• 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.

Opinion Clickbait Hardware On paper, the GPU in the Xbox Series X is faster than a GeForce RTX 2080 Super.

DoctaThompson

Banned
Jan 5, 2020
1,643
2,349
570
Big Caulk County
still, the inside of my pc can cause vomit or migrain even in normal people without a pc 😆
Lmfaaaaaaaaaaaaaaao not gonna lie, but my first pc, and my first car audio build was a spiders nest. So don't feel bad. As long as it gets the job done, who cares what it looks like. Functionality over form factor all day long!
 

GymWolf

Member
Jun 11, 2019
10,236
14,450
565
Lmfaaaaaaaaaaaaaaao not gonna lie, but my first pc, and my first car audio build was a spiders nest. So don't feel bad. As long as it gets the job done, who cares what it looks like. Functionality over form factor all day long!
i mean, the cables don't touch anything that can cause troubles but they are pretty free and i clean the inside like 1 time every 6m-1y...
i'm just an hardcore noob lazy pc gamer :lollipop_grinning_smiling_eyes:
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DoctaThompson

GymWolf

Member
Jun 11, 2019
10,236
14,450
565
That's all that matters. As long as your games play the way you intend to, there's nothing wrong with athletics.
i never give a fuck about aesthetics in console or pc, give me a dick shaped console with bi-coloured pink and purple balls and some glitter on it and a 3080ti under his ass at 600 dollars and i'm okay with that, maybe call it ps5 reeee version or some shit like that 😆
 
Last edited:

HolyTruth

Banned
Dec 20, 2016
245
414
310
i never give a fuck about aesthetics in console or pc, give me a dick shaped console with bi-coloured pink and purple balls and some glitter on it and a 3080ti under his ass at 600 dollars and i'm okay with that, maybe call it ps5 reeee version or some shit like that 😆
What I care about though is how loud the console/pc is. I can’t stand having a jet engine in my living room.
Sometimes my pro is so damn loud EVEN WITH HEADPHONES I hear the damn thing!
 

DoctaThompson

Banned
Jan 5, 2020
1,643
2,349
570
Big Caulk County
Imagine actually being this full of yourself.
Imagine having such a terrible reaction score compared to your posted messages. Obviously no one cares what you have to say, and reaction score only reiterates that even more. Imagine being terrible at riding a bike, or terrible at playing FPS. You hold the gold medals in these things. Imagine having a mid tier pc, but talking shit to someone who has much better hardware than you? You probably don't like the same backlash you gave me, do you?

That's exactly why I don't shit on other people. Think twice before you comment on things.
 

DoctaThompson

Banned
Jan 5, 2020
1,643
2,349
570
Big Caulk County
That moment you're too stupid to realise Gaf didn't even have reactions for more than 75% of my time here.
And your score barely went up since then....No difference. You can blame it on your shitty personality or Gaf, but the fact still remains. No one calls you out for sucking in games, in real life, etc. But when you call someone else out, they will definitely see all of your insecurities and deficiencies. And yet again, you still won't show your shit pc will you? You wanna call my pc out, but don't have the balls to show yours? Is that one cable gonna hurt my performance or self esteem? Are my "bitch" cables gonna affects my fps? My psu probably costs more than your pc, but would I call you out for that? Hell no, but since you did, it's fair game.
 

GymWolf

Member
Jun 11, 2019
10,236
14,450
565
What I care about though is how loud the console/pc is. I can’t stand having a jet engine in my living room.
Sometimes my pro is so damn loud EVEN WITH HEADPHONES I hear the damn thing!
i don't give a fuck about noise either.
if i play with my home surround the volume of the speakers greatly cover any fan noise and if i play with headphones i don't hear any external noise :goog_grinning_squinting:
but i don't have the console and pc in the living room so i can understand your situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HolyTruth

Ascend

Member
Jul 23, 2018
2,312
3,424
505
Key word - on paper. Because as much as RDNA is more efficient than GCN, it's still nowhere near as good as NV CUDA cores (that also evolve each generation).

AMD literally has to be one process node ahead in order to catch up with NV GPUs from one generation behind, their currently strongest GPU, 5700XT offers performance of a GTX1080, a 4yo 16nm card... AMD always had much bigger TF numbers (and synthetic benchmark scores), they already offered a 9TF+ GPU half a decade ago with Fury X, vs less than 6TF 980Ti, but we all know what the actual outcome was between the two. And then they had cards like Vega 64 and Radeon VII with 13-13.5TF, and again, with mixed actual real-life performance.

So again - on paper, yeah, they are catching up with a 2yo 12nm card, while NV is yet to show what they are capable of with 7nm, and the leaks already indicate a 6144SP card, so we're potentially looking at 21-22 (more efficient) TFlops.

With all that being said, I'm waaay more than confident about XBX performance looking at the specs, given the consoles optimized environment and just looking at what the devs already achieved on current-gen consoles with a mere ~1,5TF GPUs.

I just wish there was a console with Intel CPU and NV GPU on board, a man can dream...
Nice sentiment but it does not conform to reality. You are basing your information on who has the absolute fastest card and basically popular opinion. You use the 5700XT as a reference to compare it to a much older GTX 1080 to somehow justify that the 5700XT is years behind. All conjecture, and no basis. Not only that, the 5700XT is about 20% faster than a GTX 1080... And if we compare the TFLOPS, the 5700XT has 9.7 TFLOPS while the GTX 1080 has 8.9 TFLOPS, which is about 10% more TFLOPS, for 20% more performance. Woops.

And it's funny how you mention the Radeon VII, and completely forget to mention that the 5700XT is practically just as fast as the Radeon VII (only 1% slower on average), while literally having less than 73% of the TFLOPS of the Radeon VII.

AMD and nVidia TFLOPS were not comparable in the past, because nVidia's architecture was always more efficiently used than AMD's. That was a combination of both the hardware and developers more often than not optimizing for nVidia.

There is a way to show how close the TFLOPS really are, and nowadays, they are pretty much equal. How we know? A german website clocked a Navi and Turing GPU at the exact same clocks, same memory speeds, and them having the same amount of cores, which theoretically gives them the exact same amount of TFLOPS.
Guess what. RDNA came out 1% faster than Turing.
GCN was extremely old, and with Navi, AMD pretty much closed the gap in terms of architecture. RDNA2 will undoubtedly also have large improvements over RDNA1.

So don't go around saying that AMD is years behind. Do not underestimate RDNA. It is 39% faster than Polaris and 28% faster than Vega. And remember that AMD announced in one of their last keynotes, that they've achieved up to 59% performance improvement per CU in VEGA. You think that won't translate over to RDNA2...?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lukilladog

psorcerer

Member
May 1, 2012
2,122
3,169
930
Nice sentiment but it does not conform to reality. You are basing your information on who has the absolute fastest card and basically popular opinion. You use the 5700XT as a reference to compare it to a much older GTX 1080 to somehow justify that the 5700XT is years behind. All conjecture, and no basis. Not only that, the 5700XT is about 20% faster than a GTX 1080... And if we compare the TFLOPS, the 5700XT has 9.7 TFLOPS while the GTX 1080 has 8.9 TFLOPS, which is about 10% more TFLOPS, for 20% more performance. Woops.

And it's funny how you mention the Radeon VII, and completely forget to mention that the 5700XT is practically just as fast as the Radeon VII (only 1% slower on average), while literally having less than 73% of the TFLOPS of the Radeon VII.

AMD and nVidia TFLOPS were not comparable in the past, because nVidia's architecture was always more efficiently used than AMD's. That was a combination of both the hardware and developers more often than not optimizing for nVidia.

There is a way to show how close the TFLOPS really are, and nowadays, they are pretty much equal. How we know? A german website clocked a Navi and Turing GPU at the exact same clocks, same memory speeds, and them having the same amount of cores, which theoretically gives them the exact same amount of TFLOPS.
Guess what. RDNA came out 1% faster than Turing.
GCN was extremely old, and with Navi, AMD pretty much closed the gap in terms of architecture. RDNA2 will undoubtedly also have large improvements over RDNA1.

So don't go around saying that AMD is years behind. Do not underestimate RDNA.
AMD built their GPUs around heavy gpgpu-compute tasks. It resulted in bad CU occupation and overall worse performance for gaming.
Mainly because game developers were slow to adopt it. And wider CUs were heavily underutilized.
With RDNA they shrinked these 2x. Which it seems resulted in a much better utilization. For now. I still think more compute was a better long term strategy. But maybe it's too early.
 

Ascend

Member
Jul 23, 2018
2,312
3,424
505
NVIDIA Next Generation GPUs With Up To 7552 Cores Benchmarked – 40% Faster Than TITAN RTX

40% faster than titan rtx at only 1.1GHZ
theoreticaly can peak 30Teraflops at 2ghz
The larger the die size or amount of cores, the less likely it is to reach high clock speeds. Having almost 65% more cores while getting 'only' 40% more performance is something to be noted. If it's at 7nm, the die size itself might not be that much bigger, but the amount of cores is too high to have an equal distribution among them in terms of clock speed, so they need to keep the clocks down to allow for all cores to work properly. That is the main reason why AMD has mainly been focusing on small dies and lowering CUs for the same performance. They can't afford to throw out 'dormant' performance.

There is an optimal point somewhere, where the size/cores and the clock speeds balance each other perfectly. Most of the time, that is somewhere around the mid range area, and that's what consoles most likely use, also taking power consumption into account.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
8,895
7,202
895
this is why imo next generation consoles are so exciting! you have all this great technology getting into the hands of the typical masses of developers and gamers. honestly even once launched it won't be in the hands of the masses, that will take 1 or 2 years after next gen launch for that train to get really moving and of course you're looking at 3-5 years after next gen launch for this to become typical like PS4 is now, but it's still forward progress. so perhaps ~2023? it will be a somewhat negligible effect until then. it just takes time :messenger_loudly_crying:
Consoles, (and in this case we are talking about devices faster than 99% of gaming PC market) sell at a pace of about 40-50 million a year.
There will be a very strong base just in a year or so.

5700XT offers performance of a GTX1080
Amazing, somebody could post bullshit like this on a gaming enthusiast forum and not get smacked.

Try to read it slowly and you may need to read it twice: Navi beats Turing at perf/transistor.

Why do uninformed people think a game has to be made and tailored for a specific GPU?!
"Uninformed people in your sentence is hilariously ironic.
How, do you think, devs decide how complex the geometry could be and how detailed the textures?

What is the market share for the xbsx?
Are you on acid, or something?
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: magnumpy

DoctaThompson

Banned
Jan 5, 2020
1,643
2,349
570
Big Caulk County
Consoles, (and in this case we are talking about devices faster than 99% of gaming PC market) sell at a pace of about 40-50 million a year.
There will be a very strong base just in a year or so.



Amazing, somebody could post bullshit like this on a gaming enthusiast forum and not get smacked.

Try to read it slowly and you may need to read it twice: Navi beats Turing at perf/transistor.


"Uninformed people in your sentence is hilariously ironic.
How, do you think, devs decide how complex the geometry could be and how detailed the textures?


Are you on acid, or something?
Xsx isn't out, which should have been obvious to tell.... Devs make a game that can be played on various hardwarse, but it's not tailored to one specific gpu. That's not how it works...
 
Last edited:

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
8,895
7,202
895
Devs make a game that can be played on various hardwarse, but it's not tailored to one specific gpu. That's not how it works...
Devs make a game that can be played on a zoo of configuration, not giving a fuck about any single one of them.
That is how stuff works in PC world.

Big enough devs optimize games (most of all, geometry, textures) for consoles.
Blizzard even went as far as to optimize CPU side of things for 6 cores.
Platform exclusives target that one single configuration and wipe the floor with anything we see on even remotely comparable PC hardware, in a "how could that kind of graphic be achieved on that GPU!?!?!?" way.
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
4,659
2,714
915
Australia
www.neogaf.com
Devs make a game that can be played on a zoo of configuration, not giving a fuck about any single one of them.
That is how stuff works in PC world.

Big enough devs optimize games (most of all, geometry, textures) for consoles.
Blizzard even went as far as to optimize CPU side of things for 6 cores.
Platform exclusives target that one single configuration and wipe the floor with anything we see on even remotely comparable PC hardware, in a "how could that kind of graphic be achieved on that GPU!?!?!?" way.
You've got to be particularly special to not understand the efficiency benefits closed systems like consoles enjoy over PC coupled together with the far larger install base making them be the target hardware for developers to work towards. Never the less it's a good laugh reading the delusional rationales they try to convince themselves with.
 
  • Praise the Sun
  • Like
Reactions: magnumpy and llien

DoctaThompson

Banned
Jan 5, 2020
1,643
2,349
570
Big Caulk County
Some people in here aren't the brightest of the bunch apparently.... So let's say consoles get their cut down processor and gpu, all in a single package. That's called an APU. Still following along? This will already be dumbed down than compared to having separate cpu and gpu, with it's own dedicated cooling. Closed systems can only rely on lower clock speeds because of TDP and lower power limitations. Anyone with common sense should be seeing where this is going (especially as history repeats itself).

While having lower specs, the games will never perform better than the pc counterpart, except for when devs get lazy, and fuck up the game. With consoles finally catching up to mid spec'd pc's, what would make someone think consoles will suddenly beat every current consumer gpu, running a completely different architecture? It's disingenuous and laughable at best. Gamepass and PSNow will prove all the naysayers wrong.

Having to work with 2 configurations for xbsx and lockheart, and 2 for ps5, won't suddenly make console games look better. And judging by the 2 responses above me, much thought wasn't put in, at all. Because of multiple configurations of a closed system, wouldn't devs code for the baseline? As in the weaker of the two? Maybe add in a few extras for the higher end console and what not. But nothing will beat being able to adjust these things. So to use basic logic and history, this has been easily proven that pc's have better hardware configurations, before consoles release, during their release, and for the whole console life cycle. Then to the next gen.

Sure not every pc gamer will opt for the best of the best cpu/gpu, but that's the beauty of it. If i want the best gaming experience, I'm not going to buy that game on a console over the pc version. I'm gonna enjoy it at over 100fps, on a ultrawide monitor, everything maxed out. On the other hand, if all of your friends are on a certain console, then it only makes to get that instead.

Bonus round: anyone wanna try and disapprove this with DF or anyone elses footage, articles, screenshots, etc? Everyone can have their opinion, which is fine, but facts do not lie. Pc has better hardware than consoles. Prove the facts wrong.
 

The Janitor

Member
Jun 29, 2011
2,538
636
855
You've got to be particularly special to not understand the efficiency benefits closed systems like consoles enjoy over PC coupled together with the far larger install base making them be the target hardware for developers to work towards. Never the less it's a good laugh reading the delusional rationales they try to convince themselves with.
Those benefits are greatly exaggerated, these days even PC games run on low level APIs. Go ahead and take any recent multiplatform game and compare, there's no big difference between performance if you closely match the settings and hardware. Obviously developing a game as an exclusive let's developers focus on one machine which let's them squeeze more out of it, but it's the same for PC (if PC had studios buying exclusives)
 

DynamiteCop!

Member Series S
Mar 3, 2018
4,806
11,624
825
Some people in here aren't the brightest of the bunch apparently.... So let's say consoles get their cut down processor and gpu, all in a single package. That's called an APU. Still following along? This will already be dumbed down than compared to having separate cpu and gpu, with it's own dedicated cooling. Closed systems can only rely on lower clock speeds because of TDP and lower power limitations. Anyone with common sense should be seeing where this is going (especially as history repeats itself).

While having lower specs, the games will never perform better than the pc counterpart, except for when devs get lazy, and fuck up the game. With consoles finally catching up to mid spec'd pc's, what would make someone think consoles will suddenly beat every current consumer gpu, running a completely different architecture? It's disingenuous and laughable at best. Gamepass and PSNow will prove all the naysayers wrong.

Having to work with 2 configurations for xbsx and lockheart, and 2 for ps5, won't suddenly make console games look better. And judging by the 2 responses above me, much thought wasn't put in, at all. Because of multiple configurations of a closed system, wouldn't devs code for the baseline? As in the weaker of the two? Maybe add in a few extras for the higher end console and what not. But nothing will beat being able to adjust these things. So to use basic logic and history, this has been easily proven that pc's have better hardware configurations, before consoles release, during their release, and for the whole console life cycle. Then to the next gen.

Sure not every pc gamer will opt for the best of the best cpu/gpu, but that's the beauty of it. If i want the best gaming experience, I'm not going to buy that game on a console over the pc version. I'm gonna enjoy it at over 100fps, on a ultrawide monitor, everything maxed out. On the other hand, if all of your friends are on a certain console, then it only makes to get that instead.

Bonus round: anyone wanna try and disapprove this with DF or anyone elses footage, articles, screenshots, etc? Everyone can have their opinion, which is fine, but facts do not lie. Pc has better hardware than consoles. Prove the facts wrong.
There are few facts in this post, hardware is hardware and it's agnostic of the host platform. The GPU in the Xbox One X for example while configured differently than say the RX 580; it lines up almost perfectly with it in terms of capability scaling teraflops. The only real delineation between the Scopio Engine in the One X and an RX 580 PC build comes down to the CPU configuration.

You're not getting a dumbed down GPU by any means simply because it's in an APU, the only capability difference falls at the feet of the CPU and that's stringent on a poor before the generation design decision. They're not making that mistake going into the 9th generation, the system is going to be much more balanced, have a far more capable CPU and this 12 Teraflop GPU will perform the same as a 12 Teraflop GPU in a discrete PC build.

Those benefits are greatly exaggerated, these days even PC games run on low level APIs. Go ahead and take any recent multiplatform game and compare, there's no big difference between performance if you closely match the settings and hardware. Obviously developing a game as an exclusive let's developers focus on one machine which let's them squeeze more out of it, but it's the same for PC (if PC had studios buying exclusives)
This is halfway accurate, while it is exaggerated a lot in terms of broader capability from a closed system; over time they're able to eek more out of a console than PC hardware. A comparable system to the base Xbox One simply wouldn't run a lot of games coming out these days or would do so terribly and in an unplayable state. That right there is where the advantage of a console comes into effect.
 

DoctaThompson

Banned
Jan 5, 2020
1,643
2,349
570
Big Caulk County
Those benefits are greatly exaggerated, these days even PC games run on low level APIs. Go ahead and take any recent multiplatform game and compare, there's no big difference between performance if you closely match the settings and hardware. Obviously developing a game as an exclusive let's developers focus on one machine which let's them squeeze more out of it, but it's the same for PC (if PC had studios buying exclusives)
And to reiterate that some more, how many Xbox one X or ps4 pro games were exclusively built for it, and not just having a patch that let's you play with higher resolution than the regular Xbox one or ps4? Why wouldn't lockheart and series x be any different this time around either? Just to only have a higher resolution on 12TF is a disservice to those that spent the extra money over lockheart. It won't have exclusive games, cause that would be a disservice to people who didn't spend the extra money to get the series x.
 

DoctaThompson

Banned
Jan 5, 2020
1,643
2,349
570
Big Caulk County
There are few facts in this post, hardware is hardware and it's agnostic of the host platform. The GPU in the Xbox One X for example while configured differently than say the RX 580; it lines up almost perfectly with it in terms of capability scaling teraflops. The only real delineation between the Scopio Engine in the One X and an RX 580 PC build comes down to the CPU configuration.

You're not getting a dumbed down GPU by any means simply because it's in an APU, the only capability difference falls at the feet of the CPU and that's stringent on a poor before the generation design decision. They're not making that mistake going into the 9th generation, the system is going to be much more balanced, have a far more capable CPU and this 12 Teraflop GPU will perform the same as a 12 Teraflop GPU in a discrete PC build.

This is halfway accurate, while it is exaggerated a lot in terms of broader capability from a closed system; over time they're able to eek more out of a console than PC hardware. A comparable system to the base Xbox One simply wouldn't run a lot of games coming out these days or would do so terribly and in an unplayable state. That right there is where the advantage of a console comes into effect.
Compare any rx 580 to the apu in the Xbox 1X. Check out the difference in base clock speeds, and then what they can sustain because of proper cooling and being able to use more available power, as they aren't as limited by TDP. Or using the same settings on a pc with comparable hardware, and how it'll still perform better, just because of cooling, power, clock speed. It's like having a gpu that is clocked at 1.7ghz, but i can run it at 2.2ghz. I'll get a big boost to frames, which the console will stay at 1.7ghz with the same gpu. So that same gpu performs better on pc, than on a console.
 
Last edited:

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
8,895
7,202
895
Having to work with 2 configurations for xbsx and lockheart, and 2 for ps5, won't suddenly make console games look better.
Oh, hi there, how are ya?




For the rest, you still didn't get:
1) what optimizing assets (geometry, textures, sometimes even code) for consoles means
2) XSeX beating (literally) 99% of PC gamer GPUs
3) There is no way anyone with a PC could vastly overpower XSeX (PS5 likely won't be far away either way) any time soon
 

The Janitor

Member
Jun 29, 2011
2,538
636
855
This is halfway accurate, while it is exaggerated a lot in terms of broader capability from a closed system; over time they're able to eek more out of a console than PC hardware. A comparable system to the base Xbox One simply wouldn't run a lot of games coming out these days or would do so terribly and in an unplayable state. That right there is where the advantage of a console comes into effect.
Any examples of this? Games coming out on Xbox one these days make massive compromises, sub-30 fps at a very low resolution. The results would be similar if you ran it at the same settings on a similar PC.
Though there are games on consoles that use lower than low PC settings, so I guess in that sense it is in fact more "optimized".
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DoctaThompson

DynamiteCop!

Member Series S
Mar 3, 2018
4,806
11,624
825
And to reiterate that some more, how many Xbox one X or ps4 pro games were exclusively built for it, and not just having a patch that let's you play with higher resolution than the regular Xbox one or ps4? Why wouldn't lockheart and series x be any different this time around either? Just to only have a higher resolution on 12TF is a disservice to those that spent the extra money over lockheart. It won't have exclusive games, cause that would be a disservice to people who didn't spend the extra money to get the series x.
Because the systems would be identical bar the GPU compute and possibly the amount of memory meaning the only factor that would need to be accounted for would be resolution.

Hypothetically speaking anything the Series X could do at say Native 4K the Series S could do at 1440p. Games would be identical not because the top end system isn't being developed around or handicapped in some way, but rather because they would have the same graphical target merely scaling the resolution spectrum. Nothing more could be done with the Series X, both systems would be getting tapped out graphically at their respective resolution targets.

Compare any rx 580 to the apu in the Xbox 1X. Check out the difference in base clock speeds, and then what they can sustain because of proper cooling and being able to use more again power, as they aren't as limited by TDP. Or using the same settings on a pc with comparable hardware, and how it'll still perform better, just because of cooling, power, clock speed. It's like having a gpu that is clocked at 1.7ghz, but i can run it at 2.2ghz. I'll get a big boost to frames, which the console will stay at 1.7ghz with the same gpu. So that same gpu performs better on pc, than on a console.
You can't compare them that way because the GPU's are intrinsically different while targeting roughly the same teraflops.

One is 40 CU at 1,172 Mhz while the other is 36 CU at 1,340 Mhz. One has a a 384-bit memory bus while the other has a 256-bit memory bus. One has 160 TMU's while the other has 144. One has 2,560 shader cores while the other has 2,304.

The end results is basically the same performative GPU but reaching that performance ceiling in a different manner. It doesn't matter how you get there, the results are nigh identical.
 
Last edited:

DoctaThompson

Banned
Jan 5, 2020
1,643
2,349
570
Big Caulk County
Oh, hi there, how are ya?




For the rest, you still didn't get:
1) what optimizing assets (geometry, textures, sometimes even code) for consoles means
2) XSeX beating (literally) 99% of PC gamer GPUs
3) There is no way anyone with a PC could vastly overpower XSeX (PS5 likely won't be far away either way) any time soon
Oh, hi there, how are ya?




1) Consoles NEED every bit of optimization possible. Many games can't even hold or maintain a measly, 30fps. Do you think games aren't optimized for pc configurations or something? I don't get the point here, as games are going to be optimized on ALL platforms, just some more than others.

2) Lol!?!? Proof of that?! I would love some factual data to back this up. Let's even go with your false narrative. Let's say it's 99% of the population that have a $500 console. Why can't a pc owner upgrade to a $200 gpu and beat the one X? The same way someone with an Xbox one, can upgrade to one X, or series x? Most pc gamers literally upgrade when the new consoles release. It's the common upgrade cycle for non enthusiast pc gamers. Plus I only care about what I'm running. I get the best of the best, cause that's my choice. Bob on the other hand can be happy with his $500 pc, and we can both be happy cause neither will be behind a Paywall on what games we can or can't play with one another.

3) my pc already shits on next gen, and it's been that way for a few year now, without making any upgrades. Lololol what were you thinking by writing that?!
 
Last edited:

DynamiteCop!

Member Series S
Mar 3, 2018
4,806
11,624
825
Any examples of this? Games coming out on Xbox one these days make massive compromises, sub-30 fps at a very low resolution. The results would be similar if you ran it at the same settings on a similar PC.
Though there are games on consoles that use lower than low PC settings, so I guess in that sense it is in fact more "optimized".
Basically any game, it would be like taking a system with an old HD 7770 OC and an FX-8350 downclocked to less than 1.6 Ghz (slightly better IPC) and expecting some kind of playable experience.

You wouldn't get it, it would essentially be unplayable.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
8,895
7,202
895
Oh, hi there, how are ya?
Didn't mean to offend you, kid. Don't cry.

Consoles NEED every bit of optimization possible.
Consoles like Switch certainly.
I also wonder how that helps your argument, chuckle.

We have 30fps, because people prefer nicer graphics at 30fps, to this kind of graphics:


at 1000fps.


Do you think games aren't optimized for pc configurations or something?
I literally said that, explaining why: because there is a zoo of PC configs, there is no point in singling out any concrete configuration and making serious effort to optimize for it. Consoles, on the other hand...

2) Lol!?!? Proof of that?!
Have you checked how big is the gap between 5700XT and 2080, darling?

Why can't a pc owner upgrade to a $200 gpu and beat the one X?
Upgrade to which $200 GPU?
Are you on acid or something? Oh wait, I've already ask. Not that you'd admit it, anyhow.

3) my pc already shits on next gen
At most you can have an overpriced-whyonearthwasteyourmoney $1300 card, that, wait for it, is maybe 10% ahead of Microsoft has announced.

And I've miss
 
  • LOL
Reactions: DoctaThompson

DoctaThompson

Banned
Jan 5, 2020
1,643
2,349
570
Big Caulk County
Didn't mean to offend you, kid. Don't cry.


Consoles like Switch certainly.
I also wonder how that helps your argument, chuckle.


We have 30fps, because people prefer nicer graphics at 30fps, to this kind of graphics:


at 1000fps.



I literally said that, explaining why: because there is a zoo of PC configs, there is no point in singling out any concrete configuration and making serious effort to optimize for it. Consoles, on the other hand...


Have you checked how big is the gap between 5700XT and 2080, darling?


Upgrade to which $200 GPU?
Are you on acid or something? Oh wait, I've already ask. Not that you'd admit it, anyhow.


At most you can have an overpriced-whyonearthwasteyourmoney $1300 card, that, wait for it, is maybe 10% ahead of Microsoft has announced.

And I've miss
Sorry kid, you are the offended one, not me, hence you attaching a photo.

And sorry darling, there are several cards beating both the 5700 xt and 2080, so what's your point? Still waiting on PROOF, factual data, statistics, benchmarks, etc... Don't try and run to Mommy now.

There are several $150 gpu's that beat out the xb1x, so why wouldn't $200 gpu's shit on it as well? Do you not understand basic logic? Or know how to do a simple Google search? Or are your taking several tabs of acid and hopping on NeoGAF?

10% more performance over a 16-17TF card?! Are you SMOKING acid?! Your supposed to take that on the tongue, not smoke it. Or is it crack? Meth? You are seriously delusional, to the point it's quite hilarious!
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
8,895
7,202
895
Sorry kid, you are the offended one,
Ah, good to know, I was close to not realizing it.

there are several cards beating both the 5700 xt and 2080
XSeX is likely faster than 2080sup. There is only one card faster than 2080sup in consumer market, I thought.

There are several $150 gpu's that beat out the xb1x
And even more beating Switch. Heck, I doubt you could even buy a GPU that does NOT beat it.

so why wouldn't $200 gpu's shit on it as well?
Well, first, is WHEN.
And then there is butthurt Microsoft that wants revenge after current gen fiasco, when, among other things, it had much weaker console.
This brings us to consoles using chips faster than modern xx80 GPU.
Now, 1080 was released in 2016. There still isn't a $200 card that is faster than that.



10% more performance over a 16-17TF card?
Why compare TFs, when actual game perf figures are known.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Romulus

DoctaThompson

Banned
Jan 5, 2020
1,643
2,349
570
Big Caulk County
Ah, good to know, I was close to not realizing it.


XSeX is likely faster than 2080sup. There is only one card faster than 2080sup in consumer market, I thought.


And even more beating Switch. Heck, I doubt you could even buy a GPU that does NOT beat it.


Well, first, is WHEN.
And then there is butthurt Microsoft that wants revenge after current gen fiasco, when, among other things, it had much weaker console.
This brings us to consoles using chips faster than modern xx80 GPU.
Now, 1080 was released in 2016. There still isn't a $200 card that is faster than that.




Why compare TFs, when actual game perf figures are known.

Lmfaaaaaaaaaaaaaaao are you implying the 1x is on par with a gtx 1080?! It's not even on 1070's level of performance. This is fucking hilarious!

Did you know the rx 580 can be bought, brand new for under $160? Which is superior to the xb1x. Jesus, it's not hard to do a basic search. Maybe look up gaming benchmarks? There are several cards faster than the 5700 xt. Even Nvidia said their laptops with a standard 2080 (not super) will beat next gen. They would know more about console hardware than we know, compared to the vague numbers MS gave. And if you had a clue about gaming laptops, the 2080 would perform more like a 2070 because of tdp, etc. So a 2070 will beat xbsx.
 
Last edited:

DoctaThompson

Banned
Jan 5, 2020
1,643
2,349
570
Big Caulk County
I also mentioned XSeX beating 2080.
Mental capacity issues?
But you mentioned the 1080 in response to me saying you can beat xb1x with a 150 or 200 dollar card. Why mention the 1080 specifically to that quote? Mental capacity on minimum today? Or everyday? Go back and read again and again, till something clicks up there. Otherwise, you are just shifting goalposts as per usual. I'm not trying to be rude, but you keep on with immature statements, so I just throw them back your way. We can continue like adults, or we can stay on your childish level.
 
Last edited:

DoctaThompson

Banned
Jan 5, 2020
1,643
2,349
570
Big Caulk County
4 years old 1080 card is still unbeaten at $200 mark.
SSeX is faster than 2080.
WHEN do you expect to buy $200 card faster than 2080?
No one mentioned the 1080, but someone who is continuing to pull at strings and thin air. Rtx 2080 (non super) will beat the xbsx in framerate, raytracing, bandwidth. Possibly even the rtx 2070.

Pretty sure buying a gpu cheaper than a rumored $600 console, and beating it in all games, will be a great upgrade for many gamers this year. Not to mention 3xxx series. Sucks to be behind before it's even released. Especially 2 years prior. But what can you expect when history repeats itself? There's a reason consoles are cheaper, go figure out why.
 
Last edited:

Herr Edgy

Member
Jul 25, 2019
348
508
460
Thread's sad.

Things are quite simple.
PC outdoes console in high end, always. Games aren't particularly made for high end PC gaming though, the lowest common denominator is the baseline multiplat games are generally going for.

PC games will profit from multiplatforms going to next gen consoles, because the lowest common denominator is going to be a lot better than before. More complex material interactions will be possible, more volumetric effects etc.
Generally more expensive graphics techniques will become more feasible, because they can be implemented for all platforms, so it becomes more likely that PC versions get more out of it compared to current gen.
High end PCs will also run 99% of games that are multiplat better than their console counterparts (the 1% are botched ports). For every game that a high end PC can do at Ultra settings with 60 fps, the console will do the game at 30 fps at medium settings. Price-value will be better with consoles.

Why is this an argument?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HolyTruth

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
4,659
2,714
915
Australia
www.neogaf.com
Imagine being terrible at riding a bike, or terrible at playing FPS
I don't even know how you came to these conclusions but they're particularly entertaining given that I would shit on you from a great height at both of those tasks.

So let's say consoles get their cut down processor and gpu, all in a single package. That's called an APU. Still following along?
Can't even get through your first paragraph without you being hilariously wrong.
So a 2070 will beat xbsx.
Good to know that there is someone on this planet that thinks 8tflops > 12 tflops.
10% more performance over a 16-17TF card?!
A 2080ti is not a 16-17 tflop card :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy:

The XSX is already better than a 2080 Super

The X1X is not a down clocked rx580 and is hardly inferior
 

DoctaThompson

Banned
Jan 5, 2020
1,643
2,349
570
Big Caulk County
I don't even know how you came to these conclusions but they're particularly entertaining given that I would shit on you from a great height at both of those tasks.


Can't even get through your first paragraph without you being hilariously wrong.

Good to know that there is someone on this planet that thinks 8tflops > 12 tflops.


A 2080ti is not a 16-17 tflop card :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy:

The XSX is already better than a 2080 Super

The X1X is not a down clocked rx580 and is hardly inferior
You have no clue about me, but have hilariously embarrassed yourself in regards to those things LOL.

You are definitely clueless if you think TF matter. Look at DF video about the 4TF card, and come back with some actually knowledge.

Do you know that you can accomplish much higher theoretical TF's from boost clocks? Or are you just as clueless in that area as well....? Im pushing almost a full 1GHZ boost clock over its stock clocks. SMH. Although TF don't matter on PC. Or do you have a very old gpu and and even older mindset on how these things work?

You have been hilariously wrong every time so far. This time hasn't been any different.

Did you just say the rx 580 isn't one of the CLOSEST resemblance to AMD's gpu in the X1X?!?! LMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO!!!
 
Last edited: