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 "
The Laptop cpu 😁
It's a Gamingbolt article. Expect the usual trash.
I am more interested in the enemy AI myself but, yeah.
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.
They're weak compared to cheapest i7 920 from 2008 with four cores.
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.
So true like pro
Cpu is still faster than the pro...
This isn't about the Pro though?
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 Like you just did?
@Kumakai Like you did?
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.
@ocelot, I was quoting Kumakai. I don't I agree with him either.
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...
It should be it came out a year later
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.
@ocelot07 , I was referring to the solid 30fps locked is all
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.
Article appears to be about Xbox One, not X. But hey....... Gotta get those clicks. In the meantime I'll be playing Horizon 3 on me underpowered X, thank god for all that underpower.
Well the underpowered cpus are the biggest bottlenecks this generation.
Yes, compared to PCs. But consoles are not PCs. They don't need to compete spec-for-spec with PCs. They don't even need to be as powerful as each other. Look at the Switch. Power is lacking way more than on the Sony or MS consoles. Yet it's selling at a dizzying pace.
True they don't need to compete spec for spec with PC's I 100% agree. But that does not mean they have to fall way behind PC's when it comes to some areas. In the case of the PS4 Pro and the X that would be the CPU.
Cobra951: I agree. But my main argument here would be that the cpu is underpowered compared to the rest of the console. The cpu is bottlenecking the rest of the console reaching higher potentials. But power is definitley not everything. As in youre case with the Switch. Ocelot07: Yes, the highend consoles doesnt need to compete head on with highend gaming rigs. But they should give them a run for their money with what you can see and experience without having special tools to count pixels and frames.
They still need good cpus. Without a good cpu all that power in the GPU means nothing.
PS4 cpu is even weaker, but that didn't stop it from running HZD almost perfectly and it is very beautiful game, so if any dev says that the even overclocked xbox x cpu is weak then i say time to step up your game and learn how to optimize games, as Guerrilla Games has no issues with it even without an overclocked jaguar.
exactly. Don't know why devs still complaining because of the cpu. Didn't they want to use compute for many things the cpu did in the past? The biggest problem with the cpu in the past was, that to power the gpu you needed much cpu-speed, but with vulcan/dx12 this problem should get solved by developers (the ps4 never had that issue because of the lower level api). It is up to developers to optimize the cpu usage. The jaguar cores are not really a bottle-neck if you design arround that. PS4 has the weakest cpu and there seem to be no problem with physics or KI count in the games so far. Only bummer is that there are not so many 60fps games, but that wouldn't even happen if there was a 8-core ryzen inside, because than the games would still need a better gpu to reach this or the visuals would need a cut. 60 fps is always bound to compromises.
That’s very ignorant of you to say. I guarantee the CPU was a problem during the development of HZD. Not only that you’re forgetting one major factor, how strong the GPU in the X is comparatively to the CPU. So when trying to get all performance out of the GPU and RAM, the CPU quickly becomes a problem if it’s underpowered. HZD also isn’t a heavily CPU reliant game, so it’s a bad example.
I personally think if Xbox X released as the standard spec at the beginning of this gen, PS4 would still be in the position it's in now. It's all about the games not just spec.
Had no issue running Gears 4 at 60fps
Gears 4 isn’t CPU relent nor is it 60fps in the intensive parts of the game. It’s only 60 in multiplayer where the graphics and effects are dumbed down.
False the Xbox one x version runs it's campaign at 60fps. Try harder
Well I would just make it work on the X and work as good as it can on the one.
Oh gamingbolt it never ends with you does it.