Currently Online 
| Bofferbrauer2 said: The CPU however is a design specifically meant for Netbooks and, by extension, Ultrathins (as Intel owns Ultrabook trademark, AMD has to name them Ultrathin) and even Tablets. These where never meant to be powerful, just energy efficient. Any modern Pentium dualcore can run circles around the 8 core Jaguar because of the latter's abysmally low IPC. |
The Xbox One X's CPU is still based on Jaguar. It's 8-cores are roughly inline with a Core i3 Haswell @ 3.2ghz.
It is safe to say, that PC CPU's have outclassed consoles for generations, it's been the PC's consistent main strength, along with an abundance of Ram.
| Bofferbrauer2 said: Don't confuse CPU Power and GPU Power. On the GPU side the XOX is definitly stronger than many, if not most Gaming PCs out there. |
The GPU is a little trickier.
The Xbox One X is only mid-range in terms of performance.
Basically it's competing with a Geforce 1060/Radeon RX 580.
Sure it certainly has the edge over the majority of PC's, but the majority of PC's aren't pretending to try and run at 4k.
But that doesn't mean it's performance is impressive by any stretch.
| Bofferbrauer2 said: If you want a more modern RTS game for comparision, just look up framerates in Starcraft II. The CPU is the limiting factor here, not the GPU as it is the case in vitually any other game and genre. |
StarCraft 2 is a bad example.
When StarCraft 2 dropped onto the market we started getting a taste for 6-core processors with the Phenom 2 x6 and Core i7 990X/3930K and so on.
Quad-Cores were fully mainstream.
So what did Blizzard do?
They limited StarCraft 2's CPU load to only 2 cores, which means a Haswell Core i3 Dual-Core could be faster than a 6-core/12 thread Core i7 Sandy Bridge processor.
Thus the CPU being a limiting factor in SC2 was due to Blizzards own silly design decision/game engine... Granted, spreading out processing is no easy task as there is allot of issues you need to be mindful of, but this is Blizzard we are talking about, they have the resources.
| DonFerrari said: Understood. I really left RTS a long time ago, perhaps 15 years. Considering graphics aren't demanding they could offload a good portion to GPU. But yes, if several sacrifices need to be made to run the game, then it isn't a good idea, we just can't really tell at the moment. |
Physics processing could be done entirely on the GPU with an RTS, considering how CPU bound they typically are.
| SvennoJ said: Halo wars 2 has 80 population limit which you can raise to max 120. Age of Empires 2 had a limit of 200 per person back in 1999 on PC. Granted with over 1000 units moving around in 6 player lan play it slowed down to a crawl when an all out war broke out between the 6 of us. However 18 years later, max 120 units is pretty limited. |
StarCraft 1 if you controlled all three races you could have a max population of 600... You do the math for an 8 player romp. :P
Total Annihilation had some pretty chunky population limits, I think there was a patch/mod that enabled you to have a population limit of several thousand.
Games like American Conquest or Cossacks can allow you to have 16,000 units on a map at once...
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
