That's what you would think. 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Pentium G4560 3.5GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($68.99 @ SuperBiiz) 

Motherboard: MSI - H110M Gaming Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($41.98 @ Newegg) 

Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws 4 series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2400 Memory  ($59.92 @ Amazon) 

Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($48.44 @ OutletPC) 

Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 6GB SC GAMING Video Card  ($226.99 @ Newegg) 

Case: Xion - XON-310_BK MicroATX Mid Tower Case  ($23.98 @ Newegg) 

Power Supply: EVGA - 430W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply  ($21.98 @ Newegg) 

Keyboard: Verbatim - 99201 Wired Standard Keyboard  ($6.10 @ Amazon) 

Mouse: V7 - M30P20-7N Wired Optical Mouse  ($3.99 @ Amazon) 

Total: $502.37

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-06-16 20:16 EDT-0400

You can get W10 for free legally; https://www.howtogeek.com/272201/all-the-ways-you-can-still-get-windows-10-for-free/

The XBX has a very mediocre Jaguar based CPU, basically the same as the one from the original XBONE but clocked higher. Even with the seperate DX12 unit, it's really not hard to beat and the G4560 will easily do the job. Yes, despite being a hyperthreaded dual core CPU, it won't even bottleneck the GTX 1060. Using the FX series is completely arbitrary in this case just because the XBX has eight cores.

The GPU is basically an RX 580, which the 1060 beats in most instances, most often not by much though.

The XBX has 3GB of RAM reserved for the OS, which is about the same W10 takes up on average during gameplay. This makes sense considering the OS on XBX is based off W10 IIRC. That leaves 6GB of DDR4 for CPU bound tasks. The XBX has 9GB left for both GPU and CPU tasks. The balance depends on the game, but it most certainly won't have 6GB constantly reserved for the GPU. In turn, the build has more and better organized RAM, not to mention a bit faster. GDDR5 is based off DDR3 and doesn't perform much better than it when used for CPU bound tasks, so even with the faster tick rate it's the same or slower than the DDR4 RAM on the PC For CPU bound tasks.

As for the magic "console optimization", first party titles might see a notable difference, but in most instances third party developers won't bother to take the effort to make a notable difference that will push performance to the likes of the GTX 1070 nor is that even feasible most of the time. Console optimization can only take you so far, and that isn't very far at all.

It doesn't include the Blu - Ray drive, which while most gamers don't need could probably be covered by the cost of XBOX LIVE GOLD for one year. The cheapest on PCPartPicker is $43, and a case that has an optical drive slot costs $25 (compared to the one in the build above for $23), which adds up to $547 compared to $502 (under $60 extra).

This is what's feasible now, but by the time XBX releases these builds will most likely get even more competitive for the same price as new parts come out and prices start dropping. 

Also, here's a well written Reddit post on the XBX; https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/6h96rt/yes_the_xbox_one_x_is_pretty_good_but_here_are/

Based on the APUs I see around, "crush" is an appropriate word.

The i7 7700K is like $300 and it can't run games nearly as well as X1 (a whole console for $250). Granted its CPU power is another level.

So where console APUs lack in CPU, they do crush in GPU. It makes the X1X APU seem even more amazing.

Yea well if you are just comparing PC APUs to Console APUs, then what you said is fine cause the PC hardware market is different than the console hardware market. When people are buying a gaming PC, people are expected to buy dedicated hardware due to the nature of the platform.

Having a fairly strong GPU on an APU on PC would be pointless for the most part cause people generally intend to keep the CPUs for the longest time and upgrade the GPUs more frequently. The reason is that PC hardware moves very quickly but usually, cpu upgrades intend to have a smaller leap in performance than gpu upgrades. And the everyday workloads on PC generally intend to benefit greatly from stronger CPUs than GPUs but since consoles are so specific in nature and you can't upgrade really anything other than the hard drive, it needs to come with what is best for it's needs and that is generally the GPU.

And of course, most people wouldn't buy an i7 due to it's graphics but rather due to it's cpu horse power. The only reason it even has a graphics card is that many business use it for workstation hardware as well as many other things. It's why both Ryzen cpus and the intel's i7/i9 HEDT platforms do not even bother having a GPU inside them. So comparing the xbox one's GPU to it in that sense is kinda silly due to the cpu's use case. Cause that would be like me comparing an n64 to a 72 core intel xeon cpu and saying wow, the n64 is really impressive cause it has a gpu while $150,000 72 core xeon has no gpu... (Obviously, that is exaggerating)

I get what you're saying but it would be nice if we had resonably priced APUs on PC that were at par with X1 and PS4.

Intel has a higher end APU with Iris graphics but its in expensive devices and still junk for modern gaming.

APUs are mainly an AMD thing because most AMD cpus do not have GPUs inside however the AMD CPUs that do have GPUs inside are stronger than the usual GPUs that are known to be inside CPUs and that is why AMD calls them APUs. Intel does not actually call their cpus APUs even if they have GPUs inside them hence why post people do not actually call intel cpus, APUs even though intel i7s have GPUs inside them...

And again, the reason why intel has GPUs inside their CPUs are due to Workstation and Not gaming....

Intel Iris sucks at gaming because it the reason it exists is cause it accelerates tasks in other parts instead such as Video Encoding with intel QuickSync. It is Not meant for... Again... Gaming.... The reason why it is considered higher "end" gpu in the intel's cpu lineup is because it has more accelerators that help companies do their workstation grade tasks such as photoshop and video encoding without needing to buy an additional GPU. 

Again, the comparsion is silly and that would be like me comparing an n64 to a 72 core intel xeon cpu and saying wow, the n64 is really impressive cause it has a gpu while $150,000 72 core xeon has no gpu...

I don't have any issues comparing xbox one to the usual pc apus which are the AMD A10 series for example, but when you go comparing to high end cpus which have GPUs that aren't even meant for gaming... It is really just silly

These comparisons just don't work. Why would you buy a whole new PC? If you just use the PC you bought when the X1 was released and put a $500 GPU in it you will have something a lot better than the XBOX.

OT

X1/X1 global salles 36,2 mln

COD : BO 3 11.39 mln

https://xbox-anywhere.com/2017/06/17/la-marque-xbox-se-porte-bien-la-preuve-en-images/

All fine and dandy, but the it remains a machine with a powerful GPU, constrained by a potato CPU. You could make a more budget balanced build with a Pentium CPU or a Ryzen 3 when it comes out and an RX 560 or 570 if you can find a good deal on the last one.

Nice info.