Really? Zen wasn't out in 4Pro so it couldn't have been used. Zen was an option for XB1X. What were the reasons MS didn't use an upgraded CPU?
Rumor: XBox dual SKU next-gen launch
- Thread starter anexanhume
- Start date
It's not a dig at MS, more of a compliment in that the X is so powerful it's just a shame the CPU holds it back from being a console that could potentially bridge generations.
I think we did at our prediction thread. Lol. Pretty confident I predicted that at least. Zen was just coming out at the same time. After seeing it get dialed back my expectations in general came in lower for this upcoming one.
Maybe it could have been. Maybe they didn’t want to water down their new IP. Not sure. But as Shifty wrote back then, we aimed too high. Imagination ran too far
Because the trade-off of having a better CPU core would have been a lesser GPU and the resulting system would be worse at the intended purpose of the system, which, like the PS4 Pro, was to play the same games as the base system with better graphics/framerate.
Really? I think maybe they were too focused on the 4K aspect...but either way, cutting back on the GPU would still result in a significant upgrade over base Xbox.
It wasn't getting exclusive games, so having a better CPU wouldn't have benefited the system nearly as much as the additional GPU resources do.
So, what, they design a system that isn't as good at launch but, just you wait, 3 years from now, when we cut the original One loose, this baby will finally be able to shine! And, yeah, it is a worse base system that what we might have had had we designed that base system to launch simultaneously with our high-end SKU and will therefore put a lower limit on what that high-end system is capable of, but that's OK. This is definitely a better strategy.
lol, I was quoting your comment "the resulting system would be worse at the intended purpose of the system, which, like the PS4 Pro, was to play the same games as the base system with better graphics/framerate" which is not true, a better CPU would also benefit the system (framerates) but whatever...each to their own.
But it didn't need a 6tf GPU and it didn't need to be $500 to be significantly better than One.
Well we don't know the details, so let's wait and see what's released (if anything). Regarding strategy, it seems Sony has still got theirs right vs Microsoft (cheaper console vs raw power).
But it didn't need a 6tf GPU and it didn't need to be $500 to be significantly better than One.
Well we don't know the details, so let's wait and see what's released (if anything). Regarding strategy, it seems Sony has still got theirs right vs Microsoft (cheaper console vs raw power).
It's a halo product. It exists to show that if MS aim to create a console focused on maximal performance, they can execute on that without the resulting design being too expensive to sell, too big, too loud, or too prone to exploding.
Which always seems to be the premise you are start with and then try to find justification for, whether it makes sense or not.
Ok, it's a great product - I'm not arguing that, and I don't know why you have to get so aggressive all the time, it was a legit question - I don't agree with your answer, I feel (as did many at the time) that a more powerful CPU would have been nice. Just my thought...I still bought one :|
It was you who brought up strategy.
Anyway, clearly you think whatever I type is just to start an argument so I'm going to step out again.
Just a few of you silly people.
The dankest timeline just wasn't happening considering the additional work they'd need to do for compatibility. There was probably enough on their plate with getting things to work seamlessly with the different memory setup & other boost enchantments.
Besides, it would have been a dubious inclusion because not all games are getting patched to allow for higher framerates, and it'd only be an option for newer games anyway, and would be tantamount to launching a new generation with an underpowered GPU, relatively speaking.
CPU will be part of being a big differentiator next gen, I think.
I'm sorry for getting snarky. It's irritation coming out because the responses to "Why not this?" seemed obvious to me if you took the time to think your way through the cause and effect chain. That probably wasn't fair.
I like to argue. I don't just participate in these discussions to get my ideas out there, I want people to challenge me so I might learn something I don't already know/believe. When all arguments consistently come back to, "If Company A does it it is right and if Company B does it it is wrong.", though, there really isn't an opportunity to learn anything for anyone.
Ouch, ok - I know my place.
lol it's not that ruthless here, I'd be much more uncomfortable posting at resetera/gaf than here.
In terms of technical decisions and predictions, I always consider "if company A can do it, so does company B". There are good and a bad strategies going into next gen and they are rarely about technical capabilities and more about doing the proper market research to make the best decision. AMD and the foundries do most of the silicon work and so far we haven't seen anything which wouldn't be a possible choice for both companies.
Going with two sku right at launch versus the current "tick tock" mig-gen have significant pros and cons. Suppose MS goes with two power skus, there can't be a big jump on the same process. Sony might have done exactly the same thing, or go with a middle-power sku, or just a low one, just a high one, who knows? Whichever choice is the best would show up in internal market research on both sides. And if there is a clear advantage to it, they will definitely both do it. If it's unclear, we might see two different strategies. And one of them might fuckup, as happened often before.
Why does it have to be either/or? There's nothing about doing 2 SKUs at launch that prevents doing a refresh with upgraded hardware down the line if the tech progression warrants it.
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
Agreed. But 4 years in would be the absolute soonest they could introduce a mid-gen after a two tier launch.
Presumably it depends on plans for the platform - if it's designed to go on longer than previous generations, then a mid-gen 5 years in would probably be welcomed by purchasers of the initial high end console, and last another 3 or 4 years, performing RTRT or 8K or whatever's the selling point.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I don't see a problem if a rumored second SKU was just an XBO-X Slim (maybe not called that, but basically being that in all but name with some minor hardware differences). That would be right around the time a cost reduced slim version of a console would come out anyway.
Regards,
SB
Sure, the only limit is your imagination. It can be two new power targets at mid-gen. I dismissed this as a ridiculous number of power targets to QA if we include multiple years of cross-gen transition (eight skus from each company, sixteen different hardware? How far can it go?), but judging from patches third parties don't really test games anymore, so it's fine.
Last edited:
What if they do the following?
{{ And this really seems to be rehashing a bit of the rolling-generation / no-generation discussions. }}
- Next-Gen Launch Model A at X TF
- Next-Gen Launch Model B at 1.5X TF
- Mid-Next-Gen Refresh Launch Model C at 2X TF
{{ And this really seems to be rehashing a bit of the rolling-generation / no-generation discussions. }}
Well, the thing that I think will be the most important is to maintain the option to go either way WRT starting an new generation or continuing the current one when there is an opportunity to do an upgraded hardware release as the technology and market conditions dictate. That's how you have the best of both worlds.