/behind-the-xbox-one-xs-architecture-part-i-what-makes-the-gpu-special
We get different amount of shaders, transistors, so how on earth it's the same chip to you? Xbox X has DX12 build into a hardware (DX12 on PC is just software level patch compared to what xbox X is doing), vega features like delta color compression (it speed performance in higher resolution), and other customisations (like much more efficient shader compiler). No polaris AMD GPU on PC is customised like that
. These are all very significant changes, because MS engingeers designed their console with bottlenecks reduction in mind, they basically have looked at AMD GPU at first and have concluded what's slowing down AMD GPU in games the most, and then they have instructed AMD to rebuild that GPU with changes that they wanted to fix these bottlenecks and speed up performance. Of course experts here suggest, these customisations are not important, becase opinion like that support their wrong belives in regards to xbox X Xbox X GPU architecture. But because PS4P is also using AMD GPU, so we can tell for a fact, xbox X architecture is indeed much more efficient, because 40% tflops difference translated into up to 2.2x resolution boost across many games. Hitman on xbox X runs at 1440p 60fps on xbox X, PS4P GPU cant provide results like that.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-project-scorpio-tech-revealed
"The bottom line is that Scorpio's six teraflops will almost certainly go a lot further than an equivalent PC part. I asked Microsoft about this specifically, and they raise a number of good arguments that make the case strongly. Firstly, that their shader compiler is far more efficient than PC equivalents (think of shaders as native GPU code). Secondly, addressing the hardware directly via their API and with access to console-specific GPU extensions again adds to the advantage of a fixed platform box. And finally, they point to their optimisation software - PIX (Performance Investigator for Xbox) - as a tool that provides the path to console-specific optimisations that PC simply cannot get."
This is what DF have said. So the bottom line is, xbox X six teraflops is more efficient compared to AMD cards on PC market. On PC market 6 tflops polaris architecture is not enough to match 6 tflops on Nv cards, and that's why MS wanted custom that chip exactly the way they wanted.
RX 580 on steroids (xbox X GPU) is faster than RX 580 or GTX 1060, and that should be not surprising. In fact it would be very strange if more cappable GPU would be slower, yet people here cant understand it
. Because no one can show GTX 1060 benchmarks that would prove xbox X is slower in GPU bound games, so people in desperation are posting useless charts with estimations that doesnt take into account unique features that xbox X GPU has compared to standard polaris GPU. TECHPOWERUP have taken into accound architecture differences, but how? They have never benchmarked even one xbox X game, so they dont have any possible way to make their conclusions in regards to xbox X architecture, they are basically guessing how fast xbox X architecture is. In order to conclude how efficient xbox X architecture is, game test's are required. What's next, we will be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails to conclude how fast xbox X GPU really is ? Personally I dont care how fast xbox X really is, because both RX 580 and GTX 1060 are very weak cards compared to what I have on my PC, but even xbox hater like me (and when most users on that site tell I'm xbox hater, than I'm guessing I must be) can look at results, and because GTX 1060 need 20 fps more to provide xbox X experience in forza 7, than I'm very convinced xbox X GPU is indeed more capable. At this point even some GTX 1060 users like MaDz have admitted they cant match xbox X results in games, yet people here want to convinve me, that GTX 1060 or RX 580 is enough to match xbox X results while it clearly cant!
