an xbox 30% more powerful than a playstation, what do you think about that ?

Harry Potter No GIF
 
Wildebeest said:
30% is like nothing. It needs to be like 150% more powerful or don't even bother.
Click to expand...
I think the same. In 2013, this could have worked because there was no ML upscaling, but today no one cares if the game only has a "higher dynamic resolution"over ps6.

Let's assume path tracing is a necessary feature that the PS5 can't play.

Cyberpunk runs on the PS5 at 1440p 30fps with normal RT. If if the Xbox Series X were capable of providing path tracing in 2020, it would need ML and would only be able to offer this at 1080p if it had twice the power. We're talking about a 24 teraflop Xbox, and some kind of cooler system capable of cooling the APU chip and a second additional chip containing extra stream processors.

The total price would be $700 in 2020, but that would be performance that not even the PS5 Pro could match.
now, 30% just to higher resolution that's pathetic imo.
 
Last edited:
S0ULZB0URNE said:
Just use the upcoming Xbox app on PC and you will have a more powerful Xbox than what MS makes.
Click to expand...
(The same person)

-When the PC is proposed as an alternative to a PS console... "The PC that's superior to consoles costs $2,000+, is complicated to use, and game optimization is awful."

-When the PC is proposed as an alternative to an Xbox console... "A powerful PC is the best, and the XBOX app gives you the same experience as the OS of an XSeries console."

Is it just me, or is there a bit of a double standard? 🤔😂
 
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher said:
Although Xbox hardware business is almost dead, the Xbox division is like Jason, rumors point out that the new Xbox will be more powerful than the PS6 , however the price will be without subsidy, that is, $1200 and up. This made me think about the extent to which processing power is important.

I'll avoid citing extreme examples like the Neo Geo AES or 3DO, where the technology was impressive but the price definitely reduced them to niche consoles.

The PS5 Pro is the best example. The best it can offer compared to the PS5 is running quality mode at 60fps. The PS5 runs performance mode at 60fps. In practice, we're going from 1440p60 to 4K 60fps. So, even though the Xbox is more powerful, the difference would only be a higher number in the dynamic resolution range.

Having the most powerful console (even if it's 30% powerful) is good because 90% of games are multiplatform.

A true strategy of having the most powerful console is similar to the strategy of having the least powerful console. That is, it's necessary to offer many exclusive games to take advantage of the difference, as third-party developers won't do it, so having a powerful console is a thankless strategy.

Higher R&D costs
Higher subsidies
Higher spending on games


more powerful 30%, what do you think about it?
Click to expand...
Now where have we heard this before? hmmmm, very familiar, Deja Vu even
 
Darsxx82 said:
(The same person)

-When the PC is proposed as an alternative to a PS console... "The PC that's superior to consoles costs $2,000+, is complicated to use, and game optimization is awful."

-When the PC is proposed as an alternative to an Xbox console... "A powerful PC is the best, and the XBOX app gives you the same experience as the OS of an XSeries console."

Is it just me, or is there a bit of a double standard? 🤔😂
Click to expand...
Right a more powerful PC would make sense to play Xbox games and it's been this way since Xbox One.
Will be this way for the upcoming XPCBOX.
 
A 1200 Dollar Pc ("Personal console") would be great if it does more than plays games like a PC (Personal Computer) but has the plug and playability of a console with just the right amount of power. 1200 bucks right now would get you a 4070 or 9060XT coupled with an 7700x CPU if you were building a PC with a good AIO, decent MOBO and PSU. Even get a nice starting amount of RAM and Storage.

I know this because I just literally priced out these specs for a friend I helped build their PC last week. Add in discounts from parts bought in bulk and they might even make a bit of change.
 
Last edited:
S0ULZB0URNE said:
Right a more powerful PC would make sense to play Xbox games and it's been this way since Xbox One.
Will be this way for the upcoming XPCBOX.
Click to expand...
So a powerful PC is the best option for playing any game on any console... I'm sure even you appreciate the double standard 🤷

PS. And if you don't... It's time someone told you the reality 😏
 
If you ignore the resource-hog raytracing, computational power has become irrelevant for a while now. 30% more would be massive 15 years ago, but not now. Gamedevs are the bottleneck these days.
 
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher said:
Although Xbox hardware business is almost dead, the Xbox division is like Jason, rumors point out that the new Xbox will be more powerful than the PS6 , however the price will be without subsidy, that is, $1200 and up. This made me think about the extent to which processing power is important.

I'll avoid citing extreme examples like the Neo Geo AES or 3DO, where the technology was impressive but the price definitely reduced them to niche consoles.

The PS5 Pro is the best example. The best it can offer compared to the PS5 is running quality mode at 60fps. The PS5 runs performance mode at 60fps. In practice, we're going from 1440p60 to 4K 60fps. So, even though the Xbox is more powerful, the difference would only be a higher number in the dynamic resolution range.

Having the most powerful console (even if it's 30% powerful) is good because 90% of games are multiplatform.

A true strategy of having the most powerful console is similar to the strategy of having the least powerful console. That is, it's necessary to offer many exclusive games to take advantage of the difference, as third-party developers won't do it, so having a powerful console is a thankless strategy.

Higher R&D costs
Higher subsidies
Higher spending on games


more powerful 30%, what do you think about it?
Click to expand...
Simply impossible to happen. More unlikely than Neil DeGrasse Tyson admitting that we have been constantly visited by extraterrestrials since long before the first civilizations. The Xbox Hardware division is dead, nothing more will ever come out of it. They'll license the brand from now on and that's it.
 
cireza said:
Utsumi said he had revived SEGA, but I am not seeing a new SEGA console in store. He might want to backup his words with actions at some point.
Click to expand...
If I understood what Utsumi meant by reviving Sega, he means their hardware business.
But if they want to come back, they can't make mistakes in price vs performance again, they need to offer half the teraflops of the PS6 and avoid multiplatform games until they have surpassed the 15 million units mark, because when you have a weaker console it needs to be truly weaker, you can't accept too many games because they will serve as a ''hey don't buy this garbage'' sign.
as an example, if it were in this gen, their product should be something between the Xbox Series S (4tf) and the Xbox Series X (12tf) maybe 8tf.
 
For a console as far as resolution/framerate goes, the vast majority of the market will be happy with 4K60 (reconstructed well). I don't know that the extra performance will sell at the higher price. It will come down to other factors imo. Obviously the strategy might be not to sell well, and just be a benchmark for OEM's or provide an option for people who don't want to buy OEM.
 
Geometric-Crusher said:
I think the same. In 2013, this could have worked because there was no ML upscaling, but today no one cares if the game only has a "higher dynamic resolution"over ps6.
Click to expand...
In 2013, 30% could yield a delta as small as 1000p to 1080p.

Besides history tells us that larger deltas have been mostly missed by public for what they were.
In 2013, PS4 was averaging between 50-100% better performance and people still argued if it was 'noticeable enough' for years. 30%

In 2006, 360 averaged 30-50% better performance than PS3 - and it wasn't really until DF that the differences truly got noticed.

In 2001, Xbox was between 200%-300% faster than any other console and people STILL argue today if it beat GC at all, and where/how PS2 could beat it as well.

Hell the only XBox where the universally accepted power-scaling actually applied was 1X and that only because it had more coverage from DF than the rest of XBoxes combined.
 
Most dev's can't afford to use the current gen consoles, let alone next-gen. I'll buy consoles for as long as they're on the market, but the days of selling consoles based solely on horsepower are long gone. You need to bring something more to the table.
 
HeisenbergFX4 said:
Heck I would be all over a 5090 level console to play games like GTA 6
Click to expand...
I wonder if it's time to bring back 'iLink' for future consoles to satisfy that kind of audience - instead of inflating base console price, sell multiple boxes to people that want more power.
That GT3 in HD was no slouch if you could afford 6 PS2s.

I mean come on - you know a bunch of us here would totally do it if we could.
 
Fafalada said:
In 2013, 30% could yield a delta as small as 1000p to 1080p.

Besides history tells us that larger deltas have been mostly missed by public for what they were.
In 2013, PS4 was averaging between 50-100% better performance and people still argued if it was 'noticeable enough' for years. 30%
Click to expand...
based on DF's analysis in Hitman as a benchmark the difference between both is 30% this means 1080p vs 900p, at that time this made sense, there was no 4k TV, there was no FSR, So buying a console to run all multiplatform games in lower quality, even if small, wasn't worth it, but today 30% just means a higher number within a dynamic resolution on both.
.
Fafalada said:
In 2001, Xbox was between 200%-300% faster than any other console and people STILL argue today if it beat GC at all, and where/how PS2 could beat it as well.
Click to expand...
I'm not a developer but in my calculations Xbox was 100% (2x) over PS2 without effects and 45% superior with all effects (this was huge because it was faster and looked like another gen).
Fafalada said:
Hell the only XBox where the universally accepted power-scaling actually applied was 1X and that only because it had more coverage from DF than the rest of XBoxes combined.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, what favored the 1x was having more memory for textures , textures are a good investment.

Being more powerful only matters when the price is similar and the gap is big

In 2001, the Xbox was a beast, it had a price and had games. Modern Xboxes want to be powerful but wanting third parties to make the games this is crazy. Third parties will make the game on the PlayStation and set dynamic resolution give goodbye to any extra teraflops.
in 1983 SG-1000 was a 2nd-gen console, while the Famicom was 3rd-gen. As creative as Sega's developers were, the performance wasn't there.
in 1994 PS1 vs. Saturn: The PS1's difference in favor was the number of polygons per frame, textures, lighting effects, shadows, transparency, and frame rate. In other words, everything that makes a 3D game look good was worse on Saturn.
These are extreme situations, but the point is 30% is not an important difference so situations like this sound like a waste of money to me.
 
Last edited:
It would make no difference. Even if it was 50% more powerful, it would sell less, unless it was cheaper and that's not going to happen. I would buy it but I like tech so I buy every system.
 
Geometric-Crusher said:
These are extreme situations, but the point is 30% is not an important difference so situations like this sound like a waste of money to me.
Click to expand...
Yea we're in complete agreement there - that's why I pointed to extreme examples still not amounting to much at all.
Frankly I am not sure how the new consoles will differentiate the hardware even compared to current gen - the rumoured increases look really underwhelming 'in of themselves' for all the chips - and if the pitch will be 'AI everything' they'll need something a lot more interesting than 'yet another pixel upscaler that's slightly better then the other one'.

Geometric-Crusher said:
based on DF's analysis in Hitman as a benchmark the difference between both is 30% this means 1080p vs 900p,
Click to expand...
But that's a 44% uplift, not 30% - and it virtually never came with exact parity (most X1 games either also ran worse, had reduced other settings, or both).
General rule of thumb was - 44% less pixels, reduced LODs/shading quality, and more frame-drops. Extremes went all the way to half the res and sometimes half the framerate.
But at the same time - general sentiment was that as long as you got other performance parity at 900p, the difference wasn't particularly noticeable - it was only when you had to contend with worse performance and fewer pixels that people really took note.

Geometric-Crusher said:
I'm not a developer but in my calculations Xbox was 100% (2x) over PS2 without effects and 45% superior with all effects (this was huge because it was faster and looked like another gen).
Click to expand...
That gen was a lot messier to compare h2h because hardware had actual, tangible differences beyond the number of compute units and clock-speeds. Consider that the starting point was 3x useable memory and a built in hard-drive, even if other specs were identical XBox games would always look better just on that alone.
But in that sense it was a lot like 1x of that generation too.
 
A small gap in power doesn't matter much and if it costs more, that will be the excuse, but for me it matters a lot if there are noticeable performance gains. That's why I bought a Pro, and it's why most of my time is currently on PC. But the casuals will go with what's cheaper.
 
Sneakers said the price would be above $1000, so this would fit. $1200 would of course be a death knell in console market, which is characterized by low cost of entry. But that, too, seems to fit the scenario we've heard about - a hybrid machine with a very small target audience, highly dedicated Xbox fans willing/able to pay the premium, with very modest sales expectations (maybe 10 m lifetime, although that seems optimistic to me at this point).
 
Depends on the price right. If the PS6 is 500 dollars and the next Xbox is like 1000 dollaroonies then a 30% uplift isn't going to cut it. If there is a significant gap in price, there needs to be a significant gap in performance.
 
Geometric-Crusher said:
an xbox 30% more powerful than a playstation, what do you think about that ?
Click to expand...
I think it's just a fantasy that will never happen and in case it would happen that would also mean that this Xbox would be way more expensive than the PS it would be competing against. So if PS already heavily dominates Xbox in sales, PS would dominate it even more.

But well, in the PS5 vs Series X we saw that raw power isn't everything, since PS5 having theorically less powerful hardware provided the same or very often better performance results by optimizing better the design of the hardware.
 
Last edited:
Evil Calvin said:
All companies cannot even harness the power of the current gen......and takes 5+ years and hundred of millions of dollars. We don't need a PS6 or next Xbox
Click to expand...
No, they don't want to invest the time and money to harness the power of current gen consoles.
In my opinion we do need a PS6 or next Xbox so those consoles can brute force better graphics and frame rates.
 
I'm not sure why anybody would be in any way confident there actually will be another xbox console, never mind making up baseless rumours it'll be "30% faster" than a PS6
 
I mean if MS can get something out next year which is close to a 9070 XT or better and the console costs $1,000 to $1,200. They could provide an great solution for those that dont want to buy a PC. it will probs only sell something like 18 to 20 million lifetime though so I am not sure how they convince developers its a good idea to port their games to a super expensive console with a small userbase.
 
Last edited:
DenchDeckard said:
Depends on the price right. If the PS6 is 500 dollars and the next Xbox is like 1000 dollaroonies then a 30% uplift isn't going to cut it. If there is a significant gap in price, there needs to be a significant gap in performance.
Click to expand...
I have said this for maybe 2 years here now but Xbox is not trying to go head to head with Playstation anymore, its not working
 
HeisenbergFX4 said:
I have said this for maybe 2 years here now but Xbox is not trying to go head to head with Playstation anymore, its not working
Click to expand...

Yeah, its been obvious to anybody actually paying attention.

If they cared about competing with Sony for console sales they wouldnt be releasing their games on all platforms, making deals for 3rd party devices, and certainly wouldnt be looking to release a premium console priced at $1000+. Everything they've done over the last couple of years have pointed to them abandoning the console sales strategy.

This next box will likely be an expensive and powerful niche peice of hardware for a small subset of their audience. Those that want a powerful box to play lots of 3rd party games will be happy. It's likely not going to tell a whole lot in terms of traditional console sales.

I'll buy it for that fact alone, but im honestly more interested in the new streamlined windows/xbox OS that could allow for steam library access.
 
Powerful consoles and a different controller every other month yet MS has fuck all for AAA exclusives. More cancellations than releases including studios. Power means nothing when you have morons like Phil and Co. running your brand into the ground.
 
I'd be in if PC scaling was in every game. The option of high end PC gaming experience with the reliability of a console?

Yes. Nothing grinds my gears more than DirectX and other errors.
 
I think the question is, can they make a console-pc hybrid that maintains the efficiency of a console? We were playing Fortnite in Native 4k 45 fps on a 6TF Xbox One X. Of course this is prior to UE5 and Nanite but still, the jump was huge for the time. The current gen consoles were able to run the first IW COD of the generation (Modern Warfare 2? I forget) with varying resolutions but at nearly120 fps. All with mediocre components at least when comparing to a contemporary PC. I don't know what allows them to pull off stuff like this, but I assume it's got a lot to do with the OS and whatever secret sauce Jason Roland and Mark Cerny dream up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

What PlayStation games do you want on Xbox?
2
68
2K
SteadyEvo replied
LTT - Intel Arc B580 - 30 Day Challenge Results - Do you need more than a $250 card?
3
966
SScorpio replied
What do you think about Switch Online on Switch 2
12
709
InterMusketeer replied
What do you think of the Shinobi Series?
2
68
1K
ROJM replied
Saturn Was "More Powerful Than PlayStation" Claims Argonaut Founder
11 12 13 14 15
734
38K
Wolzard replied
Top Bottom