The CPU in the Xbone (and the PS4 for that matter) was low end even in 2013, and by the time Scarlet and Infinite release that will be 7 years ago. When the biggest leap forward for your next gen platform is in the CPU department, you're not going to really be able to showcase that muscle if you have to accommodate a platform with a CPU that could be 8-12 times less capable. Granted, it's probably too late in the dev cycle to really take advantage of Zen 2 anyway, but still, its definitely going to limit Infinite's possibilities, that's a simple matter of fact.

Now, whether stronger hardware leads to better games is a whole 'nother matter; but it's not really debatable that accommodating the Jag is going to hold back the Scarlet version from what it could potentially be.

The CPU needs of PC and consoles are evidently not equal given what the 8th gen consoles accomplished. We see ambitious AAA games hitting 60 fps for example, yet we have to pretend its a trash CPU?

Halo Infinite on X1 isnt holding back Scarlett because this was not a project created for Scarlett. We also dont know how this game could better utilize the Scarlett's CPU. For example, maybe some modes will have lower frame rates that can only be improved by Scarlett.

We could say Halo 1, 2, 3 and 4 doesent take advantage of the X1 because they were built for 360. But I feel those games make great use of the increased CPU and GPU power of X1. I look at MCC as the definitive way to play those games because it actually has the power to achieve 60 fps with 1080p/4K. That is seemingly what the Halo Infinite on Scarlett will be but with better assets as well.

Edit: You were too late. I already had the response open.

I stand by my statement, but as evidenced by my edit, I don't care enough about it to enter into a debate.

I'm clarifying, I meant anybody uncomfortable with stealing products no longer for sale on PC. Give money to MS via Xbox instead. I didn't mean just you, because I know you own the product. Wanna keep talking about that? Feel free.

Those cool effects were achieved on the Xbox port of Half Life 2, albeit not as great as a gaming PC, but that's how I played it. 7th gen took what 6th gen was doing to the next level, while 8th gen was more like added polish. Some limitations of the 7th gen may have been overcome with additional RAM, there was evident bottleneck there.

I'll just keep it simple. Is the X1X an upgrade worth getting? I believe many who have it say yes. Therefore I don't think its being wasted. Personally I also like have access to more 60 fps content or more stable performance.

Again, your examples of what comes from better specs is more visual. There was also impressive use of physics in 7th gen content. Just depends on what developers are attempting to do.

My point about games like Just Cause 3, Mass Effect 1 and Oblivion was optimization matters. Many say the CPUs in 8th gen consoles are trash, but primarily on the X1X where GPU bottlenecks are less of an issue, it seems like a very capable CPU.

The CPU needs of PC and consoles are evidently not equal given what the 8th gen consoles accomplished. We see ambitious AAA games hitting 60 fps for example, yet we have to pretend its a trash CPU?

We could say Halo 1, 2, 3 and 4 doesent take advantage of the X1 because they were built for 360. But I feel those games make great use of the increased CPU and GPU power of X1. I look at MCC as the definitive way to play those games because it actually has the power to achieve 60 fps with 1080p/4K. That is seemingly what the Halo Infinite on Scarlett will be but with better assets as well.

Edit: You were too late. I already had the response open.

PC exclusive games still exist. Yet I can't seem to think of any between 2013-2019 that really push PC CPUs in way that's innovative or changes the gaming experience. It seems in gaming powerful CPUs are primarily just for making games run north of 120 fps.

I look forward to 9th gen having more CPU power so 60 fps becomes almost standard and maybe split screen becomes easier to achieve. Essentially I want more CPU power for practical purposes. I don't really expect big changes in how games are GENERALLY designed just because there is more CPU power per se.

I mean not every game is gonna be an open world experience with tons of complex NPCs, tons of water particles engulfing the city and every building crumbling like the Crackdown 3 prototype. I mean it sounds cool as fuck, but its just not practical or necessary for the typical game.

If you feel you need to backpedal to save face, go for it.

That is exactly my point.
Halo Life 2 on PC didn't have requirements that dramatically outstripped the original Xbox, hence why it was such a solid port... But the extra CPU overhead did enable some new graphical and gameplay mechanics.

Ram is always a bottleneck, you can never have to much, it can never be fast enough.

I never stated the Xbox One X wasn't a console worth getting... For some it certainly is the best purchase right now.
The bulk of it's improvements over other consoles is just resolution and framerate though... And not everyone actually gives a crap about those, hence the Nintendo Switch and Wii being such a success.

Visual fidelity adds to gameplay, better visuals can drive up the realism which bolsters immersion allowing you to get lost in a games world.

They aren't disconnected as much as you think.

Jaguar is trash, no two ways about it.
The Xbox One X is certainly GPU limited because it's chasing 4k... At 4k you are always GPU limited even on PC, but that doesn't mean the CPU isn't a bottleneck either, far from it.

As consoles become more PC like and the PC gets more console liked... And the baseline hardware of the consoles haven't shifted much on the CPU side of the equation... The CPU needs of the PC is stagnating for gaming.
I mean shit... I have a Core 2 Quad PC as a spare/test/modding rig that is running 8th gen games, that wouldn't have happened if the 8th gen consoles had decent CPU's.

If you were to point to any other console generation transition you would have needed to upgrade your CPU at-least once... People with rigs from a decade ago can still play the latest games.

Halo 1,2,3 and 4 are clearly last generation games held back by last generation technology in terms of scope and mechanics though, the Master Chief Collection "touches them up" a little, but it's not entirely a new or better experience.

Also I don't think all the titles in the MCC are 1080P/4k either. Halo 2 was 1328x1080 on base hardware, no idea what it is on the Xbox One X, I would assume dynamic? Can't be arsed looking it up.

I don't think you pay enough to the PC to make such an assessment though.

Ashes of the Singularity, 2016. - Direct X 12 and a CPU showcase.

60fps is not going to be guaranteed... Having a more powerful CPU is also not going to guarantee 60fps. - Because you know what also influences framerates? GPU. - If you are GPU limited you are still not going to get 60fps.

You have a render time budget remember.

For a moderator you sure like pushing an argument, very mature. I'm trying to end the Fable 3 talk but you keep going. I won't backpedal, I'll just admit you're a great person with a thick cock.

Half Life 2 ran pretty crappy on the OG Xbox from my memory. A nice mix of CPU and GPU bottleneck with soupy textures given the lack of RAM I'm sure. Its a shame we don't see developers making slide shows to push physics! Might have been different if it were really built for Xbox.

As I mentioned before, we saw the 6th and 7th gen really struggling with limited RAM. PC's were taking advantage of significantly more RAM than consoles had during those generations. However, the 8th gen is the first time it felt like consoles have plenty or at least enough RAM. Even on PC 8GB is generally fine.

Even if the X1X were supported as a lead platform, I don't think that would mean a base X1 port would be impossible. The primary difference of X1 and X1X GPU power, that's seemingly the easiest aspect of games to scale back given its mostly effects. So yeah, the biggest benefit of X1X is resolution and frame rate... but sometimes textures improve given the RAM increase, some games also use the extra GPU power to enable or increase effects.

So X1X gets people more immersed? I can agree on that but I don't feel high visual fidelity is necessarily that important.

The 8th gen CPUs are the most capable trash I've ever seen. I mean a game like Horizon 4 at 60 fps!? What a pile of shit. Either way, I'm glad more capable CPUs will be in the next gen consoles for practical reasons.

The funny thing about games in MCC, they're old but their scope seems bigger than many modern games that are more linear in comparison. Which gets back to a point I made many times already, better specs doesn't always mean increased scope.

I believe the only content that isn't 1080p/4K at all times is the Halo 2 Anniversary campaign with enhanced visuals enabled. The resolution does become 1080p/4K with classic graphics though.

Ashes of Singularity simply wouldn't work on console CPUs? Also, is there an optimization issue or would scaling back its CPU needs really changes the experience of the game? I've seen the game and it seems to be a fairly standard RTS, maybe it would just run like shit on consoles during heavy action? For the record, I was already aware of this game because it often looked at for its CPU demands.

The 8th gen consoles are too limited to achieve 60 fps in many games. There would be too much resolution/graphics compromise and there is already too much CPU bottleneck to achieve that. In the next gen though, if the CPUs are as capable as we hope, CPU bottleneck is going to be less of an issue. Meanwhile 1440p to 4K will likely become pretty standard. Taking all that into consideration, it should be easier to give 60 fps options in the next gen versus current gen.

For a moderator you sure like pushing an argument, very mature. I'm trying to end the Fable 3 talk but you keep going. I won't backpedal, I'll just admit you're a great person with a thick cock.

Half Life 2 ran pretty crappy on the OG Xbox from my memory. A nice mix of CPU and GPU bottleneck with soupy textures given the lack of RAM I'm sure. Its a shame we don't see developers making slide shows to push physics! Might have been different if it were really built for Xbox.

As I mentioned before, we saw the 6th and 7th gen really struggling with limited RAM. PC's were taking advantage of significantly more RAM than consoles had during those generations. However, the 8th gen is the first time it felt like consoles have plenty or at least enough RAM. Even on PC 8GB is generally fine.

Even if the X1X were supported as a lead platform, I don't think that would mean a base X1 port would be impossible. The primary difference of X1 and X1X GPU power, that's seemingly the easiest aspect of games to scale back given its mostly effects. So yeah, the biggest benefit of X1X is resolution and frame rate... but sometimes textures improve given the RAM increase, some games also use the extra GPU power to enable or increase effects.

So X1X gets people more immersed? I can agree on that but I don't feel high visual fidelity is necessarily that important.

The 8th gen CPUs are the most capable trash I've ever seen. I mean a game like Horizon 4 at 60 fps!? What a pile of shit. Either way, I'm glad more capable CPUs will be in the next gen consoles for practical reasons.

The funny thing about games in MCC, they're old but their scope seems bigger than many modern games that are more linear in comparison. Which gets back to a point I made many times already, better specs doesn't always mean increased scope.

Ashes of Singularity simply wouldn't work on console CPUs? Also, is there an optimization issue or would scaling back its CPU needs really changes the experience of the game? I've seen the game and it seems to be a fairly standard RTS, maybe it would just run like shit on consoles during heavy action? For the record, I was already aware of this game because it often looked at for its CPU demands.

The 8th gen consoles are too limited to achieve 60 fps in many games. There would be too much resolution/graphics compromise and there is already too much CPU bottleneck to achieve that. In the next gen though, if the CPUs are as capable as we hope, CPU bottleneck is going to be less of an issue. Meanwhile 1440p to 4K will likely become pretty standard. Taking all that into consideration, it should be easier to give 60 fps options in the next gen versus current gen.

A lot of work that could be better made at the CPU have been made on the GPU because of the lower performance of the CPU compared to it. So for games like competitive online, fighting and racing 60fps is usually the first target, then resolution second. And for that they may have to simplify effects and other IQ elements to hit the performance budget.

Also I don't see anything wrong on pemalite posts. He isn't breaking any rules nor using his position as moderator to demand you shut up or accept his argument. So I don't see what a moderator have to do different than you, like I also find strange when people demand better behavior from others because of the position/job, behavior they don't uphold themselves.