PC Build Comparable w/ Xbox One X

[BulletSpeak]

First thing is first; this is not a "which is better" thread. Don't start trash-talking and downing the PC nor the Xbox. We're discussing actual specs, performance and costs between the two platforms in order to get a realistic idea of what it'd take for a PC equivalent. So please, stay on topic.

Now, I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to PCs. I'll admit that upfront so you know where I stand. HOWEVER, first thing is first, your video card. This dictates a lot of your raw horsepower and is often the most expensive component within your build. I've been looking over the 1070 as not only the best bang for your buck but also probably the most comparable to the Xbox One X.

That alone runs me up roughly four to five-hundred depending meaning I've already equaled the Xbox system in one purchase.

Where do we go from there though? What would be a good, well-priced processor, motherboard, RAM, SSD/HDD, etc?

I was looking at the Ryzen for a processor and maybe an MSI for the board. Corsair likely for the RAM. I've got some ideas of what brands I'd maybe prefer BUT the actual, raw specs in which would avoid bottlenecks and get the most out of my 1070 elude me somewhat. Similar issue with the chassis.

I'll additionally need a new monitor. New keyboard and mouse. The list goes on. -- Yes, this is for me in determining my future purchases and which way I should initially lean. I also figure it'll be helpful for those in a similar situation that are trying to determine what would be the best deal for their money as I'm sure it'll be an oft approach subject and for good reason.

What I am personally hung up on and what's making it hard for me to merely swallow the lower-price point of the Xbox One X and roll with it, is how developer's at the moment seem to be utilizing the extra power. They're REALLY into 4k for some reason where as I am more than okay with 1080p. So I'd not be getting much out of the system as they're not providing alternatives to the 4k setup more often than not resulting in by and large an overall loss in any real improvements like 60fps or higher settings. Where as a PC I can choose where that extra bang goes but again, it's still going to cost more and I'm not sure as to what the overall specs should look like; hence where I am here.

Again, keep it civil. This is dollars to dollars comparison. Advantages to disadvantages. Keep to the facts. I'd like to know what would constitute as an Xbox One X equivalent PC while trying to keep the costs low. I've had difficulty finding a satisfying answer elsewhere so I figured I'd bring it up here.

[chazus]

It's really comparing apples to oranges.

A console will always be cheaper than a computer, mainly because... It's not a computer. Ignoring specs, a console can't really do like 3/4 of what a computer can do, functionality wise. It's like comparing a computer to a TI Graphing Calculator in price and performance, when you only want to do math graphing.

What I'm seeing is "I've already picked out a 1070 GPU, how do I make this as cheap as possible without gimping myself, or should I just get an Xbox?"

The question is: Do you want a computer, or a console. Do you have a computer already that has all the stuff a computer does that a console doesn't already?

Notably, you will not get a computer with Xbox power, at Xbox price. Period. Or even close.

[Cilraaz]

Looks like this got caught in moderation. Have a free bump!

[Deleted]

A One X is between a 1060 and 1070 in performance, though closer to a 1070.

It is unlikely that any game which ships at 30fps for any Xbox will see an option to decrease quality/resolution to increase fps to 60, as this creates an uneven playing field and it's been stated they want to avoid two tier gaming.

True 4K is nowhere near possible on a PC for the money, and not possible on a One X for the vast majority of titles (Forza is the exception). A 1070 won't do true 4k in anything but wow, it will have a good crack at 1440p@100hz or 1080@144 though, but you may have to wind back on some detail if consistent frame delivery time is priority.

I play mostly shooters and 30fps is about as desirable as syphilis for this. You can build a solid 1080p@60fps for similar money, with the CPU having sufficient speed to not badly gimp a better GPU in a couple of years (about the time the next One will be along, as it is processor limited); should you want to increase resolution or hz down the line. The thing which breaks pc's currently is lack of availability/pricing of mid range GPU's due to crypto-mining, this may change though.

Will you be doing anything intensive other than gaming? Will you be looking to play 1080p@144hz, or 1440p@100hz? Will you overclock?

[Evildeffy]

A One X is between a 1060 and 1070 in performance, though closer to a 1070.

It is unlikely that any game which ships at 30fps for any Xbox will see an option to decrease quality/resolution to increase fps to 60, as this creates an uneven playing field and it's been stated they want to avoid two tier gaming.

True 4K is nowhere near possible on a PC for the money, and not possible on a One X for the vast majority of titles (Forza is the exception). A 1070 won't do true 4k in anything but wow, it will have a good crack at 1440p@100hz or 1080@144 though, but you may have to wind back on some detail if consistent frame delivery time is priority.

I play mostly shooters and 30fps is about as desirable as syphilis for this. You can build a solid 1080p@60fps for similar money, with the CPU having sufficient speed to not badly gimp a better GPU in a couple of years (about the time the next One will be along, as it is processor limited); should you want to increase resolution or hz down the line. The thing which breaks pc's currently is lack of availability/pricing of mid range GPU's due to crypto-mining, this may change though.

Will you be doing anything intensive other than gaming? Will you be looking to play 1080p@144hz, or 1440p@100hz? Will you overclock?

Actually just a correction.. it's closer to an RX 480/580 and GTX 1060 than it is GTX 1070.
The difference is that consoles have a far superior low level API and are optimized as such with hardware.

Whilst we are stuck with DirectX 11 for the most part but thankfully the switch to DirectX 12 and Vulkan are being made.

That's why AMD has been chosen for graphics as it allows for better low level access than nVidia.

In terms of pure power though .. PC is unbeatable by a console regardless of era.
That said .. the X-BOX (X-Box One X) optimizes extremely well and is looking to be a good console.

[moremana]

Actually just a correction.. it's closer to an RX 480/580 and GTX 1060 than it is GTX 1070.
The difference is that consoles have a far superior low level API and are optimized as such with hardware.

Whilst we are stuck with DirectX 11 for the most part but thankfully the switch to DirectX 12 and Vulkan are being made.

That's why AMD has been chosen for graphics as it allows for better low level access than nVidia.

In terms of pure power though .. PC is unbeatable by a console regardless of era.
That said .. the X-BOX (X-Box One X) optimizes extremely well and is looking to be a good console.

This.

You will never get a cheap PC to do what a xbox one x will do as far as gaming. And like @chazus has stated, they are apples to oranges.

So, that noted, as you asked, this is where you looking cost wise for something similar in performance in a PC. Also, keep in mind, this will also depend on what you do with said PC when not gaming.

this is merely a guide, its not my particular preference but it does have quality vs cost. And no you dont need a GTX 1070 for 30fps at 4k. I also did not add a headset as I am not a audiophile, @DeltrusDisc would be of more help here.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($196.29 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350M Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Crucial - Ballistix Sport LT 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($67.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($45.69 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: MSI - Radeon RX 580 4GB GAMING X Video Card ($279.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Fractal Design - Focus G Mini (Black) MicroATX Mini Tower Case ($49.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - G 550W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($68.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Monitor: Dell - U2414H 23.8" 1920x1080 60Hz Monitor ($224.99 @ Amazon) or 27" Freesync @ Amazon
Keyboard: Corsair - K55 RGB Wired Gaming Keyboard ($49.99 @ Amazon)
Mouse: Corsair - M65 PRO RGB FPS Wired Optical Mouse ($46.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $1090.90
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-09-26 19:00 EDT-0400

Note: Add 25.00 for Windows via Kinguin or similar. I use SCDKEY

[DeltrusDisc]

If he wants to budget in speakers/headphones/microphone I'll be happy to help out. Let me know.

[kaelleria]

It's worth noting that Microsoft has done some really interesting things related to how draw calls are actually processed that eliminates a lot of overhead you'd normally see. Time will tell to see how devs use the resources available but there are already 130~ titles enhanced specifically for the XOX.

[Vash The Stampede]

Now, I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to PCs. I'll admit that upfront so you know where I stand. HOWEVER, first thing is first, your video card. This dictates a lot of your raw horsepower and is often the most expensive component within your build. I've been looking over the 1070 as not only the best bang for your buck but also probably the most comparable to the Xbox One X.

That alone runs me up roughly four to five-hundred depending meaning I've already equaled the Xbox system in one purchase.

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.

Where do we go from there though? What would be a good, well-priced processor, motherboard, RAM, SSD/HDD, etc?

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

I'll additionally need a new monitor. New keyboard and mouse. The list goes on. -- Yes, this is for me in determining my future purchases and which way I should initially lean. I also figure it'll be helpful for those in a similar situation that are trying to determine what would be the best deal for their money as I'm sure it'll be an oft approach subject and for good reason.

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.

[Deleted]

Unfortunately there's no benchmark results yet of the Xbox One X, and older game titles simply don't benefit from the new hardware.

Digital Foundry has had quite a good look at the One X.

[DeltrusDisc]

Digital Foundry has had quite a good look at the One X.

So link it?

[Vash The Stampede]

Digital Foundry has had quite a good look at the One X.

Yes link it cause I can't find any. At least any with a fps counter.

[Zeta333]

If anything, it's a band-aid until Microsoft can have a true successor to the Xbox One.

I doubt we will see true new consoles very much in the future, architecture wont change enough to not be like what the xbox one x and ps4 pro are to the previous consoles.

[Life-Binder]

That's why AMD has been chosen for graphics as it allows for better low level access than nVidia.

AMD has been chosen "for graphics", because they also make CPUs and thus can design full APUs/SoCs, Nvidia doesnt/cant

and also probably because they agreed to sell for the cheap price that Sony/MS wanted

[Vash The Stampede]

AMD has been chosen "for graphics", because they also make CPUs and thus can design full APUs/SoCs, Nvidia doesnt/cant

and also probably because they agreed to sell for the cheap price that Sony/MS wanted

Nvidia can make APUs/SoCs but not with x86. Which honestly at this point does x86 matter? Most of the stuff done on these consoles hasn't really translated well to PC. But yea AMD sold their designs for cheap.

[kaelleria]

Nvidia can make APUs/SoCs but not with x86. Which honestly at this point does x86 matter? Most of the stuff done on these consoles hasn't really translated well to PC. But yea AMD sold their designs for cheap.

This generation has all been x86 and that's unlikely to change. Bad ports are a product of the company porting them, not the architecture itself.

Not all ports are bad either... Take a look at any of the PlayAnywhere titles for Xbox/Windows 10. These aren't even true "ports" as its literally the same code with minor modifications.

[Vash The Stampede]

This generation has all been x86 and that's unlikely to change. Bad ports are a product of the company porting them, not the architecture itself.

Not all ports are bad either... Take a look at any of the PlayAnywhere titles for Xbox/Windows 10. These aren't even true "ports" as its literally the same code with minor modifications.

What would help Nvidia and more importantly the consumer is if these developers released the source code of their games. That way we can port the game to any platform regardless of CPU and OS. For example, RBDoom3BFG has taken the Doom 3 engine code which is open, and ported it to Linux. It doesn't have any game assets, just the engine code. But the problem is that companies generally don't like to share code for things that can be taken used used in other products.

[kaelleria]

What would help Nvidia and more importantly the consumer is if these developers released the source code of their games. That way we can port the game to any platform regardless of CPU and OS. For example, RBDoom3BFG has taken the Doom 3 engine code which is open, and ported it to Linux. It doesn't have any game assets, just the engine code. But the problem is that companies generally don't like to share code for things that can be taken used used in other products.

What? Open sourcing an engine has nothing to do with your premise of x86 not mattering. The Xbox 360 ran on the PowerPC architecture and PS3 on Cell. The Cell architecture didn't perform as well as the PowerPC arch so you saw huge variances in performance between the same game on the different platform. Because they're all on x86 arch, it's much easier for a dev to port a game from one platform to another.

Eventually we'll probably see powerful ARM based consoles (I don't count the switch as powerful), but we're not at that point yet.

[Vash The Stampede]

What? Open sourcing an engine has nothing to do with your premise of x86 not mattering.

If the code is open and the developers refuse to port their games to other platforms and architextures, then at least the community can. And if there's enough interest in running certain games on certain CPUs and OS's then the developers might do the work themselves. Cause x86 is dominant due to software being mostly made for x86. But companies being the anti risk taking businesses they are will avoid porting their games to something like a Nvidia Tegra.

The Xbox 360 ran on the PowerPC architecture and PS3 on Cell. The Cell architecture didn't perform as well as the PowerPC arch so you saw huge variances in performance between the same game on the different platform. Because they're all on x86 arch, it's much easier for a dev to port a game from one platform to another.

Cell is technically PowerPC based, it just had a lot of SPU's slapped on it that very few games used. The PS3 was considered more powerful than the Xbox 360 but due to the SPU's being difficult to program for it looked like the 360 was more powerful. X86 might make it easier but it also limits what hardware we can enjoy our games on, and Nvidia will never get a x86 license to make CPUs.

[Evildeffy]

AMD has been chosen "for graphics", because they also make CPUs and thus can design full APUs/SoCs, Nvidia doesnt/cant

and also probably because they agreed to sell for the cheap price that Sony/MS wanted

Actually no, AMD was going to be chosen for graphics regardless.
The fact AMD could do both semi-custom design and cheaper on the CPU side was a bonus.

AMD's low level access and capabilities are considerably better than nVidia's cards.
This is shown in DX12/Vulkan games on PC as well, let alone on consoles where everything has to follow a strict optimization path.

Consoles, unlike PCs, have no fragmentation to speak of.
And especially nowadays you want a graphics uArch that can ... well ... "age" better than one that cannot.

You aren't incorrect though, your specifically mentioned reasons were a large factor as well but the graphics one wouldn't have altered the GPU choice in the end for either Sony or Microsoft.