Official Thread XBOX Hardware

My Current Console Is....


  • Total voters
    37
Status
Not open for further replies.
My ask is for three things on past IP:
Give us another MechAssault with next gen effects and destruction
Give us another Killer Instinct and keep it going
Give us a true sequel to Phantom Dust
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeKPhaN and Rollins
I disagree. I think what MS and Xbox really need are some new exciting IPs that reenvigorate peoples passion for xboX. Like Halo or Gears big.
They definitely need both but to jump start the excitment you need to give people something they've been begging for, for a long time.

AAA Banjo Kazooie Platformer being a very important one. Game Pass will need these type of games in order to diversify anyway.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: karmakid
They definitely need both but to jump start the excitment you need to give people something they've been begging for, for a long time.

AAA Banjo Kazooie Platformer being a very important one. Game Pass will need these type of games in order to diversify anyway.
One of the big complaints this gen is the lack of quality new IPs. You wont squash that by bringing an old IP back. They have to show people things have changed.
 
One of the big complaints this gen is the lack of quality new IPs. You wont squash that by bringing an old IP back. They have to show people things have changed.
Hardly agree with Menace but he's right. Bringing back old Ip's shouldn't be a priority right now. Once they have a few more new Ip's out - then bring in some older Ip's to the table.
 
Hardly agree with Menace but he's right. Bringing back old Ip's shouldn't be a priority right now. Once they have a few more new Ip's out - then bring in some older Ip's to the table.
Or both. They absolutely need new IP, but if they can't do new IP and old IP then spend more money to develop the capacity to do both.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Edge BC and EG101
Hardly agree with Menace but he's right. Bringing back old Ip's shouldn't be a priority right now. Once they have a few more new Ip's out - then bring in some older Ip's to the table.

It should be a balance, not an either or scenario. Leveraging your successful products is important for building from player base to drive your new IPs. Ultimately, what is important is whether the games are good anyway, not really whether they are new or established IPs, you mainly just get the benefit of rewarding a loyal user base with something they already know they likely want and driving sales.
 
It will be interesting to see when first party games get shown off. I wonder how many can even tell if RT is being used or not.
I know I can. Even if it's just the GI. Of course, I've long been annoyed by the lack of shading on the sort of under side of ojects or in the rafters of buildings or corners.

It puts the darkness where needs to be and adds way more depth to the scene. For me it's like the difference in having Ambient occlusion or not...
 
So after reading way too much stuff while being trapped inside (and occasionally saying Redrum in the mirror) from Discords, tech site forums, dev tweets, Digital Foundary)....

I've circled back to what I originally thought when it was all revealed.

3rd party games:
  • Better ray tracing on Xbox
  • Better load times on Playstation

Few other tidbits:
  • Playstation 5 is very easy to develop for
  • Sony is far ahead on tools - this is likely why so many devs are tweeting how great Playstation is but not saying anything about Series X
  • Microsoft is likely behind on tools because they're aimed not just at Series X but to work across PC hardware configurations
  • Rumor - Xbox is getting much better yields (which is a huge factor in price)

I'll be getting both consoles at launch but feel much better about Series X hardware but disappointed on the tools front. Sounds like they're behind which could mean their 3rd party games will be less optimized in the launch window and their 1st party is at a disadvantage compared to Sony 1st party. That said, the hardware appears on the surface to be more stable and potentially more reliable due to the fact it's running lower and consistent frequencies. Not a fan of those super high variable frequencies on the PS5. Better buy insurance for it. If the yield info is true, I think they're launching for the same price despite Xbox Series X having higher BOM cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GordoSan
I know I can. Even if it's just the GI. Of course, I've long been annoyed by the lack of shading on the sort of under side of ojects or in the rafters of buildings or corners.

It puts the darkness where needs to be and adds way more depth to the scene. For me it's like the difference in having Ambient occlusion or not...

The reflections makes a huge difference as well. Should be fun to see in racing games. It just tricks your brain into thinking it's more real. Visually ray tracing is the thing I believe will have the most impact to the mainstream.
 
So after reading way too much stuff while being trapped inside (and occasionally saying Redrum in the mirror) from Discords, tech site forums, dev tweets, Digital Foundary)....

I've circled back to what I originally thought when it was all revealed.

3rd party games:
  • Better ray tracing on Xbox
  • Better load times on Playstation

Few other tidbits:
  • Playstation 5 is very easy to develop for
  • Sony is far ahead on tools - this is likely why so many devs are tweeting how great Playstation is but not saying anything about Series X
  • Microsoft is likely behind on tools because they're aimed not just at Series X but to work across PC hardware configurations
  • Rumor - Xbox is getting much better yields (which is a huge factor in price)

I'll be getting both consoles at launch but feel much better about Series X hardware but disappointed on the tools front. Sounds like they're behind which could mean their 3rd party games will be less optimized in the launch window and their 1st party is at a disadvantage compared to Sony 1st party. That said, the hardware appears on the surface to be more stable and potentially more reliable due to the fact it's running lower and consistent frequencies. Not a fan of those super high variable frequencies on the PS5. Better buy insurance for it. If the yield info is true, I think they're launching for the same price despite Xbox Series X having higher BOM cost.

Hasn’t it been found that most (like 99%) of those praising the ssd, on both sides, are devs from first/second party studios? I doubt there’s many or any from third party devs.

I’d love to see what first party devs say about the other side since games like Minecraft and MLB are gonna show up on competing console.
 
Yup, 30%.



No, the PS5 won’t offer anywhere near the graphics performance of Xbox Series X: Navi benchmarks prove it
During Sony’s Playstation 5 spec unveiling, Sony made much of the fact that the PS5’s GPU was more “agile” than the competition. The logic they offered was that, because GPU clockspeeds are tied to more than just the shader cores, higher clocks mean higher throughput across the chip, which can offset the lack of hardware shader resources.

This was an arrow shot right across Microsoft’s bow: Redmond, days earlier, had revealed the Xbox Series X’simmensely powerful 12 TFLOP GPU, the fastest GPU AMD has ever made. The 52 CU part features 3328 shaders and runs at 1800 MHz, right in line with what we’ve seen in other Navi parts like the RX 5700. It’s backed by GDDR6 memory that delivers 561 GB/s of bandwidth. Sony, in contrast, unveiled a much more conservative GPU for the Playstation 5, with 36 CUs (the same number of shaders as the RX 5700) tied to 448 GB/s memory.

Sony’s part, however, operates at a much higher 2.23 GHz max clock speed, which allowed the company to claim that it delivers over 10 TFLOP of compute, just fifteen percent behind the Xbox Series X. Reading between the lines, Sony’s claim that high clock speeds matter more than raw hardware resources implies that the performance gap between the PS5 and Xbox Series X might be even narrower than 15 percent.

This is misleading for two key reasons. For starters, the PS5 only delivers 10 TFLOPs of notional compute power when it’s running at its maximum boost frequency. Sony themselves have asserted that clockspeeds will be pulled back depending on power draw, meaning that there will be scenarios where the PS5 delivers less. The Xbox Series X, in contrast, runs at a rock solid 1800 MHz, subject neither to thermals nor power draw.

The second reason has to do with what we already know about Navi clockspeed scaling. RDNA parts do not scale well at higher clockspeeds. Overclocking testson the RX 5700 XT-close analogue for the PS5’s GPU-indicate that a massive 18 percent overclock from stock up to 2.1 GHz resulted in just a 5-7 percent improvement to frame rates. This is the exact opposite of Sony’s claim, which implies better-than-linear performance scaling with clockspeeds. RDNA2 is an iterative update to the first-gen RDNA architecture found in Navi 10 parts. This makes it very likely that the PS5 will also behave similarly: upping the clocks to 2.2 GHz won’t magically offset the substantial difference in hardware allocation between the Series X and the Playstation 5 GPUs.

This leads to the sobering conclusion that in real-world workloads, the PS5 might be 30 percent or more slower than the Xbox Series X. We don’t expect the world’s fastest SSD or individual raindrop audio rendering to offset that.
 
Yup, 30%.



No, the PS5 won’t offer anywhere near the graphics performance of Xbox Series X: Navi benchmarks prove it
During Sony’s Playstation 5 spec unveiling, Sony made much of the fact that the PS5’s GPU was more “agile” than the competition. The logic they offered was that, because GPU clockspeeds are tied to more than just the shader cores, higher clocks mean higher throughput across the chip, which can offset the lack of hardware shader resources.

This was an arrow shot right across Microsoft’s bow: Redmond, days earlier, had revealed the Xbox Series X’simmensely powerful 12 TFLOP GPU, the fastest GPU AMD has ever made. The 52 CU part features 3328 shaders and runs at 1800 MHz, right in line with what we’ve seen in other Navi parts like the RX 5700. It’s backed by GDDR6 memory that delivers 561 GB/s of bandwidth. Sony, in contrast, unveiled a much more conservative GPU for the Playstation 5, with 36 CUs (the same number of shaders as the RX 5700) tied to 448 GB/s memory.

Sony’s part, however, operates at a much higher 2.23 GHz max clock speed, which allowed the company to claim that it delivers over 10 TFLOP of compute, just fifteen percent behind the Xbox Series X. Reading between the lines, Sony’s claim that high clock speeds matter more than raw hardware resources implies that the performance gap between the PS5 and Xbox Series X might be even narrower than 15 percent.

This is misleading for two key reasons. For starters, the PS5 only delivers 10 TFLOPs of notional compute power when it’s running at its maximum boost frequency. Sony themselves have asserted that clockspeeds will be pulled back depending on power draw, meaning that there will be scenarios where the PS5 delivers less. The Xbox Series X, in contrast, runs at a rock solid 1800 MHz, subject neither to thermals nor power draw.

The second reason has to do with what we already know about Navi clockspeed scaling. RDNA parts do not scale well at higher clockspeeds. Overclocking testson the RX 5700 XT-close analogue for the PS5’s GPU-indicate that a massive 18 percent overclock from stock up to 2.1 GHz resulted in just a 5-7 percent improvement to frame rates. This is the exact opposite of Sony’s claim, which implies better-than-linear performance scaling with clockspeeds. RDNA2 is an iterative update to the first-gen RDNA architecture found in Navi 10 parts. This makes it very likely that the PS5 will also behave similarly: upping the clocks to 2.2 GHz won’t magically offset the substantial difference in hardware allocation between the Series X and the Playstation 5 GPUs.

This leads to the sobering conclusion that in real-world workloads, the PS5 might be 30 percent or more slower than the Xbox Series X. We don’t expect the world’s fastest SSD or individual raindrop audio rendering to offset that.
Bingo!

I tell ya, the ps fanboys are just in disbelief and shocked. It is funny.
 
Last edited:
It should be a balance, not an either or scenario. Leveraging your successful products is important for building from player base to drive your new IPs. Ultimately, what is important is whether the games are good anyway, not really whether they are new or established IPs, you mainly just get the benefit of rewarding a loyal user base with something they already know they likely want and driving sales.
I didnt say either or. In fact, I think having both would be smart. Just the timing and prioritization of newer and older Ip's
 
Yup, 30%.



No, the PS5 won’t offer anywhere near the graphics performance of Xbox Series X: Navi benchmarks prove it
During Sony’s Playstation 5 spec unveiling, Sony made much of the fact that the PS5’s GPU was more “agile” than the competition. The logic they offered was that, because GPU clockspeeds are tied to more than just the shader cores, higher clocks mean higher throughput across the chip, which can offset the lack of hardware shader resources.

This was an arrow shot right across Microsoft’s bow: Redmond, days earlier, had revealed the Xbox Series X’simmensely powerful 12 TFLOP GPU, the fastest GPU AMD has ever made. The 52 CU part features 3328 shaders and runs at 1800 MHz, right in line with what we’ve seen in other Navi parts like the RX 5700. It’s backed by GDDR6 memory that delivers 561 GB/s of bandwidth. Sony, in contrast, unveiled a much more conservative GPU for the Playstation 5, with 36 CUs (the same number of shaders as the RX 5700) tied to 448 GB/s memory.

Sony’s part, however, operates at a much higher 2.23 GHz max clock speed, which allowed the company to claim that it delivers over 10 TFLOP of compute, just fifteen percent behind the Xbox Series X. Reading between the lines, Sony’s claim that high clock speeds matter more than raw hardware resources implies that the performance gap between the PS5 and Xbox Series X might be even narrower than 15 percent.

This is misleading for two key reasons. For starters, the PS5 only delivers 10 TFLOPs of notional compute power when it’s running at its maximum boost frequency. Sony themselves have asserted that clockspeeds will be pulled back depending on power draw, meaning that there will be scenarios where the PS5 delivers less. The Xbox Series X, in contrast, runs at a rock solid 1800 MHz, subject neither to thermals nor power draw.

The second reason has to do with what we already know about Navi clockspeed scaling. RDNA parts do not scale well at higher clockspeeds. Overclocking testson the RX 5700 XT-close analogue for the PS5’s GPU-indicate that a massive 18 percent overclock from stock up to 2.1 GHz resulted in just a 5-7 percent improvement to frame rates. This is the exact opposite of Sony’s claim, which implies better-than-linear performance scaling with clockspeeds. RDNA2 is an iterative update to the first-gen RDNA architecture found in Navi 10 parts. This makes it very likely that the PS5 will also behave similarly: upping the clocks to 2.2 GHz won’t magically offset the substantial difference in hardware allocation between the Series X and the Playstation 5 GPUs.

This leads to the sobering conclusion that in real-world workloads, the PS5 might be 30 percent or more slower than the Xbox Series X. We don’t expect the world’s fastest SSD or individual raindrop audio rendering to offset that.
Stop
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frozpot
It should be a balance, not an either or scenario. Leveraging your successful products is important for building from player base to drive your new IPs. Ultimately, what is important is whether the games are good anyway, not really whether they are new or established IPs, you mainly just get the benefit of rewarding a loyal user base with something they already know they likely want and driving sales.
Don't agree. New IPs are very important and absolutely do matter most right now.. Just having the same old stuff, which is what bringing old IPs back is, good or not, isn't enough. New IPs bring new possibilities and a crap tonne of excitement, not too mention being a driving force for new consumers.

Yes, i agree a mix of both is important generally, but a big part of criticism is that old iPs ia all there is, prioritising more of the same(that is where the convo started) would only reinforce that criticism, and that is the last thing Xbox needs.

New big, quality exclusives are a must.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frozpot and Dtwice
Status
Not open for further replies.