Digital Foundry: Xbox Series X Complete Specs + Ray Tracing/Gears 5/Back-Compat/Quick Resume Demo Showcase!

Conman

Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
576
I haven't bought a console since 1995 (ps1) but DAAAAAMN that looks impressive.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
796
HA! The only way to get a GPU as strong as the series X is to buy a 2080 Super. That card isn’t going to drop several hundred dollars in six months. A 3800X isn’t suddenly going to cost $200 less by than either

You are NOT building a comparable PC for less than this consoles by launch.

Don't hold your breath. It's shaping up to be a 4K60 Medium system. The 2080 S is more of a 4K60 Ultra or 4K90 Medium card.

The real value in this machine is that it will set the new baseline for entry level gaming configurations that developers develop around. It is definitely going to be much faster than today's baseline, and that's good for everyone.
 

Revdarian

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
2,616
Well, just for comparisons sake, they were able to run gears of War 5 at ultra settings 4k60 @100fps on the series X, the mountain of salt is in the form of first party optimization, but it seems to me that it compares pretty darn well in that one instance versus most 2080s.

I am still not particularly interested because I am not a fan of Microsoft games but as a showcase of potential it is effective.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
796
Well, just for comparisons sake, they were able to run gears of War 5 at ultra settings 4k60 @100fps on the series X, the mountain of salt is in the form of first party optimization, but it seems to me that it compares pretty darn well in that one instance versus most 2080s.

The "mountain of salt" is that 4K Ultra @ 100fps in that game would put it at 65% faster than a 2080 Ti. The 5700XT, for comparison, comes in at 40fps in that dataset.

Does nobody have a functioning nose any more? Or is bullshit just so pervasive that nobody can tell the difference?
 

vegeta535

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
8,504
The "mountain of salt" is that 4K Ultra @ 100fps in that game would put it at 65% faster than a 2080 Ti. The 5700XT, for comparison, comes in at 40fps in that dataset.

Does nobody have a functioning nose any more? Or is bullshit just so pervasive that nobody can tell the difference?
Eh? I get nearly 100fps on ultra with a 1080ti at 3440x1440. A 2080ti should do 4k over 100fps no problem. Game is really not that demanding for how good it looks.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
I haven't bought a console since 1995 (ps1) but DAAAAAMN that looks impressive.

ColecoVision 1982 for me, and yes, this has fantastic specs. AMD and Microsoft did a great job. Wonder what the price will be, hard to see how they get it to $500.

It not just the GPU either. I watched the DF videos. It really looks they sweated every detail, pushed speed into, and latency out of, every pathway.

Now as far as 2080 performance. 52/40 CU gives it a straight up 30% gain over 5700XT, which is about equivalent to 2070. 2080 vs 2070 = 2944/2304 = ~28%.

So I don't see any controversy here. XBSX GPU should be about 2080 performance level.
 

Cerulean

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
9,476
It would be super if it will be possible to install Windows 10 / Linux as it would offer a very nice amount of horsepower for things like Folding@Home, video and 3D rendering, and other intensive tasks.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
31,393
And guess who was completely right about it shipping with 320-bit bus? But they need the extra bandwidth to feed 12 TFLOPS + the rest of the system (RX 5700 XT is 256-bit).


Does anyone have any more details on that strange memory mapping (16GB does no divide evenly into 320-bit)? This is the first time I've ever seen a segmented memory map from an AMD GPU. And the last time we saw somethign this stranbe from Nvidia, it caused the GTX 970 class action lawsuit.
The .5GB is confusing. I could believe 5x2GB for the GPU, 1x2GB for the OS, and the 4x1GB for games. I would think it would be much easier that way.
The "mountain of salt" is that 4K Ultra @ 100fps in that game would put it at 65% faster than a 2080 Ti. The 5700XT, for comparison, comes in at 40fps in that dataset.

Does nobody have a functioning nose any more? Or is bullshit just so pervasive that nobody can tell the difference?
The in-game benchmark runs a lot worse than the actual game. In another thread I mentioned averaging around 80 FPS on my PC at 4K playing the actual game. Same settings in the benchmark only gets me 55-60 FPS. Aside from that I'm sure The Coalition has console-specific optimizations that they are taking advantage of. Plus, the 100 FPS number they saw is most likely the peak, not the average.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
Nothing wrong with preferring PC some from the PCMR are going off the deep end here.

We have one dude saying '4k120 is just around the corner', while another claims 'this will only do 4k med'.

The fact is, games are becoming more and more demanding and GPU generations are getting further apart. It will be a LONG time before a card is considered 4k120.

Also, wasn't the OneX written off as being only a 4k med machine? Now this is only 4k Med??
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
I actually wonder why MS doesn't do this on their own? Just make Xbox dual boot so people can choose b/w Windows 10 or Xbox OS in console mode. That way they get best of both worlds, I bet a TON of PC gamers would pick one up as a secondary gaming box and even console players would flock to it since they could play console and PC games on a single box. Maybe it has to do with security and hackers cracking games more easily? But that still happens and MS just locks their Xbox out so I think the pros would outweigh the cons. It not only would benefit MS twice over (console + PC grip) but AMD would also see a huge uptick in the PC market since less people would buy NVIDIA discrete GPUs and opt for a dual boot Xbox instead. I guess Microsoft has the wrong people running their gaming division. They could even make it the highest end hardware and price it at $650 and call it the Xbox PC Console while the others that don't have dual boot would be plain Xbox Series X.

Because the whole point of a console is to lock you into the ecosystem and screw you on accessories and game sales and what not that you dont have any control over. If they allowed you to run windows on it, then install steam and take advantage of steam sales all of a sudden everyone would be like, why am I paying for xbox gold, why dont I just get this deal off of humble bundle, etc....
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
31,393
Nothing wrong with preferring PC some from the PCMR are going off the deep end here.

We have one dude saying '4k120 is just around the corner', while another claims 'this will only do 4k med'.

The fact is, games are becoming more and more demanding and GPU generations are getting further apart. It will be a LONG time before a card is considered 4k120.

Also, wasn't the OneX written off as being only a 4k med machine? Now this is only 4k Med??
Indeed, but I don't agree with the video card generations getting further apart. In the past video cards have been separated by as little as 6 months to as long as 28. If NVIDIA's next gen comes out the end of summer as I'm predicting it will be only have been 21-22 months since Turing. That is shorter than the 28 months between Pascal and Turing.
 

Auer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,972
Nothing wrong with preferring PC some from the PCMR are going off the deep end here.

We have one dude saying '4k120 is just around the corner', while another claims 'this will only do 4k med'.

The fact is, games are becoming more and more demanding and GPU generations are getting further apart. It will be a LONG time before a card is considered 4k120.

Also, wasn't the OneX written off as being only a 4k med machine? Now this is only 4k Med??

If the "3080ti" delivers 30-40% more than the 2080ti there will be a lot of current titles that will play just fine in 4k120.

Not an arguing with you, but a lot of games right now are in 4k60 territory already. Not talking just AAA titles that came out this year.
Throw in some DLSS in future titles and there will be even more..

Also, I've been around much longer than PCMR. So not going off any ends here, deep or shallow. Relax.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,617
Because the whole point of a console is to lock you into the ecosystem and screw you on accessories and game sales and what not that you dont have any control over. If they allowed you to run windows on it, then install steam and take advantage of steam sales all of a sudden everyone would be like, why am I paying for xbox gold, why dont I just get this deal off of humble bundle, etc....

I have not been screwed on accessories and game sales so I do not know what you are going on about. I also have XBox Game pass and Gold for one price, with the XBox game pass on my PC as well with that same price. Sure, back in the 360 days, internal hard drive upgrades were expensive when compared to the actual drive itself but, we have not been there in a long time. Heck, my 360 has an external 1TB hard drive connected with a ton of games installed.

If you are screwed on game sales, that is on you not checking the sales properly. I recently bought Kerbel Space Program and star wars jedi fallen order on the XBox One X for the same sale price as the PC versions. I have PC's as well, however.
 

vegeta535

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
8,504
If the "3080ti" delivers 30-40% more than the 2080ti there will be a lot of current titles that will play just fine in 4k120.

Not an arguing with you, but a lot of games right now are in 4k60 territory already. Not talking just AAA titles that came out this year.
Throw in some DLSS in future titles and there will be even more..

Also, I've been around much longer than PCMR. So not going off any ends here, deep or shallow. Relax.
It is still not around the corner for the average consumer. The high end gpu market is pretty niche. Average Joe gamer is not going to plop down $1200 for just the GPU. Let alone $3000+ for a pre_built gaming PC. And yes they will buy a pre-built cause the average person is scared or don't know enough to do it on their own.
 

zamardii12

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
3,281
I actually wonder why MS doesn't do this on their own? Just make Xbox dual boot so people can choose b/w Windows 10 or Xbox OS in console mode. That way they get best of both worlds, I bet a TON of PC gamers would pick one up as a secondary gaming box and even console players would flock to it since they could play console and PC games on a single box. Maybe it has to do with security and hackers cracking games more easily? But that still happens and MS just locks their Xbox out so I think the pros would outweigh the cons. It not only would benefit MS twice over (console + PC grip) but AMD would also see a huge uptick in the PC market since less people would buy NVIDIA discrete GPUs and opt for a dual boot Xbox instead. I guess Microsoft has the wrong people running their gaming division. They could even make it the highest end hardware and price it at $650 and call it the Xbox PC Console while the others that don't have dual boot would be plain Xbox Series X.

Simple answer is piracy concerns. Remember Sony tried that with allowing Linux on the PS3 and pulled it only to be later sued over it.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
31,393
If the "3080ti" delivers 30-40% more than the 2080ti there will be a lot of current titles that will play just fine in 4k120.

Not an arguing with you, but a lot of games right now are in 4k60 territory already. Not talking just AAA titles that came out this year.
Throw in some DLSS in future titles and there will be even more..

Also, I've been around much longer than PCMR. So not going off any ends here, deep or shallow. Relax.
We were having this discussion in another thread that a modern PC with a 2080 Ti is already a "4k100" machine, more realistically "4k80." 40% more will easily make a 4k120 gaming PC.
I have not been screwed on accessories and game sales so I do not know what you are going on about. I also have XBox Game pass and Gold for one price, with the XBox game pass on my PC as well with that same price. Sure, back in the 360 days, internal hard drive upgrades were expensive when compared to the actual drive itself but, we have not been there in a long time. Heck, my 360 has an external 1TB hard drive connected with a ton of games installed.

If you are screwed on game sales, that is on you not checking the sales properly. I recently bought Kerbel Space Program and star wars jedi fallen order on the XBox One X for the same sale price as the PC versions. I have PC's as well, however.
Console sales have definitely kept up with sales on PC platforms for a long while now. I also have a 6TB external for my One X that I bought 3 years ago for $150. I don't understand "not having control" over accessories and sales when consumers don't get any control over that stuff at all, consoles or not. The free economy has already produced several options for adapters to use the few accessories that are specific to a platform on others. And publishers control the sales.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,874
Don't hold your breath. It's shaping up to be a 4K60 Medium system. The 2080 S is more of a 4K60 Ultra or 4K90 Medium card.

The real value in this machine is that it will set the new baseline for entry level gaming configurations that developers develop around. It is definitely going to be much faster than today's baseline, and that's good for everyone.

With only a couple weeks worth of work, the Collation has a XSX version of Gears 5 running at 4K at over 100 fps, with settings beyond PC Ultra. They intend to push the MP all the way to 120fps.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,617
With only a couple weeks worth of work, the Collation has a XSX version of Gears 5 running at 4K at over 100 fps, with settings beyond PC Ultra. They intend to push the MP all the way to 120fps.

And yet, by the time this releases, my Sony 1080p 50 inch TV will be 7 years old. Even at that, it will not be worth getting a new TV so I will be playing the Series X at 1080p. (It is a Bravia TV, one of the dumb TV's.)
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,048
With only a couple weeks worth of work, the Collation has a XSX version of Gears 5 running at 4K at over 100 fps, with settings beyond PC Ultra. They intend to push the MP all the way to 120fps.
Who makes Gears 5? The publisher is Microsoft, so.... I'd wait for a 3rd party developer to show a game they made running on both XSX and PC. No doubt the XSX is fast and Nvidia needs to get their shit together and release a much faster GPU before their market share evaporates.

huang-slaps-roof-of-rtx-2080-this-bad-boy-53963636.png
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,874
And yet, by the time this releases, my Sony 1080p 50 inch TV will be 7 years old. Even at that, it will not be worth getting a new TV so I will be playing the Series X at 1080p. (It is a Bravia TV, one of the dumb TV's.)

And what does that have to do with the conversation about the system's power?

Who makes Gears 5? The publisher is Microsoft, so.... I'd wait for a 3rd party developer to show a game they made running on both XSX and PC. No doubt the XSX is fast and Nvidia needs to get their shit together and release a much faster GPU before their market share evaporates.

View attachment 230779

1st party developers are able to pull the most out of hardware since they have direct access to the engineers that designed it. Also, if they did that in such a short time it's pretty easy to believe that there is a lot more power to be pulled from the system.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
796
With only a couple weeks worth of work, the Collation has a XSX version of Gears 5 running at 4K at over 100 fps, with settings beyond PC Ultra. They intend to push the MP all the way to 120fps.

That really passes your sniff test? They're claiming performance that exceeds a top end Win10 PC with a $1200 GPU by running it on.......... a low end Win10 PC with a $500 GPU. Seriously?

I heard Gears 5 is running at 8K120 on the PS5 which uses the exact same hardware as the XSX. Why don't you believe that?
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,874
That really passes your sniff test? They're claiming performance that exceeds a top end Win10 PC with a $1200 GPU by running it on.......... a low end Win10 PC with a $500 GPU. Seriously?

I heard Gears 5 is running at 8K120 on the PS5 which uses the exact same hardware as the XSX. Why don't you believe that?

Digital Foundry saw it in person and have confirmed it. What lame excuse are you going to pull now?

Edit: WTF low end PC? What low end PC has a 3800X equivalent CPU and beyond 5700XT-level GPU!?
 

5150Joker

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
4,569
Who makes Gears 5? The publisher is Microsoft, so.... I'd wait for a 3rd party developer to show a game they made running on both XSX and PC. No doubt the XSX is fast and Nvidia needs to get their shit together and release a much faster GPU before their market share evaporates.

View attachment 230779

All nVidia has to do is drop Turing prices.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,617
And what does that have to do with the conversation about the system's power?



1st party developers are able to pull the most out of hardware since they have direct access to the engineers that designed it. Also, if they did that in such a short time it's pretty easy to believe that there is a lot more power to be pulled from the system.

Getting a little defensive, are we? Lighten up dude, the screen you play on has everything to do with the power of the system.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
796
Digital Foundry saw it in person and have confirmed it. What lame excuse are you going to pull now?

I'm going to say it was a bullshit demo that most likely relied on massive upscaling plus an untold number of other scams.

Try running through this in your head. Why would a game run 4x better on a Microsoft-branded PC than it does on a Dell-branded PC that has an identical spec list? if(logo=="Microsoft"){runfaster()=on;}
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,617
That really passes your sniff test? They're claiming performance that exceeds a top end Win10 PC with a $1200 GPU by running it on.......... a low end Win10 PC with a $500 GPU. Seriously?

I heard Gears 5 is running at 8K120 on the PS5 which uses the exact same hardware as the XSX. Why don't you believe that?

WTF? nuff said. :D
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,874
I'm going to say it was a bullshit demo that most likely relied on massive upscaling plus an untold number of other scams.

Try running through this in your head. Why would a game run 4x better on a Microsoft-branded PC than it does on a Dell-branded PC that has an identical spec list?

You seem rather desperate for this to be a lie. Prove it's wrong.

Consoles ALWAYS punch well above what their specs say. Gears 5 is also one of the most well optimized games of the last several years. The XBX version was already running at 4K60 (most of the time, there is dynamic resolution), with some sacrifices compared to the PC version at least.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
I'm going to say it was a bullshit demo that most likely relied on massive upscaling plus an untold number of other scams.

Try running through this in your head. Why would a game run 4x better on a Microsoft-branded PC than it does on a Dell-branded PC that has an identical spec list? if(logo=="Microsoft"){runfaster()=on;}

As I posted before, simply having 30% more CUs than 5700XT (at about same clock speed), means that this chip on it's own is about RTX 2080 performance equivalent.

That's before the console optimizations, or new features are factored in.

XBSX is a BEAST of a console!
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
796
As I posted before, simply having 30% more CUs than 5700XT (at about same clock speed), means that this chip on it's own is about RTX 2080 performance equivalent.

That's before the console optimizations, or new features are factored in.

XBSX is a BEAST of a console!

"Console optimizations" were a thing in 2010. Consoles were distinct hardware platforms running unique OSes at that time. The XSX is just a SFF PC running Win10. There is nothing to optimize on there which can't also be optimized for PCs that aren't running the XBL skin. I could see this being possible if the reported GPU load while gaming on a non-console PC consistently hovered around 30%. That would indicate that performance could be tripled via "optimization."

I don't doubt that the GPU in the XSX will match the 2080. That's a massive step forward from the previous generation and a massive step beyond today's entry level gaming PCs.

What's being claimed here, however, is performance around 2-3x that of the 2080. The claims are now rising to "120+fps" using "double secret ultra mode." All of this using hardware and software combo that struggles for 60fps 4K ultra.

Which seems the most probable to you:
  1. A console-branded PC beats an identical spec non-branded PC by double to triple?
  2. PC hardware today falsely reports 100% loading when, in fact, it is actually sitting just a little bit above idle?
  3. PCs running Windows give up nearly 70% of their performance capability due strictly to having the wrong logo on the case?
  4. A console-branded PC roughly matches the performance of an identical spec non-branded PC because that's how things work on Earth?
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,874
"Console optimizations" were a thing in 2010. Consoles were distinct hardware platforms running unique OSes at that time. The XSX is just a SFF PC running Win10. There is nothing to optimize on there which can't also be optimized for PCs that aren't running the XBL skin. I could see this being possible if the reported GPU load while gaming on a non-console PC consistently hovered around 30%. That would indicate that performance could be tripled via "optimization."

I don't doubt that the GPU in the XSX will match the 2080. That's a massive step forward from the previous generation and a massive step beyond today's entry level gaming PCs.

What's being claimed here, however, is performance around 2-3x that of the 2080. The claims are now rising to "120+fps" using "double secret ultra mode." All of this using hardware and software combo that struggles for 60fps 4K ultra.

Which seems the most probable to you:
  1. A console-branded PC beats an identical spec non-branded PC by double to triple?
  2. PC hardware today falsely reports 100% loading when, in fact, it is actually sitting just a little bit above idle?
  3. PCs running Windows give up nearly 70% of their performance capability due strictly to having the wrong logo on the case?
  4. A console-branded PC roughly matches the performance of an identical spec non-branded PC because that's how things work on Earth?

Console optimizations are ALWAYS a thing. Do you seriously think games like Horizon, Spiderman, God of War, etc can run like they do on consoles on identical PC hardware?
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
31,393
"Console optimizations" were a thing in 2010. Consoles were distinct hardware platforms running unique OSes at that time. The XSX is just a SFF PC running Win10. There is nothing to optimize on there which can't also be optimized for PCs that aren't running the XBL skin. I could see this being possible if the reported GPU load while gaming on a non-console PC consistently hovered around 30%. That would indicate that performance could be tripled via "optimization."

I don't doubt that the GPU in the XSX will match the 2080. That's a massive step forward from the previous generation and a massive step beyond today's entry level gaming PCs.

What's being claimed here, however, is performance around 2-3x that of the 2080. The claims are now rising to "120+fps" using "double secret ultra mode." All of this using hardware and software combo that struggles for 60fps 4K ultra.

Which seems the most probable to you:
  1. A console-branded PC beats an identical spec non-branded PC by double to triple?
  2. PC hardware today falsely reports 100% loading when, in fact, it is actually sitting just a little bit above idle?
  3. PCs running Windows give up nearly 70% of their performance capability due strictly to having the wrong logo on the case?
  4. A console-branded PC roughly matches the performance of an identical spec non-branded PC because that's how things work on Earth?
The PC version has to account for countless different configurations above the minimum spec, while the console version only has to account for 1-2 specific hardware configurations. Windows is also a jack of all trades, while the operating system on the Xbox is optimized for running games. There are still advantages to coding a game for a console. By accounts the Gears 5 demo was running the equivalent of a 2080 Ti as said earlier in the thread, which is only 15% above a 2080 Super. With specific console optimizations it's not hard to believe that it could make up that 15% compared to the PC version.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
796
Console optimizations are ALWAYS a thing. Do you seriously think games like Horizon, Spiderman, God of War, etc can run like they do on consoles on identical PC hardware?

No, I expect that they will run 3x better on consoles with identical hardware because the PC versions just have the GPU mining bitcoin in the background with only 20% of compute cycles being used for the games.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
796
The PC version has to account for countless different configurations above the minimum spec, while the console version only has to account for 1-2 specific hardware configurations. Windows is also a jack of all trades, while the operating system on the Xbox is optimized for running games. There are still advantages to coding a game for a console. By accounts the Gears 5 demo was running the equivalent of a 2080 Ti as said earlier in the thread, which is only 15% above a 2080 Super. With specific console optimizations it's not hard to believe that it could make up that 15% compared to the PC version.

15% is squarely in the realm of believable. You won't get any disagreement from me on that.

What's being claimed is NOT a 15% boost. It's on the order of 200%. That's bullshit.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
31,393
15% is squarely in the realm of believable. You won't get any disagreement from me on that.

What's being claimed is NOT a 15% boost. It's on the order of 200%. That's bullshit.
Where are you getting 200% from? I mentioned above that on my PC (in signature) averages around 80 FPS at 4K in game. 100 FPS is +25%, however I think that is the peak framerate they observed, unless there is a DF video I missed showing otherwise.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
15% is squarely in the realm of believable. You won't get any disagreement from me on that.

What's being claimed is NOT a 15% boost. It's on the order of 200%. That's bullshit.

Some people in the thread are exaggerating.

What the DF video says is: Gears 5 was showing essentially equivalent performance to the 2080 at the same settings.
 

GreenOrbs

Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
623
Not sure why the claimed 2080-like performance is so controversial. A 5700XT already has similar performance to a 2070. If you add 30% more CU's at similar clockspeeds and more TFLOPs and expect to keep the same 2070 performance that would imply that RDNA2 as an architecture is worse than the first gen. Here's a direct quote from the Digital Foundry article (https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-inside-xbox-series-x-full-specs):

The developers worked with Epic Games in getting UE4 operating on Series X, then simply upped all of the internal quality presets to the equivalent of PC's ultra, adding improved contact shadows and UE4's brand-new (software-based) ray traced screen-space global illumination...there was one startling takeaway - we were shown benchmark results that, on this two-week-old, unoptimised port, already deliver very, very similar performance to an RTX 2080.

Not sure why people are saying it can't be at Ultra performing similarly to a 2080 and that it must be medium or some other cheat. I trust the guys at Digital Foundry not to be lying about what they saw. Note that this is WITH ray tracing. How much it applies to non-ray traced games is yet to be seen.
 
Top