Well I sure as hell don’t have a 4K display. That’s something i’ll get down the line. I’ve been using an HP W2007 since 2009. And I honestly don’t know if I should buy a cheap display like the ASUS VZ239H and use that for both my PC and XB1X or if I should stick with the admittedly awkward 1680 x 1050 display.
UGH… Doesn’t have 2 HDMIs. I’m using a VGA to DVI adapter on my PC.
I can get that monitor for $76 USD… Might be worth it, huh? But then there’s the problem of audio. UGH… Using my Creative A250s on my PC. But then there’s the problem of giving the console audio.
Yeah, I knew from the get-go, the 8 cores automatically didn’t sound right to me for a console. It was clear from the start that it was the EASIEST way they could scale performance. A little disappointed it’s not running at 2.5-2.8 GHz. But oh, well… The base console is running at 1.75. SHEESH! We’re talking Mobile territory there.
But now that we’ve touched on it, I can’t help but think about how much of an indication that is in regards to how much processor you really need. I have a relatively modest i5 6500 in my PC. And i’m pleasantly surprised to see a game like Witcher 3 being run with a damn 1080 Ti with what looks to be NO bottlenecking?
And I really did think about just getting the S as it’s cheaper. But they really wanted to go the extra mile. Microsoft put so much dedication into this thing that as a hardware guy, you have to admire what was accomplished. Incredible, actually. And the X is SMALLER?! I never knew that?!
WHAAA? WOW. Bonus points for that.
And going back to @Giulianno_D I read that even at sub-4K resolution there are benefits to the X. I am just in no position to be buying a 4K display now. And defo no @ Red Dead. Any multiplatform games, or predominantly PC games; that’s what I have my PC for.
EDIT: ALMOST FORGOT. Does the console KNOW what resolution is being set? Does it intelligently change? The PS3 knew literally 3 resolutions, if I remember correctly. 640 x 480, 1280 x 720 and 1920 x 1080. That’s it…