Bout to buy RYZEN 7 3700x and 2080 ti, will Xbox series x be more powerful?

T

Toddmichael333

n00b
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
21
So im basically asking for anybodys opinion on whether I should buy the Ryzen 7 3700x with 2080 ti or get the Xbox series X. Will the series X be more powerful than those two together? I just looking to buy a combo that will atleast be more powerful than the next gen of consoles. If not I just buy the Xbox series X for better performance.
 
Option C: Wait until Ampere is released in September, and then your decision should be a lot easier!

They should be announcing parts this Thursday, and I would expect 2080 Ti performance for around $500

You can't buy the Xbox until November anyway, so what's another 3 months wait? You can also pick-up the more powerful Zen 3 4700x at the same time!
 
Thanks for the reply, but im interested in getting this now and upgrading later. So my original question Do you think this will be better than the xbox series x?
 
It will be faster. At-best, the Xbox is 20% faster than an RX 5700 XT, and the 5700 XT is 50% behind the 2080 Ti. There's also questions about AMD's Raytracing performance (early demos are really slow).

AMD also doesn't support DLSS 2.0 (going to give you more longevity as your card ages, and morew games support it.)

The 3700x should be about 20% faster than what ships on the Xbox
(slower clocks, less L3 cache).

If ou want the option to upgrade to Zen 3 in the future, be sure to pick-up x570 or B550 chipset motherboard.
 
Gotta remember, console makers are sort of banking on that "it doesn't matter".... it just has to be small-ish, relatively quiet and playable. If it puts a smile on your face, then ... victory!

I don't think beating a liquid nitrogen cooled 8 way SLI is really their goal (exaggeration intended). They just want something that satisfies a gamer.
 
Yes the PC would be more powerful than the console - but console devs get tools which are "closer to the bare metal" which allow for pulling more performance from lower end parts, unlike PC games which tends to have more overhead due to APIs on APIs - it's tough to compare really.

In your position I'd go with the PC, it's not a "walled garden", you always have the option to get more use out of it than gaming, with those extra cores being useful for any kind of encoding, rendering, compiling, multitasking etc. Those specs are pretty much a current high end gaming PC and will last you a couple years (unless you want ray tracing at ultra high resolutions).
 
Drexion said:
Yes the PC would be more powerful than the console - but console devs get tools which are "closer to the bare metal" which allow for pulling more performance from lower end parts, unlike PC games which tends to have more overhead due to APIs on APIs - it's tough to compare really.

In your position I'd go with the PC, it's not a "walled garden", you always have the option to get more use out of it than gaming, with those extra cores being useful for any kind of encoding, rendering, compiling, multitasking etc. Those specs are pretty much a current high end gaming PC and will last you a couple years (unless you want ray tracing at ultra high resolutions).
Click to expand...


Sorry man, but the wide availability of DX12 and Vulkan games completely invalidates that claim.

And just because the to-the-rails option is available, doesn't mean developers will take the time and effort to do it. This is why Sony's early PS1 games looked like shit: It takes breaking the rules to make a game like Crash Bandicoot, and most developers aren't up to the challenge!

There have been side-by side performance comparisons between the 7850 and the PS4 on PC ports for years, and the performance/quality levels have been identical.
 
Last edited:
Drexion said:
Yes the PC would be more powerful than the console - but console devs get tools which are "closer to the bare metal" which allow for pulling more performance from lower end parts, unlike PC games which tends to have more overhead due to APIs on APIs - it's tough to compare really.

In your position I'd go with the PC, it's not a "walled garden", you always have the option to get more use out of it than gaming, with those extra cores being useful for any kind of encoding, rendering, compiling, multitasking etc. Those specs are pretty much a current high end gaming PC and will last you a couple years (unless you want ray tracing at ultra high resolutions).
Click to expand...
The next gen consoles are as much (or more) akin to standard PC hardware at this point than ever before.
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
Option C: Wait until Ampere is released in September, and then your decision should be a lot easier!

They should be announcing parts this Thursday, and I would expect 2080 Ti performance for around $500

You can't buy the Xbox until November anyway, so what's another 3 months wait? You can also pick-up the more powerful Zen 3 4700x at the same time!
Click to expand...
Nope. You will not get 2080ti performance for $500. The 3080 will be at least $700 but expect $800. Prices are going to go up not down. But I do agree and go with option C.
 
vegeta535 said:
Nope. You will not get 2080ti performance for $500. The 3080 will be at least $700 but expect $800. Prices are going to go up not down. But I do agree and go with option C.
Click to expand...


Not on launch day, but within 6 months the prices will fall on the new process node. The price of the 1070 dropped mto $399 and the 1080 dropped to $500, six months after launch!

It will be faster than having to wait for the Navi-forced price drops on Turing.

Ampere won't drop to Pascal price levels; it will probably launch at $550 for 3070 and $700 for 3080 , but I think $500 will eventually be viable for 3070.

The die shrink over Turing will be significant! So though the 3080 Ti will still be expensive, it's not going to be $1200 (I'd expect it to launch 6 months after the 3080, at $800). You can also reduce the price of memory thanks to second-gen GDDR6.

Tell me a TECHNICAL reason why we won't see 2080 Ti performance levels at $500, in February? Ampere's more efficient memory compression + cheaper 16 Gbps memory should be able to do this.

It's either they give you RTX 2080 Ti performancde and 8gb ram, or they go 2080 Super with double the ram!
 
Last edited:
Wait for the next generation of PC GPUs, buy accordingly. Also the new Ryzen should be out then. I would go with PC if money is no object because it is the better platform and better mouse/keyboard support. Everything that supports and Xbox controller on PC does flawlessly. I'd get an Xbox if I had the money/space to if there are exclusives you want, but I'd lean towards the Playstation 5 as a companion for the PC.
 
Armenius said:
Ubisoft just revealed that Valhalla will be 30 FPS on the Series X, so that's a no to your topic question.
Click to expand...
It's the wrong question anyway. Just assume console marketing will always overpromise and undeliver from a technical standpoint. The "8K 120FPS" nonsense with these new consoles was comedy from the start.

The only question that matters is which platform(s) have the games you want to play. To Microsoft's credit, the crossplay thing with buying a game once and playing on console or PC is pretty compelling, not to mention their Xbox Game Pass on PC is a solid value add to gaming.
 
Archaea said:
No. Xbox series X will not be faster.
Click to expand...


This is a myth. The physical hardware in a PC may be faster but because consoles have direct access, no bloat, less abstraction layers, and a set configuration you can get more out of the hardware where on the PC you only ever get part of it. The advantage of the PC is you can upgrade through the five year plus span of a consoles life where the console is sort of stuck where it is even though they will get better at milking every last drop out of the hardware.


That all said don't buy anything now. Wait till the consoles actually release and the 3080/big Navi release.
 
SOAREVERSOR said:
This is a myth. The physical hardware in a PC may be faster but because consoles have direct access, no bloat, less abstraction layers, and a set configuration you can get more out of the hardware where on the PC you only ever get part of it. The advantage of the PC is you can upgrade through the five year plus span of a consoles life where the console is sort of stuck where it is even though they will get better at milking every last drop out of the hardware.


That all said don't buy anything now. Wait till the consoles actually release and the 3080/big Navi release.
Click to expand...
We already know specs on xbox series X. In fact, it is NOT faster than current top end hardware. The GPU is not more TF than current PC hardware, the CPU is less cores and less Mhz than current PC hardware and the NVME is slower than current PC hardware.
And we are still an entire generation of PC hardware yet unreleased before the console launch. AMD and Nvidia will likely both release new generation video cards before the console launch. Intel is on the cusp of releasing one right now, and rumor has it that AMD will release 4xxx series CPUs before the next consoles launch.

Compare the exact same game on series X at launch and high end PC hardware and you’ll see higher FPS on the PC hardware. No question. The boon for the console is the heavier wallet you’ll keep, not faster than PC performance.

regarding:
‘Consoles have direct access to hardware’
You mean like some functions of DX12, and Vulcan (formerly Mantle) - available on PC.
 
Last edited:
SOAREVERSOR said:
This is a myth. The physical hardware in a PC may be faster but because consoles have direct access, no bloat, less abstraction layers, and a set configuration you can get more out of the hardware where on the PC you only ever get part of it.
Click to expand...
This may be magical thinking. Devs of console titles aren't optimizing to metal like some old-school Nintendo cartridge game. There's no time and they don't care. They're using SDK - an abstraction layer - same as DX11/12/Vulkan. The only thing that's easier for console development is a set configuration - so they simply scale down their game until it hits that configuration. They're not spending time trying to bypass the SDK to get more out of the hardware.
 
Last edited:
Fact is a 3700x and a 2080ti is already faster, and by the time these consoles come out you could get an even better GPU.

Not to mention if you have a more recent AM4 board you’ll be able to get a better 8 core CPU as well, and always have the option of going 12 or even 16 cores.
 
odditory said:
This may be magical thinking. Devs of console titles aren't optimizing to metal like some old-school Nintendo cartridge game. There's no time and they don't care. They're using SDK - an abstraction layer - same as DX11/12/Vulkan. The only thing that's easier for console development is a set configuration - so they simply scale down their game until it hits that configuration. They're not spending time trying to bypass the SDK to get more out of the hardware.
Click to expand...
Was about to post this. Current and nextgen consoles are no different from PCs, in terms of how they write games for them. And the architecture is very close to PC as well. So you can expect about the same performance from them than a PC with similar hardware specs. The only thing that is less bloated is the operating system, but even that is less true now than before, with current gen already running a lot of bloat in the background, like streaming voicechat and other online services.

With most games using one of a few industry standard game engines there is no direct hardware programming. And good riddance to that, this way games are easy to release on other platforms.
 
Negative, purchase your computer and be happy about it. Not only will your PC be faster and do things an Xbox cant, your games will be cheaper. Also, ability to upgrade.

You could even make it the size of an Xbox and lug it around to your friends house. The possibilities are endless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top