Crytek: Xbox One X Comparable To Standard Gaming PC GPU, CPU Performance Roughly 1/3rd of Ryzen

It’s been said many, many times already but the Xbox One X is a little lacking. Yes, it’s the most powerful consoles ever made (for now) and is probably the best possible machine for playing games in 4K (native or otherwise). Microsoft also did good by developers with the removal of eSRAM, which bogged down the base Xbox One tremendously since its introduction.

[Lokii]

I still don't see the point of this console. It will always play the same games as the Xbox one. Only with a bit of a performance increase. Gameplay is king. At least with the ps4 pro it increases the PSVR performance over the base model. With let's be honest, it needed.

[Cyborgg]

I think Microsoft thought this console would save them and help them catch up to Sony in sales. They think having a little better graphics in multiplatform games will help them win the console war my guess.

[Cyborgg]

*smh* Yes, because releasing a more expensive product compared to base_models is suppose to do just that... 

Maybe Microsoft believe that🤔 😁Whatever Microsoft is thinking it's not working atm. Maybe they thought a more powerful console (One X) is more important than first party exclusives. This console could have been Xbox Two imo.

[yumi76]

@Woolly_

It's hilarious to see you now act like you weren't hoping/expecting the X was going to be the next big thing and that Sony was doomed.

What happened to the "Bring on Da Beast" and "When Da Beast is unleashed Sony will be doooomed DOOOMED I TELL YOU!1!1" little speeches you guys used to give lol

Anyways, wanna give a little speech about how exclusives don't matter, it might make ya feel better =)

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

I still think they got the price/performance ratio wrong, it's not quite powerful enough for uncompromised 4k anyway.

[NXFather]

Well if you went with the opinion of some people on this site that must have been

[ChickeyCantor]

It is about the long game. MS simply put this console out so it can keep the brand for a nother couple of years without losing the original base.

[BIGBOSS08]

Surely microsoft can't be that clueless? Do they really think just releasing a more powerful console would help them compete with playstation? I think they're doing it to atleast try and end the gen strongly and try to get on everybody's good side but it's mainly good games that does that, not just hardware. The switch is a perfect example.

[Legacy212]

Stopped Reading at "only a bit of a performance boost" you guys were acting like the power difference between base Xbox one and ps4 was huge but something 6 times stronger is only "a bit" I think it running most games at almost double the resolution of ps4 pro counter part and some more then double is pretty impressive

[LP-Eleven]

Except that the One doesn't run "most games" at double the resolution of the Pro. A handful? Yes.

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

The Pro does 1440p and upscales to 4k, Xonex would do similar except its base resolution is higher before the upscale.

[chiefJohn117]

Reported for having common sense. That's not allowed on here lol.

0.5tf huuuge difference
2tflop- 5tflop barely a difference xD

[ONESHOTV2]

Lokii----"It will always play the same games as the Xbox one. Only with a bit of a performance increase" PC gamer here and i will say that comment of yours is just stupid https://imgur.com/ciQWz5R

[Lokii]

Come on at least try to be a bit original when using memes.

[letsa_go]

@lokii haha seriously. Using 5 year old memes. Typical xbox fanboy...stuck in the past! AKA stuck in the glory days of last gen.

[RememberThe357]

You guys can keep track of how old memes are? Good thing I have a job and responsibilities.

[starchild]

@Lokii

No, your comment was stupid. I don't own an Xbox One or Xbox One X, but there's no doubt that the Xbox One X is a big leap over the standard Xbox. Games look and run a lot better on it. My PC outperforms it, but to act like these kinds of improvements don't matter is just asinine.

[chiefJohn117]

What's the point of the pro and slim consoles? The same answer you had for the pro is the answer to the X. BETTER PERFORMANCE! Smh pc gamers are laughing at you for that one

[NXFather]

@Yumi
That is when Wooly was 15 years old.

[zb1ftw777]

"I don't see the point of an MS machine running games better"

"I do see the point of a Sony machine running games better"

What a loser fanboy statement !!!! Haha.

[Lokii]

It's for VR. something the Xbox can't do

[starchild]

@Lokii

Why would it matter for VR but not for tv gaming? Those vr games are playable on the base PS4, they are just better on the PS4 Pro. Better graphics and performance are always great advantages for any kind of gaming.

[Tko1111]

It’s the console that plays games as close to the highest settings as developers expected. Stop trying to downplay the system. You are right about psvr but the pro doesn’t do much there either. Do you even have an Xbox ? Yes I have all systems believe it or not. Eventually most gamers buy more than one system

[Lokii]

I've all 3. Only play on 2 of them

[cbuc1125]

Hopefully PS5 will be based on Ryzen cpu.

[yumi76]

It's hard to imagine it won't be, AMD has made it so scale-able they are using it in everything from laptops to data center servers. I pretty much expect it to use something similar to the new design AMD/Intel CPU's. Those have a CPU linked to the GPU tied together by EMIB (basically Infinity Fabric).

Sony even stated a while back when asked about their next console that they were looking into a solution with discrete graphics and not a APU. So it seems likely that this new type of design is what they were looking at.

[Omnislashver36]

It will almost certainly be. They've already got Ryzen APUs in development. The bigger question is will they downsize to the 7nm in time. If it's out in 2019 like they say, the console might be out in 2020, if it's out later, then we'll be either getting it on 14nm or waiting another year to get PS5. Considering 14nm wasn't on track, I could see another delay in the works.

I'm really, really anxious to see how a Ryzen/Vega combo is going to look though.

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

I pretty much agree, I could see a 2020/2021 release.

[JOHN_DOH]

They will use whatever is available from AMD. Just like Microsoft. Since neither of them make their own hardware. By the time ps5 comes out Ryzen will be 2nd or 3rd gen, so it should be better than whats out now

[jmc8888]

Ryzen in 2020-2021? Hopefully it's based on what's BEYOND Ryzen.

[corroios]

The rysen cpu is to 200/300% stronger then the jag. Just go watch the DF about the CPU. It was the worst decision ever to chose such a crappy mobile CPU. Last gen CPU were much stronger.

The biggest jump next gen will be on CPU and not GPU, it will allow much better frames, more NPC, better Ai. Lets hope that sony and Microsoft choose a better CPU, because this gen that was one of the biggest problems. Last gen was the lack of ram...

[EverydayGuy]

Ryzen 3 is almost comparable to the amount they spend on the current CPU $100 in the PS4. Hope PS5 make all games this gen 60 fps, even if it's only exclusive that will still be a big win.

[BioNeo]

https://img.cinemablend.com...

Current Gen CPUs are stronger in the case of Xbox one, xbox one x and PS4 Pro

[Xack]

I hope Crytek get back to the days where they aren't burdened by financial issues. Rate them as devs

[eyeDEVOUR]

why? "can it run crisis" is a phrase because the game was badly optimized..lmao

[Xack]

Because I like their games, especially Ryse.

[WeAreLegion]

It was NOT badly optimized. It was just ridiculously pretty and had top notch physics. Nothing compared to it when it came out.

[Weeblordbad]

Crysis did some very interesting things, it's performance issues had nothing to do with optimization.

[starchild]

Complete nonsense. Crysis was using graphics tech way ahead of its time. It wasn't poorly optimized at all. It looked so good that it continued to compete in best graphics lists for years after its release.

[goatking]

Well, a standard gaming pc won't play 4k, a majority of gaming pc's can't. Not to mention how expensive it is to get 4k on you computer. I wouldn't say your average gaming pc would be equal to xbox one x, especially not at 500$.

[Fishy Fingers]

He could be considered right if you look at the components on paper but the XBX (and every console) has much better on-metal optimisation and fixed hardware.

No argument that it’s the most powerful console available so to downplay its resources only means you must think even less of every other system.

[CBaoth]

Or....one just might not be gullible and enamored by these company's BS hype and PR tactics. Look at Nintendo. They snowballed the entire online gaming community to believe the Switch is a hybrid console when it's obvious it's a portable device. But they can't call it as such when they're still peddling 3DS revisions and releasing new content for it. I own all 3 systems and still occasionally play on PC. The Pro is obviously weaker than the X, but it's still the best place to play Sony exclusives. The same can't be said for the X unfortunately.

And yes, I believe the Pro was developed in mind to hash out issues associated with PSVR. Never once did I believe Sony was worried about players jumping ship to PC. Did you? Just like I believe the base model was going to release with the camera until MS suffered the backlash from their reveal. I believe Sony had two contingencies ready depending on MS's reception and went with the latter after the fiasco. My proof; the lightbar on the gamepad, and the fact Dreams from Media Molecule debuted on stage using Move and said peripheral. Now that MM has gone dark for the past 2 years retooling it, it only adds credence to my conspiracy theory. Remember they're only tin foil hat conspiracies if they're not true.

[OoglyBoogly]

Despite the upvotes for you and what you saying seemingly making sense at the end of the day it's just not true. Even a few years ago on a 3770K and AMD R9 290X I was rocking 4K just fine. GRANTED I had to lower some settings but never did a game look bad or run bad.

Even games like The Division (which had recently come out at the time) ran in 4K with a mix of medium to max settings at a solid 30-40fps. All while looking much better than the console versions at the time.

I'll say that...a 290X at 4K can give you AT LEAST, if not better, than base level PS4 performance/graphics (i.e. 30fps, decent settings).

So yeah, a standard gaming PC should and could play 4K games...just not at max settings and 60fps. I know because I use to actually do it myself.

Hell, even cards like the R9 290X were SOLD as being "4K GPU's"...I know once I got a second for Crossfire (for like $200 before Bitcoin killed everything) 4K was NOT a problem. The Division 4K high to max settings 50-60fps easily.

Yeah, 4K isn't that hard. The X1X and PS4 Pro could be much more capable machines if the CPU's were better I think...

[TankCrossing]

Seconded

[jmc8888]

Exactly it isn't hard. New games raise the bar. The X1X could run 360 games at 4k likely easy. Maybe the CPU would hurt it a bit, but it should be able to quite readily.

Another way for people to think of it is, to run games at 1080p you basically needed about 300-400 GFlops or so at the start of 1080p being a thing, until now where you need about 6000GFlops or 6 TFlops to run games on ultra at about 1080p/60 FPS or higher FPS.

The same thing can be said about 4k. At one point, with games from about the turn of the decade, you could do 4k with about 1.5 TFlops. Now to run some games well at highest or almost highest settings you need about 15 TFlops.

Hell I remember dabbling in 2048x1536 on my old NEC monitor with a Geforce 6800 ultra from 2004.

What most people don't understand is that as the years go by, you need more power to capture the increased IQ and other newer settings at the same resolution that are in the newer games. Also other things have been added, like higher refresh rates, DSR upscaling, etc.

So yeah, believe it or not people, there's going to come a time when if you have 30 TFlops, maybe even 50 TFlops, you won't be guaranteed 4k/60 gaming if you want the ultra settings.

Of course, you also need a CPU that can handle higher refresh rates 60-240hz.

[jmc8888]

Standard gaming pc? Sure it can.

It has been able to for many years now.

People don't understand, gamers were gaming in 4k with last gen games.

People also don't understand that an i7 920, a $229-279 CPU in 2008 still runs circles around the CPU in ANY console, including the X1X.

What that means is, you have PC's where other then the upgraded ram or hard drive, all they needed to do for the past almost 10 years is buy a new GPU.

GPU's like the GTX 1070 is MORE powerful then X1X, came out in mid 2016, and cost $379-449.

If you get a decent PC, you can ride it for many years and about 3-4 GPU's and consistently be near the top power wise, and other then the initial outlay of the original PC every 6-10 years, its costs are comparable to a console.

Especially if someone bought a $499 Xbox One, and now a $499 X1X.

[Father__Merrin]

Microsoft thought releasing console with better visuals over pro would help them overtake ps4. They was wrong

[Elda]

Pretty much & the hype is long gone.

[Fishy Fingers]

I think it more a case of marching and competing with your competitions offerings. Pretty standard operational practice.

They were pretty clear they thought it would make up a smaller percentage of their install base/sales than the OG so I don’t think they ever had an intention of it ‘overtaking’ anything.

[Pantz]

Crytek's games have never run well on consoles. This kind of quote is expected from a "Product Manager" to try and downplay their own performance issues. Good luck trying to build any PC as powerful as the XboxOneX for $500.

[jmc8888]

Is that a surprise that they haven't run well? They are usually monster games even for high end PC's. PC's with great GPU's AND great CPU's. The consoles have neither.

Well if you have a decent PC from 2008+, all you needed to do was spend $379-449 in 2016 to have better then an X1X.

Meanwhile it won't be long until even a $500 or so PC can run circles around an X1X. Likely 2019, maybe 2018 if Volta is all that.

[starchild]

That's almost exactly what I did. I'm still using an i7 2600k I got around the middle of last generation. I upgraded my graphics card to a GTX 1070 for around $380 (MSI gaming) and I have been able to play all games with ultra settings and good framerates. So it's true, I actually spent less to upgrade my PC than it would have cost me to buy an Xbox One X.

[Silly gameAr]

Are these articles really helping, or doing nothing bit taking up space?

[FyBy]

But this is well known long time.

[mmj]

Notice they don't mention which Ryzen, they will be referring to the quad core model but most people will just assume they mean the 8 core model. 1/3 of the performance of a Ryzen quad core isn't really anything to shout about.

[joshljr]

My question is, why does it need to match a PC CPU? It does less...

[jmc8888]

Because the games that run on X1X at 20-30 FPS at 4k and 45-60 at 1080p could be 55-60 FPS at 4k and 80-120 FPS at 1080p.

Not to mention they could probably tweak a few settings a notch higher.

The X1X is a nice console, but it's gimped by the CPU. A lot of power that is inside the box isn't being utilized because it has a crap CPU.

[nismo370]

gamingbolt = Duplicate publication = looooool!!!!!!!!!!!

[PCgamer98]

Gamingbolt sure loves to talk about the xbox one x powahhh!

[Npugz7]

Well we won’t be seeing new consoles for quite sometime now so the one x will have the graphical spotlight for awhile. I’m guessing a PS5 in 2020 and a new Xbox 2021

[MagicBeanz]

"standard gaming PC", we can finally put this one to bed, hopefully.

[C-H-E-F]

all of this power but still underperforms the ps4 pro at times LMAO YAWN!!

[PFFT]

Underperforms??? Really? I have both and so far the Pro is the one that underperforms. Dont know exactly where you are getting your info from. But you should stop cause they are full of ****.

[LordCheezus]

I think its common knowledge that the xbox x is on a par to a medium spec pc, and I think its biggest downfall is that dreadful jaguar cpu they keep using but at the end of the day it still offers a lot of bang for buck and I dont think you would be able to assemble a full pc capable of the level of gaming the xbox box provides on a similar price point so its still a worthy purchase imo.

[timotim]

What we do know is that X is higher than the average PC most gamers are gaming on according to Steam by a pretty significant margin. X is outperforming the average PC...being on par with what they consider "standard" is here nor there...

[jmc8888]

Huh? That means nothing. Most steam PC's are office PC's and crap. It's also about 280 million big.

You're missing the forest from the trees.

Also what they mean is the average gaming PC you can buy since like 2016. Maybe even 2014.

[timotim]

The vast majority of PCs on Steam are BELOW the performance of X...that's what Im talking about. Im not missing anything.

[Scatpants]

We all knew it was going to be a midgrade PC before it was released. Don't need Cryutek to tell us that, just look at the spec sheet.

[Kumakai]

PC has always and will always have the full power advantage over any console for obvious reasons unless people want to design and spend $1200+ on a modular component console.

X is still substantially more powerful than the powerful PlayStation Pro and leaps beyond base One and PS4 hardware and gen 9 consoles are a couple years away.... what’s the point of rehashing this for the 274th time?

[OpenGL]

Sounds about right, games that are easy to run at 60fps on PC are only 30fps on Xbox One X.

[jmc8888]

60FPS? More like 80-120 FPS.

[Tko1111]

Xbox haters are always working to downplay its positive progress. If we want stronger hardware as gamers we need to be ready to pay more not less. Gamers cry for $499 but want the cpu worth $300 and a gpu worth $600 of power. APU architecture can only do so much. It’s time both Sony and Microsoft stop making APU architecture hardware.

[OoglyBoogly]

Positive progress? A better GPU using a slightly faster clocked version of a already crap CPU? Real progress. Also, not hating when it's just about Crytek's product manager says. Not like he's wrong.

[jmc8888]

No one is downplaying anything. People are stating that what they have been saying, because they knew what X1X had is being confirmed by Crytek.

We're not downplaying anything, people that were ignorant of the reality of the situation are being deflated from their ignorance.

Everyone that has a decent grasp of specs knew the X1 and PS4 were going to struggle because of their CPU's even before they launched.

Gamers cry for $499 or less, because they can't afford more. We get cheaper consoles because the world's central banks want to print to prop up their cronies. In Asia, In Middle East, in Europe, and of course here in the good ol USA.

Our $$$ is devalued and our wages don't rise. Thus we can't pay for a $1000 console, because that's about what it would cost to build an Xbox 360 type of console these days.

Thus we have cheaper consoles. Sony loses. Microsoft loses. Gamers lose.

This is the situation, and it wasn't of our making. So highlighting that they pretty much strapped in a GPU about 5x as powerful to a CPU inside of an APU that could barely handle 1.3-1.8 TFlops is not downplaying progress. It's highlighting that it's barely any progress, because it is barely any progress.

Jaguar's sweet spot power wise is more like Switch's power level. They really needed something more powerful in the X1 and PS4, and needed something far more powerful for Pro and X1X.

Ryzen in 2020-2021 might be a similar, if slightly less bottleneck. Don't be praying for Ryzen, pray for what comes after Ryzen.

Again, the CPU is the difference between the same game running at 25 FPS or 60 FPS. Or 45 FPS compared to 80-120 FPS. That's a lot of wasted power.

[OpenGL]

The CPU in the Xbox One X is nowhere close to a $300 desktop CPU. A Ryzen 7 1700 is $300 on newegg and is multiple times faster than the Xbox One X CPU.

[glenn1979]

The machine is beast of console but the problem is, that its not appealing for me yet why because "games" simple as that, the ps4 pro might be weaker machine but they got killer games and very diverse games, but in the end it need to play games don't get me wrong i love gears, forza and offcourse halo but its need more ip

[PS3_Noob]

Sigh ... 4K or so is soo overrated. Microsoft need games this year otherwise PS4 and Switch are going to bury the Xbox.

[OoglyBoogly]

4K isn't overrated. Especially in gaming and desktop PC use. Movies and videos I don't see that much improvement but 4K helps. Actually, when I first went 4K I didn't really think it was worth it until I noticed that it was the "finer" details I was overlooking when in 4K. The difference in being able to see a NPC's fingers 20ft away vs. a blur at 1080p make me start to actually realize that the differences, however subtle, are there.

[gedden7]

Who cares... WHAT GAMES WILL TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THIS WHILE BEING EXCLUSIVE GAMES to only Xb O X????

[Psychotica]

Like buying a new car, there is always something out there that is faster and cooler etc. It doesn't make what you own worthless..

[jmc8888]

Of course not. But people are right when they say their 2008 Intel i7 920 coupled with an upgraded GPU can still run circles around an X1X.

[OoglyBoogly]

More like someone bought a Mustang but talks about it like it's a Ferrari. That's the X1. Nice console, powerful console, the fastest console...but still a console and still not THAT powerful (i.e. no 4K in all games, no 60fps, etc) compared to the competition.

So no, the X1X isn't worthless, at all, just not the end-all be-all of gaming technology.

[mastershredder]

Yeah...we already knew that and it did not take someone that specializes in an in-house game development kit to tell us that.

[jmc8888]

'US'? Well depends on who is 'us'.

Me, nope. I knew a long time ago, all I needed to hear was Jaguar in PS4/X1 and still Jaguar in X1X/Pro.

But tons of people on here in tens of thousands of posts over thousands of articles would disagree with this.

So yeah, someone had to tell 'us'. Because apparently there was a pretty large swath of gamers who simply were in denial or ignorance of it.

[OoglyBoogly]

Do you make similar comments in articles that talk highly and praise the X1X? Something tells me you probably don't...

[InTheZoneAC]

power of the beastx!

[FernDiggidy]

HOW, MANY MORE OF THESE ARTICLES ARE GOING TO BE POSTED? WTF!

[DrumBeat]

Microsoft hyped the machine a little, but not like the rest of the internet did.

[OoglyBoogly]

Are you being sarcastic? The internet, especially the fanboys, made this console out to look like the Second Coming of Christ.

[DrumBeat]

That's what I said. I also said that the internet had more to do with it than Microsoft. They did advertise, but they didn't advertise as much as the fanboys and internet hyped the console.

[OoglyBoogly]

Nah Microsoft hyped it up with "uncompromised 4K" and made it out to seem like all games would do 4K and 60fps. Go rewatch the announcement video and all their marketing stuff on the X1X. They certainly did more than hype it a little.

[DrumBeat]

Microsoft may have said uncompromised a few times with their video, but they never, ever said (nor implied) that all games would do 60fps. Fanboys said that I'm sure. You're conflating ardent fanboyism with marketing. Purposely. Marketing made the no compromise claim, and it ended there. That's the reality.

[BadElf]

It's an amazing console. Understandable. We get it.

[hellztourguide420]

Okay. We get it. It's a powerful console. Shut up already. Jeez.