Exactly, they even said it was a false alarm on their part and provided side by side evidence to back it up.  They have no fanboy agenda, and I never claimed they did..

The various people on twitter, N4G, and a few un-named people here that took comments at face value and even people making false claims...that is up for debate and they are the ones I am talking about.

Good to hear this. If this is you claim, then i'm more than happy to agree with you gentlemen. I'm sorry if the way I wrote earlier caused some misunderstanding.

Dropping all the way to 720p to get 60fps on the S? Wow. This is dissapointing.

Well I guess it depends on how you look at it really.  In quality mode, it averages 1440p at 30 fps and can dynamically go higher to just over 1600p or lower down to around 1100p.  This is in line with what the One X does.

So the question here for the 60 fps mode, is could the One X handle it as it does not have this option.  I personally don't think it could, because of cpu limitations, which is why the Series S can still outperform it in certain instances.  The important thing to remember here is that the Series S is 200 usd cheaper than the One X was, so being able to do more actually makes it the more impressive console (unless we are talking BC, but that is another discussion).  So really, there is no reason to want a One X over the Series S if you are out for a new console because based on what we have seen, the Series S is more capable at a cheaper price.

I mean, this patch pretty much gives us what MS promised, where resolution is the only compromise.  It is still 1440p compared to the locked 4K of the Series X and PS5, and 720p 60 fps compared to the dynamic 60 fps resolutions of the XSX and PS5.

I would never be caught dead paying for a new generation to play games at 720p, don't get me wrong.  But the target audience is not you or me, but people who just want a cheap option for gamepass, side console, or just can't afford the more powerful options.  So while I am not impressed as far as my needs go, it does fulfill its purpose.  The people that get the S will not be asking if they can get full native HD at 60 fps, but rather can it run the current games at a cut to resolution.  So far, after patches roll out anyway, that does appear to be the case.

The PS4 runs valhalla at a dynamic resolution of 840p to 1080p at 30fps. The Series S runs at a lower resolution than this at 60fps, meaning less than twice the performance of the previous gen? I'm sure it has graphical improvements over the PS4 version in other areas but it's dissapointing. They should have cut back more graphics to get that 1080p.

I greatly prefer 60fps to higher resolution but sub-1080p is a no-go for me. So I'd either play this at 30fps on my S or more likely play it on my PC instead. I'm sure ubisoft could have gotten more out of the console than this.

If the S can't run 30fps PS4 games at 60fps at the same resolution I view that as a dissapointing result.

Sony has really improved their consoles since the PS2 and PS3 generations to be way more developer friendly. It is great to see a console that is "lower spec" really pushing past its supposed limitations in comparison to the Series X. This is likely due to the amount of developer feedback and great SDK's that Sony offers.

That being said...the paper specs don't lie and the Series X really should be performing better than it is (especially when it comes to framerate). I've heard that MS consolidated their SDK's and made it to where you are making a Windows version and a Series X/S version concurrently. If these are the results, I'm not sure that is the way to do it. Though it may be convenient it certainly isn't without some cost.

720p is the lowest it goes.
On avg its around 800p.

Its a cheaper console, and alot weaker than the series X or Playstation 5..... so it has to have compromises to reach that fps bar.
Also the temporal reconstruction, is supposedly really well done. That along with a sharpening filter, and it looks better than your avg 800p game would.