Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Leaked Lockhart specs

Barozi said:
KratosLives said:

No one will want to go back to 720p after getting used to 1080.

and why would I want to play this 1080p grand epic on Series X when I was just getting used to (near) 4k resolution with Xbox One X?

You just debunked your own point.

More to an output image than resolution.

We aren't even at the point where we can have photo-realistic images even at 720P, let alone 2160P.

Mr Puggsly said:
KratosLives said:

No one will want to go back to 720p after getting used to 1080.

720p with image reconstruction tech isn't the same as 720p of the 7th gen per se.

Also, dynamic resolutions help keep the average resolution higher.

Many titles of the 7th gen weren't even 720P... Halo 3, Call of Duty and so forth being prime examples.
Plus many games opted for morphological anti-aliasing rather than MSAA or such... So images were terrible.

There is a big difference between 1080P and 2160P, but the extent of which depends on a myriad of factors like individual eyesight acuity, display size, display technology, display resolution, distance seated away from the display, even the ambient lighting.

Conina said:

Graphics can much better scale up and down than non-graphic stuff.

The bottleneck of the Xbox One X is clearly the Jaguar CPU-part.

Why do you think that only a few Xbox One X games have a performance mode with 60 fps and lower resolution/eye candy instead of 30 fps 4K?

A console is the sum of it's parts.
You can have the fastest CPU in the world, if you are GPU or Memory limited... You still are not going to achieve 60fps.

Besides, the Super Nintendo had 60fps games and that console only had a single core, 3.58Mhz processor... Verses the Xbox 360 with a 3-core, 3200Mhz hyperthreaded processor or Xbox One with an 8-core 1750Mhz processor.

The Xbox One X games are very slim on the 60fps pickings because that is what developers opted for, the GPU is also capable of offloading many tasks that used to be done on the CPU as well, they are highly programmable these days...

haxxiy said:

Surely not, but the point was that there is no way to even begin to compare the functionality of 12 GB of RAM fed by a 50 MB/s HDD versus 8 or 10 GB fed by a 3 GB/s SSD. One can fill the RAM in a few seconds. The other, I'm not even sure how developers accomplish the miracle of making games appear on screen after only half a minute or so to begin with.

Many games also didn't stream (Especially simpler titles!), they stored everything in memory and just simply had chunky load points... Those titles it does not  make a difference if it's an optical disk with 5MB/s transfer rates or 5500MB/s of SSD transfer rates.

An SSD is only a tiny fraction of the speed of Ram (And much higher latency!), it cannot replace Ram. - Otherwise we wouldn't bother with Ram, but the performance implications of ignoring the 400-500GB/s of Ram bandwidth for only 5.5GB/s of SSD bandwidth is catastrophic.






--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
Nautilus said:

Honestly? It's going to be up to the games.

Clearly, Lockhart dosen't have either the power or innovation going for it. It's just beefed up XBox One in the eyes of the consumer. But if MS (finally) manages to have some excellent(not good, not great, it needs to be excellent) first party lineup, then yeah, the price will start speaking louder, specially with the gigantic economy crash comming up.

In the eyes of the consumer, it's probably more or a next-gen console for half the price. Most players and parents don't know much about specs.

I don't agree. Given that graphics won't receive THAT much of an upgrade, and even some 8th gen games will look as good as a 9th gen game(or maybe even better), alongside many games being crossgen, people will just stick to their XOne or PS4 if MS brings nothing enticing to the table regarding their 9th gen consoles.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Otter said:
kirby007 said:
why are we saying this isn't enough if DLSS like implementations will still make this thing run anything the actual bigdickconsoles will

Because we don't have any demonstration of DLSS quality image reconstruction on PS5 or XSX yet. The functionality is built into Nvidia cards, so its not a given PS5/SX will be able to easily replicate that level of reconstruction (i.e 540p to 1080p) but maybe someone more informed on the matter can give their take. 

OP;

The specs look fine for launch and this will indeed make a compelling purchase for people not concerned about 4k., but I worry how this system will age down the road. People who pick this up at launch get a system which is simply running at 1080p, great! 4 years down the line they have a system which is having ray tracing features cut, have performance modes cut, is having to drop to 720p and lower.

For example previews of Cyberpunk 2077

"The performance report from the German publication is a bit concerning on multiple levels, as the Cyberpunk 2077 preview apparently ran at 1080p with DLSS 2.0 enabled (announced yesterday by NVIDIA to be available for the game) and some (but not all) raytracing effects enabled on a computer powered by the mighty RTX 2080Ti graphics card." 

https://wccftech.com/cyberpunk-2077-preview-ran-at-1080p-with-dlss-2-0-enabled-on-an-rtx-2080ti-powered-pc/
This is just a glimpse of the future where game devs are pushing powerful hardware to the max. So I worry about how Series S fits into these kind of equations when 4k is no longer the target. It sounds like it will eventually be a nuisance for developers and consumers will eventually start to get more compromises on it then they bargained for. In the end if it can deliver the same kind of visual experience and developers do not use it as a base (and instead port down to it, ala Switch) then I guess it will be a nice inclusion into next gen. 

If you are worried about people that chose the cheap version to get 1080p getting lower through the gen then you also should worry about people that buy the expensive version to get 4k getting lower than it through the gen. The gap between both will remain the same through the gen so if resolution is sacrificed for better IQ and other stuff that would apply to the weaker similarly. And in some cases perhaps the effects put on the stronger HW isn't worth the same as the pixels (4k and 1080p sacrifices would look very different) so they just don't put that effect and keep resolution on base version.



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

EricHiggin said:
eva01beserk said:

I never thought of that. your right, the xbox one name might be poisonous. that really could be a good reason to change the name even if the performance is the same.

There are rumors that the lockhart apu is meant for surface laptops. But that would cost more than an xsx most likely. I would not be surprised if part of the family is a set of laptops ranging from the rumor 4tf and going up to maybe matching the xsx at maybe a heafty premium. I would definetly consider that a mic drop moment. I have zero interest in an xsx, but if they make that laptop lockhart =< $1000 I would buy it instanly.  

They could attempt an XB1X Slim as you described, with new tech for cheaper, but I think moving forward will look better for MS overall, while also being less confusing considering the specs of both XB1X's would be different.

While 4TF Lockhart can't exactly be directly compared to XB1X 6TF, it shouldn't be all that far off in terms of graphical performance. 4TF of RDNA 2 shouldn't be all that much weaker than 6TF of GCN architecture. MS might even be thinking about better competing with Pro if they think SNY is going to keep it around though. Consumers will see 4TF vs 4.2TF and would see that as a wash along with 8 CPU cores. Lockhart likely having more RAM, and an SSD, while being next gen capable, would be the main selling points going for it. If Pro went down to $299, and Lockhart was $299 or $349, if would make people think twice about which console to get between the two.

I have a hard time believing MS is ready to start clearly mixing PC and console hardware just yet, and an XB laptop would do just that. If MS were looking to try and go mobile, that could be a first step in that direction however. It definitely would be surprising.

I don't think Sony can keep PS4Pro really relevant next gen, they would need to have it at less than 249 to make sense. Would be easier to have PS4 at 149 to keep the entry line.



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

"Lockhart CPU Rumored to be at the Same Clock as XSX; Up to Devs Whether to Target 1080@60 or 1440@30"

https://wccftech.com/lockhart-cpu-rumored-to-be-at-the-same-clock-as-xsx-up-to-devs-whether-to-target-108060-or-144030/



             

                               Anime: Haruhi                                                                                      Anime: Love Live
                              Nsfw Anime Thread                                                                             Join our Anime Threads!
                             Sfw Anime Thread                                                                                VGC Tutorial Thread

Around the Network
BraLoD said:
LurkerJ said:

This will do well. XSX footage will be used for ads with slogans like "play your next-gen games on the most powerful console, starting at 299$", especially that most third party games will be cross-gen for at least 3 years. PS4/X1, for all intents and purposes, are PCs. This means they will get many years of 3rd party software support just like any PC as a result. This generation will easily outlast the PS3/X360 era by a huge margin. If PS4Pro wasn't such a flop, SONY would've had the chance to do even better selling 8th gen consoles.

I think MS can easily lock the US/UK market next generation to themselves with this machine, or twist SONY's hand to respond sooner with price cuts. Nintendo will remain unaffected. 

MS will be sued like never if they do this exactly.

Not really, companies have been doing it. If I'm not wrong Xbox One use similar stuff. Most powerful console, best multiplats, starting at and show the lowest price for Xbox SAD.

Car companies do the same, show their most luxury version of the car and say starting at and show the price of the barebone.



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

I hope they can scale it down even lower and devs try to maximize performance of Xbox Series X and PS5. Because fuck shitty low end SKU's being a limiting factor after 7 years :P



With the cheaper options for PS5 and XBOXSX i do think this will be one of the more steeper priced generations if you like to buy the best versions.



Nautilus said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

In the eyes of the consumer, it's probably more or a next-gen console for half the price. Most players and parents don't know much about specs.

I don't agree. Given that graphics won't receive THAT much of an upgrade, and even some 8th gen games will look as good as a 9th gen game(or maybe even better), alongside many games being crossgen, people will just stick to their XOne or PS4 if MS brings nothing enticing to the table regarding their 9th gen consoles.

Most of the PS4 and XBO users still have the base models, NOT the PS4 Pro or the Xbox One X.

For them even the Lockhart would be a generational leap with much better graphics, fast loading times and access to all new games (except the Sony and nintendo exclusives).



Immersiveunreality said:
With the cheaper options for PS5 and XBOXSX i do think this will be one of the more steeper priced generations if you like to buy the best versions.

If both MS and Sony were selling their consoles for break even or small loss I would be very fine with they putting a budget entry version for 399 and a premium one 999 at the start of the gen as long as they ensure all games of the gen will be workeable on the base unit. Since 999 is a lot of money I would probably hold on buying the budget and after 2 years buy the premium hoping for a discount (when considered I bought base and pro and VR in the end I got near 999 on HW)



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