PC Build Comparable w/ Xbox One X

[Life-Binder]

nah, Sony or MS would have done just fine with Nvidias more power efficient GPUs, the API would simply be tailored to those

the SoCs and the price were the deciding factors



thats assuming Nvidia even wanted it back then, IIRC at one point they didnt want to deal with low consoles margins

[Evildeffy]

nah, Sony or MS would have done just fine with Nvidias more power efficient GPUs just fine, the API would simply be tailored to those

the SoCs and the price were the deciding factors

thats assuming Nvidia even wanted it back then, IIRC at one point they didnt want to deal with low consoles margins

You realize what you're saying?
Tailoring the APIs to a single graphics card?

The API pre-existed and they wouldn't devise an entirely new API to hardware that a standard has been set for.
If they did so the losses would've been CONSIDERABLY larger, the consoles wouldn't have been out when they have been.

They would've gone AMD regardless, though of course you'd be shooting yourself in the foot for not asking another competitive brand, because of the considerably better low level access to the hardware with pre-existing APIs.

Go ask a dev how easy it is to write an entirely new API for 1 graphics chip in 1 console.

[kaelleria]

You realize what you're saying?
Tailoring the APIs to a single graphics card?

The API pre-existed and they wouldn't devise an entirely new API to hardware that a standard has been set for.
If they did so the losses would've been CONSIDERABLY larger, the consoles wouldn't have been out when they have been.

They would've gone AMD regardless, though of course you'd be shooting yourself in the foot for not asking another competitive brand, because of the considerably better low level access to the hardware with pre-existing APIs.

Go ask a dev how easy it is to write an entirely new API for 1 graphics chip in 1 console.

Surfacebook has a custom NVIDIA GPU... So yeah they've done it before.

[Evildeffy]

Surfacebook has a custom NVIDIA GPU... So yeah they've done it before.

Kinda not the point of the quote you picked.

nVidia on the surfacebook will use pre-existing API's made by Microsoft where the AMD cards in consoles do as well.
The difference is that nVidia hardware has less lower level access with those APIs than AMD hardware does.

This is what makes them better for consoles once exposed as you'll have a longer performance life than the competing brand.

And what Life-Binder suggested would be to create an entirely new API just to fit less "capable" nVidia hardware.

That is a work in futility as for every single different piece of hardware you'd have to create an entirely new API just to support it.. Not many companies will do so because of the enormous amount of money and work this is rather than going with a standard and continue on with that.

[kaelleria]

Kinda not the point of the quote you picked.

nVidia on the surfacebook will use pre-existing API's made by Microsoft where the AMD cards in consoles do as well.
The difference is that nVidia hardware has less lower level access with those APIs than AMD hardware does.

This is what makes them better for consoles once exposed as you'll have a longer performance life than the competing brand.

And what Life-Binder suggested would be to create an entirely new API just to fit less "capable" nVidia hardware.

That is a work in futility as for every single different piece of hardware you'd have to create an entirely new API just to support it.. Not many companies will do so because of the enormous amount of money and work this is rather than going with a standard and continue on with that.

Looks like the existing API had nothing to do with it. Nowadays it probably boils down to the support they get from AMD and the fact NVidia doesn't make x86 SOCs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick.../#2558584a2185

[Evildeffy]

Looks like the existing API had nothing to do with it. Nowadays it probably boils down to the support they get from AMD and the fact NVidia doesn't make x86 SOCs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick.../#2558584a2185

That's a relatively old article but correct, however that is the CPU part of the console design.
AMD could do all they requested but if they hadn't then the GPUs would still be AMD and CPU be either ARM, PowerPC or some other variant.

Both Sony and MS are relying on an API to keep graphics as relevant as possible, that's why they have AMD GPUs because those aforementioned APIs can drive the GPUs better as they have lower level support.

Not to mention that AMD could provide it all whilst keeping everything in a single package, requiring less design complexity and less cooling.

Why is it you think that the PS4 Pro and the X-Box One X (X-BOX for short) still have the same underlying CPU but increased GPUs?

All of it's important of course but in terms of AMD choice for graphics ... that one was pre-determined.
The rest was just icing on the cake like the x86 use, advancement in low power CPUs etc.

Though if those consoles would be refreshed with Ryzen they'd be absolutely kick ass.
I still like consoles and at the same time hate them to no end... I hate shitty ass exclusives.

I want to play stuff like God of War, Uncharted etc. on the blistering speed of a PC without being hamstrung by console limitations damnit.

Goddamnit ... I wish my PC hadn't caught fire a week ago... MEH

[kaelleria]

That's a relatively old article but correct, however that is the CPU part of the console design.
AMD could do all they requested but if they hadn't then the GPUs would still be AMD and CPU be either ARM, PowerPC or some other variant.

Both Sony and MS are relying on an API to keep graphics as relevant as possible, that's why they have AMD GPUs because those aforementioned APIs can drive the GPUs better as they have lower level support.

Not to mention that AMD could provide it all whilst keeping everything in a single package, requiring less design complexity and less cooling.

Why is it you think that the PS4 Pro and the X-Box One X (X-BOX for short) still have the same underlying CPU but increased GPUs?

All of it's important of course but in terms of AMD choice for graphics ... that one was pre-determined.
The rest was just icing on the cake like the x86 use, advancement in low power CPUs etc.

Though if those consoles would be refreshed with Ryzen they'd be absolutely kick ass.
I still like consoles and at the same time hate them to no end... I hate shitty ass exclusives.

I want to play stuff like God of War, Uncharted etc. on the blistering speed of a PC without being hamstrung by console limitations damnit.

Goddamnit ... I wish my PC hadn't caught fire a week ago... MEH

I'm pretty sure the exclusion of Ryzen is due to how late it came and cost. At this point they're going to be losing a bit of cash on every console sold I'd imagine. However, I would not be shocked if Xbox One X vNext has ryzen cores.

[Evildeffy]

I'm pretty sure the exclusion of Ryzen is due to how late it came and cost. At this point they're going to be losing a bit of cash on every console sold I'd imagine. However, I would not be shocked if Xbox One X vNext has ryzen cores.

Well it goes a little further than that as well due to the inherent architecture and strict coding paths.
But those could be emulated/redirected by a proper kernel in newer gen consoles... if they will make those.

[Ahovv]

That's making a bold claim. We know from the Xbox One that even though it had a equivalent to a Radeon HD 7850 that it mostly performed like a 7700 series card. Both the PS4 Pro and the Xbox One X have something derived from AMD's Polaris which is not a 1070 level of performance. And both systems still use Jaguar cores so I don't expect both machines to perform like a Radeon RX 480. If anything, more like a Rx 470 or more likely a 460.

Unfortunately there's no benchmark results yet of the Xbox One X, and older game titles simply don't benefit from the new hardware. Something PC doesn't have an issue with.



And here's a $30 Windows 10 Pro key. The problem right now is that graphic card prices are through the roof, but you generally can only choose graphic cards that are too weak to BitCoin or Etherium. But I have a feeling that a RX 460 is faster than whatever is in the Xbox One X.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 3 1200 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($109.86 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock - A320M Pro4 Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($62.49 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: Crucial - 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2133 Memory ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: SanDisk - SSD PLUS 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($84.99 @ B&H)
Video Card: XFX - Radeon RX 460 2GB Double Dissipation Video Card ($118.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Fractal Design - Core 1000 USB 3.0 MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($24.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: EVGA - BT 450W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($29.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $501.29
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-09-28 09:56 EDT-0400


Keep in mind that the Xbox One X isn't like upgrading your PC where you can flip on graphic settings and get better graphics or even performance. PC games generally scale, which means you can buy new hardware and expect improvements in your games. The Xbox One X has the same problem like the Sega CD or 32X, in that it does have more performance and is backwards compatible but developers have to take the time to make improvements for the Xbox One X. Which means they either take a Xbox One game and scale it up, which results in shit results for the One X, or they make a One X game and scale it down, which results in shit results for the Xbox One.

So when it comes to long term use, the Xbox One X isn't really it. If anything, it's a band-aid until Microsoft can have a true successor to the Xbox One.

An rx 460 is not even close to what the new Xbox will have. Why do people like you even post in these threads if you don't actually know what you're talking about?

You're just spreading misinformation and causing harm, not helping.

[Kagthul]

The only thing preventing a PC from being as capable (or more, really) than the XBO-X is the current GPU price spike because of cryptominers.

At their actual listed MSRPs, its not that hard to build a PC that will handily match or beat an XBO-X for only about ~100$ extra (assuming a total from-scratch build with no re-usable parts, not even a case or HDD).

PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/4MnWFd
Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/4MnWFd/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 3 1200 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350M Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair - Vengeance LPX 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2666 Memory ($67.68 @ Amazon)
Storage: Seagate - FireCuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Hybrid Internal Hard Drive ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: MSI - Radeon RX 580 4GB ARMOR OC Video Card ($200.00)
Case: Rosewill - FBM-01 MicroATX Mini Tower Case ($24.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: EVGA - 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($44.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Operating System: Microsoft - Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit ($30.00)
Total: $607.63
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-10-02 23:07 EDT-0400

I altered the price of the RX 580 to its MSRP, and lowered windows to what you can get it for easily on the grey market.

Its 100$ more than an XBO-X, but is capable of quite a bit more than the console just by whit of being a PC. There's actually almost no reason to get the XBO-X, since all first-party exclusives are day-and-date cross-buy releases on Windows, and no 3rd party is making exclusives for the XBO-X/1S/1 environment.

Now, you will not CURRENTLY be able to build the machine for that much (the GPU will cost you another ~80 at its current prices, if you can find it in stock), but all things being equal...

The XBO-X is not a particularly compelling buy. All the games made for it still have to run on the older 1/1S, so little to nothing is going to leverage its additional power (Sony has the same issue with the PS4 Pro), and the 1X isn't replacing the 1/1S. Meaning you can just buy a FAR cheaper 1S and get all the same games that will still play awesome and look fine in 1080p.

Even at 6Tflops (its basically got an RX 580 as its GPU segment) it cant do enthusiast level 4k - when it is running games in 4k they are running at the equivalent of PC "medium" settings - so its just... meh.

[Nihilist74]

Are people still using 20 video cards at a time to farm virtual currency?

[Kagthul]

Are people still using 20 video cards at a time to farm virtual currency?

As long as it is profitable, people will do it.

And because new Cryptocurrency is popping up, and gaining steam, its caused a rather huge pricing and availability issue for any GPUs that aren't the lowest-end (GTX 1050/Ti, RX 460) or highest-end (GTX 1070, 1080, and 1080Ti - though the 1070s are up a bit just because people unable to buy mid-range GPUs have been buying it instead, impacting supply).

[kaelleria]

Well it goes a little further than that as well due to the inherent architecture and strict coding paths.
But those could be emulated/redirected by a proper kernel in newer gen consoles... if they will make those.

How convenient that the Xbox One uses the same windows kernel that Windows 10 uses.

[Evildeffy]

How convenient that the Xbox One uses the same windows kernel that Windows 10 uses.

Microsoft realized that ignoring the market that has more money going through it than all major consoles combined is a stupid move.

But it still goes a little bit further than just that but it should be software manageable without issues yes.

[Evildeffy]

I assure you, whoever claims that i7 is a must for PC gaming, he/she doesn't know much about PCs either.

Yes, Xbox One X is probably going to have stronger GPU or specs but here is a thing. How many of you are playing video games on 50 inch monitor? I don't believe many of you do. Since I love 1920x1080 and that's the most common monitor resolution, you don't need strong card to pull out 120 fps. I have GTX 1060 and I do get 120 fps in Overwatch on UltraSettings. What kills my FPS is when I increase resolution render scale in most games. Xbox one has to support 4k resolution so hence you get better GPU. Spec wise Xbox one X is definitely stronger than average PCs but for what and how you can use their platform is what going to define their success.

Just a correction... the CPU is actually weaker than the average home user's PC if the PC is 6 years old or newer.
The graphics is actually "stronger" than the average PC yes because it's LIKE (not entirely but close enough) RX 480/580 but cut down.

A more comparable performance point card is probably the RX 470/570 but built around the fact that a console is entirely optimized for low-level GPU access.
Where the PC is lagging behind still but luckily being caught up on.

Note:
Physical monitor/TV size has nothing to do with performance numbers, just resolution and graphics settings.
And no an i7, i9 or Ryzen 5 (Hexa), Ryzen 7 (Octa) and ThreadRipper (Octa+) aren't needed for PC gaming, you can do with less... but recent games are multi-thread aware and they will use that (depending on game type of course, some games CAN'T parallel process things or the game would break) power granting the higher CPUs smoother gameplay overall or allow things to be set higher.
It's not a clear cut picture in absolute terms... but it's getting there.

[Vash The Stampede]

An rx 460 is not even close to what the new Xbox will have. Why do people like you even post in these threads if you don't actually know what you're talking about?

Cause I'm right and people like you are always wrong. Cause when the Xbox One was released and people were like "Hurr durr Radeon R9 270 is in the Xbox One PS4", but in tests it shows that it's more like a Radeon R9 260x in performance. Cause it turns out using Jaguar CPU cores clocked at 1.6Ghz along with shared system memory isn't going to maximize that chips performance like on PC. What we know about the Xbox One X is that it's graphics chip is a AMD Polaris that can do 6 teraflops. The RX 480 is capable of 5.8 teraflops, so it's safe to assume that it has a RX 480 like chip in there, but like the previous machines it too still uses Jaguar chips but now running at a blistering 2.3Ghz and still shares memory with those Jaguar chips.

So when I say Rx 460 performance, I mean PC RX 460 or 560. Cause if I put a Rx 460 in a Ryzen or Intel system, that's a huge performance increase over what is considered one of the worst chips ever made the Jaguar. Probably second worse over the Intel Atom.

You're just spreading misinformation and causing harm, not helping.

No please, prove me wrong. Show me benchmark results that it takes like a RyZen chip with a GTX 1070 to equal that of the Xbox One X, or even a RX 480 assuming equal graphics settings. Cause there aren't any FPS results yet that I can see. So put up or shut up.

[kaelleria]

It's apples to oranges honestly. XBOX is a lot more optimized (DX calls directly on the hardware rather than routing through the CPU for example) than any PC can be.

[Kagthul]

Yeah you are right. I meant more that reason why Xbox has stronger GPU is because it should display 4k resolution and monitors or TVs are usually that much big for that resolution.

Less than 12% of TV owners in the US even have 4K TVs though, and its only marginally higher in the EU and actually lower in Asia.

Thats part of he reason that the XBO-X is so lackluster. If youre running in 1080p, youre going to get the exact same performance as you would on a far cheaper 1S or One, because it isnt a PC where you can go in and up the settings on the 1X - itll still be displaying e same settings as a 1S/1, locked at the same 30 or 60 fps.

And given that all exclusives (except 3rd party exclusives - not that im aware of any) are also cross-buy, day-and-date with the Xbox release... might as well just spend the tiny bit of extra scratch (~100$ at MSRPs, ~150-180$ at current inflated prices) and build a PC.

[Ahovv]

Cause I'm right and people like you are always wrong. Cause when the Xbox One was released and people were like "Hurr durr Radeon R9 270 is in the Xbox One PS4", but in tests it shows that it's more like a Radeon R9 260x in performance. Cause it turns out using Jaguar CPU cores clocked at 1.6Ghz along with shared system memory isn't going to maximize that chips performance like on PC. What we know about the Xbox One X is that it's graphics chip is a AMD Polaris that can do 6 teraflops. The RX 480 is capable of 5.8 teraflops, so it's safe to assume that it has a RX 480 like chip in there, but like the previous machines it too still uses Jaguar chips but now running at a blistering 2.3Ghz and still shares memory with those Jaguar chips.

So when I say Rx 460 performance, I mean PC RX 460 or 560. Cause if I put a Rx 460 in a Ryzen or Intel system, that's a huge performance increase over what is considered one of the worst chips ever made the Jaguar. Probably second worse over the Intel Atom.



No please, prove me wrong. Show me benchmark results that it takes like a RyZen chip with a GTX 1070 to equal that of the Xbox One X, or even a RX 480 assuming equal graphics settings. Cause there aren't any FPS results yet that I can see. So put up or shut up.

1) There are no people like me. I'm pretty sure you're trying to imply I'm a console fanboy or something, when that's far from the truth.

2) I never said it was going to equal a GTX 1070. The performance would imply it's much closer to an rx 480. You even said yourself that the teraflops imply it's something close to an rx 480, and then somehow you draw the conclusion that this means the performance would be closer to a 460 than a 470. You clearly don't understand the massive difference between a 480 and a 460 or you wouldn't be making that assertion. The 460 is a motherfucking 2 TFLOP card.

I hate consoles, but you're clearly delusional if you think it's going to match the performance of a 2 TFLOP card.

3) I don't need to provide benchmarks because you're the one making the extraordinary claim. You're essentially saying the GPU's extra 3.8 TFLOPS disappeared and are now the equivalent of a 460. That's just retarded. If the GPU was from nvidia you would have a partial point since they nail better performance with lower TFLOPs. But it's AMD. You have no point.

[Kagthul]

1) There are no people like me. I'm pretty sure you're trying to imply I'm a console fanboy or something, when that's far from the truth.

2) I never said it was going to equal a GTX 1070. The performance would imply it's much closer to an rx 480. You even said yourself that the teraflops imply it's something close to an rx 480, and then somehow you draw the conclusion that this means the performance would be closer to a 460 than a 470. You clearly don't understand the massive difference between a 480 and a 460 or you wouldn't be making that assertion. The 460 is a motherfucking 2 TFLOP card.

I hate consoles, but you're clearly delusional if you think it's going to match the performance of a 2 TFLOP card.

3) I don't need to provide benchmarks because you're the one making the extraordinary claim. You're essentially saying the GPU's extra 3.8 TFLOPS disappeared and are now the equivalent of a 460. That's just retarded. If the GPU was from nvidia you would have a partial point since they nail better performance with lower TFLOPs. But it's AMD. You have no point.

A large number of he regulars around here have put ol' Dookey there on ignore. Youre begining to understand why. Save yourself the time, just ignore him.