Topic: General Xbox Series X|S Thread

@Z3u5000 Yes, one amazing feature is the HDR for backwards compatible and Xbox One games, also Dynamic Latency Input and Velocity Architecture. It's really impressive. Even Xbox One controllers will be updated for DLI.

@Gipsons The console has a separate video output section independent from the CPU/GPU. What that means is that the game can run at its highest settings and the Video output section will scale it down and output a signal that your TV can cope with. As others have said, that could be 'super sampling' the 4k image from the game to a 1080p image to send to your TV. It may even run games at 120fps for example and send a 60hz signal to your TV - and yes that is still a 'benefit'.

Of course you will miss out on certain features and functionality but the video out should be scaling it down to fit your TV. I, like no one else here, can 100% say that the Series X will be compatible with HDMI 1.4 and what exactly the experience you can expect. There is more to it than just connecting devices via a cable and devices do communicate with each other - there is a reason a Console knows if its connected to a 4k HDR TV, a 4k TV, a HD TV etc because the TV 'tells' it what it can do. As such, I can't say 100% that it will be compatible but I would imagine it would - at least until MS confirms either way...

@BAMozzy AFAIK Microsoft co-designed HDMI 2.1 standard and made other TV manufacturers like LG, Samsung to adopt beforehand by making sure backwards compatibility with older standards.

@Z3u5000 from the HDMI website:-

HDMI 2.1 Specification was developed by the HDMI Forum’s Technical Working Group. The HDMI Forum, Inc. is comprised of the world’s leading manufacturers of consumer electronics, personal computers, mobile devices, cables, components, silicon; and also includes movie studios, service providers, test labs and test equipment manufacturers. An open trade association, The HDMI Forum’s mission is to foster broader industry participation in the development of future versions of the HDMI specification and to further expand the ecosystem of interoperable, HDMI-enabled products. The HDMI Forum currently has a membership of over 90 companies.

Backwards compatibility means that you can plug a HDMI 1.4 device (like a DVD player) into a HDMI2.1 display and that will work. Its taking a lower spec device into a 'higher' spec display so the Display is BC with devices. However, taking a Higher Spec device into a much older Display is not about Backwards Compatibility, that's forwards compatibility.

I am not saying it won't work but that dependent on the video out section on the Series X and whether or not they have built in compatibility with HDMI 1.4 (or lower) spec displays. A TV will send Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) - which is a metadata format for display devices to describe their capabilities to a video source - in this case, the TV will send metadata to the Series X over HDMI to describe its capabilities - ie what display resolution it supports, what formats it supports etc etc. If its supported, you obviously won't be able to engage HDR or VRR, won't be able to set resolution output over 1080p and may not be able to even get 1080/120 (depending on the TV and if it supports 120hz).

As I said though, I expect it will work as I can't imagine that MS will not support displays with HDMI 1.4 (or lower) - as a lot of TV's still have HDMI 1.4. However, I was just saying that until its confirmed 1 way or another, none of us can say for certain that it will be supported and you will get 'Y' Benefits - (like a super-sampled 4k image or 120hz gaming - even if the TV only displays a maximum of 60fps). I would say its 'likely' you will be 'OK' with the console sending an image to the TV - so you don't 'have' to upgrade immediately - but as MS themselves haven't stated anything regarding connecting to a HD TV and TV's with HDMI 1.4, we can't say for certain. Therefore I was just making people aware that its not as simple as just plugging in a much newer device to an older Display and it being 'compatible'. There is software involved to and whether or not the EDID from the TV is supported, we don't actually know. Its not just whether its HDMI 1.4 either as it could be incompatible on certain ports because the TV has different specs built into each port - different functions (like ARC, MHL etc) so may not be compatible with some HDMI 1.4 ports or better if plugged into a certain port. I know the MHL port on a 2014 Samsung 4k TV is the only port that supports 4k devices that require HDCP 2.2. That's an encryption to stop people plugging a device into any recorder and making copies of what's being displayed - and that stopped devices like SkyQ working at 4k on any other port on that TV. Point is, its not as simple as just being HDMI 1.4 (all the ports on a 2014 Samsung were HDMI 2.0 but only 1 has HDCP 2.2 encryption) that 'could' impact on its compatibility and what you may get (or not).

The point of my post wasn't to say it won't work for definite, but that we can't say 100% that they will have 'no' issue with compatibility or that they will definitely get certain benefits too - even if they will miss out on HDR, High Resolutions, VRR etc. It was more about making them aware that we all think it should work, but there could be some compatibility issue. Backwards Compatibility means that you can plug older devices into 'newer' ones and they will work as expected but this is a case of plugging a newer device into an older one which is why its limiting the full features available on the 'newer' devices - the TV isn't 'forward compatible' so you don't get 4k and, without the video output section, may not work at all. HDMI 1.4 doesn't have the bandwidth so would not handle the Console without the console changing the 'image' (like super sampling down to 1080p in size) and then sending much less 'data' to the TV so it copes.

Backwards Compatibility means that you can plug 'older' devices into a 'display' for example and they work so your HDMI 1.4 DVD player works, your HDMI 2.0 Games Console works into a HDMI 2.1 enabled TV. The signal path is from 'older' to 'new' - that's Backwards Compatible - why a DVD plays in a Bluray player - older into new, 360 games on an XB1 - older to new. Newer to old is a different matter and why some things don't work or if they do, you lose out on certain features/benefits.

Again - not saying it won't work in this case, I am sure MS will have built that into their video output section. That's taking the 'video' from the game and sending a video to the TV that it can display. However I am also saying that exactly what you get and whether or not you have issues can not be determined 100% at this time because nothing has been confirmed.

Microsoft Xbox Series X's AMD Architecture Deep Dive at Hot Chips 2020 - Slides LEAKED.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-xbox-series-x-arc...
Check out all the juicy technical details, it seems Microsoft has added lot of server technologies and patented GPU/ SPU (Project Accoustics) tech. I will be shocked if this costs only 400$.

@FraserG You might want to write an article on the Xbox Series X's AMD Architecture Deep Dive at Hot Chips 2020.

@Z3u5000 As I said in the thread about pricing, the Xbox One X had a Launch price of $500 and that was less than 3yrs ago. Even taking 3yrs to bring the Series X to market, the advancements in technology for the 'cost', there is no way that MS could build a Series X to this spec to sell at the same price as the XB1X. Its clear that the hardware must be more expensive than $500 - even taking into consideration the cost per performance increase year on year.

If you wanted to try and build a PC to a 'similar' spec, look at a Zen 2 8core/16thread CPU clocked at 3.6Ghz, the cost to buy this is £300. An AMD 5700 XT, which can be boosted to the same clock speed but only has 40CU cores and RDNA architecture, costs £400. Of course MS won't be paying anywhere near that price as they are buying direct from AMD and 'millions' too. Talking of that though, the cost of the Silicon at 7nm is 'more' than the cost of the silicon in the XB1X and the 'size' is similar. Point is, that if you think you can build a PC to 'match' the Series X, you would need a lot more than $600.

Add in an SSD upgrade and all the other tweaks etc inc HDMI 2.1 port and controller, external Expansion port etc and its clear this could easily be a $600+ console. That doesn't mean that the price will be $600 as MS (and Sony) will be trying to calculate how much of a 'Loss' to take. Neither want to take more of a hit than they need to and neither want to be 'first' to price therefore giving the other the opportunity to at least match, if not better the others price.

Maybe MS were prepared to give us 'free' online access as an incentive but if they have to take a 'bigger' loss per console, that is one aspect that they can offset that loss. I know things are tough globally, but these were designed before the recession at a time when gaming has been booming - maybe dropping off a bit as we are at the end of a generation, so maybe opted to go 'big'. People were spending more on tech in general.

Anyway, we will have to see - maybe we could benefit by buying a console much cheaper than it should be as a result - even if it is more expensive in general...

@BAMozzy One of the reasons they went with that Server Class Zen 2 CPU, DRAM security (ECC???), Specialised HW to prevent Escalation of Privilege attacks and AVC (H.264)/HEVC (H.265) encoding custom HW acceleration support etc...is because they’re going to deploy the same hardware on cloud. It will be interesting to see how much damage those technologies make to the consumer’s wallets. Lot of the technologies mentioned in the slides will never come to PC.
PS : The architecture was designed by Azure Silicon Architecture team.

No disk drive in Series S....

20CU units @1.55Ghz - nearly 4TFlops but close enough to be called 4TF

NOT OFFICIAL SPECS BTW

@Z3u5000 A lot of the technology inside a Console will not make it to PC's because they are designed to be a 'specialist' device where as a PC is designed more as a 'general' device. Also a PC is usually designed around using separate parts to be upgradeable and customisable. As such, building games for PC is always going to be more general. For example, you don't send the Audio to dedicated Audio processor or have a dedicated decompression component built in, these are handled by CPU for example and if it becomes a point of bottleneck, you replace it with a better CPU. However, even if they did have some dedicated custom area, Devs couldn't utilise it very well because its not common across all.

Its the same thing with the move to SSD's and the potential in 3rd Party multi-platform releases. However, PC's can have significantly higher RAM - let alone RAM on the GPU. SSD's cannot transfer as much data per second - even Sony's SSD is NOT as quick as RAM in an XB1 - that launched with DDR3 at 68.3GB/s so the 5.5GB/s (RAW) SSD is less than 1/10th the bandwidth of RAM. Yes it can cut down the search speed and transfer data really quickly, but on a PC, they could fill the RAM for the area and transfer the data far quicker than a console swapping Data back and forth between the SSD and RAM.

Anyway, the point is that a Console is a specialist device designed to deliver gaming at a 'higher' level than the specs would suggest - if you compare to PC's. Even taking the weakest current gen consoles, those specs would struggle to run games on a PC to the same standard. The CPU is ridiculously low spec and the GPU, 1.32TF (upgraded to 1.4 with the S) would be far too low for many games and would certainly struggle to deliver 720/30 - partly because they are running more background processes and partly because they are not as well optimised for gaming.

Building an APU is ultimately superior as it reduces latency between the separate parts and improves efficiency. Its not 'ideal' for PC's as that reduces the options to upgrade various parts. I don't want to say PC's brute force performance, like a big American muscle car compared to a more finely tuned and specialist Car using smaller engines but its 'similar'. This is why Consoles will be designed as a more specialist device with Custom specs that a PC won't have...

That's right.

By the way, interesting video. The GPU of PS5 must get extremely hot and thus they're using the huge case, metal liquid covering the chip...

I'll try to predict pricing. If the price of Series S is 300, I expect the price of Series X to be 500. PS5 would also cost 500 but PS5 Digital Edition 400. That would be interesting, budget-conscious people could buy a PS5 cheaper than a Series X but no disc drive and less powerful or they could buy Series S that it's similar to Series X but HD instead of 4K and would be cheaper than any other console, including Switch.

@BAMozzy Thanks I was waiting for this channel to post on this.
AND THIS FINALLY 🙌🙌

@Z3u5000 The DF video is quite interesting but doesn't really delve into the technical side so much - more of a 'report' on what it has - but I don't think they are so into the technical breakdown of Silicon so much but good enough for the vast majority who don't really care or understand the technical side of hardware, just what it may mean for the software they want to run on it.

RGT is much more interesting as he understands more about the hardware and what it does.

I can't stand Dee as he is bias and an idiot. That first video about the Geometry Engine is absolutely ridiculous - and meaningless too. Its likely to be very different from Sony's 'Geometry' engine and as ALL Graphics cards handle Geometry, they ALL have a Geometry engine so that doesn't mean that they are ALL the same. Its like saying a Car has an Engine so they must all be as efficient and perform the same - even though you can have Turbo's, Superchargers, Variable Valve Timings, more valves per cylinder, more cylinders etc etc. Its just a Fanboy reading some words and making a video about it.

This is why I rely on information from real tech heads who have no Bias at all.

Its like all the Sony fanboy video makers reacting to Sony's GDC breakdown and saying that MS doesn't have a dedicated audio processor and that Sony's Audio is so much better and that will offset any CPU advantage because MS will need the CPU to process Audio. In this case, its the words 'Geometry Engine' and because Sony went on about theirs and MS as yet hadn't really talked about their Geometry engine, Sony's must be better and offset any advantages of GPU....

Sony too talked about an increase of 62% transistors on their APU - That their 36 CU's are like 56 PS4 CU's because of the increase in density. The Series X has 15.4bn Transistors in the same die space as the Xbox One which had 4.8bn - an effective increase of 320% but that doesn't mean that its necessarily better because of the higher percentage. Its also got 2.3x more transistors than the XB1X.

The big takeaway is more about the transparency of Microsoft compared to Sony. We can look at these chips, look at the specs etc but as a gamer, its pretty irrelevant because a developer has to utilise them to the fullest and depending on optimisation built into the hardware, any perceived advantages could be lost. The only other takeaway is that the APU in the Series X is seriously impressive. You have all that built into something that's around the same size as the Original Xbox One and XB1X chips - crammed in more cores, more transistors, better CPU etc all into the same space.

@BAMozzy I guess the advantage goes to Xbox Series X just for their mentioning of “Mesh Shading Geometry Engine” since mesh shading is a radical redesign over primitive shaders of how graphics pipeline traditionally works.

Monster of a system, can't wait