By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Digital Foundry Video: Hands-On With Xbox Series X + Impressions + Xbox One X Size Comparisons + Official Specs + Ray Tracing

Leynos said:

Don't want to sit through techno-babble vids. Just one question.

Will it work on my 1080P TV?

I think Lockhart is more up your alley, save you a few hundred too 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
Nu-13 said:

The more for GAMES, the better. More than 2gb for OS is already overkill.

No, the more, OVERALL, the better. Again, there's no such thing as overkill for System RAM, be it in a PC or console. You cannot have too much memory, because the system will allot resources to make use of it and things will run much smoother as a result.

Of course there's overkill if a machine meant to play games has too much OS ram. In this case its not huge if the 2.5 gb is true but it CAN.



BraLoD said:
Propietary SSD and no HDD is actually very concerning.
I hope Sony doesn't follow the same route, because having only like 8-13 games installed is pretty bad.
Having a HDD to move to SSD what you are playing is much better than uninstalling.
Based on Vita SD card prices I would be stuck with 1TB forever.

Also only 16GB of ram is less than what I expected, and I still expect Sony to come with 20+.

And still using those batteries on the controller... damn.

Aside from that the system sounds pretty good actually. Pretty beefy.
Having the ability to backup your XBO to XSX is great.

The consensus is that having to install physical games at all is bad.



I think people are missing something DF pointed out about the Series X. MS wanted consistency. Everything has hard locked rate of speed. The SSD doesn't have the peak speeds of PCIE 4.0 NVMe drives on PC but always runs at 2.4GB /s. A Samsung EVO 970 has transfer speeds up to 3.5GB /s. MS clearly wanted devs to no exactly how the Series X would perform at all times and build their games around that spec.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
JEMC said:
Looks like a very well thought design, but the memory split is strange. I hope it won't become a problem later.

That, and the fact it only comes with 16GB of RAM, which seems woefully inadequate to me going forward. It may be enough right now, but I'm sure in just 2 years time, the RAM will become a very limiting factor with textures needing to be more and more compressed, something that will get pretty obvious in 4K, ironically enough.

Amount of RAM has already reached diminishing returns. We'll only see arithmetical increases instead of exponential ones. Also, 13gb of gddr6 for games is like 5x more than 5gb of gddr5 that the ps4 had.



Around the Network
Nu-13 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

That, and the fact it only comes with 16GB of RAM, which seems woefully inadequate to me going forward. It may be enough right now, but I'm sure in just 2 years time, the RAM will become a very limiting factor with textures needing to be more and more compressed, something that will get pretty obvious in 4K, ironically enough.

Amount of RAM has already reached diminishing returns. We'll only see arithmetical increases instead of exponential ones. Also, 13gb of gddr6 for games is like 5x more than 5gb of gddr5 that the ps4 had.

Lol nice math there...

Compressed textures have been used for over a decade. PS4 and XBox One have freed up system memory to share for games as well. PS4 has up to 5.5 GB available for games with all the same tricks to reduce memory load. And that was cramped for 1080p. Native 4K requires 4 times the memory for most processing in the rendering pipeline. Is a 2.3x increase enough. My laptop is constrained by 14GB of use-able video ram at 1080p (6 + 8 shared from 16 total system ram) :/

Consoles have always been memory constrained, seems it will continue as usual.

PS1 -> 3MB ram (1MB video ram)
PS2 -> 36MB ram (4MB video ram)
PS3 -> 512MB ram (256MB video ram)
PS4 -> 8GB ram (4.5 + 1 GB on request video ram)
PS5 -> ?

Through the generations the increase in memory has actually been speeding up (12x, 14x, 16x) while launch games developers for ps4 already stated the memory was tight. So you see why a drop to doubling the memory raises questions. All the other things like better handling of textures, compression, faster memory is all the same.



sales2099 said:
Leynos said:

Don't want to sit through techno-babble vids. Just one question.

Will it work on my 1080P TV?

I think Lockhart is more up your alley, save you a few hundred too 

Unless he cares a lot about having the best graphic and wants to upgrade to 4k TV soon. Otherwise yes unless he loves Sony 1st party so far Lockhart seems like the best option for him and people that have similar needs.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

BraLoD said:
the-pi-guy said:

>Propietary SSD and no HDD is actually very concerning.

Sony is going to take the same route.  Both systems are going to take advantage of the SSD in a huge number of ways. 

>Having a HDD to move to SSD what you are playing is much better than uninstalling.

You can do this.  

Store Xbox Series X games on external HDD.  

Play Series X games on internal SSD.  

Store and play Xbox One, 360, Xbox games on external HDD.

IF they support external HDD than that's fine.

Specially for the PS5 if it's BC, as I can just keep using mine on the PS5 instead.

But I know if Sony also goes the SSD expansion route the prices will be out of this world.

I still can't believe how much Vita SD cards costs, it's ridiculous. Now imagine that with a tech Sony is clamming to be the specially advanced for their SSD... A 1TB add-on would cost a PS4 itself xP

Not sure how much Sony or MS will charge on the external SDD. But for PSVita and PSP one of the reasons for the high price was scale. Not really being propietary but the low production didn't help to bring cost and price down.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

SvennoJ said:
Nu-13 said:

Amount of RAM has already reached diminishing returns. We'll only see arithmetical increases instead of exponential ones. Also, 13gb of gddr6 for games is like 5x more than 5gb of gddr5 that the ps4 had.

Lol nice math there...

Compressed textures have been used for over a decade. PS4 and XBox One have freed up system memory to share for games as well. PS4 has up to 5.5 GB available for games with all the same tricks to reduce memory load. And that was cramped for 1080p. Native 4K requires 4 times the memory for most processing in the rendering pipeline. Is a 2.3x increase enough. My laptop is constrained by 14GB of use-able video ram at 1080p (6 + 8 shared from 16 total system ram) :/

Consoles have always been memory constrained, seems it will continue as usual.

PS1 -> 3MB ram (1MB video ram)
PS2 -> 36MB ram (4MB video ram)
PS3 -> 512MB ram (256MB video ram)
PS4 -> 8GB ram (4.5 + 1 GB on request video ram)
PS5 -> ?

Through the generations the increase in memory has actually been speeding up (12x, 14x, 16x) while launch games developers for ps4 already stated the memory was tight. So you see why a drop to doubling the memory raises questions. All the other things like better handling of textures, compression, faster memory is all the same.

Exactly.

Also, when the PS4 and XBO hit the market, even high-end gaming PCs mostly were still using 8GB RAM, with cheaper builds even just relying on 4GB (or 6 with triple channel).

Today, mainstream Laptops are increasingly using 16GB, with the Gaming PCs moving on to 32GB or even 64GB. At the same time, VRAM exploded, having gone from 2-3GB for high-end cards at the release of the PS/XBO to mid-range cards already coming with 8GB, and 6GB cards already finding their amount of VRAM becoming a limiting factor in 1440p.

While I didn't expect nearly such a huge leap as with the previous generations, I was hoping that the consoles were moving to 32GB, or at least 24GB (or, as a minimal option, 16GB with 4GB Memory on the side for the OS, leaving all 16GB for the games), but this is simply not enough going forward.

Sure, they were talking about virtual memory to alleviate the blow, but the SSD is way too slow compared to the RAM; the bandwidth is just 1/100 of what the memory achieves (to give you some context, 2.4 GB/s is what DDR memory achieved in 1998), seriously bottlenecking the system if that's needed to be used. Also, Virtual memory had been used in PCs for decades, with this exact outcome; one of the reasons why the size of the RAM rose very fast between 1995 and 2010 was to avoid the slowdowns that Virtual Memory entailed.



JRPGfan said:
Leynos said:

Don't want to sit through techno-babble vids. Just one question.

Will it work on my 1080P TV?

You should probably get a new TV as well, if your getting a Xbox Series X.

I'm not getting an X until a couple years from now IF they have games I want. I don't care about resolutions really. I play retro consoles al the time. I like to keep things as long as they work. SO if this TV is working in 3 years or 13 years. It will be here. I still use CRTs and a VCR in the other room for VHS tapes and retro consoles.I don't believe in this disposable society of just tossing something because it's a little older.

Last edited by Leynos - on 17 March 2020

Bite my shiny metal cockpit!