Xbox One X

My plan is Scorpio this year, new display next year

jawafour wrote:I may be wrong, but I doubt a PC could be built that delivers 4K / 60FPS / HDMI 2.1 for £400? I'll be surprised if MS can launch a new console with that spec for £400, let alone the lower cost that some folk think it could be.

You can't build a PC for that amount that delivers that performance for a number of reasons. The first is that no one will sell you a board with the CPU, GPU and RAM etc integrated so you need to buy all of the components separately therefore costing you more. The 2nd reason is that the Scorpio OS will be fully optimised for the hardware it uses unlike Windows which needs to cater for a multitude of components. This means that the Scorpio can run games at comparable performance levels on simpler, cheaper hardware. Finally, you don't need to cover the cost of an OS. There is actually some smoke and mirrors at play here in that you are getting the performance on lesser hardware meaning there is no direct comparison in cost.

Death's Head wrote:

jawafour wrote:I may be wrong, but I doubt a PC could be built that delivers 4K / 60FPS / HDMI 2.1 for £400? I'll be surprised if MS can launch a new console with that spec for £400, let alone the lower cost that some folk think it could be.

You can't build a PC for that amount that delivers that performance for a number of reasons. The first is that no one will sell you a board with the CPU, GPU and RAM etc integrated so you need to buy all of the components separately therefore costing you more. The 2nd reason is that the Scorpio OS will be fully optimised for the hardware it uses unlike Windows which needs to cater for a multitude of components. This means that the Scorpio can run games at comparable performance levels on simpler, cheaper hardware. Finally, you don't need to cover the cost of an OS. There is actually some smoke and mirrors at play here in that you are getting the performance on lesser hardware meaning there is no direct comparison in cost.

That's not smoke and mirrors, its just a factor of the different approaches.

You can certainly compare gaming performance and cost between a PC and console, the fact that the PC would have to be more powerful than the console to provide the same performance is neither here nor there.

As for your supposition that because this is a single SoC it means that they will be able to produce it massively cheaper than equivalent PC hardware, neatly avoids the fact that although this might be true, £500, £600 or even £700 or more for the total price would still be massively cheaper than the equivalent PC hardware.

HSH28 wrote:That's not smoke and mirrors, its just a factor of the different approaches.

It is smoke and mirrors in the sense that you get the impression that you are getting hardware equivalent to a very high end PC when in fact you are not.

HSH28 wrote:You can certainly compare gaming performance and cost between a PC and console, the fact that the PC would have to be more powerful than the console to provide the same performance is neither here nor there.

It is important as it shows a similar gaming performance can be provided at a lower price, the reason why I believe the Scorpio isn't necessarily going to be very expensive.

HSH28 wrote:As for your supposition that because this is a single SoC it means that they will be able to produce it massively cheaper than equivalent PC hardware, neatly avoids the fact that although this might be true, £500, £600 or even £700 or more for the total price would still be massively cheaper than the equivalent PC hardware.

It won't be the equivalent hardware, it will be lower spec hardware doing the same job as a more expensive PC.

Not really sure why you are arguing with me here, almost like you are defending something I'm not attacking. I'm just explaining why the Scorpio isn't necessarily going to be as expensive as some people think.

Death's Head wrote:Not really sure why you are arguing with me here, almost like you are defending something I'm not attacking. I'm just explaining why the Scorpio isn't necessarily going to be as expensive as some people think.

I'm trying to explain that although your arguments follow a certain logic, that logic doesn't automatically lead to the kind of price you are suggesting.

The fact that people with quite a bit more experience of how much things cost seem to think the console will be $499 (which would translate to at least £480) is something you seem to just be ignoring.

Yes it will be much cheaper than a PC that can do the same things, but a PC that can do the same things would probably be somewhere in the region of £1000 more expensive than the price I'm suggesting.

Well, I guess we will see. I will be surprised if the Scorpio retails at more than twice the price of the XBO s as I doubt it will be seen as twice as powerful.

Today I learnt what FreeSync means.

Floex wrote:Today I learnt what FreeSync means.

I'm sure Hugo will be along in a minute to explain why you don't actually know what it means.

Floex wrote:Today I learnt what FreeSync means.

I've got a G-sync enabled PC monitor and it's a really cool feature. Works particularly well with racing games to give a convincing sense of speed. Also, it's great for games that hit 40fps+ - gives a much smoother presentation even at lower framerates if they vary.

It'll be interesting to see whether the major TV manufacturers pick-up on this for their 2018 TVs. 4k g-sync / free sync is still a bit of a niche in the PC space - and costly. A 55 inch HDR enabled, freesync TV for the lounge might be in the realm of OLED technology for me (i.e. a bit too much for me).

Reading a little more on this, I'm beginning to feel Microsoft are over compensating at this stage. It's great to have all these lovely features but at what cost?

This FreeSync thing, the way it stands barely any TV's have it at the moment, a 4K blu-ray drive, is the 4K market THAT big that a big percentage of people will bewatching movies on it? I'd much rather a lower cost console than have features that barely a fraction of the audience will use.

I mean this all comes down to cost, if it's an absolute steal Microsoft are on to a winner. Priced too much, again, I don't get who the console is aimed at.

Floex wrote: I'd much rather a lower cost console than have features that barely a fraction of the audience will use.

The original Xbone will still be around to meet that need.

I suppose it's the same argument you could make with those people who spend what seems like crazy money building dream spec PCs.
They could spend vastly less and get a PC that can still run all the games they play but they still go out and spend $1,200 on a Titan X graphics card.

Floex wrote:Reading a little more on this, I'm beginning to feel Microsoft are over compensating at this stage. It's great to have all these lovely features but at what cost?

This FreeSync thing, the way it stands barely any TV's have it at the moment, a 4K blu-ray drive, is the 4K market THAT big that a big percentage of people will bewatching movies on it? I'd much rather a lower cost console than have features that barely a fraction of the audience will use.

I mean this all comes down to cost, if it's an absolute steal Microsoft are on to a winner. Priced too much, again, I don't get who the console is aimed at.

I believe support for Freesync has been integrated into AMDs graphics chip designs for a while now so supporting it won't increase the cost of the hardware in the box. It's a good feature as any of the PC gamers on here with a Freesync or G Sync monitor will tell you.

The 4K blu ray drive doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me unless the difference in cost over a regular drive is absolutely minimal.

bear wrote:

Floex wrote:Reading a little more on this, I'm beginning to feel Microsoft are over compensating at this stage. It's great to have all these lovely features but at what cost?

This FreeSync thing, the way it stands barely any TV's have it at the moment, a 4K blu-ray drive, is the 4K market THAT big that a big percentage of people will bewatching movies on it? I'd much rather a lower cost console than have features that barely a fraction of the audience will use.

I mean this all comes down to cost, if it's an absolute steal Microsoft are on to a winner. Priced too much, again, I don't get who the console is aimed at.

I believe support for Freesync has been integrated into AMDs graphics chip designs for a while now so supporting it won't increase the cost of the hardware in the box. It's a good feature as any of the PC gamers on here with a Freesync or G Sync monitor will tell you.

The 4K blu ray drive doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me unless the difference in cost over a regular drive is absolutely minimal.

The 4K drive undoubtedly pushed sales of the Xbox One S. Ultra 4K films are lush. Really surprised the Pro didn't have this as a feature. You just can't get the same picture quality from streaming services and downloads of Ultra 4K films will be too large for most people to want that space taken up on their HDs.

bear wrote:
The 4K blu ray drive doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me unless the difference in cost over a regular drive is absolutely minimal.

It'd have been a bit odd to include one with the Xbone S but not the new powerful Scorpio version of the Xbone.

Isn't a 4K drive rather cheap to include these days?

Photek wrote:Isn't a 4K drive rather cheap to include these days?

We'd need HSH and his expert team to confirm this.

From a breakdown of the Xbox One S -

The new console also includes a UHD BD-ROM player, with a bill of materials (BOM) cost of $33.50, versus the previous $18 conventional Blu-Ray drive.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2 ... box-Brings

Monkey Man wrote:From a breakdown of the Xbox One S -

The new console also includes a UHD BD-ROM player, with a bill of materials (BOM) cost of $33.50, versus the previous $18 conventional Blu-Ray drive.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2 ... box-Brings

So not a huge mark up.

It's practically double the price I say that is quite a lot