Microsoft Xbox One X Scorpio Price Prediction and Reaction

Predict Scorpio's launch price:

  • Total voters
    78
  • Poll closed .
Recop said:
It's not the only factor but the most decisive one. Then comes the CPU.

We all know that the gap between the PS4/Pro is much larger than that between the Pro/X.

You're the only one here trying to say otherwise. So far, people only tried to discuss if the gap is larger than that between the XB1/PS4 because it's the only reasonable discussion.

But you are free to expect the same kind of improvement the Pro has over the PS4 for the X...
Click to expand...

You do know that you have to convert two thirds of your 32 bit floating point operations to 16 bit to get the PS4 pro to 6 Tflops? Yet the only place we've seen it applied is checkerboarding and hair strands.

Rapid packed math has stronger implications in machine learning and mobile titles which is probably why nvidia only sports it at full rates on it lower end mobile based gpus and the Telsa P-100s which aren't meant for games.
 
Last edited:
Michellstar said:
Sorry, but the value proposition in this competitive market, is rather low if you factor that the One X is a year late, and has a year less to be relevant until next gen. Well, One games will still be playable, but the focus of dev time will be into x1/ps4, and there´s no word about forward compatibility, they both hint about the relevancy of gens.
Click to expand...

The only console that will have a generational demarcation is going to be the PS5. That will be the time that we see how the market reacts to losing their entire library of games for a "generational leap" in power, and if MS comes out with NextBox that has an iterative increase over the XB1X that matches the PS5 in power.
 
ehhhhh... my gut feeling is this on PS5. Unless Sony is capable of producing Scorpio $100 cheaper then MS, we should move to separate discussion of PS5 in this thread.
Every year assuming linear and progressive drops, 3 years time puts XB1X at $349; and this is leveraging licensed tech of Jaguar and Polaris.
You're talking about a new IP contract for Zen and then toss on new GPU tech, HBM, hardware etc. for PS5.

To come in at a price point of $399 and be 1.5x ~ 2x more powerful than a $349 XB1X, unrealistic.
The folks who adamant that consoles can't go back up to $499 should probably come around to the idea.
 
ultragpu said:
I have a feeling when this thing drops to 399, PS5 would literally be around the corner and that's gonna cause way more trouble for X1X to sell than at Nov 2017. I honestly don't see much of a user base for X1X at all in the near future but then again MS probably doesn't care much, their main goal is try to get the image back.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that...I think any console "literally right around the corner" would just blurry the lines even more in a world with already increasingly diminishing returns of graphics. Also we don't know the cost breakdown of the the Xbox One X. It's not like the architecture/chip size is that much different that PS4 Pro...
 
RancidLunchmeat said:
The only console that will have a generational demarcation is going to be the PS5. That will be the time that we see how the market reacts to losing their entire library of games for a "generational leap" in power, and if MS comes out with NextBox that has an iterative increase over the XB1X that matches the PS5 in power.
Click to expand...

The generational leap is already here. I mean if developers choose to develop an exclusive title for the X at 1080p/30fps.

And in my opinion, the X could be able to run PS5 games at these lower settings. I guess that the PS5 will aim a higher resolution than 1080p. The PS5 could be a dematerialized console though.

dobwal, i think that you wanted to quote Totentanz. Anyway, double FP16 could help to slightly reduce the gap in some scenarios.
 
ToTTenTranz said:
Aaaactually... XboneX has 1.8 FP32 TFLOPs more than the PR4 Pro but 2.4 FP16 TFLOPs less.

Of course this isn't going to make the Pro any faster than the XboneX in probably any circumstance, but the Pro does have a trick or two that can decrease the performance gap.

I'm also afraid that Microsoft's apparent obsession with the "true 4K" moniker might result in games having to decrease other IQ features just to reach those 3840*2160 pixels instead of just upscaling from 1440-1800p to 4K which seem to have very little visual impact unless you're playing in a >70" TV.
I think FFXV will make a great comparison between the mid-gen consoles, though.
Click to expand...

I think the tflop comparison is a little silly.
I mean the fp16 count of 8 tflops will most likely never come to fruition. No game is going to use only fp16 from top to bottom.
So from my understanding fp16 use can provide gains in certain scenarios but is in no way ever going to reach usage where a Dev can say we used the 8 TFLOPS of power that only the ps4pro can provide.
 
My biggest issue with the price is that they didn't really show any games that make the price worth it. All of the games will still be available and playable on Xbox One, which I already own. And pretty much all of them will be available and playable on PC, which means anyone with a pc doesn't need to buy an Xbox. This is purely a $500 ($600 CAD for me) visual upgrade. Conversely, I can spend less on a PS4 Pro and have access to games I wouldn't be able to play otherwise. I don't think the same is true for Playstation gamers. They didn't show much that isn't going to end up on Playstation later. The best option for me right now is PC. I can spend slightly more and get back into PC, and have access to a lot of games, and genres of games that aren't available on Xbox.

Basically, Microsoft had to make the xbox price competitive with other options, which I don't think they did, or they had to show a big library of games for xbox, which they didn't do either. Another thing that could have worked was adding mouse/keyboard options, or put windows 10S on it. Something that makes xbox competitive or advantageous to PC. They didn't do that either.
 
Scott_Arm said:
My biggest issue with the price is that they didn't really show any games that make the price worth it. All of the games will still be available and playable on Xbox One, which I already own. And pretty much all of them will be available and playable on PC, which means anyone with a pc doesn't need to buy an Xbox. This is purely a $500 ($600 CAD for me) visual upgrade. Conversely, I can spend less on a PS4 Pro and have access to games I wouldn't be able to play otherwise. I don't think the same is true for Playstation gamers. They didn't show much that isn't going to end up on Playstation later. The best option for me right now is PC. I can spend slightly more and get back into PC, and have access to a lot of games, and genres of games that aren't available on Xbox.

Basically, Microsoft had to make the xbox price competitive with other options, which I don't think they did, or they had to show a big library of games for xbox, which they didn't do either. Another thing that could have worked was adding mouse/keyboard options, or put windows 10S on it. Something that makes xbox competitive or advantageous to PC. They didn't do that either.
Click to expand...
the thing is every option you said their ok with.
personally i think even for windows/store a strong (perception, mindshare, brand) Xbox is good for it.
this so far doesn't seem to help, things may change and quickly though, maybe publishers will push it whenever they get the chance. Doesn't help the price though.
 
dobwal said:
You do know that you have to convert two thirds of your 32 bit floating point operations to 16 bit to get the PS4 pro to 6 Tflops? Yet the only place we've seen it applied is checkerboarding and hair strands.
Click to expand...
shredenvain said:
I mean the fp16 count of 8 tflops will most likely never come to fruition. No game is going to use only fp16 from top to bottom.
So from my understanding fp16 use can provide gains in certain scenarios but is in no way ever going to reach usage where a Dev can say we used the 8 TFLOPS of power that only the ps4pro can provide.
Click to expand...
8 TFLOPs FP16 in the Pro will never come to fruition the same way 6 TFLOPs FP32 in XboneX will never come to fruition, or Xbone's 1.3 TFLOPs. That's why they're theoretical limits.

As for these statements claiming "FP16 will almost never be used", we have:

a) An experienced developer in this very own forum saying FP16 could be used in about 70% of the pixel shaders of a modern engine

b) Double-rate FP16 wasn't imposed by AMD to Sony but rather the other way around. Meaning ICE is behind this capability and they're the ones assisting the development of all high-profile games for Sony platforms

c) The fact that the Pro is 7 months old and yet we've already seen wide adoption of FP16 in games tells us a lot.


Clukos said:
Wait, Xbox One X doesn't support double rate FP16? If so, why?
Click to expand...

It seems double-rate FP16 on the Pro was a not only a requirement from Sony's ICE team but also co-developed with them. It could be a different implementation from Vega's RPM as the rest of the GPU seems to be Polaris-based, or Vega could be borrowing tech originally developed for the Pro.
Also, AMD telling Microsoft they were enabling 2*FP16 for Neo could be a huge violation of the contract made with Sony. There's a chance Microsoft simply didn't know Neo had this capability and few/none of the developers they inquired for building Scorpio mentioned 2*FP16 as an important feature.
 
mrcorbo said:
While I understand how some may be disappointed that the Xbox One X isn't what they were hoping it would be, it is actually perfectly consistent with how MS have been representing it all along.

  • The original statement of, "You need a 4K TV to see any benefit." was worded poorly, of course, but if you rephrase that as, "You need a 4K TV for the Xbox One X to be worthwhile at the price we will be selling it at" it checks out.
  • Designed to play games designed for the original Xbox One at 4K? Yup.
  • Will be sold at a premium price? Yup.
  • Most powerful console ever? Yup.
So, while I understand the disappointment, I'm just not sure why the disappointment is happening now. It's been baffling to me that so many people so easily dismissed the statements from Phil Spencer and others and imagined the One X as something different that in some cases was directly contradictory to what they were being directly and unambiguously told it was.
Click to expand...


Yep, but Ms doesn´t live in isolation.
Almost everything just applies as well for the 4pro, 100$ less and with many more content, that´s the thing.

I thought that Ms learned the hard way that they couldn´t sell thier console for 500$, They don´t want to compete, I´m fine with that, not getting my money though
 
mrcorbo said:
The original statement of, "You need a 4K TV to see any benefit." was worded poorly, of course, but if you rephrase that as, "You need a 4K TV for the Xbox One X to be worthwhile at the price we will be selling it at" it checks out.
Click to expand...
i disagree, you get substantial benefits on 1080p also, just not as much.

i don't think people didn't get what he said, just they didn't expect it to cost so much, especially as they believe it's using older tech in their eyes. $450 and whole mood would be different.
 
Scott_Arm said:
I guess if you have a 4k tv, then that's a solid reason to upgrade. I guess if the Xbox One S/original version of the games are shit, then that would be a reason to upgrade. Otherwise, with a 1080p tv, I'm just not seeing a good $500 investment. It's not like there are One X exclusives.
Click to expand...

This.

PC gamers with decent hardware aren't going to be flocking in droves to Xbox One X, for their multiplatform gaming fix, nor the Xbox games coming as well. Although I understand "WHY" Microsoft wants a more unified Win-Ecosystem amongst its products ...but it becomes a much harder sale for a $499 product that really doesn't offer anything outside of that ecosystem, that is completely exclusive to it.

I guess what Microsoft is trying to offer is the cheapest solution for native 4K gaming and it's library of games ...which isn't a bad thing, but a welcomed option. But $499 is still a tough sale in the console space, especially outside of the U.S..
 
Last edited:
mrcorbo said:
*Almost* everything.

And I already decided not to buy it a year ago based on what I was told then, because that informed me to expect the One X to be almost exactly what it turned out to be. Why so LTTP? :cool:
Click to expand...

Because after the Digital foundry tech reveal, nobody * was expecting the upper bound in price.
It´s a slightly larger soc than pro, almost same size than original Durango at 28nm, with more ram, yes, what else??

My bet, after Christmas it´ll be a price-cut about the same month when Kinect was ditched
 
I dunno...maybe it's where I have held off this gen and didn't buy a console but....Xbox One X at $499 seems like a much better deal than when Xbox One launched at $499...

No forced kinect gimmick bundled in...power seems more in line what I would expect it 2017. This thing will seems like it will hit 4K better than Xbox One was at hitting 1080p.

I still think it's a better deal than a PC. It is roughly the same price as gtx 1070 alone in Canada. And I still think due to developers optimizing on consoles... it is going to perform better.
 
My bet, after Christmas it´ll be a price-cut about the same month when Kinect was ditched[/QUOTE]

I agree. Why not have a starting price of $500.00? All the hardcore Xbox customers are still going to buy it at that price. So you capture all those sales at $500, and then drop the price before Christmas to make it more appealing to the general gamers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top