Don't Buy Scorpio If You Don't Have 4K, Says Microsoft Boss

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Steven Bogos said:
I predict at least $800 for project scorpio
I suspect that it will be closer to $1,000.

I don't think that this 4K Premium Gamer market is going to translate too well in a console crowd. Any 4K gamers out there will already have (PC) machines today that can outperform Scorpio (next year). A 4K serious gaming machine is going to be loaded up with liquid cooling, stock heatsinks won't cut it. Given the Scorpio's apparent size, that small little box is going to weigh a considerable amount.
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
I don't really understand how you increase performance enough to run 4K without also increasing performance to run smoothly at 1080p.
 

UncleThursday

New member
Mar 15, 2014
20
0
0
Steven Bogos said:
hentropy said:
This can only end badly. I don't know if they've released any price points for these things, but even $600+ cards have a hard time handling 4k by itself. Forget 30fps, unless it's a $500 upgrade (assuming this upgrade involves fully replacing the video card, unsure of how else to do it), you'll struggle to get even that.
I predict at least $800 for project scorpio
I dunno about that expensive. It's going to be using Polaris, which AMD is already touting is pretty inexpensive to manufacture (hence the $200 price tag, even with 4 GB GDDR5 on the board). It's still looking like it's a CPU/GPU hybrid architecture, or system on a chip, which means they're sticking with AMD. Plus, they'd need to stick with AMD to be easily backwards compatible. Add in buying in bulk, and the price drops even more, per chip.

$400-$600 launch price sounds reasonable. Your $800 is way off mark. Polaris may be new technology, but it's new inexpensive technology. It's not like they're shoving a discreet 1080, 8 GB of GDDR 5X plus regular system memory, and an i7 CPU in there.

Also, let's be serious, anyone who thinks either the Scorpio or Neo is going to be outputting 4K at anything better than 30fps is deluding themselves.
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
Well at least they are somewhat honest about what it does and does not do, although I imagine this is the last time they will tell you it's a waste of money.
As to why it wouldn't run all games better... because console games get butchered in the crib, they never intended the games to have any extras beyond the bare necessities, so even with more power to play with they don't have the option to use it. And there is the whole "unification" crap on top, people with shit hardware would get offended if someone gets a better running game.
 

UncleThursday

New member
Mar 15, 2014
20
0
0
Smooth Operator said:
And there is the whole "unification" crap on top, people with shit hardware would get offended if someone gets a better running game.
Funny, I don't see the PC space dominated by people complaining they can't run the latest games at max settings on their 3 or more year old hardware.

Let's look at two recent games, The Division and DOOM.

The Division's min specs are:

Processor: Intel Core i5-2400 | AMD FX-6100, or better.

RAM: 6GB

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 with 2GB VRAM (current equivalent NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760) | AMD Radeon HD 7770 with 2GB VRAM, or better

And recommended are:

Processor: Intel Core i7-3770 | AMD FX-8350, or better.

RAM: 8GB

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 | AMD Radeon R9 290, or better

DOOM's specs are:

Min:

Intel Core i5-2400 or better / AMD FX-8320 or better

8 GB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) or better / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB) or better

Recommended:

Intel Core i7-3770 or better / AMD FX-8350 or better

8GB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (4GB) or better / AMD Radeon R9 290 (4GB) or better

Now, do you mean to tell me that someone running minimum specs for these games is going to get the same performance as someone running recommended or better? Is someone running the base recommended specs going to have the same experience as me on my rig with a 6 core i7, 64 GB DDR4 RAM, and a EVGA GTX 980 Ti Hybrid?

The answer to these questions is a resounding NO. Those running min specs will be playing on almost everything on low settings to get a playable framerate. Those playing on the base recommended settings will not be able to push everything to ultra, at a playable framerate, like I can on my more powerful than recommended machine. BTW, both games run beautifully on my machine, at max settings, with no overclocking on my end; thanks.

Yet, where are the cries from those with, as you say, "shit hardware" about how they can't max out every new game? After all, the PC gaming market is the father of "make it work on the lowest common denominator", not the console market. Hell, how many years after a new Windows version did games still have to support Windows 3.1? 95? 98? XP?

Hell, The Division will run, like crap, on a goddamn GTX 560! A card that's been around for, what? 5 and a half years? And you want to talk about "unification"? Like I said, the PC gaming market needing to run on legacy hardware and software (OS, DirectX/OpenGL versions) issues have been around for decades. It's the epitome of unification.