By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Errorist76 on 12 March 2018
Edit Thread
globalisateur said:
Pemalite said:

It's actually 42.9%.
That is an 11.11% extra CU advantage to the Xbox One X and the rest is made up from it's clockspeed advantage (28.64%)
However... The Xbox One X also has a massive 50% ROP advantage by default, which also operates 28.64% faster, which is where the real advantage lays, which plays into it's bandwidth advantage too which is significant.

Flops/CU's isn't everything. A balanced, efficient design can be far more important.

Disadvantage actually. Pro has 64 ROPs, XBX only 32 ROPs. Even with the clock disadvantage and lower RAM bandwidth the Pro has a slightly better fillrate than XBX. Actual real Bench-marked fillrate on Pro is a bit higher than the XBX maximum theoretical fillrate.

It can be seen in a few games, in some particular scenes that are heavily fillrate bound, the XBX struggles a bit compared to Pro (particularly if the res is higher on XBX). For instance in scenes where there is a fire in Shadow of mordor on XBX (seen in one of the first DF framerate videos about several XBX games). Also in some rare scenes on COD WWII the Pro game can even output at a slightly higher res than on XBX, and in others many scenes the resolution is very similar in both versions.

Also we know others games run more or less worse on XBX, that could well be explained by a ROP bottleneck. For instance Metal gear survive, Battlefront 2 or Redout.

It could also be explained by those Vega features like 16bit floats in Pro‘s GPU, that X1X is lacking. Especially in effect-heavy scenes this can make a world of a difference, if utilised correctly.