Just so we're clear, that 2.8GHz mark was the absolut limit and, as the article said:

"That said, the tool reveals that the maximum allowed GFX clock speed is 2800 MHz, an extremely high clock for a high-end graphics card. This frequency is not to be expected from manual overclocking. It may be possible to achieve with liquid nitrogen though."

Don't expect any retail cards with those kinds of clocks. Even those 2577MHz that said that article were in Boost clock, not Game clock, which will be lower:

"He did say that this is a boost clock, meaning this is not the ‘actual’ clock speed of the graphics card. This Radeon RX 6000 model will likely stay at 2.3-2.4 clocks, where AMD’s ‘gaming clock’ is more representative of what may be seen during gameplay."

You know what, I ain't gonna lie, that's me these days easily. I tried frame capping some games when I first got my Gsync monitor, and it honestly felt worse. There were even times where despite capping some games at 60 (like ESO/MC Java ed with optifine installed), they would still drop below it and just look worse in motion. Going from say 120fps down to 80 is noticeable to me now, but not nearly as bad as dropping down from 120-60fps or 60fps down to 40.

Also, I've noticed that new Gears "optimisation" trailer is forgetting to make mention that said features and content will be coming to the PC versions. I guess MS is also going to treat PC equally and dish out on some silly marketing video gigs to show off the exact same content/features as well?, or are we going to go back to GFWL days and they forget PC users like having some fair marketing and actual information brought up front, that isn't from a lone dev's single tweet on social media (if anyone didn't get the hint from this, I absolutely despise MS's selective marketing stints. Either market for both or don't at all).

I think MS's will go back to the way they were to a degree assuming the Series X/S will be a success. Their support for PC is certainly not out of the same interest as someone like Valve. The reason they are supporting PC now is because they need money for gamepass and xbox doesn't have enough users/sales to outweigh the deficit. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying PC is enough either as Gamepass is a huge money sink but it does give them a good boost in sales. But make no mistake, Xbox is their main focus so while I think PC will be able to tag along this time and we won't go fully back to the 360 era, I do think that the support they are showing won't be as good if the Series X/S is successful.

what jizzbeard said in the meantime i dont mind abusing gamepass on pc even if i need to suffer the windows store and retarded installs it does

I don't really understand MS' Xbox strategy right now; they sold us their new console on it being the most powerful one and thus superior to PS from a technical perspective. And then they proceed to announce and unveil a much weaker all-digital version which will hamper developers since they need to adjust their software to this rather large deficit. Higher CPU clock rates, 60% more system memory, and a significantly beefier GPU on the series X will be sort of wasted as long as developers have to factor in the much weaker Series S in development. Not to mention it punches holes in the whole "ease of development" factor for console gaming. Varying SKU's was expected, this is how the market works now, along with lots of revisions, but releasing two SKU's with such a large performance discrepancy seems rather dumb.

"We're gonna kick the PS' ass with this new box. But also; the box' brother is much weaker so not really."

Anyone else feeling a tad confused? The naming is an entirely different thing, I get confused sometimes, I can imagine average joe having issues with this. Consumers/gamers who would want an all-digital console would probably also like a fully competitive one when it comes to specs, not a downgrade with much lower resolutions and/or much lower frame rates. It's just a damn weird strategy from where I'm sitting.

^ you fell for the scaling doesnt work narrative, but hasnt pc been doing that for decades?

People have sub 120hz displays in 2020? Why?

If the PC has proven anything over the last several decades is that developers have long abandoned the desire to build games to a highly specific set of hardware nuances that are restricted to certain pieces of hardware.

Now engines are geared to be scalable, not just across multiple types of consoles (I.E. Playstation vs Switch vs Xbox), but Generations (I.E. 7th vs 8th gen games are everywhere.) and even across multiple hardware configurations. (Playstation 4 Pro vs Playstation 4, Xbox Series S vs Xbox One X etc'.)

The important aspect is having the hardware feature set to enable the modern graphical effects and simply scale from there... And the Xbox Series S does meet those modern hardware architectural requirements.

What will ultimately make the Xbox Series S vs X different than the Xbox One S vs X is that we aren't having staggered hardware releases, so developers from the very start will be building their games for all the hardware variants available on the market.

The fact that the Series S has a massive 60% memory deficiency over the other consoles may be a hindrance, but probably not as much as we think if Microsoft keeps the OS/Background tasks slimmed down... A console that operates at only a meager 1080P is not going to need as much DRAM as a console that oeprates at 2160P, it simply has smaller framebuffer requirements.

I think that the Switch success plays a part in this, as developers have had "little" problems to develop two versions of the same game for that machine. Of course, the tools that Nintendo provided play a big part on that, but it's not like MSoft doesn't have experience developing software, right?

Also, there's Microsoft's DirectML, their version of Nvidia's DLSS, that should help the weak console perform decently with a target resolution of 1080p and, of course, GamePass. Does the console not give you the experience you expected? Don't buy another one, just play the game through GamePass.  

Because it works and it's perfectly fine .

Because my display is from 2009, when 120Hz monitors were very rare and extremely expensive. Also, it still works perfectly fine, so why would I change it?

And if one does, like Star Citizen for instance, they'll getting derided for it.

still going on a limb and say thats vaporware