You can disagree as much as you want. It's besides the point... At the end of the day I have provided the necessary evidence to backup my claims, you have not, thus I am the only one with a legitimate argument.
No. You don't understand.
Or we could put that every single HW is both CPU and GPU bottlenecked because there will always be stuff you could do with more of both that you can't with what you have.
In some cases (depending on game design and choices) you have to limit framerate, in others the resolution, in others the effects or textures. Basically in some situations CPU is more of a bottleneck and in others the GPU is.
Considering X1X compared to X1 had a 4x bump on GPU but a very small one in CPU we could say that it is more CPU limited than GPU so it will run games at similar fps but with better graphics, and in situations X1 is almost capable of doing 60fps in a game but for smoothness they capped at 30 locked the X1X will do 60fps with that small gain in CPU and still be able to put twice as much resolution (4x more GPU, half advantage used due to double FPS and the other half to double the pixelcount).
Still anyone will say that if they made the decision to make that game that is 30 fps on X1 still be 30fps on X1X so they have similar gameplay experience (let's say it have multiplayer elements) then it can just put 4x more resolution or effects - that is when you go from 1080p on X1 to true 4k on X1X.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."