Microsoft's vision for Project Scarlett is a console four times as powerful as Xbox One X

[Burty117]

Right now I'd be happy with an Xbox One X that didn't sound like a Harrier Jump Jet when it gets warm. Both the One X and the PS4 Pro have crazy loud fans.

PS4 Pro's isn't that loud, I got it quieter by using Liquid metal on the cooler and that dropped it significantly enough that I can't hear it anymore.

Edit: There are two different Fan manufacturers for the PS4 Pro, one is known to be considerably louder than the other.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

PS4 Pro sounds like a damn jet engine; users should not have to take it apart and add liquid metal to the HSF to fix a $400 console.

My Xbox One X is virtually silent in all but the most demanding games. I sit about 8-feet away and I've only heard it if I mute my sound system and run specific titles (Sekiro will ramp it up, for example).

 

[Burty117]

users should not have to take it apart and add liquid metal to the HSF to fix a $400 console.

I use Liquid Metal on anything I can really. I removed the Heat Spreader of my 8700k and Liquid Metal'ed it up so I could stable overclock over 5GHz. I used it on my PS4 Pro because it was the newer version with the all copper Heat Sink, some of the older ones were Aluminium and Liquid Metal would eat it alive.

I can only assume you've heard PS4 Pro's with the older style cooler and Fans as the one I brought in late 2017 even before I did the liquid metal wasn't exactly "loud".

 

[Rhythmattic]

Not a chance in hell. Much like sony's boasting about the PS5, there is no way these new consoles will be as powerful as they claim, simply due to cost and size restraints. Unless these companies are willing to repeat the blunders of the 360/PS3 generation of high costs, high failure rates, ece.

Especially if they stick with AMD. They simply dont have anything GPU wise to make that much power.

Xbox has always been the more powerful brother of the two - generation by generation. But PlayStation has always been the more popular brother. Generation by generation.

Except for the 360 outselling the PS3. Fairly major point there.

You left a few words out....
Let me fix it for you
Except for the 360 outselling the PS3 in the US, but not overall numbers, worldwide... Fairly major fact there

 

[Markoni35]

8K gaming actually makes no sense. Even on a console. Unless you have a wall-sized TV because you always play games with your buddies sitting in the same room. Otherwise, for a single person a 50" TV set is quite enough, which doesn't need more than 4K resolution.

On a PC it's even more ridiculous, since you don't need even 4K resolution on a 28" monitor (or smaller). And having a bigger monitor than 28" really doesn't make sense, since then you have to move it away from your head. Unless you want to turn your head left-right when reading mail or playing games.

Which means, instead of buying an oversized monitor, which then must be further from your head (requiring a bigger table) just buy a normal-sized monitor which occupies your visual field. And that's 28" at maximum. Now, at 28" you don't really need even 4K, and definitely not 8K. Because your eyes can't see the difference.

So it's just a stupid waste of resources, which requires more powerful hardware, that wastes more energy, without any gain in visual perception. Needless contribution to global warming.

 

[amstech]

8K gaming actually makes no sense.

I knew the rest of the comment would be gold after reading this.

. Even on a console. Unless you have a wall-sized TV because you always play games with your buddies sitting in the same room. Otherwise, for a single person a 50" TV set is quite enough,

A 60" isn't enough for my living room, which is pretty large. Doesn't matter how many people are watching.
It was hilarious when I first moved in and hooked up my 42" LG on the wall.
I'll be upgrading to a 75" by years end and have my eye on the Q70 after seeing it in person.
A 50" would be tiny in my living room, and the difference between a 75" @ 1080p and 75" @ 4K is massive. Pretty sure the leap to a 75" running 8K would be a similar jump.

which doesn't need more than 4K resolution.

The difference between a 75" 4K and 75" 8K would be massive.
I believe it would be a very noticeable difference on anything about 55-65".

On a PC it's even more ridiculous, since you don't need even 4K resolution on a 28" monitor (or smaller). And having a bigger monitor than 28" really doesn't make sense

I've had a 27" 1080p, 30" 1600p and currently have a 27" 1440P/144Hz.
The difference between 1440p and 4K on a 30" screen is massive and very obvious.
I get your point, buying a 27" 4K might not be a great decision, but getting an Ultrawide 34" in 4K will be much better then gaming at 1440p on a 34". It's quite the difference, if your rig has the juice.

Now, at 28" you don't really need even 4K, and definitely not 8K. Because your eyes can't see the difference.

How many 8K and 4K 28" LCD's have you seen running side by side? I bet none.
How many 60+inch HDTV's running 4K have you seen side by side with 60's HDTV's running 8K? I bet none.

So it's just a stupid waste of resources, which requires more powerful hardware, that wastes more energy, without any gain in visual perception. Needless contribution to global warming.

I think you need a smoke and pancake.
Or a cigar and a waffle.

 

[Nero7]

I had a 28'' screen and could definitely tell the difference between 1080p and 4K. Especially when you make screenshots.

On a big screen like a TV 4K is essential. But ofc 1080p looks nice its an alright resolution to play on. Its not like our eyes will change.

My favorite is a custom resolution of 3200x1800. It looks as good as 2160p but without being as performance hungry.

 

[Charlie9494]

Basically... the One was a 1080p consoles... so at 4 times the rendering power, it would make the Scarlet a 2160p console...

Is there really anything new about it?

Its 4 times faster than the Xbox one x not the original Xbox one