• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

So next gen 3rd party games are gonna target a 4TF 1440p baseline and we're ok with this because $299?

Journey

Banned
Aug 18, 2014
2,928
2,678
620
The S has been known for months. The only new thing happening is Xbox fans drawing silver linings.

Personally? 299$ and Gamepass? And it won’t be long till it’s at 249 during shopping seasons either(or with a game, extra controller). I’m bitting for sure.

Not fool enough to believe in pie in the skies (1440p lol). I even have a 40’ 1080p TV just for it, so the games will look great on it.


It may have been known for months, but no one knew it would bring the 2 components that everyone was concerned about holding the generation back. You see the argument was that Physics calculations and other CPU tasks would mean the need to redesign game engines entirely, how no developer would create a separate game for Series X, but instead settle for what the CPU in S could handle. Not having an SSD would also mean not being able to create games around the massive improvement in I/O that an SSD brings.

The big WHAT IF, was about what if MS matches the CPU power in PS5/XSX and adds an SSD, that was considered the magic fix, but it was doubted because of the cost, after all, Series S was supposed to be the budget machine, but they did good, Series S can do everything Series X can, albeit at a lower resolution. I'm definitely biting too, I'm getting a Series X for myself and a Series S for my kid. Gamepass value is just too great to ignore.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bladed Thesis

Represent.

Member
Jun 22, 2010
3,478
4,252
1,120
This OP is legit embarrassing lol.

Been great for adding more salty fanboys that are having meltdowns to the Ignore list though so that’s a plus.

REMEDY Technical Producer seems to agree with me, and logic.



But keep drinking that Kool-aid and pretend this wont hold games back all gen, ESPECIALLY late gen games. :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:

MiguelItUp

Member
Feb 24, 2015
7,310
6,588
800
I guess some may feel that way, but personally I feel it's overdramatic. The only thing that changes is the resolution, really. I'm looking at it as more of a pro as they're providing more options for consumers. Getting a 4K console but not having a 4K display, or not caring about it, honestly feels like such a waste. Especially when people don't feel comfortable shelling out that kind of money for something they won't even use to its maximum potential. At least now those people have another option.

I really don't think it's holding anything back. Some people may argue 4K is the "true next-gen experience" but I disagree. Does it get more out of it? Oh, of course! But 2K doesn't mean you're being held back or living in the past. At least in my opinion.

REMEDY Technical Producer seems to agree with me, and logic.
.....Okay.
 
Last edited:

Xyphie

Member
Oct 4, 2007
2,901
586
1,275
Somewhere
It seems pretty obvious to me that Microsoft will basically have a rolling refresh cycle with a high-end and low-end console going forward. Every few years we'll get new faster hardware in each tier as node improvements allow.

XSX/XSS: 7nm TSMC - Zen2 + RDNA2
XSX2/XSS2: 5nm TSMC - Zen4 + RDNA3(?)
XSX3/XSS3: 3nm TSMC - Zen5(?) + RDNA4(?)

etc.

Of course, this means some hardware will be left behind at some point.
 
Jun 1, 2016
2,439
3,095
785
So you have lived under a rock these past 2 years then when aaaall the next gen stuff announced for the next gen consoles has already been on pc and showed exactly what the performance toll for that is....
There's literally hundreds and hundreds of benchmarks but I guess anything without a MS sigil isn't "proof" for you..... :messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:

We have tons of empirical data where you can exactly see just how insufficient 4tf are (even at 1080p) the moment you activate the next gen features...
Heck even Nvidias Ampere will reach its limits fast with everything turned up which is why there is DLSS....
There is zero data that shows that if you aim for any res at 12tf and cut it by 1/3 for 4tf that the game will run worse. Who cares if its low res on the budget box. You get what you pay for. Your concern is not valid. Also I currently own nothing Microsoft. Hell my windows is not legit. All the concern in this thread is to stir up the dumb people and it's done a very good job of that.
 

Represent.

Member
Jun 22, 2010
3,478
4,252
1,120
I guess some may feel that way, but personally I feel it's overdramatic. The only thing that changes is the resolution, really. I'm looking at it as more of a pro as they're providing more options for consumers. Getting a 4K console but not having a 4K display, or not caring about it, honestly feels like such a waste. Especially when people don't feel comfortable shelling out that kind of money for something they won't even use to its maximum potential. At least now those people have another option.

I really don't think it's holding anything back. Some people may argue 4K is the "true next-gen experience" but I disagree. Does it get more out of it? Oh, of course! But 2K doesn't mean you're being held back or living in the past. At least in my opinion.


.....Okay.
Okay? He's more qualified than you and I and its simple logic. Series X will just be a res booster. Its not being fully utilized....

And for the millionth time.

Resolution being the only thing that changes is EXACTLY the point Im making. They are not taking advantage of the Series X power. What is so difficult to understand about this lol
 

MiguelItUp

Member
Feb 24, 2015
7,310
6,588
800
Okay? He's more qualified than you and I and its simple logic. Series X will just be a res booster. Its not being fully utilized....

And for the millionth time.

Resolution being the only thing that changes is EXACTLY the point Im making. They are not taking advantage of the Series X power. What is so difficult to understand about this lol


....Right.

Well, you're right, it's not difficult to understand, clearly. It's just that some people don't/may not agree with you, or think it's not that big of a deal. That doesn't mean it's "difficult to understand", it means you have an opinion that other people may not agree with. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:

HeadsUp7Up

Member
Apr 4, 2013
523
456
660
Dallas, TX
As if cross gen focus wasn't bad enough (look what it did to Halo), now we have the "next gen" baseline being 1440p and 4TF. Devs will cater to the lowest common denominator.

Make no mistake about it, games will be held back all gen thanks to Series S.

This just seems like the worst idea in gaming history, NO CAP.

edit: and not just 3rd party. All of MS 1st studio will have this console as the one they build around because it will sell better and games have to run on it. Trash.

To answer the thread title Yes. The more I think about it the less I care about cutting edge. I just want stuff to work, be affordable, and look “good enough”.
 
Jun 1, 2016
2,439
3,095
785
Okay? He's more qualified than you and I and its simple logic. Series X will just be a res booster. Its not being fully utilized....

And for the millionth time.

Resolution being the only thing that changes is EXACTLY the point Im making. They are not taking advantage of the Series X power. What is so difficult to understand about this lol
Take full advantage of the series x, cut the res to 1/3 and it will run just as well on the s. What's so difficult to understand?
 

AgentP

Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
Jun 5, 2011
8,187
3,199
1,145
Take full advantage of the series x, cut the res to 1/3 and it will run just as well on the s. What's so difficult to understand?

That's not how it works. Changing the "res" only changes the frame buffer size. The rest of the rendering pipeline and all game code (and assets) are the same.
 
Apr 29, 2020
224
612
390
So developers cant make game's with stuninng graphics in 1444p on xbox series X because that would mean sub 1080p on series S? Im afraid that xbox is bound to native 4k this gen with just pretty good looking games on series x scaled down to 1444p on series S while sony will be making incredible looking exclusives
 
  • Like
Reactions: gmoran

McCheese

Member
Jan 7, 2018
2,711
6,626
645
Valve's Digital Distribution Platform
Oof, reading the announced actual specs today - and they nerfed the RAM speed on the S hard; that's going to hinder it quite a lot beyond just lower-resolution versions of the same games. Load times for a start are going to be impacted quite heavily due to the decompression using that shared RAM pool.

It really is just a low-end PC / current-gen machine in "next-gen console" clothing. Digital Foundry will tear this thing to fucking shreds in the next-gen comparisons, and I can see folks being very disappointed by the marginal improvements over current gen when it comes to the actual games. Heck, folks who purchased the One X will probably think they turned the wrong console on.
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2016
2,439
3,095
785
That's not how it works. Changing the "res" only changes the frame buffer size. The rest of the rendering pipeline and all game code (and assets) are the same.
You are just being argumentative. Render and texture resolution to 1/3 would be all that's required for most games.
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
26,247
39,394
1,845
The ram speed on the Series S makes things worse than I originally thought it would be. Literally just said this in another thread:

Not all workloads scale with resolution, it's a simple fact. The slower (and less) ram has the potential to hold the system back in ways that can't be resolved by simply dropping the resolution to 1080p.

Interesting times ahead, we are in uncharted territory where people are celebrating the potential of stagnation. Never thought I'd see the day but here we are.

Best case scenario is that devs treat it like they have the OG Xbox One for the latter part of this generation - it's an afterthought and it gets shit ports.


The only reason some people are happy with the system is because they think it will have the potential to help Xbox "win" a generation. It's even more nonsensical when you consider these are the people who are most likely to buy the Series X and not the S.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gmoran
Oct 26, 2018
21,000
29,034
820
The ram speed on the Series S makes things worse than I originally thought it would be. Literally just said this in another thread:

Not all workloads scale with resolution, it's a simple fact. The slower (and less) ram has the potential to hold the system back in ways that can't be resolved by simply dropping the resolution to 1080p.

Interesting times ahead, we are in uncharted territory where people are celebrating the potential of stagnation. Never thought I'd see the day but here we are.

Best case scenario is that devs treat it like they have the OG Xbox One for the latter part of this generation - it's an afterthought and it gets shit ports.


The only reason some people are happy with the system is because they think it will have the potential to help Xbox "win" a generation. It's even more nonsensical when you consider these are the people who are most likely to buy the Series X and not the S.
A million ancient PC configs doesn't stagnate top rig PC gaming.

And Xbox One OG didn't make Xbox One X games bad. X games looked better, had better res, sometimes double the frames and even had enough power to enhance old 360 games.

Same thing happened to Pro vs PS4 OG. Every game on Pro looked and ran better too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bladed Thesis

Silent Viper

Member
Mar 15, 2018
2,728
4,018
720
We should all be concerned. This will hold games back the entire fucking gen.

Mr Arm chair game designer how conveniently you forgot that Series S uses same architecture and components as X. Only resolution will scale but cpu and ss bound stuff will not be affected.

Its like saying 3070 will hold back 3080.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sir Vilhelm

Silent Viper

Member
Mar 15, 2018
2,728
4,018
720
The ram speed on the Series S makes things worse than I originally thought it would be. Literally just said this in another thread:

Not all workloads scale with resolution, it's a simple fact. The slower (and less) ram has the potential to hold the system back in ways that can't be resolved by simply dropping the resolution to 1080p.

Interesting times ahead, we are in uncharted territory where people are celebrating the potential of stagnation. Never thought I'd see the day but here we are.

Best case scenario is that devs treat it like they have the OG Xbox One for the latter part of this generation - it's an afterthought and it gets shit ports.


The only reason some people are happy with the system is because they think it will have the potential to help Xbox "win" a generation. It's even more nonsensical when you consider these are the people who are most likely to buy the Series X and not the S.

So Nvidia should not release GTX 3060 next year as it will hold back 3080?
 

kingpotato

Ask me about my Stream Deck
Aug 16, 2013
1,913
3,715
950
Phoenix AZ
Still a big improvement over 1080 imo. I'm fine with it.

 

Avantasia

Neo Member
Aug 29, 2020
18
26
130
This Will be interesting. Dont't forget that we have the switch as a competitor. Where I live a lot of parents buy that for the kids. So will XSS find a place there too? Yeah maybe!

Grown up console-gamers will buy XsX or ps5 for themself.
 

BlackM1st

Member
Apr 26, 2019
2,779
2,664
455
Thinking of buying an S as a living room machine now to complement my main PC rig.

It's running games in 1440p, which should allow it to hit decent fps with decent settings still. Itll be a neat NHL/GamePass machine for me. Maybe get some local Halo multiplayer and Tekken sessions in it too

You guys are just nerds and cant stop thinking with that enthusiast mindframe

I have a perfect console for you.


TV anyone?
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
26,247
39,394
1,845
A million ancient PC configs doesn't stagnate top rig PC gaming.

And Xbox One OG didn't make Xbox One X games bad. X games looked better, had better res, sometimes double the frames and even had enough power to enhance old 360 games.

Same thing happened to Pro vs PS4 OG. Every game on Pro looked and ran better too.

So Nvidia should not release GTX 3060 next year as it will hold back 3080?

Regarding PC this is what I have to say on the matter (I'd rather not repeat myself again):

It's the PC baseline I'm talking about.

If the mass market can get away with having 4TF GPUs for too long then that means the prices of the higher powered parts wont come down as quickly due to the lack of demand for advancement and innovation. That's why we typically see the graphics cards that coincide with the final couple of years of a console generation being a piss take, both in terms of prices and in terms of performance increases (see the RTX 2XXX series). The demand for mid and higher end parts dries up as no AAA console ports are pushing the boundaries anymore, they are designed around hardware that PC gamers already had years ago. Going from 90fps to 105 fps makes no difference for most people and is not a reason to upgrade.

If the baseline is 10tf (which will be around where the 3060 will sit) then it means the 3060 will be a card in high demand. That will be recognised and then for the 4XXX series of cards Nvidia will have a huge incentive to create a low end 4050 that is 10tf and very affordable. The pricing and performance level has a direct impact on the rest of the 4XXX series lineup. The 4060 needs to be significantly better than 10TF, so on and so on. Everyone wins.

If 4TF is the baseline it will lead to both Nvidia and AMD taking the piss as the generation goes on. They already have cards that hit that performance benchmark at reasonable prices, they will simply keep on recycling those cards and the mid/high end of the market will suffer for pretty much a whole generation.

If you watch the Nvidia event from today, they make several references that make it clear they are putting these cards up against next gen consoles. IMO that is where the motivation for pricing the 3070 has come from at the moment. They want to make it clear you can have better than next gen console performance for under $500.

This is about where the baseline is for the next 5-7 years. To put it simply I'd much rather the baseline is much higher than 4tf.

At least mechanical hard drives will finally be phased out this generation so baby steps I guess.

And finally if you actually played games on PC you would know that not all settings scale with resolution. I can't believe people think it's as simple as turning down the resolution and everything else can remain equal. That slower ram will have implications on a game design level.

If all people want are repeats of the games that we already have with faster loading and a sprinkling of ray tracing then rock on I guess... I can tell you already its not that big a deal.
 
Last edited:

Silent Viper

Member
Mar 15, 2018
2,728
4,018
720
Regarding PC this is what I have to say on the matter (I'd rather not repeat myself again):



This is about where the baseline is for the next 5-7 years. To put it simply I'd much rather the baseline is much higher than 4tf.

At least mechanical hard drives will finally be phased out this generation so baby steps I guess.

Devs will make it for seriesX then scale down to S.

 

gypsygib

Member
Apr 3, 2015
1,057
169
455
I think we've hit or would hit peak developer budgets this gen anyways, Series S will be lower resolution (I think 1440p 60FPS is a bit hopeful, more like 1080p and/or a lot of 30FPS for AAA titles) so graphical differences will largely be settings/resolution/FPS based meaning nothing is really being held back by a weaker console.

Even if a game targeted 1440p 30 FPS on PS5/Series X to absolutely maximize graphical features, Series S could still run it at 900p/lower settings. Almost every game is made to easily scale these days.
 

xGreir

Member
Apr 1, 2019
171
203
240
I'm not, I'm very upset with all this.

It seems like ppl are trying to self-convince themselves that developers are going to make their games for the "big" ones, and then treat XboxS as some failure that just deserves a really poor port, while at the same time... Praising it....?

Well, I don't know how, but there are only two possible scenarios, maybe three:

1- They treat XboxS as it is, an obstacle, and do piss poor ports for it, evading handicapping their games.

2-They take XboxS in consideration, doing some parity across all versions, and then wasting resources, pipeline, really low coding... for all platforms, holding back game developing by a huge amount.

3- They have another whole paid team that works in sync with the main one to make two different versions of the game, using lots and lots of resources, money, Tim..... Hahahaha not happening, they are stressed enough with Switch, and we know how its ports end.

Remember that if the parity is just a bit mismatched from a GPU POV, like PS5/XoX, it can be done with some resolution tweaks, but with such huge difference in performance, bandwidth, Ram.... The only possibility to have some parity would be from a PC coding POV, and that's the worst thing that could ever happen to consoles, where it's cutting edge comes from its closed envoriment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gmoran

Entroyp

Gold Member
Jul 28, 2017
4,457
12,114
690
I think games will be fine because the XsS has the same CPU and SSD as it’s big brother. What I don’t buy is this being a 1440p machine... more like 1080p.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gypsygib

Jon Neu

Banned
Jan 21, 2018
4,357
9,219
755
Republic of Catalonia
You still believe this nonsense even after seeing Halo Infinite?

Seriously?

You mean the Xbox One game?

Totally the same to port from one generation to another with different architectures and targets as literally creating a console with scalability as it's objective.

Totally.
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
26,247
39,394
1,845
Not even remotely the same thing

You mean the Xbox One game?

Totally the same to port from one generation to another with different architectures and targets as literally creating a console with scalability as it's objective.

Totally.

The only two things that are consistent across the two systems is the CPU and the SSD.

Everything else is significantly weaker on the S compared to the X. Its not even just raw GPU power we are talking about here, the S is bandwidth constrained.

So yeh, totally.

I'd like to see everyone shilling for this system to put their money where their mouth is and buy it as their only console for 'next gen".
 

Jon Neu

Banned
Jan 21, 2018
4,357
9,219
755
Republic of Catalonia
The only two things that are consistent across the two systems is the CPU and the SSD.

Oh, you mean you wanted the exact same specs for 200$ less? Geez, you solved worldwide economy right here, right now.

If they had the same specs, then why you would need scalability in the first place? You have the same specs ergo the same perfomance already. You have to downgrade the specs to offer a cheaper yet scalable product, you know?

The consoles have the exact same architecture and the S has been designed to be scalable to the X. Comparing it to the Xbox One is borderline trolling at this point.
 

Hendrick's

Member
Jan 7, 2014
9,382
16,409
995
We would all benefit if they targeted 1440p 60 and then used DLSS or equivalent to get to 4K. No one needs native 4K. Now if the high end machines are incapable of utilizing ML to upscale at a high level, than that is a whole other problem.
 

michaelius

Member
Jan 5, 2012
16,265
2,141
935
If devs decide they want to do 1440p on big 10-12TF machines then one S is going to continue traditions of Xbox 720p ;)
 
Jun 4, 2020
89
133
220
It seems pretty obvious to me that Microsoft will basically have a rolling refresh cycle with a high-end and low-end console going forward. Every few years we'll get new faster hardware in each tier as node improvements allow.

XSX/XSS: 7nm TSMC - Zen2 + RDNA2
XSX2/XSS2: 5nm TSMC - Zen4 + RDNA3(?)
XSX3/XSS3: 3nm TSMC - Zen5(?) + RDNA4(?)

etc.

Of course, this means some hardware will be left behind at some point.
Yeah but in that sense Sony has somewhat been willing to already go down that route as well with the PS4Pro. Economies of scale could dictate that the PS5pro uses both a new CPU and GPU on the AMD production timeline. I imagine both Zen and Rdna will be backwards compatible.

Playstation are the ones with the sales data to determine whether a new full price console every 3 years is now viable. Maybe that also means then that we would be moving away from the 6 year generations because backwards comp. is ingrained through AMD; or maybe the generational divide now becomes I/o speed, where you get new Cpu/GPU every 3 years and a generational leap in I/O speed every 6.

It does make you wonder how devs would feel about the target platform changing every 3 years. How realistic is it for most dev studios to release a game every 3 years
 
Last edited:

Md Ray

Member
Nov 12, 2016
3,679
11,750
735
The only two things that are consistent across the two systems is the CPU and the SSD.

Everything else is significantly weaker on the S compared to the X. Its not even just raw GPU power we are talking about here, the S is bandwidth constrained.

So yeh, totally.

I'd like to see everyone shilling for this system to put their money where their mouth is and buy it as their only console for 'next gen".
It's never going to run games above 1440p so I think it's ok. SX has 2.5x more bandwidth to hit that 2160p. And 1440p to 2160p is a 2.25x increase in pixels.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
26,247
39,394
1,845
Oh, you mean you wanted the exact same specs for 200$ less? Geez, you solved worldwide economy right here, right now.

If they had the same specs, then why you would need scalability in the first place? You have the same specs ergo the same perfomance already. You have to downgrade the specs to offer a cheaper yet scalable product, you know?

The consoles have the exact same architecture and the S has been designed to be scalable to the X. Comparing it to the Xbox One is borderline trolling at this point.

If you want to be reductive and think I'm trolling then go ahead and smash that report button.

The point isn't around what the game is being scaled down to, its rather the fact that most games are not fundamentally designed to be scaled down at all, it's the opposite. A baseline hardware target is established, the game is built around being fully functional and enjoyable on that and then it's scaled up.

No amount of settings sliders (if you really think it's as simple as that) are going to make levels larger, introduce new game mechanics that might be bandwidth reliant, create more realised and visitable interiors in an open world game, etc.

The whole point of moving the minimum spec target forward is to give developers more freedom to create, to liberate them. To allow them to spend more time creating and less time optimising around hardware constraints. Allow them the freedom to create a ridiculously dense and realistic looking game that runs at 1440p (or even 1080p) on 12tf hardware if they wish.

If you want to think that games are built around the highest spec machines possible and then scaled down to lower spec'd hardware then go ahead, I'm not stopping you from sipping from the PR straw and dreaming. The unfortunate reality is that very few games are built like that. If they were then the console versions of games would be made to look like an absolute joke next to top end PC hardware that is pushing 30+ TF. If this were the case then we would return to the days when console versions of PC games used to have areas cut, quests cut and even whole levels cut.

It's never going to run games above 1440p so I think it's ok. SX has 2.5x more bandwidth to hit that 2160p. And 1440p to 2160p is a 2.25x increase in pixels.

I've said this in another post already above but not everything scales with resolution.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: gmoran and Md Ray

Dr Bass

Member
Jun 6, 2013
1,989
5,911
955
It may have been known for months, but no one knew it would bring the 2 components that everyone was concerned about holding the generation back. You see the argument was that Physics calculations and other CPU tasks would mean the need to redesign game engines entirely, how no developer would create a separate game for Series X, but instead settle for what the CPU in S could handle. Not having an SSD would also mean not being able to create games around the massive improvement in I/O that an SSD brings.

The big WHAT IF, was about what if MS matches the CPU power in PS5/XSX and adds an SSD, that was considered the magic fix, but it was doubted because of the cost, after all, Series S was supposed to be the budget machine, but they did good, Series S can do everything Series X can, albeit at a lower resolution. I'm definitely biting too, I'm getting a Series X for myself and a Series S for my kid. Gamepass value is just too great to ignore.

Absolutely none of this is true. Everyone knew the "rumor" for S was basically same CPU, lesser GPU and an SSD. In fact you have people upset that it's only a 512GB ssd because they were expecting parity there.

No one on the planet thought the Series S was gonna have a weaker GPU and CPU and an HDD. No one.

Weird attempts at changing the narrative going on over the last 24 hours.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Jon Neu

Jon Neu

Banned
Jan 21, 2018
4,357
9,219
755
Republic of Catalonia
If you want to think that games are built around the highest spec machines possible and then scaled down to lower spec'd hardware then go ahead, I'm not stopping you from sipping from the PR straw and dreaming.

Well, it's either that or to believe salty Sony fanboys talking out of their asses.


No amount of settings sliders (if you really think it's as simple as that) are going to make levels larger, introduce new game mechanics that might be bandwidth reliant, create more realised and visitable interiors in an open world game, etc.

The funny thing is that the Series S actually has more resources for 1080p gaming than the Series X (or the PS5) for 4K gaming. So not only isn't the Series S going to hold back the bigger consoles, but actually is the bigger consoles the ones who are going to reach their limits while the Series S will still have underutilized power.

You can literally squeeze the Series X to it's maximum and the Series S would still have power and resources left playing the exact same game at less resolution.
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
26,247
39,394
1,845
Absolutely none of this is true. Everyone knew the "rumor" for S was basically same CPU, lesser GPU and an SSD. In fact you have people upset that it's only a 512GB ssd because they were expecting parity there.

No one on the planet thought the Series S was gonna have a weaker GPU and CPU and an HDD. No one.

Weird attempts at changing the narrative going on over the last 24 hours.

The size of the SSD doesn't matter here though seen as the throughput is the same.

The funny thing is that the Series S actually has more resources for 1080p gaming than the Series X (or the PS5) for 4K gaming. So not only isn't the Series S going to hold back the bigger consoles, but actually is the bigger consoles the ones who are going to reach their limits while the Series S will still have underutilized power.

You can literally squeeze the Series X to it's maximum and the Series S would still have power and resources left playing the exact same game at less resolution.

I keep on seeing this and I don't understand how or why people have decided that this is how they will rationalise the system. Do you know what really has more resources for 1080p and 1440p gaming? The Series X. If the Series X was focused on being a 1440p console with something like DLSS to upscale where necessary then it could truly impress, the shackles would be off.

Just because the Series X and PS5 will be stretching themselves to run at native 4k with all the fireworks turned on at 60fps, it doesn't suddenly mean that a lower powered system is suddenly "better" because it is more suited to 1080p gaming than they are 4k gaming. I've said as much before but people expecting native 4k, raytracing and 60fps outside of a few edge cases are dreaming. It will commonly be 60 fps with 4k but without ray tracing, or 4k with raytracing but without 60fps.

Anyway, this is all about resolution again without taking any other considerations into account. It's like resolution is the only thing that matters here huh? But I get it, it's the one thing everyone knows scales well with raw GPU power so let's ignore everything else. Like I said above, if you're happy with more of the same of what we've had this generation but just with some raytracing at 1080p/1440p on the Series S and then the same thing again but at 4k and slightly better ray tracing on the Series X then rock on.

Who knows, maybe the SSD and Velocity Architecture might save the say as far as the Series S is concerned (it would be one way to work around the bandwidth constraints somewhat). In which case I'd be completely wrong and everyone is happy. I don't suspect that is the case however considering what some developers have said already.
 

Jon Neu

Banned
Jan 21, 2018
4,357
9,219
755
Republic of Catalonia
I keep on seeing this and I don't understand how or why people have decided that this is how they will rationalise the system. Do you know what really has more resources for 1080p and 1440p gaming? The Series X. If the Series X was focused on being a 1440p console with something like DLSS to upscale where necessary then it could truly impress, the shackles would be off.

It would be a little bit retarded to have this 4K generation consoles to do 1080p games. Also why 1080p? Why not 900p, or 720? Can you imagine the games the Xbox Series X can do at 720p?

But then again, all those possibilities are there. They can do whatever the fuck they want. They can do a 1440p game no problem and then just port that game to Series S at 720 or 900 upscaled to 1080p.

It's a great thing that upscaling is so good and it's getting better.

Just because the Series X and PS5 will be stretching themselves to run at native 4k with all the fireworks turned on at 60fps, it doesn't suddenly mean that a lower powered system is suddenly "better" because it is more suited to 1080p gaming than they are 4k gaming. I've said as much before but people expecting native 4k, raytracing and 60fps outside of a few edge cases are dreaming. It will commonly be 60 fps with 4k but without ray tracing, or 4k with raytracing but without 60fps.

It's a more powerful system for it's intented goal.

The shortcomings of the new consoles are going to be their own. Maybe it's the Xbox Series S fault that the PS5 could only run the UE5 demo at 1440p and 30fps? Somehow I don't think so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Md Ray

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
26,247
39,394
1,845
It would be a little bit retarded to have this 4K generation consoles to do 1080p games. Also why 1080p? Why not 900p, or 720? Can you imagine the games the Xbox Series X can do at 720p?

But then again, all those possibilities are there. They can do whatever the fuck they want. They can do a 1440p game no problem and then just port that game to Series S at 720 or 900 upscaled to 1080p.

It's a great thing that upscaling is so good and it's getting better.

Why is it retarded? For example if you want to give people 120hz then the best way to go about it is to have as much power as possible. Are all the people who use 2080ti's at 1080p and 1440p wrong? It depends on what you want to get out of the system. For example good luck targeting high refresh rate 1080p running flight sim 2020 at max settings on any hardware:




And that's my point, with less power you have less options. Look at the graph above. "Just turn down the resolution" they said...

If we take this quote from Xbox's marketing for the Series S for example:

“The primary difference between Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S is in resolution. Through talking to our customers, we found that many of our fans prioritize framerate over resolution, so we wanted to build a console that didn’t require a 4K TV.”


It's complete and utter bullshit. If people want to prioritse framerate over resolution then the Series X would also be a perfectly viable option. In fact, it would be the better option since it will be far more capable of pushing out high framerates at sub 4k than a 4tf box with bandwidth constraints will ever be. To meet the goal of "prioritising framerate" a 4tf box with full speed ram would be slightly better, A 6tf box with full speed ram would be better, an 8 tf box with full speed ram would be a lot better, etc, etc.

With the series S the priority was not to advance technology, push boundaries forward and give more freedom to developers.The reality is that this box exists to be a cheap box to undercut the competition and serve as an entry point to gamepass.

The shortcomings of the new consoles are going to be their own. Maybe it's the Xbox Series S fault that the PS5 could only run the UE5 demo at 1440p and 30fps? Somehow I don't think so.

When you post nonsense like this that's how I know you're not interested in a sincere discussion regarding this topic. Should I continue to waste my time?
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: EDMIX
Jun 1, 2016
2,439
3,095
785
The only two things that are consistent across the two systems is the CPU and the SSD.

Everything else is significantly weaker on the S compared to the X. Its not even just raw GPU power we are talking about here, the S is bandwidth constrained.

So yeh, totally.

I'd like to see everyone shilling for this system to put their money where their mouth is and buy it as their only console for 'next gen".
I'm not getting any console any time soon, but you know that 300$ is a lot of money to many people right? Like close to 20% of North America consider 300$ a lot of money and could not easily afford 500$. Poor people can just fuck off I guess?
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
26,247
39,394
1,845
I'm not getting any console any time soon, but you know that 300$ is a lot of money to many people right? Like close to 20% of North America consider 300$ a lot of money and could not easily afford 500$. Poor people can just fuck off I guess?

Not everyone can afford everything. That's life. The price of expensive technology comes down over time. That's life. People can work towards their goals or wait. That's also life.

Since when did Xbox become the humanitarian console brand?
 

Jon Neu

Banned
Jan 21, 2018
4,357
9,219
755
Republic of Catalonia
Are all the people who use 2080ti's at 1080p and 1440p wrong?

No. And that's why the Series S is awesome, it gives you more options for less price.

With the series S the priority was not to advance technology, push boundaries forward and give more freedom to developers.The reality is that this box exists to be a cheap box to undercut the competition and serve as an entry point to gamepass.

No console is made to advance technology, but to make money.

And the Series S is even stronger than the PS5 and the Series X for it's intentended purpose, so everything you say has little to no meaning.

When you post nonsense like this that's how I know you're not interested in a sincere discussion regarding this topic. Should I continue to waste my time?

You like to concern troll against the Series S to no end but cry really easy at anything resembling a jab against the PS5.

The difference though is that I just stated a fact about the PS5 while you are just making stuff up to spread FUD.
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
26,247
39,394
1,845
No. And that's why the Series S is awesome, it gives you more options for less price.

Less options for less price, as is always the way.


No console is made to advance technology, but to make money.

And the Series S is even stronger than the PS5 and the Series X for it's intentended purpose, so everything you say has little to no meaning.

If that were true then these companies wouldn't pump millions into RnD and we would all still be playing on early 2000's hardware that would be dirt cheap to produce today.

I'd like you to actually come up with reasons why the Series S would be stronger for it's intended purpose than a more powerful system would be. The graph above gives you a good example of where simply reducing resolution does not result in a game suddenly rocketing along at high framerates, especially so on lesser hardware.


You like to concern troll against the Series S to no end but cry really easy at anything resembling a jab against the PS5.

The difference though is that I just stated a fact about the PS5 while you are just making stuff up to spread FUD.

Ah the ad hominems.

So concludes the typical cycle of the discussion with the misinformed individual who has decided to eat a mouthful of PR instead of thinking for themselves. So again, need I continue? Should I waste my time producing more graphs and examples to support my arguments or should I take it that you're not capable of being an adult about this?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Md Ray

itsjustJEFF

Member
Apr 12, 2018
1,098
1,209
435
With Rumors that the Next Switch or Switch "Pro" coming out being able to output to 4k on a handheld... Does this mean that Series S is the weakest of all the next gen consoles? Like damn, what happens if Switch Pro is also $299? I know if doesn't have GamePass, but it has Nintendo games! What then happens to Series X and PS5 🤔 Crazy times! It'll be an interesting generation.