Actually, Lockhart shouldn't hold back Anaconda at all. The rumored specs for Lockhart are high enough that the only downgrade should be resolution, Lockhart should play next gen games at 1080p that Anaconda plays at 4K with no other graphical downgrades. It therefore shouldn't hold back graphics for exclusives or multiplats next-gen. 

Actually, Lockhart shouldn't hold back Anaconda at all. The rumored specs for Lockhart are high enough that the only downgrade should be resolution, Lockhart should play next gen games at 1080p that Anaconda plays at 4K with no other graphical downgrades. It therefore shouldn't hold back graphics for exclusives or multiplats next-gen. 

I think MS is banking on Lockhart selling the most, just like S sells more than X this gen, Anaconda will be marketed towards hardcore gamers and Lockhart toward casual/mainstream gamers. Not even 1/4 of gamers worldwide have a 4K tv yet (and by 2020 the number of gamers with 4K tv's might still be under 1/4), so a console like Lockhart that plays next-gen games at 1080p for $300 should actually sell very well I think. Sure some people will go with the more powerful PS5 and Anaconda, either because they already have a 4k tv or because they want to futureproof, but for the casuals a $300 next-gen console should really sell well. Of course, for all we know Sony is planning on offering a basic and a premium model as well. 

You seem to be missing the point. If both Lockhart and Anaconda were aiming for the same resolution, either 1080p or 4k, then yes, Lockhart would definitely hold back Anaconda (and PS5 when it comes to multiplats), but that doesn't seem to be the case. Based on the rumored specs for the 2 consoles, Anaconda is actually more likely to hold back graphics than Lockhart is. Let me explain why:

To make this comparison simple, I'm going to compare GPU's only using flops, even though flops aren't the best indicator of real world performance and even though there are other factors to consider like RAM amount and speed and CPU power. Lockhart is likely aiming for 1080p, much like PS4 did this gen.

PS4- 1.8 tflops
Lockhart- 6 tflops at least, possibly more

That means that Lockhart has roughly 3x more graphical horsepower (on paper) to go towards improving graphics at 1080p compared to PS4.

Anaconda meanwhile is aiming for native 4k/60 fps according to rumors. XB1 X also aims for native 4k, but often fails to hit it, and it only aims for 30 fps most of the time, not 60 fps

XB1 X- 6 tflops

Anaconda- ~12 tflops (rumored)

That means that Anaconda has roughly 2x more graphical horsepower (on paper) compared to it's closest current-gen competitor, compared to 3x more for Lockhart versus it's closest current gen competitor. And not all of that 2x extra power is going towards improving graphics, some of it will go towards hitting native 4k and some of it will go towards hitting 60 fps, unless of course devs are willing to sacrifice native 4k/60 fps and go with a lower resolution like 1800p or 30 fps. 

So, Anaconda is actually more likely to hold back graphics than Lockhart is, simply because native 4k/60 fps is very demanding. 

Because power often matters most to hardcore gamers while price often matters most to casual gamers. They want to have the cheapest console to win the casual market and the most powerful console to win the hardcore market. Hard to say rather or not the strategy will pay off in the end vs PS5 likely taking a middle of the road approach in both power and price. Will be an interesting gen to watch for sure. 

I think maybe Lockhart is aiming for 1080p/60 fps rather than 1080p/30 fps, but we'll have to wait and see. Also, based on current PC GPU benchmarks, 2x more GPU power is actually just about enough to hit 4K with the same graphics settings. As a for instance, the 6 tflop AMD RX 580 can achieve a locked 60 fps at 1080p, ultra settings on Battlefield V, while the 10 tflop RX Vega 64 can hit 50 fps on Ultra settings at 4K (if AMD already had a 12 tflop GPU it very likely would be able to hit 60 fps at 4K, ultra settings).

It is currently rumored that the highest end Navi GPU coming from AMD next year will be an equal to the GeForce 2070 but at a much cheaper $250 retail price, and the GeForce 2070 is roughly equal to the 10 tflop RX Vega 64 from AMD depending on the game. Since PS5 is rumored to be using Navi, it is likely that PS5 will use the highest end Navi chipset, so PS5's GPU will probably be rated at about 10 tflops (more than 2x Pro and more than 5x standard PS4 on paper). If Anaconda is using the "next-gen" architecture from AMD as is rumored, which is scheduled for 2020 currently, 12 tflops or more seems likely for Anaconda, alongside a higher price tag than PS5. However, we also have to remember that AMD's "next-gen" architecture is brand new, not a revision, so even if it it only 2x more powerful on paper in terms of flops, it could actually be more than 2x more powerful in terms of real world performance thanks to architectural improvements. 

You have to remember that XB1 X came halfway into the generation, and a year after Pro, many hardcore gamers had already made their choice and gotten a PS4 by the time X released. Having the most powerful console from the beginning of the generation is a different matter entirely. Also XB1 X had the disadvantage of less exclusives compared to PS4 Pro, MS is working to remedy that problem next gen with their greatly expanded 1st party. 

I never said for sure that MS would have the most powerful console next gen, this is all based on rumored specs and Phil recently hinting in an interview that MS planned to have the most powerful console again next gen. 

I think this was always going to be the case with a mid-gen upgrade, at least on paper I don't expect anaconda to do much more than x2.5 performance of XB1X .

Anaconda and Lockhart will both provide a new generation of graphical presentation that is not available on X1X: Lockhart will just do so at the expense of native 4k targets, but without any compromise to the CPU and overall performance.

Now with 2 leaks on Microsoft next-gen strategy and assuming Sony does a 399$ console, we now know pretty much the specs in these consoles as desktop zen2 and Navi has been leaked. Based on the leaks and a little speculation the specs we got is looking like this:

Xbox Two (Lockhart) 300$
CPU: 6 Core, 12-thread zen2, clocked at 2,4Ghz
Gpu: Navi with 32CU, 12 GB ram Gddr6, 288 GB/s bandwidth, 192-bit bus, Amd radeon 590 performance
Storage: 1TB mechanical drive with 64GB SSD storage

PS5 400$
CPU: 8 core, 16-thread zen2, clocked at 2,6Ghz
GPU: Navi with 48CU, 16 GB ram Gddr6, 448 GB/s bandwidth, 256-bit bus, Geforce 1080/vega64 performance
Storage: 1TB mechanical drive with 128GB SSD storage

Xbox Two+ (Anaconda) 500$
CPU: 8 core, 16-thread zen2, clocked at 3Ghz
GPU: Navi with 56CU, 24 GB ram Gddr6, 672 GB/s bandwidth, 384-bit bus, Geforce 2080 performance
Storage: 1TB mechanical drive with 128GB SSD storage

Will have Vapor chamber cooling for extra high clocks :) and be quiet as a stone.

We should get dev kits leaks within 7 months if history repeats itself. As in June 2012 there was already a forum post at Beyond3D that the Ps4 will a SOC containing 8-core jaguar cpu with and a gpu similiar to amd radeon 7850.

PS3 and PS4 had better HW than X360 and X1.

And how would MS know for sure that their hardware isn't outpowered before Sony either announce or release the HW? The only way they can be sure is if they always take over 12 months later than Sony to release their HW (because not all HW change can be made fast and worse, the time to dev SW for it)... or are you suggesting MS will have access to confidential development documents from Sony?

PS4 is the first console to have ever won being the most powerful at start of gen, all other in previous gen lost. So being the most powerful doesn't warranty good sales (we have plenty overpowered duds in the past). Being less expensive but giving a not up to standard experience also doesn't solve it, as show by WiiU and others as well.

Actually, Lockhart shouldn't hold back Anaconda at all. The rumored specs for Lockhart are high enough that the only downgrade should be resolution, Lockhart should play next gen games at 1080p that Anaconda plays at 4K with no other graphical downgrades. It therefore shouldn't hold back graphics for exclusives or multiplats next-gen. 

It's not out of the blue that several PC gamers blame consoles for holding they back. Consoles sell much more SW so they are taken more in account.

So, Anaconda is actually more likely to hold back graphics than Lockhart is, simply because native 4k/60 fps is very demanding. 

Also, based on current PC GPU benchmarks, 2x more GPU power is actually just about enough to hit 4K with the same graphics settings. As a for instance, the 6 tflop AMD RX 580 can achieve a locked 60 fps at 1080p, ultra settings on Battlefield V, while the 10 tflop RX Vega 64 can hit 50 fps on Ultra settings at 4K (if AMD already had a 12 tflop GPU it very likely would be able to hit 60 fps at 4K, ultra settings).

I know it seems like you would need 4x more GPU power to output 4x more pixels, but you actually don't. I could show you multiple PC benchmarks that prove that you only need about 2x more GPU power to hit native 4k, though obviously it varies depending on the game, some engines struggle with 4K more than others, so some games need more than 2X more power to hit 4K, but 90% of games fall somewhere between 2-2.5x more power needed to hit 4K.

Now obviously if you are running "4K" textures as well, then you definitely need more GPU power and RAM that is good enough to stream those textures quickly.

I know it seems like you would need 4x more GPU power to output 4x more pixels, but you actually don't. I could show you multiple PC benchmarks that prove that you only need about 2x more GPU power to hit native 4k, though obviously it varies depending on the game, some engines struggle with 4K more than others, so some games need more than 2X more power to hit 4K, but 90% of games fall somewhere between 2-2.5x more power needed to hit 4K. Now obviously if you are running "4K" textures as well, then you definitely need more GPU power and RAM that is good enough to stream those textures quickly. Anaconda definitely won't hit native 4K/60 fps on all games, some sacrifices will need to be made to either resolution or framerate for the more demanding games, and as the generation progresses and PC pulls further ahead, more and more games won't be able to hit 4k on Anaconda. But I'm sure MS has plans to release an even more powerful console a few years into the generation, much like X this gen. I have a feeling that MS is planning to move towards shorter hardware cycles with possibly 3 different specced consoles being supported at any one time.

Most of the games that can't hit native 4k on XB1 X are games that run at 900p or 720p on XB1 btw. Only a few games that are 1080p on XB1 aren't 4K on XB1 X. 

That was Soundwave who said that MS definitely wouldn't let Sony beat them on specs again, not me. All I said was that Phil hinted at MS planning to beat Sony again on specs next gen. 

Pemalite said:

First AMD needs to actually invent a GPU that is 2.5x faster than the Xbox One X GPU.

Why couldn't there be any deviation in CPU performance? This generation certainly has every console with a different CPU performance profile.
I.E. Xbox One: 1.75Ghz, Xbox One X: 2..3ghz (With some additional offloading), Playstation 4: 1.6ghz, Playstation 4 Pro: 2.13Ghz.

We really don't though.

I am expecting single CCX on the CPU side for all devices. It offers the best price/performance... And allows for more of the transistor budget to be sunk into the GPU side of the equation.

Navi with 56CU's to be equivalent than a Geforce 2080 is a bit of a claim, Vega 64 has 64 CU's, which is 14% more... Yet ends up being 40-60% slower than the 2080, I highly doubt AMD has made such significant strides in boosting Graphics Core Next efficiency. Grains of salt shall be had.
Granted at 7nm, they should be able to bolster clockrates, but... Still a big gap to close.

Vapor chamber doesn't guarantee high clock and silent operation. - You still need a fan.
It does allow for more efficient movement of heat however.

Indeed.
Some dev kits were a deviation though as some claimed to be using Terascale at some points.

Indeed. Although to be fair, the Xbox 360's GPU was the better chip at the end of the day.

Totally fair point, with only little games taking advantage of the better HW of PS3 with much more hassle than ones using the better GPU of X360.

Precisely. They wouldn't. AMD and other hardware companies would be under a non-disclosure agreement and would not be allowed to disclose what the other company is doing.

Certainly when MS or Sony buy around the tech, since they will likely be using AMD or NVidia (less likely) instead of deving their own chips, they will now what power to expect around each cost. And may take assumptions on how much the competitor will charge and the loss they want to take. Plus also can do estimatives of what gen of HW and specs will be best bang for buck on console form. But all of that can be useless if the competitor decides to be bold (or dumb).

Power doesn't guarantee success/failure, that is what history has ultimately told us.
But what does determine that is the right performance/price ratio.

The Playstation 3 was higher performing, but also over priced high on it's launch, paving the way for the Xbox 360 to take a massive chunk of marketshare.
The Playstation 4 was higher performing, but lower price... And that resonated with consumers across the spectrum.

Yes performance/price is quite important, plus the games that will make use of it.

Depends on how much of a cutback Lockhart has.
If it's got less ROPS, Bandwidth, Geometry units, CPU cores, CPU clocks, Texture Mapping Units, Compute and so on... That has a flow-on effect.

Developers do need to build their games for the lowest common denominator in mind.

It's true though.
It's no coincidence that in 2014~ that Multiplat games took a relatively large leap forward in terms of fidelity when consoles caught up to mid-range PC's.

Eh. Except you contradict yourself from the very outset of your post by stating that flops isn't an indicator for gauging complete system performance.

The RX 580 is mid-range. It's not a GPU that is well suited for 4k with settings dialed up... And it's certainly not a GPU that is ideal for 1080P. - It's ideal resolution is actually somewhere in between, 1440P.

At 4k, you need to start cutting back on visual effects... And at that point, you are better off with 1440P with settings pushed up.

So you would be in line that somewhere around 4x difference in performance would be expected to have similar level and balance from 1080p to 4k?

It is all completely dependent on the GPU architecture and how well it would hit higher resolutions and what the games/engines are trying to accomplish.

Back in the 90's, one of the biggest limitations to hitting higher resolutions was actually Ram capacity, if you had a GPU with a smaller amount of VRAM, you might have been limited to 640x480 rather than say... 1024x768. - Some manufacturers got around that issue by employing texture compression.

Move towards the dawn of TnL (Fixed function stuff), fillrate became a massive limitation... Often various GPU designs came out with strange multi-texturing set-ups.. And if a game didn't leverage it appropriately, fillrate could be cut in half or down to 1/4th of it's full speed, making a massive impact on total performance and thus resolution you could operate at, some GPU's got around that issue by taking a tile-based approach to rendering.

Today workloads are very much compute heavy, but if a game is heavy on the geometry or texturing it can make a fairly large impact on AMD GPU's ability to hit higher resolutions as performance will suffer.

4k textures were used even during the 7th gen. Texture resolution and screen resolution aren't 1:1 pixel to pixel.

I know, I was just using the 580 and RX Vega 64 to illustrate my point since they are currently the two closest AMD PC GPU's to the rumored GPU specs for Lockhart and Anaconda. 

I'm also aware that actual 4k textures aren't that impressive and that many games use them even at lower resolutions like 1080p. That's why I used quotation marks when I said "4K textures". The actual texture resolutions that people usually run at 4K screen resolution are more like 8K or 16K, but they are often called 4K by people writing articles and such since they are paired with a 4k screen resolution.