For your ears only, AGR managed to get an interview with the developers behind the game to find out more about the new sequel. Thanks to Iceberg Interactive for helping arrange this.
Indie publisher Iceberg Interactive is celebrating its 10 year anniversary with their biggest-ever sale on Steam.
Neil writes: "It's payday week and so what better way to celebrate than by splashing all that hard earned cash on some new Xbox games. Thankfully, that's where the Xbox Deals With Gold sale comes in too, giving access to a ton of beautifully discounted Xbox One and Xbox 360 titles. Want to check out the full list of discounts available via the Xbox Deals With Gold and Spotlight Sale for 30th April-6th May 2019? We've got the full lists right here."
NieR, The Surge, and both Styx games are on sale. Great if you like RPGs, and the first two are pretty good Souls like games.
The Xbox One X is the most powerful home console ever made, with some impressive advances in the RAM and GPU over the base system.
I'm confused about the article ..
Is the point you are trying to make that the Xbox One's CPU is weaker than PCs in general, and thus giving developers issues?
Or that the original Xbox One's CPU is weaker than the Xbox One X, and due to the fact that games need to be compatible on both, the Xbox One's CPU is giving developers issues compared to the possibilities they would have if they'd only needed to work with the Xbox One X CPU?
Bottom line, your article headline should say that the Xbox One's CPU is the biggest shortcoming, not the Xbox One X, since the Xbox One is the lowest denominator in this equation and as such, the weakest link.
I think what he is trying to say is with all that power 6tf GPU 12GB of ram and 300+ bandwidth speed it's still has a overclocked mobile CPU that's designed for non gaming laptops and tablets.
This is definitely a shortcoming on every console this gen.
This is the sole reason that we have always gone resolution over framerate because the cpu just can't handle 60fps on demanding games no matter how powerful the GPU is.
Compared to pc where just about every low and mid entry gaming CPU can beat the consoles CPU with ease.
Hopefully next gen will have more of a balance between the GPU and CPU then we can move forward and see physics like we have never seen before.
"Xbox One X’s Relatively Weaker video game line-up Is “Biggest Shortcoming For us”, Says core gamers "
With Ryzen being AMD's performance to price ratio juggernaut CPU, next generation consoles should have them equipped. At least a version of it and come to think of it, IPC/architecture alone, a Ryzen CPU clocked at even 2.5-3Ghz will do wonders compared to Jaguar. Even potentially having a large amount of games run at 60fps that is, if operating system functions don't become bloated up like background video record and multi task pins.
Current Ryzen's IPC is pretty comparable to Intel's Kabylake i5s and i7s.
But right now, consoles are truly throttled by the CPU which affects frame rate by a good amount. Yet, some people wonder why PCs are more expensive, one reason is just the better CPUs that have improved architectures in the shape that isn't mobile which allows for more smoother operations that isn't just gaming.
CPU is not as important of a factor as GPU in these PC based consoles. The PS3 and 360 were more CPU centric. The PS4 and Xbox are not as cpu based.
@mikes
But the cpu is still causing a major bottleneck. It doesn’t matter if the games are more gpu intensive. A good CPU is still needed.
They're basically the same CPU. One is clocked a bit faster than the other. Both forms are quite weak, compared to even average modern PC CPUs.
It's that the CPU bottlenecks the GPU. Something we've all been saying this whole time.
Yep, and the more GPU power you match with these, the more bottlenecked it is. Thus X1X has a far greater bottleneck then the OG X1. Same with PS4 Pro vs PS4.
Yea, I was told by many that the XB1X would keep up with my laptop. Now, of course I paid more, but I already had it for work purposes. (As I work in graphics & 3D) Intel 7700HQ from last year. 4 cores with 8 threads max clock at 3.6ghz each. 6MB cache.
Compare that to XB1X's 2 modules with 4 cores each, max clock at 2.3ghz each. Only 2MB cache.
Now I have a GTX 1060 (6GB version of DDR5 as opposed to the 3GB version) Not the best, but it's been compared in power to the XB1X.
16GB of DDR5 memory, upgradable to 32GB.
You can do a lot better than this on Laptops now days, and especially PC Desktops.
Now I'm not trying to even compare the cost. Of course I paid more.
But everyone who said it would keep up with gaming PCs just because they have a GTX 1060 which is comparable to an XB1X...... there are a lot other elements to consider.
I do not argue that XB1X is not a great value as an entry point into 4K. I have most of the XB1X exclusives on my Laptop. But keep your expectations reasonable. (I also enjoy having the Steam and other PC exclusive library open to me)
I didn't go out and buy my computer just for gaming, so not everyone will be in the same boat as me. Just putting that out there.
^ This was strictly for the "You have a GTX1060? The XB1X will match yours" crowd.
Gtx1060? Digital foundry proved the X surpasses 1060. It's runs at the level of a 1075 if one existed
Digital Foundry have proven time after time that Xbox One X is basically the same sort of performance as a GTX1060, maybe like one with a mild overclock which you usually get out the box from partner models.
It's definitely without any doubt or question not as fast as a GTX1070.
Again Chief, you're talking just the GPU not other elements that contribute to performance. ProjectVulcan is right also, btw. I've seen the videos.
I would imagine they were using a PC setup with a CPU and system memory closer to the XB1 so the comparison is more equal. That's what this article is about. The CPU is weak.
Lmao people need to get a grip. I play games for fun that simple not power not because it has 1 more ghz than the other or the rez is better on one. I pickup my controller and play the games I want. Love the Xbox one x but also love playing on my switch to as well as my PS3, dreamcast, game cube, wiiu, amiga32 N64 and SNES.
Either way, Xbox fan or not, we can all agree that really the only shortcoming of the X is that it didn't get a substantial boost in CPU. But maybe that's better left for the next gen.
Replies(2)
No but fanboys love to jump on it and talk shit, forgetting the facts.
Yep it supposed to be about a so called beast of a console with a weak cpu.
Oh someone is forgetting some facts alright. Facts like every Xbox game is multiplatformn and appears on a device whose gap is much farther ahead of the X1X than the X1X is ahead of the Pro. Facts like one console out of the big three has no exclusive titles. None.
Kumakai, if someone jumps in and talks $#!+ then go right ahead and point it out. Right now though you're the one starting things up. Not cool.
All console CPU's this gen were lacking, a trend that continues through the "mid-gens" as some call them. I hope next gen fixes that issue.
Morganfell, you could at least stay on topic if you're going to call him out on his fanboy.
It's just fairly faster. The CPU could be running at 5ghz and it would still be shockingly bad.
X: 8 core cpu running at 2.3ghz.
Pro 8 core cpu running at 2.1ghz
But the the X also has more cache, more bus speed, more ram and more memory bandwidth.... in addition to more than a full PS4 of gpu power over the pro. If the weaker cpu is holding you back on the most powerful console, you’re either doing something wrong or should stick to pc because Sony’s most powerful console could do even less.
That’s why the x became my go to, even tho I own a pro too. It just outperforms it and it’s apparent when you go back and forth as I do.
I have to agree here. The X is the superb hardware. But I’m always going back to my Pro for Sony’s games. But Sony’s first party do a really good job optimizing games for the hardware.
"If the weaker cpu is holding you back on the most powerful console" Well yer it is holding the most powerful console back. If it didn't and they had a decent CPU in there I would probably own the Xbox One X my self. But no the CPU is a potato.
This is why I game mainly on PC. My 4 year old CPU is still going strong crapping on both the Pro and X. Paired with a GTX 1080ti I can play Forza Horizon 3 at 4K 60FPS or PUBG at 4K 60FPS.
Yet it can't break 30fps on games that even modern budget CPUs have no problem locking 60fps with.
"If the weaker cpu is holding you back on the most powerful console"
Of course It is. It has been so for this entire generation. Damn XBO and its weak CPU!
"Cpu is still faster than the pro..."
And Sony exclusives...you know exclusives, games that only appear on a single device and not on any other platform, rule over hardware made by anyone else.
Yes it is faster than the Pro but that does not make the CPU any good. It's still a potato same as the Pro CPU. Yes exclusives do matter hence why I have a PS4 my self. It's why I buy consoles because of the exclusives.
It is amusing how excited people get for 30fps multiplatform games. I have a 1080Ti so the Xbox One X does nothing for me, I already play Forza Horizon 3 at 4K60.
The beginning of the gen was different, Xbox One was actually getting unique games I couldn't play on PC, which is why I bought one. Fool me once...
The 8 core Jaguar CPU was probably the right choice at the time (2013) for the base Xbox One and PS4. But using the same CPU with a bit of an overclock for the Pro and X is frustrating. It lets both systems down massively. Some people fail to see the short comings of the CPU side. Last time I left a comment about the CPU one or 2 people kept banging on how it's not rubbish and how DX12 is baked into the CPU (for the Xbox). I honestly don't care what is baked into the CPU a crap CPU is a crap CPU end of.
Just imagine if both Sony and Microsoft went with the a Ryzen based APU for the Pro and X. 30FPS would be a thing of the past. Hell even if they thrown in a 4 year old intel i5 inside it would of been much better than the crap they have inside now.
I understand why they did it. It's just frustrating. A better CPU in both and both would of been much better than the average PC gamer's rig.
I'm playing FH3 on the X and HZD on Pro and I'm thinking you don't know what your talking about.
If am not mistaking is Forza Horizon 3 and Horizon Zero Dawn not locked to 30FPS? If so you just proved my point thanks.
The games look better, but not by a lot. Sharper might be a better adjective. I always thought the Xbone and PS4 were underpowered and these upgrade have only made me more excited for the next gen, this gen has had great games but I can't wait for physics and AI to come into their own.
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
@ocelot07 yes it is This X patch won't satisfy those looking for a 60fps version of the game - the lock remains at 30fps - but what it does bring to the table in terms of 4K support does impress.
Yes I am not disputing the GPU side of things. The GPU is pretty damn good. But the CPU let's it down. Same with the Pro the GPU inside the Pro is also very good it's just let down by the CPU. If both consoles where paired with a better CPU. Forza Horizon 3 at 4K 60FPS and Horizon Zero Dawn at CB 4K 60FPS would be no problem.
If Sony and MS had used stronger CPUs in the Pro / X a lot of developers would be pissed that they don't get to utilize it to the fullest. A GPU improvement was easy to justify because people are using higher resolution screens.
That makes no sense. Why wouldn't they be able to utilize a stronger CPU to the fullest?
ocelot07, because game developers on consoles have determined that gamers are satisfied with 30fps and they would rather push more complex physics, more draw calls, larger more complex worlds, etc. When the 360 launched it's CPU was fast for the time but most games were still only 30fps. They can't make a game be 30fps on the upgraded console and then somehow perform okay on the larger portion of the install base, the base models. GPU performance is easier to scale, which is why the Switch GPU clock speed doubles in docked mode but the CPU clock speed is the same.
I honestly get what you are saying. When they first detailed these systems, I was confused at why they did not include a higher level CPU but then it dawned on me that if they did they would be considered next-generation consoles. This might be the reason why they chose to overclock their CPU and include better GPUs.
I agree and funnily enough, what they don't understand is that DirectX 12 scales much better with a good CPU. So if you have a garbage microarchitecture CPU from 2013, in a time when Intel was dominating the CPU market for performance, an AMD CPU with DirectX 12 isn't going to give impressive results.
Now... with Ryzen being impressive, especially the APU counterparts, it would be a different story. Even I want to think that an 8 core Ryzen CPU clocked the same would do 60fps with ease just like a 2 core Kabylake clocked at 3.5 (referring to the $70 G4560) already does.
Next generation will be different in many ways, it's when physics get a bigger upgrade than going from last generation to this one.
Now I understand why there isn't so many real time strategy games on consoles since those games use a lot of CPU power.
I suspect compatibility with the base systems played a big part in choice of CPU being used in the mid-gen consoles.
That won't be the case with the next gen, I fully expect some sort of Zen core.
Neither system is really designed to rely too heavily on the CPU. GPU compute is a fundamental principal that is expected to be adhered to in order to get the most out of the systems. This is why they went with weaker CPU's, because they never intended for them to be major focuses of development.
It's funny how soon many people believe that Ryzen is some silver bullet to 60fps. It going to be fun to see what excuses people make when games still run at 30fps because developers decided to use the extra power for something other than framerate.
