Quantcast
The wisdom of the 6Tf vs 4Tf

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The wisdom of the 6Tf vs 4Tf

Ruler said:
Captain_Yuri said:

From a hardware perspective, I think MS had the right moves and the better execution. If I want to get a console for 4k, I want it to be a 4k experience. A lot of games on x1x are running native 4k or at the very least, higher than ps4 pro and it comes with a 4k Bluray player. It also has Super Sampling and AF for every game instead of leaving it up to the developers at 1080p. That is the kind of a console that I want if I wanted a "4k" experience at least for this generation. Yea it costs more money but if I can't afford it, may as well get the cheaper one.

The problem with the x1x is the same problem with the x1... The games... Sony has more exclusive games than Xbox does while having most if not all third party games the xbox one does.

So you have one console that gives you plenty of games and some exclusives vs another console that gives you mostly the same games plus a lot more exclusives. And that's not even getting into the whole "most xbox games are playable on PC."

I think at the end of the day, they made the right call overall with the x1x. If they made the hardware close to the ps4 pro, then there wouldn't be much of a reason to get an x1x but having a hardware that is much more powerful than the ps4 pro while having a 4k bluray player... There is at least something there to give buyers a reason.

But these features the X has over the Pro arent something you cant fundamentally fix. Downsampling is something they can update for the Pro, 4K blue ray playback they can update or release it with a PS4 Pro revision in the future. The Pro was never supposed to be a 4K machine, otherwise they would have called it the PS4K.

You also forget that the Pro came out one year earlier, so its not only about money. I dont think it was the better execution to let customers wait another year of better PS4 and PS4 Pro multiplats for something the X wouldnt accomplish in the first place. The Xbox One was always 500$, it would have been stronger than the Pro even a year earlier, and Sony wouldnt have made the Pro to be 500$ hardware.

 

You also need to consider that, even the Pro has a somewhat slower GPU and is considerably less expensive, it still has a more advanced graphics chip than X1X, which even features Vega features Dony developed together with AMD. Games like Exclusives and third party games like Far Cry 5 will make use of these and we’ll see in upcoming games how far that goes.

Last edited by Errorist76 - on 22 December 2017

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

CPU limitations most likely. Even with Phil pointing out how balanced the console was supposed to be, the GPU is much more impressive in terms of performance than the CPU. They had some good idea's and used some smart techniques to allow the CPU as much room to breathe as possible, but it's still a Jaguar in the end. They shouldn't have said 4k/60 no compromises initially. It started massive hype, but was pushing the marketing to an extreme. Just 4k/60 would have been much easier to forgive when they announced it would also checkerboard. Even as successful as the PS4 has been, it still has to compromise between 1080p/30 and 900p/60, PS just didn't market the PS4 as 1080p/60 no compromises.

The problem XB may have later on, is if they use a decent CPU that hits 60 fps consistently for XB2, what is going to happen if those same games can't hit 60 fps on the base XB1X in 4 years? We've already seen this with PUBG. It's another reason why I wonder how long XB1X is really going to remain relevant because if it holds back 'next gen' then it may really piss off hardcore XB fans who want or buy an XB2. How many of those XB fans will have upgraded to XB1X and already be unhappy they aren't getting 60 fps due to XB1S, then look at XB2 and wonder is this going to end up the same thing again? Why buy a 100% true 4k/60 no compromises XB2 console, if you know all the games will only end up 30 fps because of XB1X?

It's possible that CPU had hold FM7 a little. But I won't call Phill a liar on the balance statement. If their intention is similar to PS4Pro, meaning same game as on the base but prettier, then the framerate and player count shall be similar then the increase in CPU capacity need to be just enough to cover the increase in GPU for graphics while having similar performance on the rest.

Also a new CPU could also make it harder for the crosscompatibility.

And sure enough that may be an issue for next gen. Even on the low powered portable level CPU in 3 years will be much higher than what it was 4-5years ago when they put together PS4+X1. So the CPU will really put the gens apart.

I wasn't calling him a liar, all I said was that he shouldn't have said some of the things he did. I find he says too much and promises too much sometimes. I was pointing more so to Phil and his uncompromised 4k/60. You can't really say that then talk about how balanced the console hardware is, then show off games playing 4k/30 max. The hardware is well balanced if your expecting 4k/30, which you should for a $500 console at the end of 2017, that's just not what he said. He needs to be a little more careful with his words, marketing aside, that's all.

Pemalite said: 
EricHiggin said: 

CPU limitations most likely. Even with Phil pointing out how balanced the console was supposed to be, the GPU is much more impressive in terms of performance than the CPU.

People really need to stop hanging by every single word that Phil and Cerny say, they have an obligation to embellish things a little to make their platforms seem the best that they can.

Rather, impartial outlets are better sources of information.

True. Doesn't exactly make it ok, but they are businessmen. It's hard to try and talk about what Phil, Cerny, etc, may have meant because there is always someone who is definitely going to use what they actually said to try and prove you wrong. If you use exactly what they said, someone is going to tell you to read between the lines.

Pemalite said: 
EricHiggin said: 

The problem XB may have later on, is if they use a decent CPU that hits 60 fps consistently for XB2, what is going to happen if those same games can't hit 60 fps on the base XB1X in 4 years? We've already seen this with PUBG.

To be fair, PUBG is a terribly optimized game and an extremely CPU heavy game, more than it needs to be.

PUBG isn't the best example, but I felt do to how recent, as well as how massive the player base is for the game, that it was something people could easily relate to. Not to mention how many games are starting to become available in such an early state of development. Doesn't change the fact that the XB no more generations plan may always cause problems in terms of holding back the newest hardware.

Pemalite said: 
EricHiggin said: 
I can't help but wonder, if Scorpio ended up being 4.5TF to 5TF, would it have sold any better? I really think it would have at launch and overall. The gap between 1.4TF and 4.5TF would still be a larger leap than 1.8TF to 4.2TF. With first party games like Forza 7 hitting 4k/60 with plenty left over in the tank apparently, a 4.5TF-5TF console could more than likely handle that same Forza 7 4k/60, just almost maxed out.

I doubt it would have sold better.
One of the marketing angles used was that it was the most powerful console ever, being near to the Playstation 4 Pro wouldn't be doing them many favors.

With that... Do people actually give a shit about flops other than it's use as a metric to be used in debates? Because I would argue the majority of people do not have an understanding of how it relates to graphics or performance in a game.

Your average customer doesn't have a clue how a console actually works and what those flops truly mean, they just look at the numbers like they do HP for a vehicle. Which of course makes it easy to throw some big numbers out and get a sale when in reality there is so much more to it than that.

Maybe it wouldn't have sold better, but what seemed apparent to me was that XB was back on top with the most powerful hardware again. I think 4.5TF to 5TF would have ended up giving those fans the same feeling they got with 6TF, which wasn't so much about the actual performance, it was about the fact that Scorpio was going to be the most powerful console on the market. Price matters so much for console hardware that I can't help but imagine that $75-$100 less for XB1X wouldn't have sold even more, but that only matters if your worried about the here and now. If XB1X is really going to become the base model in 4 years time, then 6TF will most likely have been the better decision.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Captain_Yuri said:
Ruler said:

But these features the X has over the Pro arent something you cant fundamentally fix. Downsampling is something they can update for the Pro, 4K blue ray playback they can update or release it with a PS4 Pro revision in the future. The Pro was never supposed to be a 4K machine, otherwise they would have called it the PS4K.

You also forget that the Pro came out one year earlier, so its not only about money. I dont think it was the better execution to let customers wait another year of better PS4 and PS4 Pro multiplats for something the X wouldnt accomplish in the first place. The Xbox One was always 500$, it would have been stronger than the Pro even a year earlier, and Sony wouldnt have made the Pro to be 500$ hardware.

Too bad the developers are lazy... Yea the devs can patch it in themselves except they don't. Just cause they can doesn't mean they will which is proven by the year lead the Ps4 Pro has. The devs had an entire year to patch their games with it yet they didn't. Only a few games on the pro really have Down Sampling when it comes to 1080p where as every game that has a higher resolution than 1080 on the X1X has Down Sampling and AF. And if it's not supposed to be a 4k machine, then maybe they shouldn't advertise it as that... Yet they do...

If it meant to the pro would have what the x1x has now, then I would consider it to be worth the wait. The Ps4 Pro leaves it all to the developers which is its problem. Some games you have all the features like a Down Sampling at 1080p with increased visual affects while having an option of performance mode or 4k mode while in many others, it's just basic 1440p checkerboard to 4k and that's that. With the x1x, there is more of a guarantee of what the buyers will get cause every game that has a 4k mode will also have down sampling and AF at 1080p. Yea it costs $500 but oh well... If I am gonna spend money on a mid-cycle refresh, I would want the best experience there is. If I can't afford it, well there's always the base console. The only reason I don't own a x1x is cause of the games but if the games were the same and weren't available on PC, I'd choose it over the pro any day of the week even if it costs more.

It's better to leave it to each dev, if you force things not only you can make the relationship bad but you may also make they checkbox on some features that may make the final product worst than what they would do with freedom. Because for one game 4k60fps may be better than complexity and size of map, for another dropping to 30fps will allow better IQ, etc. So having a game that only needs 30fps having to put 60fps for example would compromise other aspects of the game that were more important.

EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

It's possible that CPU had hold FM7 a little. But I won't call Phill a liar on the balance statement. If their intention is similar to PS4Pro, meaning same game as on the base but prettier, then the framerate and player count shall be similar then the increase in CPU capacity need to be just enough to cover the increase in GPU for graphics while having similar performance on the rest.

Also a new CPU could also make it harder for the crosscompatibility.

And sure enough that may be an issue for next gen. Even on the low powered portable level CPU in 3 years will be much higher than what it was 4-5years ago when they put together PS4+X1. So the CPU will really put the gens apart.

I wasn't calling him a liar, all I said was that he shouldn't have said some of the things he did. I find he says too much and promises too much sometimes. I was pointing more so to Phil and his uncompromised 4k/60. You can't really say that then talk about how balanced the console hardware is, then show off games playing 4k/30 max. The hardware is well balanced if your expecting 4k/30, which you should for a $500 console at the end of 2017, that's just not what he said. He needs to be a little more careful with his words, marketing aside, that's all.

Pemalite said: 

People really need to stop hanging by every single word that Phil and Cerny say, they have an obligation to embellish things a little to make their platforms seem the best that they can.

Rather, impartial outlets are better sources of information.

True. Doesn't exactly make it ok, but they are businessmen. It's hard to try and talk about what Phil, Cerny, etc, may have meant because there is always someone who is definitely going to use what they actually said to try and prove you wrong. If you use exactly what they said, someone is going to tell you to read between the lines.

Pemalite said: 

To be fair, PUBG is a terribly optimized game and an extremely CPU heavy game, more than it needs to be.

PUBG isn't the best example, but I felt do to how recent, as well as how massive the player base is for the game, that it was something people could easily relate to. Not to mention how many games are starting to become available in such an early state of development. Doesn't change the fact that the XB no more generations plan may always cause problems in terms of holding back the newest hardware.

Pemalite said: 

I doubt it would have sold better.
One of the marketing angles used was that it was the most powerful console ever, being near to the Playstation 4 Pro wouldn't be doing them many favors.

With that... Do people actually give a shit about flops other than it's use as a metric to be used in debates? Because I would argue the majority of people do not have an understanding of how it relates to graphics or performance in a game.

Your average customer doesn't have a clue how a console actually works and what those flops truly mean, they just look at the numbers like they do HP for a vehicle. Which of course makes it easy to throw some big numbers out and get a sale when in reality there is so much more to it than that.

Maybe it wouldn't have sold better, but what seemed apparent to me was that XB was back on top with the most powerful hardware again. I think 4.5TF to 5TF would have ended up giving those fans the same feeling they got with 6TF, which wasn't so much about the actual performance, it was about the fact that Scorpio was going to be the most powerful console on the market. Price matters so much for console hardware that I can't help but imagine that $75-$100 less for XB1X wouldn't have sold even more, but that only matters if your worried about the here and now. If XB1X is really going to become the base model in 4 years time, then 6TF will most likely have been the better decision.

Ok about Phill, let's call PR shenanigans and have an agreement =]



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363


Errorist76 said:
Ruler said:

But these features the X has over the Pro arent something you cant fundamentally fix. Downsampling is something they can update for the Pro, 4K blue ray playback they can update or release it with a PS4 Pro revision in the future. The Pro was never supposed to be a 4K machine, otherwise they would have called it the PS4K.

You also forget that the Pro came out one year earlier, so its not only about money. I dont think it was the better execution to let customers wait another year of better PS4 and PS4 Pro multiplats for something the X wouldnt accomplish in the first place. The Xbox One was always 500$, it would have been stronger than the Pro even a year earlier, and Sony wouldnt have made the Pro to be 500$ hardware.

 

Ruler said:

But these features the X has over the Pro arent something you cant fundamentally fix. Downsampling is something they can update for the Pro, 4K blue ray playback they can update or release it with a PS4 Pro revision in the future. The Pro was never supposed to be a 4K machine, otherwise they would have called it the PS4K.

You also forget that the Pro came out one year earlier, so its not only about money. I dont think it was the better execution to let customers wait another year of better PS4 and PS4 Pro multiplats for something the X wouldnt accomplish in the first place. The Xbox One was always 500$, it would have been stronger than the Pro even a year earlier, and Sony wouldnt have made the Pro to be 500$ hardware.

You also need to consider that, even the Pro has a somewhat slower GPU and is considerably less expensive, it still has a more advanced graphics chip than X1X, which even features Vega features Dony developed together with AMD. Games like Exclusives and third party games like Far Cry 5 will make use of these and we’ll see in upcoming games how far that goes.

And the XBox One X is supposed to have DX12 backed in into the hardware, i wouldnt listen to anything what these companies have to say that isnt real hardware when it comes to power



DonFerrari said:
Captain_Yuri said:

Too bad the developers are lazy... Yea the devs can patch it in themselves except they don't. Just cause they can doesn't mean they will which is proven by the year lead the Ps4 Pro has. The devs had an entire year to patch their games with it yet they didn't. Only a few games on the pro really have Down Sampling when it comes to 1080p where as every game that has a higher resolution than 1080 on the X1X has Down Sampling and AF. And if it's not supposed to be a 4k machine, then maybe they shouldn't advertise it as that... Yet they do...

If it meant to the pro would have what the x1x has now, then I would consider it to be worth the wait. The Ps4 Pro leaves it all to the developers which is its problem. Some games you have all the features like a Down Sampling at 1080p with increased visual affects while having an option of performance mode or 4k mode while in many others, it's just basic 1440p checkerboard to 4k and that's that. With the x1x, there is more of a guarantee of what the buyers will get cause every game that has a 4k mode will also have down sampling and AF at 1080p. Yea it costs $500 but oh well... If I am gonna spend money on a mid-cycle refresh, I would want the best experience there is. If I can't afford it, well there's always the base console. The only reason I don't own a x1x is cause of the games but if the games were the same and weren't available on PC, I'd choose it over the pro any day of the week even if it costs more.

It's better to leave it to each dev, if you force things not only you can make the relationship bad but you may also make they checkbox on some features that may make the final product worst than what they would do with freedom. Because for one game 4k60fps may be better than complexity and size of map, for another dropping to 30fps will allow better IQ, etc. So having a game that only needs 30fps having to put 60fps for example would compromise other aspects of the game that were more important.

 

Well based on the games that's coming out on both PS4 Pro vs X1x... When the devs have this so called freedom, guess what they are doing with it? Nothing... Guess what they did with the x1x version? Enhance it...

Leaving it up to devs sounds great on paper but after a full year of lead with the Ps4 Pro, the results speak for themselves... Rarely did we ever see the Devs enhance the games for the Ps4 Pro apart from just the basic higher rendering resolution... 1080p mode on most games on the pro were almost exactly the same as on the ps4 which to me, buying a mid-cycle refresh for a better experience, is nonsense.

And sure, there could be some negative effects in developer relations but I highly doubt it will effect anything. I mean heck, they only really enhanced the witcher 3 after the x1x came out so I doubt it has any negative affect tbh. But if it does the trade off is worth it imo cause the consumers who buy it get a much better experience.



             

                               Anime: Haruhi                                                                                      Anime: Love Live
                              Nsfw Anime Thread                                                                             Join our Anime Threads!
                             Sfw Anime Thread                                                                                VGC Tutorial Thread

Around the Network
Captain_Yuri said:
Ruler said:

But these features the X has over the Pro arent something you cant fundamentally fix. Downsampling is something they can update for the Pro, 4K blue ray playback they can update or release it with a PS4 Pro revision in the future. The Pro was never supposed to be a 4K machine, otherwise they would have called it the PS4K.

You also forget that the Pro came out one year earlier, so its not only about money. I dont think it was the better execution to let customers wait another year of better PS4 and PS4 Pro multiplats for something the X wouldnt accomplish in the first place. The Xbox One was always 500$, it would have been stronger than the Pro even a year earlier, and Sony wouldnt have made the Pro to be 500$ hardware.

Too bad the developers are lazy... Yea the devs can patch it in themselves except they don't. Just cause they can doesn't mean they will which is proven by the year lead the Ps4 Pro has. The devs had an entire year to patch their games with it yet they didn't. Only a few games on the pro really have Down Sampling when it comes to 1080p where as every game that has a higher resolution than 1080 on the X1X has Down Sampling and AF. And if it's not supposed to be a 4k machine, then maybe they shouldn't advertise it as that... Yet they do...

If it meant to the pro would have what the x1x has now, then I would consider it to be worth the wait. The Ps4 Pro leaves it all to the developers which is its problem. Some games you have all the features like a Down Sampling at 1080p with increased visual affects while having an option of performance mode or 4k mode while in many others, it's just basic 1440p checkerboard to 4k and that's that. With the x1x, there is more of a guarantee of what the buyers will get cause every game that has a 4k mode will also have down sampling and AF at 1080p. Yea it costs $500 but oh well... If I am gonna spend money on a mid-cycle refresh, I would want the best experience there is. If I can't afford it, well there's always the base console. The only reason I don't own a x1x is cause of the games but if the games were the same and weren't available on PC, I'd choose it over the pro any day of the week even if it costs more.

Thats not what i meant, Sony can update the PS4 Pro to have down sampling with every game. Most games do downsample, its like only 20 games who dont so you are wrong in this one.

Some better supersanpling and AF doesnt justify spending 500$, the X has the same problems the Pro is facing in the end of the day, the simple fact that developers refuse to give different options that could benefit 1080p users like better graphics in 1080p, along performance and resolution modes. The better AF on the Xbox One X is also only effecting games who arent optimized for the X.

500$ is a lot of money for a mid gen refresh as the word mid-gen refresh is telling you why this is, thats how much money you would pay if a new console like the PS5 or the next Xbox would come out, a real upgrade.

Yeah you would spend that money, but why should i get the Xbox One X now if already have a PS4 Pro? Because you know it came out one year earlier? And this supersampling and AF for every game is that worth to get an Xbox One X now over the Pro or what is worth the wait? I dont think so.



I wish the ps4 pro was 5 and had more memory.. how can the pros GPU be better than the x1 

Last edited by Lespaul - on 22 December 2017

Ruler said:
Captain_Yuri said:

Too bad the developers are lazy... Yea the devs can patch it in themselves except they don't. Just cause they can doesn't mean they will which is proven by the year lead the Ps4 Pro has. The devs had an entire year to patch their games with it yet they didn't. Only a few games on the pro really have Down Sampling when it comes to 1080p where as every game that has a higher resolution than 1080 on the X1X has Down Sampling and AF. And if it's not supposed to be a 4k machine, then maybe they shouldn't advertise it as that... Yet they do...

If it meant to the pro would have what the x1x has now, then I would consider it to be worth the wait. The Ps4 Pro leaves it all to the developers which is its problem. Some games you have all the features like a Down Sampling at 1080p with increased visual affects while having an option of performance mode or 4k mode while in many others, it's just basic 1440p checkerboard to 4k and that's that. With the x1x, there is more of a guarantee of what the buyers will get cause every game that has a 4k mode will also have down sampling and AF at 1080p. Yea it costs $500 but oh well... If I am gonna spend money on a mid-cycle refresh, I would want the best experience there is. If I can't afford it, well there's always the base console. The only reason I don't own a x1x is cause of the games but if the games were the same and weren't available on PC, I'd choose it over the pro any day of the week even if it costs more.

Thats not what i meant, Sony can update the PS4 Pro to have down sampling with every game. Most games do downsample, its like only 20 games who dont so you are wrong in this one.

Some better supersanpling and AF doesnt justify spending 500$, the X has the same problems the Pro is facing in the end of the day, the simple fact that developers refuse to give different options that could benefit 1080p users like better graphics in 1080p, along performance and resolution modes. The better AF on the Xbox One X is also only effecting games who arent optimized for the X.

500$ is a lot of money for a mid gen refresh as the word mid-gen refresh is telling you why this is, thats how much money you would pay if a new console like the PS5 or the next Xbox would come out, a real upgrade.

Yeah you would spend that money, but why should i get the Xbox One X now if already have a PS4 Pro? Because you know it came out one year earlier? And this supersampling and AF for every game is that worth to get an Xbox One X now over the Pro or what is worth the wait? I dont think so.

"Most games do downsample" Nope

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1324251

Yea sure they could but until they do... Which who knows will be when... The Xbox 1 X will still take the lead. And either ways, it will be better on the x1x.

Whether or not those features justify spending $500 on a console is up to the customer but what the x1x brings is a guarantee that any games that has a resolution above 1080p will be down sampling. Yea the developers aren't giving the x1x options either but having Down Sampling and AF is better than nothing... Which is what the ps4 pro gives with the games that have no enhancements by devs at 1080p.

Yea $500 is but the reason anyone would want to get a mid-cycle refresh in the first place is to have more features and a better experience... If all they get is a resolution boost to not even 4k for most games, it's like... May as well just get the base model.

Maybe not for you but that doesn't matter... Cause based on your posting history, you are bias anyway... Even if the x1x gave you everything for $100, you would still prefer the Ps4 Pro and find a way to make the x1x look bad. And I don't see what it wouldn't be worth the wait if you can afford it. You get a guarantee of getting all your games that run at a higher resolution than 1080p to have enhancements vs the ps4 pro, you don't know what you are gonna get at the very least apart from a higher resolution.



             

                               Anime: Haruhi                                                                                      Anime: Love Live
                              Nsfw Anime Thread                                                                             Join our Anime Threads!
                             Sfw Anime Thread                                                                                VGC Tutorial Thread

Captain_Yuri said:
DonFerrari said:

It's better to leave it to each dev, if you force things not only you can make the relationship bad but you may also make they checkbox on some features that may make the final product worst than what they would do with freedom. Because for one game 4k60fps may be better than complexity and size of map, for another dropping to 30fps will allow better IQ, etc. So having a game that only needs 30fps having to put 60fps for example would compromise other aspects of the game that were more important.

Well based on the games that's coming out on both PS4 Pro vs X1x... When the devs have this so called freedom, guess what they are doing with it? Nothing... Guess what they did with the x1x version? Enhance it...

Leaving it up to devs sounds great on paper but after a full year of lead with the Ps4 Pro, the results speak for themselves... Rarely did we ever see the Devs enhance the games for the Ps4 Pro apart from just the basic higher rendering resolution... 1080p mode on most games on the pro were almost exactly the same as on the ps4 which to me, buying a mid-cycle refresh for a better experience, is nonsense.

And sure, there could be some negative effects in developer relations but I highly doubt it will effect anything. I mean heck, they only really enhanced the witcher 3 after the x1x came out so I doubt it has any negative affect tbh. But if it does the trade off is worth it imo cause the consumers who buy it get a much better experience.

MS said they would demand 4k from all devs, to just a few time later backtrack on it. The games I really care about are all looking incredible on PS4Pro even though I'm aware that a lot haven't put a PS4Pro enhancement. Sony have only demanded that it's at least equal to PS4 basic.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363


Ruler said:
Errorist76 said:

 

You also need to consider that, even the Pro has a somewhat slower GPU and is considerably less expensive, it still has a more advanced graphics chip than X1X, which even features Vega features Dony developed together with AMD. Games like Exclusives and third party games like Far Cry 5 will make use of these and we’ll see in upcoming games how far that goes.

And the XBox One X is supposed to have DX12 backed in into the hardware, i wouldnt listen to anything what these companies have to say that isnt real hardware when it comes to power

I think that was an oversimplification when they stated that Direct X 12 was baked into hardware.
The API is still very much software driven, but some of the aspects related to handling things like draw calls in the Direct X 12 API has been offloaded into the GPU's command processor.

Which is again... Why listening to Phil or Cerny is a bad idea, they embellish things, go for an impartial source instead.

DonFerrari said:

MS said they would demand 4k from all devs, to just a few time later backtrack on it. The games I really care about are all looking incredible on PS4Pro even though I'm aware that a lot haven't put a PS4Pro enhancement. Sony have only demanded that it's at least equal to PS4 basic.


If you already have invested in a Playstation 4 Pro, there is still very little reason to go for the Xbox One X in my opinion.
You would have likely already invested in Sony's online and software library and accessories and so on.