What is the PC equivalent of the xbox one x GPU?

[questonomeutenteesistegia]

So there seems to be a lot of confusion online around the subject... i personally am of the opinion that the gpu in the xbox one x is equivalent to a custom rx 580 in performance... the few benchmarks that came out after release are few but seem to confirm that idea... there are also many people that believe that the gpu is an 1070 eqivalent which i HIGHLY disregard...

 

[Barty1884]

IIRC, it's going to be roughly comparable with an RX580, but had a bit more of a VRAM buffer (like 9-10GB vs the 8GB in a 580).
Of course, it's not directly comparable..... but it's going to be in that approx performance bracket.

The XB1X GPU might be capable of more, but it's likely limited by the slower Jaguar CPU (performance-wise, somewhere between 1/3-1/2 of Ryzen performance). I wouldn't be too surprised if the "theoretical" performance of the XB1X was in 1070 territory, but in real-world performance, RX580 range is where it's at.

 

[questonomeutenteesistegia]

IIRC, it's going to be roughly comparable with an RX580, but had a bit more of a VRAM buffer (like 9-10GB vs the 8GB in a 580).
Of course, it's not directly comparable..... but it's going to be in that approx performance bracket.

The XB1X GPU might be capable of more, but it's likely limited by the slower Jaguar CPU (performance-wise, somewhere between 1/3-1/2 of Ryzen performance). I wouldn't be too surprised if the "theoretical" performance of the XB1X was in 1070 territory, but in real-world performance, RX580 range is where it's at.

couldn't agree more with you... there are SO MANY people online that are of the stupidly firm idea that it is a gtx 1070 or even a gtx 1080 ahahahahah

some downplay it as being a 1060 equivalent... i got tired of debating with them it's a lost cause

 

[sizzling]

From the reviews I have seen the One X is doing 4 @ 60fps with decent detail, its quite impressive given the equivalent pc spec required to achieve similar. Consoles are more efficient at using the hardware available.

 

[questonomeutenteesistegia]

From the reviews I have seen the One X is doing 4 @ 60fps with decent detail, its quite impressive given the equivalent pc spec required to achieve similar. Consoles are more efficient at using the hardware available.

4k 60 on not very demanding games like call of duty... destiny 2 for example runs at 30fps... was kinda shocked to hear that

 

[sizzling]

From the reviews I have seen the One X is doing 4 @ 60fps with decent detail, its quite impressive given the equivalent pc spec required to achieve similar. Consoles are more efficient at using the hardware available.

4k 60 on not very demanding games like call of duty... destiny 2 for example runs at 30fps... was kinda shocked to hear that

Not read about Destiny 2, would be interested if you have a link. The one that impressed me the most was Project Cars 2 @ 60fps and it looks quite good.

 

[questonomeutenteesistegia]

From the reviews I have seen the One X is doing 4 @ 60fps with decent detail, its quite impressive given the equivalent pc spec required to achieve similar. Consoles are more efficient at using the hardware available.

4k 60 on not very demanding games like call of duty... destiny 2 for example runs at 30fps... was kinda shocked to hear that

Not read about Destiny 2, would be interested if you have a link. The one that impressed me the most was Project Cars 2 @ 60fps and it looks quite good.

sure... here you go
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3117-xbox-one-x-fps-benchmarks-destiny2-cod-ww2-assassins-creed

 

[sizzling]

Thanks, great review

 

[Barty1884]

Not quite sure if 3 months qualifies a necro'ing a thread; but this thread was created right around the launch of the XB1X.... clearly more info/benchmarks have come to light since.

I'm not 100% clear on what you're trying to say their either..... as it's a bit contradictory?

This is not entirely true, the GPU processing will not be slowed down by the CPU,

Immediately followed by

however when it comes to CPU intensive games (or intensive CPU parts of games) such GTA5 then you run into problems

its the same as an overclocked i3 2100 not the newer AMD processors which can easily outperfrom the old server AMD CPU which is the JAGUAR.

You cannot directly compare the CPU aspect - the GPU can have a rough equivalent, but the CPUs are essentially "custom". You're not going to get a direct comparison, as they can't be benched with the same components.

The original XB1 (and it's variants) are all based on the Jaguar architecture?

This statement would be more true, the CPU is holding back better frames per second not the GPU

Final word, build a rig stick a GTX 1080 in with an A10, you can max everthing, but it will run at most at 30 fps, does this mean the CPU is holding back the GPU? no it doesn't, does this mean the CPU is not fast enough to do its part to deliver 60fps? yes it does, the GPU has delivered on its part with delievery all of its graphical processes and is not being held back

In every example you've stated, the CPU is the limiting factor and therefor, is "holding back" the GPU.
CPU's & GPU's do not work completely independently as you appear to indicate.
Yes, they serve some different end results, but they're closely interconnected in how they do so.
If the CPU is tapped out, it's mostly irrelevant whether the GPU *could* do +200% more work/frames,

 

[questonomeutenteesistegia]

IIRC, it's going to be roughly comparable with an RX580, but had a bit more of a VRAM buffer (like 9-10GB vs the 8GB in a 580).
Of course, it's not directly comparable..... but it's going to be in that approx performance bracket.

The XB1X GPU might be capable of more, but it's likely limited by the slower Jaguar CPU (performance-wise, somewhere between 1/3-1/2 of Ryzen performance). I wouldn't be too surprised if the "theoretical" performance of the XB1X was in 1070 territory, but in real-world performance, RX580 range is where it's at.

This is not entirely true, the GPU processing will not be slowed down by the CPU, however when it comes to CPU intensive games (or intensive CPU parts of games) such GTA5 then you run into problems, and this is why GTA 5 is locked to 30fps on PS4 and Xbone one, if a patch was released for the PS4pro and Xbox one X, you will not get any better fps even with the overclock on the CPU's its not enough.

Again to prove my point, a GTA 5 patch could give better anisotropic filtering for PS4pro and Xbox one X, along with overhead powerline shadows and and maybe some other small improvements, all of this is will have no effect on the CPU processing as its processed in the GPU, add more traffic and pedestrians then you have problems as that requires more CPU power, so the real issue here is framerates dropping or being locked over the CPU not because the CPU would be holding the GPU back.

Developers will scale back with CPU processing tasks when making these games for consoles so the game will run at a locked 30fps and that was proven with GTA5 before and Assassin's Creed Origins, GTA5 traffic and pedesrians where cut back compared to the PC, and they locked the fps to 30, Assassin's Creed Origins runs at a higher (dynamic resolution) than what was possible on the older versions of the consoles, the game runs at 30fps with drops to 26fps at parts.

So we see an increase GPU power and whats on screen, the CPU is the same old CPU even if overclocked its not a huge improvement, its the same as an overclocked i3 2100 not the newer AMD processors which can easily outperfrom the old server AMD CPU which is the JAGUAR.

So the gpu is not being held back, as it processing all graphical tasks, the CPU processes all the CPU related stuff, yes they work toegther but they have different jobs, if GTA 5 runs at 30 fps its over the CPU not the GPU and the reason it runs at 30fps.

This statement would be more true, the CPU is holding back better frames per second not the GPU.

Final word, build a rig stick a GTX 1080 in with an A10, you can max everthing, but it will run mostly at 30 fps, does this mean the CPU is holding back the GPU? no it doesn't, does this mean the CPU is not fast enough to do its part to deliver 60fps? yes it does, the GPU has delivered on its part with delievery all of its graphical processes and is not being held back.

yeah i understand what you are saying, and it´s technically true, if you crank up every graphical option and set the game at 4k, ur gpu is basically at 99% use, so it´s not technically bottlnecked by the cpu, but they are setting those games at 30fps with those settings instead of 60 fps, just because the cpu isn´t powerful enough, and after owning a PC that can push 60 fps, 30 fps seem just absolutely unplayable... much rather have lower resolutions and lesser assets and have a fluid gaming experiance

 

[Barty1884]

Ok, I see a little more of what you're trying to say now.

You're not 'wrong' at all - but there's definitely some misunderstanding in there..... you still appear to suggest CPUs and GPUs work 100% independently, which isn't true. It might be the CPU's "fault", but that doesn't change the fact the GPU therefore is not hitting it's full potential.

At higher resolutions, especially with console-esque optimization, the CPU matters less. No different that pushing 4K on a desktop with a (fairly) basic CPU + high end GPU. Even then though, the CPU will be holding back the GPU some - and that's in GPU intensive titles. Throw CPU intensive in the mix, and your settings &/or FPS will suffer.

because even after all the optimization the CPU is not powerful enough, but its not holding back the higher resolutions extra graphical enhancements of the newer GPU's

There's no way to know for sure, as you can't change the CPU in the XB1X to confirm..... but I'd be pretty confident in stating that yes, the CPU is holding back the GPU, to a point (which will vary depending on the title etc).

Again, compare (loosely) a desktop PC.... there's very few games (if any) that would show no actual performance difference between an Athlon X4 860K + 1080TI and an i7-8700K + 1080TI.
At 4K, in some titles, the performance difference may well be fairly negligible, but it will be improved with the stronger CPU.

While I agree, that's the CPU's 'fault'...... that doesn't mean the GPU is doing all it possibly can.
It's doing all it possibly can, while paired with the Jaguar CPU.....

 

[billgonzo123]

Final word, build a rig stick a GTX 1080 in with an A10, you can max everthing, but it will run mostly at 30 fps, does this mean the CPU is holding back the GPU? no it doesn't, does this mean the CPU is not fast enough to do its part to deliver 60fps? yes it does, the GPU has delivered on its part with delievery all of its graphical processes and is not being held back.

This is only half true, because GPU is dependent on the CPU for instructions. Like in my PC the performance of the PCI-e 3.0 slot is dependent on the CPU. The CPU does have to do work in order for the GPU to render graphics and because it is such and old CPU in the One X, there could be cases where you get bottlenecking. This isn't to say that all games will have this issue, because even if it is an issue the developer can optimize the game for those specs. But if a game is CPU intensive, the GPU will be burdened as well and you will see games like PUBG that have all of the graphics settings cranked down so that the CPU has more headroom, yet you still get sub 30FPS. The games that run best on the One X will be games that use a lot of culling and are more linear by nature. Games where the whole world doesn't have to be calculated all at once, like Racing games especially. With open world games, you will see the GPU bottlenecks because the CPU cant calculate the world fast enough to send the GPU instructions in time. So you end up with spastic sub 30 FPS as the CPU struggles to keep up with the rendering requirements.

Im slightly confused as to what you and people are trying to say on your post, but just for the record: The CPU WILL hold back the GPU if the CPU cant keep up with what it needs to do, the GPU isnt the problem here though, its a bottleneck. But, because the GPU is dependent on the CPU for instructions, the graphics settings may take a blow if the CPU is bottlenecking the system, because less graphical settings means less instructions for the CPU to tell the GPU. So yes, the GPU can be held back by the CPU.

 

[billgonzo123]

yeah i understand what you are saying, and it´s technically true, if you crank up every graphical option and set the game at 4k, ur gpu is basically at 99% use, so it´s not technically bottlnecked by the cpu, but they are setting those games at 30fps with those settings instead of 60 fps, just because the cpu isn´t powerful enough, and after owning a PC that can push 60 fps, 30 fps seem just absolutely unplayable... much rather have lower resolutions and lesser assets and have a fluid gaming experiance

Well, this depends on the game. If a game is CPU intensive and its using up most of your CPU, the CPU may not have enough resources to effectively send instructions to the GPU. When a computer is bottlenecked by the CPU, lowering GPU settings can help reduce the CPU load as it dosnt have to send as much info to the GPU. The GPU will literally be limited to a fraction of its max performance because the CPU cant keep up. A sign of CPU Bottleneck on PC is if you see a game using a ton of CPU and not as much GPU as it should. Like if I an old first gen i3 paired with a GTX 1080, the GTX 1080 will NEVER be able to perform at Max load. In the case of the One X, it can get away with its low end CPU for a lot of stuff, but if the CPU load is too much it can and has bottlenecked the GPU. PUBG, even though its still a "WIP" is an example of what a CPU bottleneck looks like. The oneX should be able to play that game at ultra graphical fidelity, but because the CPU is too busy calculating the giant world (grass, trees, physics, etc), the GPU cant run at full speed and graphics setting had to be dropped to Med and yet there is still sub30 FPS becasue the CPU is not equipped for a game like that. Same with Just Cause 3, yeah that game had performance issues at the start, but little can be done aside from removing a vast amount of physics FX, number of cars, people, etc. Everytime you blow shit up in that goame (on the One X) you get frame dips because the CPU cant keep up.

 

[YoAndy]

The XBOX ONE custom GPU Raw power is equivalent to the RX 580. But since the games in consoles are better optimized, if you wan't the same performance on a PC you may need a GTX 1070.

 

[Barty1884]

As I am certified in many areas of IT, I can 100% tell you as I have already, that the CPU would not be holding back the GPU as I have extensively explained, (and that's not an uneducated guess) of course you can choose not to believe that and that's your choice, your entitled to your opinion.

You can be certified in as many areas of IT as you like, that doesn't translate to proving your point here.

You cannot change the CPU in an XBox OneX, so it cannot be definitively verified.

That being said, the CPU is a Jaguar-esque chip, paired with a (roughly) RX580 equivalent.
At higher resolutions, the CPU matters much, much less - absolutely, and console optimization helps dramatically.... BUT, pair a low performing CPU, with a higher-end GPU and the GPU is not going to be performing to it's max ability in every situation.

You've actually all but confirmed that in your own posts, while somehow arriving at a different conclusion. .

 

[Raiddinn]

CPU and Video Card are dependent systems.

CPU sends a "here's what I want you to render" down the pipe to the Video Card. The Video Card then calculates some stuff and draws it on the screen.

If the CPU can't send fast enough, the total output is bottlenecked. If the Video Card can't calculate and draw fast enough, the total output is bottlenecked.

I feel like the argument is that this is a one or the other kind of problem when it's really a both problem.

It absolutely is the case that the CPU can't send fast enough and also that the Video Card can't calculate and draw fast enough what's sent.

If a CPU can't send the video card instructions fast enough, that's fairly a CPU bottleneck. If the video card can't calculate and draw fast enough, that's a video card bottleneck.

XBox is mostly going to be bottlenecked by a bad CPU rather than a bad video card. The CPU is just really poor compared to the video card. Xbox is designed for games that aren't CPU intensive but which have really nice graphics. Trying to make something else work is going to cause bad frame rates.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Ok, I see a little more of what you're trying to say now.

You're not 'wrong' at all - but there's definitely some misunderstanding in there..... you still appear to suggest CPUs and GPUs work 100% independently, which isn't true. It might be the CPU's "fault", but that doesn't change the fact the GPU therefore is not hitting it's full potential.

At higher resolutions, especially with console-esque optimization, the CPU matters less. No different that pushing 4K on a desktop with a (fairly) basic CPU + high end GPU. Even then though, the CPU will be holding back the GPU some - and that's in GPU intensive titles. Throw CPU intensive in the mix, and your settings &/or FPS will suffer.

because even after all the optimization the CPU is not powerful enough, but its not holding back the higher resolutions extra graphical enhancements of the newer GPU's

There's no way to know for sure, as you can't change the CPU in the XB1X to confirm..... but I'd be pretty confident in stating that yes, the CPU is holding back the GPU, to a point (which will vary depending on the title etc).

Again, compare (loosely) a desktop PC.... there's very few games (if any) that would show no actual performance difference between an Athlon X4 860K + 1080TI and an i7-8700K + 1080TI.
At 4K, in some titles, the performance difference may well be fairly negligible, but it will be improved with the stronger CPU.

While I agree, that's the CPU's 'fault'...... that doesn't mean the GPU is doing all it possibly can.
It's doing all it possibly can, while paired with the Jaguar CPU.....

As I am certified in many areas of IT, I can 100% tell you as I have already, that the CPU would not be holding back the GPU as I have extensively explained, (and that's not an uneducated guess) of course you can choose not to believe that and that's your choice, your entitled to your opinion.

You apparently aren't certified in the area of IT that gives you correct information in this argument.

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1804

Same GPU, GTA V, same settings, multiple benchmarks.

Lets do the RX480 too just for the hell of it

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1657

You can click the dropdowns in there and do any comparison you want. CPU performance does directly affect the GPU. Many Xb1X and Ps4Pro games are frame locked at 60fps (or 30fps). The GPU (as an RX 480 equivalent) is capable of more, but the CPU cannot consistently keep up with it, hence the lock. DOOM is a good example but not on the page I linked. An RX 480 can easily run that game at well over 100fps at 1080p with a good CPU. It runs at 60fps even on a PS4 Pro (and there are occasional frame dips in tests).

 

[Barty1884]

I refuse to be told the the CPU is holding back the GPU in the case of the XBOX One X and the PS4 pro.

We can tell! :lol:

The CPU is holding back better frames (CPU intensive parts/games) not the GPU.

Please re-read these two points specifically.

The CPU is holding back better frames, which the GPU could render if the CPU could keep up - therefore, the CPU is holding back the GPU.

 

[Rogue Leader]

I am Certifed enough in the area of Hardware (to name but a few) to say that your wrong.

Lets get something out of the way here. You can continue with your measuring contest boasting your "certifications" as justification for your completely and utterly incorrect information. Or you can sit down and listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about here. You don't now me, but whatever "certification" you may have is a joke to me, when you come in here and continue to fight with your proof being "no you are wrong because I say so".

Anandtech clearly shows how this all works. That you choose not to accept it is your problem.

So lets make this very clear. The GPU is limited by what the CPU can provide it, PERIOD. That limitation ends when the game is optimized enough (or old enough) that the CPU can provide the GPU with what it wants whenever it wants to be able to deliver its maximum framerate. The XB1X and PS4Pro have framerate locks to guarantee a certain performance quality level, it may even be lower that what the hardware can deliver a certain game at, however at that lock it can ensure a consistent experience. Games that can run at 4k60 are simpler in their CPU requirements than games that can run at 4k30.

So we have an RX 480 (PS4pro) pumping out 4K (some games) at 30fps and that is because the CPU is holdng it back? are you crazy?

No, thats how it works. The reality is the RX480 can do more than 30fps, but the framerate is locked on consoles to provide a consistent experience. At 30 fps it can perform the same through the whole game. If it wasn't locked the weak CPU would cause a very inconsistent framerate and choppy stuttery gameplay. Hence trying to play any new game on an RX480 at 4k.

I don't know how to spell this out to you any more, we have provided insurmountable evidence, and yet you keep resting on your "certifications". Thats your problem, not ours.


As an aside, if you call someone names and personally attack like you did above (I deleted it) again, another member of the Moderation team will be in here and removing you for a little vacation.

 

[Barty1884]

No need for the name calling. We disagree, not the end of the world.

To reiterate, CPUs and GPUs do not work entirely independently as you would appear to suggest.

 

[Deleted member 217926]

The OP hasn't been seen in weeks. Closing this thread.

 

[Finstar]

Coming into this rather stupid debate late.
Both Xbox one and PS4 + all of their different versions are absolutely crippled by their cpus.
There's a reason why the Xbox one x runs games at locked 30fps even on a 1080p display and that has nothing to do with how the gpu performs but rather with how the cpu doesn't perform.
The One X could absolutely do +60fps on 1080p with a proper cpu.