Your misunderstanding my point. They had a 2016 system in mind that would launch along side the pro but decided to give the pro a year head start just to release a more expensive console a year later. That cost them in sales and surely, R&D.

They digged into their deeper pockets to have the most powerful console and will do so again. Why wouldn't they? It would make the saving of face this generation for nothing. They'll build upon their improving brand image moving forward.

@bold If you look up benchmarks, it's actually mostly 2-3x for 1080p to 4K UHD, depending on engine, API and GPU architecture.

Here's some of the latest for 1660Ti (link is for Metro Exodus, there are others games in review as well):

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_rog_strix_geforce_gtx_1660_ti_review,14.html

I've been in 30ft+ feet deep trenches where cave ins are a huge risk.

Worked inside of methane filled confined spaces where combustion and/or asphyxiation is a risk. Constantly working around housting/rigging carrying thousands of pounds of material (2 years ago a guy on another crew for the company is was working for got killed during a rigging failure).

Worked on many heavy highway projects (guy on my crew got hit by a car on a job last year). Digging alongside water/electric/gas utilities everyday (its common for the locating company to miss a locate and we end up finding/hitting a utility that's not marked, operator once hit an unmarked water and electric line at the same time, if I was in the ditch at that moment I would have been electrocuted).

Been on a job where I directly handled dynamite. Work alongside heavy equipment every day and had many close calls with mechanical malfunctions (hydraulics line blew and almost got crushed by excavator) and human error (operator not following hand signals almost cut my feet off a few months ago).

Sure, you might be at a higher risk but I go through my fair share of risks on a day to basis....well not at the moment because I'm off with a work related injury

If the games were made using only Pro HW, you can bet they would look better.  There will be little interest in the lower powered XB2 because the early adopters will be looking for a real jump in performance, not another half step.

I think you guys should compare scars ;)

• Yes. In a rendering pipeline resolution is one of the things that scale proportionally. So if you are going for 4 times the rez you either need 4 times the power or 4 times the rendering time. But there are things that dont scale up at all unless a dev specifically wants them to (eg geometry). Another thing to consider is that the number you are told (eg 4.2TF, 1.8TF) doesn't mean that at any one time all of that GPU is fixed on driving rez. This is a very loose description, but say out of that 1.8TF 900Gflops was used solely for the rez part of the pipeline for a 1080p, then if you want the same game running in 4k you will need 3.6TF.

@bold If you look up benchmarks, it's actually mostly 2-3x for 1080p to 4K UHD, depending on engine, API and GPU architecture.

Here's some of the latest for 1660Ti (link is for Metro Exodus, there are others games in review as well):

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_rog_strix_geforce_gtx_1660_ti_review,14.html

Ok, thanks to you both for the clarification.

So I guess the conclusion is that Lockhart at 1/3 the TFLOPS would be in a decent position to run games at 1080 to Anaconda's 4K and that it wouldn't need to lose lots of 'bells and whistles' as thismeintiel suggests?

Understood;  anyway, specs aside, what I really want is a very solid Launch Line-up for both, and more emphasis on the game-play dynamics, animations, physics, much more interactive environment/system collision and AI.  With a massive jump in CPU performance, this could be achieved.    These are mostly the improvements I would like for next Gen, I don't care about native 4K/60fps, it's a waste.

1) The early adopter thing, still not really getting your point, what counts as 'early' - 6 months / 12 months / 18 months?

4) I guess we just fundamentally disagree on the potential popularity of the lower-priced sku. I believe that there's a healthy market for a cheaper model and that a lot of gamers just don't care about 4K, not to the tune of an extra $100-$200 anyway. If MS does indeed go this route then I guess we'll see!

EDIT : not sure what's up with the formatting here but it won't let me put an extra line between points 2) & 3) and 3) & 4) - very odd!

• Yes. In a rendering pipeline resolution is one of the things that scale proportionally. So if you are going for 4 times the rez you either need 4 times the power or 4 times the rendering time. But there are things that dont scale up at all unless a dev specifically wants them to (eg geometry). Another thing to consider is that the number you are told (eg 4.2TF, 1.8TF) doesn't mean that at any one time all of that GPU is fixed on driving rez. This is a very loose description, but say out of that 1.8TF 900Gflops was used solely for the rez part of the pipeline for a 1080p, then if you want the same game running in 4k you will need 3.6TF. 
  
  
• I agree with you here as well. I too believe there is a very healthy market for a dedicated  1080p sku. Funny thing is that those f is in forums that say its stupid are the minority. Last I checked there are still more people with 1080p TVs than there are with 4KTVs.

I don't have low expections, I'm just assuming game developers will go the easy route, the most powerful machine will have the highest ress :). But even for Sonys first party games I think they will target 4k CB or 1440p upscaled to 4k, they will need to do this to get a decent boost in graphic fidelity as for right now I expect Navi to be a dissappointment.

It would be a big plus, and a way to secure even more the Playstation ecosystem.   I feel nostalgic sometimes, and I would play again on PS5 the best games of all previous playstation hardware, it would be a dream comes true.

As you can see in the other part I bolded I clarified that. Yes in the real world you wont need 4x the actual physical total TF rating of a GPU to go from 1080p to 4k because the whole of the GPU isnt being used for the rez to begin with. But what of it is will usually scale directly t the chosen rez.

And if you look at that link you sent me and do the math... the only thing they changed was the resolution, the 2080 ran the game at ultra preset in 1080p at 76fps. When they switched it to 4k that dropped to 50fps. Thats about a 34% drop in performance. That doesn tell us what the part of the GPU that focuses on rez is actually using.

I think this all just shows how many people don't really get how all this game stuff works (at least enough to debate about it). They just see TFs and run with it.

Its no more of a headache than any game in existence that has graphic settings. Only difference here is that thse graphic settings are set on a hardware level. With how scalable modern day game engines are devs will literally just have a load out setting for the lower powered lockhart that will automatically scale everything back to fit. Then iron out any bugs that pop up.

No crippling happening here. 

You should only be worried if the cpu is different and it has like say 6GB of RAM or something.

This and they won't be that much more powerful than the X or Pro in order to be affordable and 1080p will still be the standard NOT 4k.

@ bold, not sure what you mean here, early adopters are a small subset of consumer within any sector, for them to be distinctive as 'early' it means that the majority have to be late(r). If everyone is an 'early' adopter then no-one is... Also, look at pretty much any console's sales curve and tell me where your evidence is for the average gamer = early adopter theory...

Also, just because people can look up tech info at the click of a button doesn't mean that they're interested in doing so. If everybody was obsessed with tech specs they'd own a PC or XB1X & Pro would be outselling the base models...

Finally, the PS4 base model has a GPU not far off of 1/3 the power of the Pro - you think games look that different across the two? I mean, the PS4/Pro example is the perfect comparison - they're essentially the same system except ram & GPU... Same proposition as these 2 XB skus & yet you're somehow concluding that there will be little interest in the cheaper/less powerful sku...?

Oh... I am not just a fire fighter. I am in multiple rescue organizations.
I am one of a dozen people who essentially are the first and last response to thousands of miles/kilometers of remote pristine Australian coastline/sea... Whether it be a boat, car, search and rescue, fire, vertical... You name it.

If you think you are at higher risk than that... Well... Not sure what to tell you. :P

Plus we don't need water mains and fire hydrants with the bulk water carriers backing up the 34P/Alpha 34P's. - The USA's approach to firefighting is far different to our own, you cannot rely on water mains out in the middle of nowhere as they blatantly don't exist, so we learned to become self sufficient.

I am definitely not selfish. But I am arrogant, but there are reasons for that. Haha

CPU I get because that affects things like simulation quality. I.E. Physics, number of A.I characters, asset decompression and general world interaction... And can even lend itself to assisting with rendering. (I.E. Cheap Anti-Aliasing.)

But having less DRAM wouldn't be the end of the world if it isn't to severe, the Xbox One X with it's 50% more Ram makes full use of it with higher resolutions and texturing quality over the base Xbox.

Then feel free to chime in? Forums are here for discussing things.

Like I said, a 1080p device's appeal will depend on price.  At $299, it's less appealing to budget gamers, who are more likely to pick it up at $199.  Of course, by the end 2020 we are more than likely going to have more than 1/2 of US households with 4K TVs.  I would imagine it will be nearly the same in other developed nations.  A box advertising 1080p at that time will be much less appealing than one that advertises 4K.

I am okay with 4k... And will get the best 4k console irrespective of brand/console manufacture... Because even on a 1080P or my 1440P displays there is some big improvements thanks to downsampling.

I am a massive whore for Framerates though, 60fps across every title would be amazing.

Always the "scalable" as if it was something magical. We should think scaling from baseline up, not the other way around.

If they decide for a weak "1080p platform" as base then they can scale up to the stronger 4k console and basically put res and some effects to use the extra power. And that will hold what is possible on the whole gen. It isn't make a game with the stronger SKU as base and then cut until it fits on the weak.

Plus if someone in 2020 decides to be budget minded and buy the cheapest 1080p console, they better stick to X1/PS4 that will be much cheaper.

They will aim and market 4K. Sure several games will have internal rendering much lower than 4k. But you can pretty sure PS5 will output a 4K signal regardless.

If being 3x weaker at only 100 USD cheaper isn't bad enough, being 1080p vs 4k will make it a marketing nightmare.

Even if the other SKU is stronger than PS5 it won't be similar trouble...

Let's say

X2 1080p SKU - 299 -> 4TF

PS5 4k only SKU - 399 -> 12TF

X2 4k SKU - 499 -> 16TF

It is pretty easy for sony on the middle ground to win against both, because it can sell as only 100 more than 1080p while having 3x the power, while at 100 less than 4k xbox having only 25% less power.

Only way MS could float this 1080p console is at 199 (which they can with minimal loss considering it will be standard HW), otherwise they are DOA on this type of plan.

Early adopters are the ones that will do research and pay the price.

For those the differences are quite important, as well as brand loyalty. X1 sold quite good in the first 6 months and then slowed.

So having the overall best possible single SKU at a 399 price at launch then cutting to 299 2 years after is much better strategy than having weak SKU at 299 and strong SKU 499 on start. Because what will they do latter when the 399 SKU rival have their price cut 299 and maybe extra cut to 249, will they sell their 299 at 149 or 99 just 2 years in the gen? And what about the strong SKU will they try to sell for double the price of the rival or will eat great loses to keep the price difference not a problem?

Saying 3 x weaker at only $100 less is misrepresenting things though. Only it's GPU is weaker - everything else is the same or similar.

Not misrepresenting, giving how marketing can and will target it. Also if they have just GPU weaker an all else similar then they will be making a very unbalanced system. RAM, bandwidth, CPU, and all rest must have a good balance. You don't just make one thing 3x faster and leave the rest, that would give you major bottlenecks.

So, you're getting a machine that can do everything the top sku can do but at a lower resolution. 

That is because you are holding the top SKU down, and that is where Pemalite, me and several others are complaining on this philosophy. But since Sony first party won't have this issue you'll see they smoking the waters on Xbox exclusives and most 3rd parties.

I'd also say that if you show the average gamer the same game running at 1080 & 4k on anything less than a 65" display that they're not going to appreciate a lot of difference.

Probably won't, not a problem to marketing. People believe more what they want to believe than what they can really see.

So, in fact, a more accurate way to frame the situation (imo) is to say for £100 less (or whatever the difference is), you're getting an experience that most people will see as almost the same as the premium model... Sounds like a good deal to me!

Sure some will find it a good deal. Almost 40M people found X1 a good deal.

The pitfall that I believe you and others are falling into is to assume that the general console gamer cares about the nuts and bolts of the hardware or the nuance of performance as much as you do, or in fact, at all. If I was to ask my friends who own consoles what frame-rate they're playing at I know that I'd be greeted with blank stares. They play the new Fifa and maybe one other game per year and that's it. You & I likely spend more time on this forum than a lot of console owners actually spend gaming...

And the pitfall in your argument is you believing that people need to see the difference to accept it exist, marketing already assured they this exist.

Most people won't see much difference between PS4 vanila and Pro (still 20% of the sales are for the 100 USD more Pro) nor between X1S and X1X (but some have it at almost 50/50 split) but they were told which is better.

And I don't think the 'early adopter' thing really applies here. It's not like a brand new technology, like say, the new folding phones Samsung or Huawei are launching, where the gen 1 design will have issues and the price will be eye-watering. Consoles have become iterative, with solid hardware out the gate & competitively priced. To go back to phones, if I buy the new oneplus 7 within the 1st year of its launch am I an early adopter? To me, the term only makes sense (within the context of this discussion) when there is some major drawback that someone faces when making that early purchase (ie. very expensive or premature hardware), which requires that person to be really passionate to take the plunge.

You may disagree with the term as much as you want, but consoles will still sell under 20M first year as production isn't really high, so you can use your economy of scale and price reduction with maturity of production. If you think early adopters don't exist, why do you think there is a limited number of people that accept to buy the console with almost no game for 400 and others will wait for more games while others for lower price?

There will be plenty of people who enjoy Madden or the yearly Call of Duty who will buy the new PS or XB when it releases because they want to see what the new lick of paint looks like on their favourite characters and they have some spare cash... ($300 to $500 every 5-7 years isn't a lot of money to a lot of people)

So?

As for your price suggestions, let's say you are correct and we have XBLockhart $299 / PS5 $399 / XBAnaconda $499 - I personally think that would put MS in a good position - they will have a good chance at cornering the value-focussed customers on one end and the enthusiast at the other. When it comes time to drop the price, they'll do so across both models to maintain the gap / value propositions.

They weren't able to win against Sony at similar power, lower price, head start, better multiplats. Why do you think they would be able to win on a much weaker and 1/4 res cheaper option and an more expensive almost equal performance?

And why would it be a marketing nightmare exactly? Both Sony and MS have 2 different skus right now, I don't see why the staggered release makes any difference... Nintendo will also likely soon have multiple skus. Look at how many skus iPhone has - doesn't seem to hurt their sales any! If a customer doesn't understand the difference between full HD & 4K then it's likely they'll be just fine with Lockhart anyway, which to me legitimises it's existence in the first place!

The nightmare is for MS not Sony. Sony will be able to say they have a console that is cheaper than Anaconda while delivering same 4K and much stronger than 1080p Lockhart. If you really think resolution and the rest is almost irrelevant to most people then how will MS justify 200 USD more on Anaconda versus Lockhart?

Staggered releases allow for double dips and keep relevance of the system against stronger baseline of PCs, double SKU on release just give lack of focus. Very big difference than HDD size that X360, PS3 used.