New Xbox Series X details disclosed, including 12 TFLOPS of GPU power

Evernessince

Posts: 4,985   +5,105
Reading comprehension, dude. I never said they should sell it for $700+. What I said was that for a console to flop as hard as the PS3 at launch, they'd have to sell it for 760 dollars, so comparing 2006 dollars to 2020 dollars is completely pointless.

And obviously paychecks do follow inflation, whether you acknowledge it or not. In fact, Americans have been earning pretty much the same money for the past 40 years. There are hard facts so I don't even understand what you're trying to prove.
You said:

"I love how everyone speculating about price completely ignores inflation. $600 in 2006 is now worth $768, so yes, an MSRP of $600 is not only possible, it's very probable too. "

Please do not back out of a statement by blaming it on others.
 

Axiarus

Posts: 506   +304
What are the cpu specs though? the gpu's in consoles have been banging out crispy graphics since the ps3 era but the cpu side has been a constant chokepoint.

as a ff14 addict, will it be equal to or better than my old 3770k my rig is pushing?(looking at you ps4pro, you chuggy a** machine)

will this be the gen that actually hits a locked 1080p/60fps after years of broken promises.
Real crispy with all those jaggies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hahahanoobs
I'm just LOL'ing now at all of the #PCMasterRace clowns on reddit that insisted there was "no way" Microsoft or AMD could put a 12 TFLOP GPU in the next Xbox.
Im a PC user myself but even I think they are a bunch of morons lol.

If u can put it in a laptop then u can put it in a console. as far as enginerring challenges go.
 

meric

Posts: 232   +157
A GPU capable of such performance and a 8c/16t CPU... so it's not an APU like the ones in PS4 or Xbox One, then I think the prices will probably be higher than $599
 

Adi6293

Posts: 433   +463
Why?
Those specs are already outdated, and were 9 months out from launch.
By the time the new consoles release they will be ancient history from a hardware standpoint, however those specs are impressive. I'm excited to play a new console later this year on my 75" 4K QLED, considering how damn good this little Nintendo Switch looks.
No console is ever going to compete with PC gaming hardware, clock frequencies and CPU power, GPU power, versatility ext.
I do like the backwards compatibility features though, AMD seems to run ok when its in a closed off ecosystem with dedicated, unchangeable hardware.
Are we going to get a 12TFlop APU for $499 or less in 9 months?
 

Adi6293

Posts: 433   +463
What are the cpu specs though? the gpu's in consoles have been banging out crispy graphics since the ps3 era but the cpu side has been a constant chokepoint.

as a ff14 addict, will it be equal to or better than my old 3770k my rig is pushing?(looking at you ps4pro, you chuggy a** machine)

will this be the gen that actually hits a locked 1080p/60fps after years of broken promises.
The CPU in next gen will eat you old i7 for a snack : - )
 

amstech

Posts: 2,617   +1,788
Are we going to get a 12TFlop APU for $499 or less in 9 months?
Who cares.
It's a console, which means its hardare is going to be outdated at launch, and ancient history shortly after. In 2 years it will seem like a classic car your dad only uses on Sunday's.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 4,985   +5,105
A GPU capable of such performance and a 8c/16t CPU... so it's not an APU like the ones in PS4 or Xbox One, then I think the prices will probably be higher than $599

You can buy 8 core CPUs for $120 retail. The GPU is nothing special either. It's a 5700 on 7nm+ at a higher clock with RDNA2. The 5700 die size is tiny and easy to manufacture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0dium

Evernessince

Posts: 4,985   +5,105
At what floating point precision is that 12 tflops?
It's FP32.


There's no point in misleading customers in such an obvious way when there will be immediate blowback. Not in the age of the internet.

The math also supports it. An RX 5700 XT is at 9.754 tflops. The Xbox part is using RDNA 2 on 7nm+. It should not be hard to get to 12 tflops with a new architecture and node shrink. In fact I'd wager the GPU in the new consoles isn't even a a 6700 / 6700 XT level part. It's likely a lower end part. I expect big gains from both AMD and Nvidia with their upcoming cards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OptimumSlinky

drjekelmrhyde

Posts: 342   +117
Microsoft will take the bite on price(to keep it the same as PS5) because they have their milk cows lined up in SERVICES unlike Sony. People kept saying PS4 is winning, but MS has more people buying **** . Point blank. People thinks hardware sales, but the real money is in services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pastuch

Irata

Posts: 512   +623
TechSpot Elite
What I would really love to see is if the new consoles support ray tracing with no performance hit, or just a very small one.

We all know this is the single most important feature a GPU can have, so the comments should be fun.
 

amstech

Posts: 2,617   +1,788
finally, I've been waiting for the day a console humbles it
The 8/16 AMD CPU used in the next generation console gets absolutely obliterated by todays desktop gaming processors, even the the 6/12 8700K from 2017 will blow past the 8/16 3700X and 3800X in gaming, and that's before the 400-600MHz of reliable overclock headroom.
Sorry little console fairy twinkles.
 

OptimumSlinky

Posts: 203   +378
The 8/16 AMD CPU used in the next generation console gets absolutely obliterated by todays desktop gaming processors, even the the 6/12 8700K from 2017 will blow past the 8/16 3700X and 3800X in gaming, and that's before the 400-600MHz of reliable overclock headroom.
Sorry little console fairy twinkles.
...what are you talking about?

In the bulk of modern titles, the difference between the 3700X and the 8700K usually 5-10 fps, from TechSpot's own testing: https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/

And that's at 1080p. At 1440p, the difference is 2-3 fps. At 4K, there would be no difference at all.

In what bizarre world is that "blowing past" or "obliterating" AMD's Zen 2 offerings? That's barely past margin of error, and only exists in specific situations where you artificially create a CPU bottleneck by pairing a 14 TFLOP 2080 Ti with a 1080p monitor.

Not to mention the difference in power efficiency, with the 3700X hitting these performance numbers at 65W TDP while that "400-600 MHz overclock" is driving the Intel chips up around 125W.

As a PC gamer, you should be EXCITED that consoles are getting solid performing hardware. It means better games for everyone because like it or not, Triple-A publishers focus on console first.
 

amstech

Posts: 2,617   +1,788
...what are you talking about?

In the bulk of modern titles, the difference between the 3700X and the 8700K usually 5-10 fps, from TechSpot's own testing: https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/
Thats against a stock 8700K, with more cores, and sometimes the 8700K is faster by 10-15 FPS. If you compare then equally, its still pretty bad, here's a snippet from one of my comments on a recent review, located here:

Below is highlighted results is a 6/6 vs a 6/6.
Saying the ZEN2 only gets beat badly under certain circumstances, resolutions or video cards is just brand denial. Across various GPU's and resolutions, when you compare an AMD 6/6 against a Intel 6/6, or a AMD 8/16 against an Intel 8/16, the Ryzen gets whooped pretty badly.
Heres the results of an equal matchup.

And that's at 1080p. At 1440p, the difference is 2-3 fps. At 4K, there would be no difference at all.
Creed: Identical Performance, 8700K a few FPS faster
8700K: 75/102
3600: 77/99

B5: Difference of 11 FPS Low, 18 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K: 114/167
3600: 103/149

Raider: Difference of 10 FPS Low, 19 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K: 78/114
3600: 68/95

Division: Identical Performance
8700K: 102/159
3600: 106/158

Far Cry ND: Difference of 10 FPS Low, 7 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K 84/110
3600:74/103

Hitman: Difference of 12 FPS Low, 13 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K: 94/118
3600: 82/105

3Kngs: Difference of 3 FPS Low, 4 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K: 105/127
3600: 102/123

So, getting whooped pretty badly, before the 8700K is overclocked.
4K results just show that the GPU does all the work, and even then the Intel chips are still faster. 1440p there is still a 10-15 FPS difference in many games. Not hating on AMD, their stuff is impressive.


Not to mention the difference in power efficiency, with the 3700X hitting these performance numbers at 65W TDP while that "400-600 MHz overclock" is driving the Intel chips up around 125W.

As a PC gamer, you should be EXCITED that consoles are getting solid performing hardware. It means better games for everyone because like it or not, Triple-A publishers focus on console first.
Power efficiency doesn't mean anything to a PC gamer, no one cares. 500MHz is a massive overclock and it makes a big difference across the board.
I do however agree its nice to see better hardware in gaming consoles, but the notion ZEN2 is only slower at high resolutions, or with a certain GPU, or circumstance, is just not true. When it comes to gaming, they still get beat, and pretty badly, core for core and thread for thread, when matched up evenly, and even when its outnumbered, like an 8700K against a 3800X, its still faster.
 
Last edited:

jbc029

Posts: 74   +125
Thats against a stock 8700K, with more cores, and sometimes the 8700K is faster by 10-15 FPS. If you compare then equally, its still pretty bad, here's a snippet from one of my comments on a recent review, located here:

Below is highlighted results is a 6/6 vs a 6/6.
Saying the ZEN2 only gets beat badly under certain circumstances, resolutions or video cards is just brand denial. Across various GPU's and resolutions, when you compare an AMD 6/6 against a Intel 6/6, or a AMD 8/16 against an Intel 8/16, the Ryzen gets whooped pretty badly.
Heres the results of an equal matchup.



Creed: Identical Performance, 8700K a few FPS faster
8700K: 75/102
3600: 77/99

B5: Difference of 11 FPS Low, 18 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K: 114/167
3600: 103/149

Raider: Difference of 10 FPS Low, 19 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K: 78/114
3600: 68/95

Division: Identical Performance
8700K: 102/159
3600: 106/158

Far Cry ND: Difference of 10 FPS Low, 7 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K 84/110
3600:74/103

Hitman: Difference of 12 FPS Low, 13 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K: 94/118
3600: 82/105

3Kngs: Difference of 3 FPS Low, 4 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K: 105/127
3600: 102/123

So, getting whooped pretty badly, before the 8700K is overclocked.
4K results just show that the GPU does all the work, and even then the Intel chips are still faster. 1440p there is still a 10-15 FPS difference in many games. Not hating on AMD, their stuff is impressive.



Power efficiency doesn't mean anything to a PC gamer, no one cares. 500MHz is a massive overclock and it makes a big difference across the board.
I do however agree its nice to see better hardware in gaming consoles, but the notion ZEN2 is only slower at high resolutions, or with a certain GPU, or circumstance, is just not true. When it comes to gaming, they still get beat, and pretty badly, core for core and thread for thread, when matched up evenly, and even when its outnumbered, like an 8700K against a 3800X, its still faster.
Be consistent in how you present your numbers. No need to obfuscate by constantly changing the frame of reference between each benchmark. The 8700k speaks well enough for itself, without trying to constantly reframe each item.

Creed: 8700K is 3% faster average, 3600 is 2% higher minimum

B5: 8700K is 12% faster average, 11% higher minimum

Raider: 8700K is 20% faster average, 15% higher minimum

Division: 8700k is .5% faster average, 3600 is 4% higher minimum

Far Cry ND: 8700k is 7% faster average, 14% higher minimum

Hitman: 8700k is 12% faster average, 15% higher minimum

3Kngs: 8700k is 3% higher average, 3% higher minimum

This is stock to stock. You *can* do a 4.2 all core OC on the 3600 with the included cooler. You *cannot* do a 500MHz all core OC on the 8700k with the included hardware. It doesn't help the 3600 much, but then again, it usually isn't that far behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OptimumSlinky

Evernessince

Posts: 4,985   +5,105
Thats against a stock 8700K, with more cores, and sometimes the 8700K is faster by 10-15 FPS. If you compare then equally, its still pretty bad, here's a snippet from one of my comments on a recent review, located here:

Below is highlighted results is a 6/6 vs a 6/6.
Saying the ZEN2 only gets beat badly under certain circumstances, resolutions or video cards is just brand denial. Across various GPU's and resolutions, when you compare an AMD 6/6 against a Intel 6/6, or a AMD 8/16 against an Intel 8/16, the Ryzen gets whooped pretty badly.
Heres the results of an equal matchup.



Creed: Identical Performance, 8700K a few FPS faster
8700K: 75/102
3600: 77/99

B5: Difference of 11 FPS Low, 18 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K: 114/167
3600: 103/149

Raider: Difference of 10 FPS Low, 19 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K: 78/114
3600: 68/95

Division: Identical Performance
8700K: 102/159
3600: 106/158

Far Cry ND: Difference of 10 FPS Low, 7 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K 84/110
3600:74/103

Hitman: Difference of 12 FPS Low, 13 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K: 94/118
3600: 82/105

3Kngs: Difference of 3 FPS Low, 4 FPS Average, 8700K faster
8700K: 105/127
3600: 102/123

So, getting whooped pretty badly, before the 8700K is overclocked.
4K results just show that the GPU does all the work, and even then the Intel chips are still faster. 1440p there is still a 10-15 FPS difference in many games. Not hating on AMD, their stuff is impressive.



Power efficiency doesn't mean anything to a PC gamer, no one cares. 500MHz is a massive overclock and it makes a big difference across the board.
I do however agree its nice to see better hardware in gaming consoles, but the notion ZEN2 is only slower at high resolutions, or with a certain GPU, or circumstance, is just not true. When it comes to gaming, they still get beat, and pretty badly, core for core and thread for thread, when matched up evenly, and even when its outnumbered, like an 8700K against a 3800X, its still faster.
The consoles are going to have an 8 core, not a 6 core. You are also comparing a $450 processor to a $200. FYI, an 8700K only gains a few percentage through overclocking just like the 9900K. Returns are extremely diminishing above 5 GHz. That's before your factor in the additional cooling and motherboard costs.

Your original statement was that an 8700K destorys an 8 core processor, no idea why you compared to a 6 core.

Mind you none of that matters to a console as games are all going to be optimized to take full advantage of the hardware they have. For an AMD Zen 2 8 core CPU, that's very good as they have a ton of multi-threading performance. Much higher then any 8700K.

"Power efficiency doesn't mean anything to a PC gamer, no one cares."

Many people would be inclined to disagree.
 
Last edited: