Have preordered mine but since i understand a little bit about how technology works and how important the cpu & bandwidth is for over 1080p gaming. I see a very big bottleneck in the cpu. For 30 fps it will Be ok but with 60 fps i see a lot of problems. Jaguar is a tablet cpu... i don't now if gpgpu will help.

It's by no means a FACT that the CPU will bottleneck the gpu. The bump in CPU clock will support the higher res and effects sufficiently. And for the record, for $50 less, you'd be nuts to get and Xbox one s. Totally useless system.

@Babadook7,

It is a fact. The CPU already bottlenecks games and the slightly higher clock speed isn't going to magically stop that, especially with the GPU increase. Granted the GPU can make games look better, but they will preform only slightly better. Some games may no longer get frame rate drops, but 30fps to 60fps is unlikely. The CPU will still be the bottleneck.

" And for the record, for $50 less, you'd be nuts to get and Xbox one s."

That's just silly. The Xbox One S does have a 4K Bluray drive...Which would be $100 separately. The Slim is also readily available at MSRP bundled with a game, the PS4 Pro won't be for a little bit. If you don't care about the improvements of the PS4 Pro and/or you need a 4K Bluray drive, you'd be nuts not to consider the Xbox One S.

I like both consoles but you cant stir up facts

Im not intrested because of 4k. im interested for the 1080p better graphical quality presets and i still want to game on console

"They could even step it back a couple generations and be fine"

What sort of fantasy world do you live in?

That's why games like the Witcher 3, Grand Theft Auto V, the upcoming Final Fantasy XV—or, you know, anything really CPU heavy—sees FPS drops. Oh, wait...

I live in the fantasy world that my job depends on me understanding how games are made, to develop the tools that game developers use in their engines to make games. As such, I do have an understanding of how games are made, and what tools devs are using to make their games, as well as a good understanding of what the CPU and GPU's are capable of within the systems, along with varying levels of GCN architecture where it's pertinent to my work.

When I say a couple generations, I'm not talking about going back to a Pentium II, but rather, any multi-core CPU that has existed within the 2-3 years prior to the release of the stock console.

Yes, some games rely too heavily on the CPU. GTAV and FFXV don't see frame drops due to the CPU, they see frame drops due to over emphasis on effects which are rendered on the GPU. Can't say about W3, because I'm not familiar with it, but being primarily built for PC, I'd imagine that the CPU is a bottleneck, because the dev didn't spend as much time optimizing for a different design paradigm inherent in consoles, and relied on DX11 where optimization between the CPU and GPU isn't anywhere near what the API's provide with the current consoles.

Consoles, for the vast majority of games, barely utilize their CPU's beyond 50% for game related tasks. Giving more CPU power isn't going to affect games that much if they're designed around GPU Compute the way it's intended with these consoles to begin with, and the way that PC's are moving as we speak.

My bad, I thought you meant a few console generations back with the CPU, which would not work at all.

Yes, games only utilize a small portion of the CPU, but that's not going to change. Console makers are still going to limit a certain portion of the GPU to the OS. Most FPS games, things like that are fine on current consoles, and most of them rarely suffer from frame rate drops. However, many open world games suffer drops. GTAV in particular suffered drops from effects, as you said, on Xbox One . . . But on PS4 is suffered frame rate drops during processor intensive portions. I guess it would be more accurate to say that the CPU will still be a bottleneck on open world games.

Uhhhh...if you say so....

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

I think if MS is really accurate about native 4k, $599 is going to be the price.

Everything I wrote is fact, there are hard limits on how many chips you can make on a single wafer and still expect to pay reasonable prices, also the size of area you have to work with on a motherboard in a console has it's limits too, BTW 4K isn't happening in all games, not without graphical and frame rate compromises compared to what's been seen on current XB1 games.

Even the base XB1 doesn't do 1080p in all games, it has ones that run at 900p, 720p and somewhere inbetween.
A 4.6X improvement compared 1.31Tflops in the base XB1 and 4.28X compared to 1.4TFlops in the XB1-S isn't going to let Microsoft push games like Battlefield 1 to 4K, when that runs at 1280X720.
For reference 1280X720= 921,600 pixels per frame, if you times that by 4.6 it'll show you that the maximum resolution Scorpio's GPU will be able to hit in BF1 is 4,239,360 or slightly higher than 2X1080p (1920X1080=2,073,600, X2 equals 4,147,200 pixels per frame).

Math completely destroys the statements of lying PR men and you're buying their nonsense.
You will not see games running on Scorpio at 4K with modern graphics, compromises will be needed and FYI Scorpio certainly cannot do 4K 60FPS in modern titles, not when even the base XB1 has to run games like BF1 can't do higher than 720p.

Anyway keep buying the nonsense Microsoft are spitting and don't cry too hard when teardowns happen for the thing or Microsoft confirms the real specs of the system.
It won't have an 8 Core Zen, it'll have an 8 Core Jaguar CPU, just clocked somewhere closer to the limits of the architecture (which is 2.75Ghz in the 28nm model, so maybe Scorpio will go higher now that Jaguar is being made at 16nm).
Zen is massively overkill, the chip hits performance close to a Broadwell-E i7, which is too much for even a 9Tflop Pascal GPU.

IF it was then MS thinks your wrong! ZEN is in Scorpio. What you are saying is nonsense on many levels. Scorpio won't be 32 CU is why because you have to clocked them so high, consuls don't run at PC level power consumption. That's why you have no example showing they do. Next up is the fact that you can't also have a CPU overclocked that high in a console environment. It's way too hot. It's Vega and Zen and the sin core is probably from a laptop models clocked much lower. No one in the industry agrees with the crap that you are spewing here. Not euro gamer not extreme gamer no one. Another common mistake you make you cannot compare using teraflops with a GPU of different architectures which Vega is GCN 4.0. Here is another situation where Microsoft is telling me that it is impossible to get Jaguar cores to run for 4 K natively. So your philosophy of Jaguar cores running a 36 CU is ridiculous because we already seen how this will work out with your beloved PlayStation Pro.

http://wccftech.com/microso...

Re-read my older posts above, I never said Zen wasn't releasing.

FYI that link is about Zen based notebooks, yields would have to be sufficient to meet the needs of all markets Zen would be used in and this link of yours says nothing about Zen in Scorpio:

The one below outright refutes Zen being in Scorpio, it's pretty recent too:

http://digiworthy.com/2016/...

FYI Eurogamer's Richard Ledbetter said in his Scorpio Spec Analysis that he thought Zen would be too big for the console to fit alongside a 6TFlop GPU, you can see it on the digital foundry youtube page.
RedGamingTech on youtube is very respectable and says the same thing.

Polaris is 4th gen GCN, Vega is just the bigger chip, with some minor efficiency gains, so flops are directly comparable, it's just that power consumption may be somewhat better.

Jaguar at 14nm would be considerably cooler than the 28nm version in PS4 and XB1 launch consoles, it's 14nm is roughly 50% more efficient.
A 2.75Ghz Jag 8 Core CPU at 14nm wouldn't use more than 30 watts, Zen was rumored to be at around 95 watts for up to 3.2ghz, so at 1.6ghz it would need 47.5 watts, sure performance would destroy Jaguar, but you'd need more power and Microsoft have stated 8 cores, as I've said plenty of people who understand how big these chips are have agreed with me that Zen is likely way too big for a console APU.

Anyway you've made no solid arguments supporting Zen or Vega going into Scorpio's SOC, hell we have a picture of the motherboard in the MS E3 2016 reveal and it's about the same size as the 8 Core Zen FX chip that AMD are release in 2017, no way you'd a Vega GPU alongside 8 Zen cores.
MS will use a Jaguar CPU and overclock it to run faster than the XB1-S, the cores are tiny at 14nm.

BTW you're assuming I'm buying Pro, I've never said that I am, I'm happy with my launch PS4 right now, if Microsoft would bother to actually make real exclusives and properly support their consoles in the 8th gen then I would buy a Scorpio next Fall, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I have a 360 which was awesome, bought an OG XBox and loved the platform.

What I've said about what it takes to render 4K is fact, you only need to look up benchmarks or tests in games to see what's possible with the level of hardware Microsoft are planning to use, it's not running modern games at 4K with reasonable frame rates of even 30FPS for console gamers.

Educate yourself, otherwise you'll just end up disappointed when Scorpio doesn't perform as you're expecting.
Unless you're actually going to provide a legitimate source from Microsoft or AMD stating that Zen is going to be in Scorpio I wouldn't bother replying again, you're just blowing hot air.

That's developer's fault. Or more like publisher's not giving enough time and space to optimize their games.

Considering that AMD's 8Core Zen bench-marked faster than a $1000 Broadwell-E i7 CPU these people really are clueless, those kinds of CPUs aren't meant for gaming, you'd be looking at something more like $300 i7 or slightly cheaper i5 to run alongside even a GTX 1080, a downclocked RX 480 is fine paired alongside a 2.1Ghz 8 Core Jaguar CPU.

If MS are shooting for a 6TFlop Polaris GPU then simply upclocking the Jaguar to it's top speed of 2.75Ghz would be fine, assuming data actually needs that much extra CPU time, but I doubt it.
As far as I'm aware Microsoft hasn't said a thing about Scorpio being a new generation, it'll likely run the same games that XB1 and S do, so moving to a newer CPU architecture is unnecessary.
If a generational shift was happening then an even bigger memory pool and significantly faster bandwidth would have been shown, but MS hasn't done that.

If Scorpio used an 8 Core Zen, alongside even a 36CU Polaris GPU then it would be a massive piece of silicon, that would effect volume of chip production, cutting numbers in half and costs would be in the realms of double what Sony are paying, adding even more GPU hardware would make things even worse and then there's the issue of adding a bigger bus, the shape audio block that XB1 games use.
People thinking Microsoft will go with what would have to be such a massive SOC Die have no idea.
AMD aren't going to have anything that huge on 14nm, I doubt they're even having a Zen APU release with a GPU anywhere close to that size GPU until 2018.

You'd be looking at whatever AMD has akin to an i3, with some added hyper-threading elements built in either through the design of the chip itself, or through customization if it doesn't already exist in that form...which it does in the Jaguar. The amount of power required from the CPU for a game system is pretty minimal in comparison to what's available out there. Without the overhead of a multi-tasking OS, and the use of extremely optimized hyper-visors which allow everything to run in virtual environments, there is a lot of processing power available to games from the most basic of modern CPU architectures.

i5 and i7 parts of the intel line of chips aren't there for gaming purposes, nor are they really that relevant when games are designed to run through GPU compute. i5 and i7 do have better memory access through the southbridge bus, but that is irrelevant to game systems which use their own memory bus, which itself is programmable to the developers needs....whereas in a PC, the CPU has to control such things. They're beneficial in an environment like Windows, but wholly unnecessary in a closed console system.

There's no rhyme or reason to go full force on the CPU, because it's wasted money which can be better spent elsewhere, or used to make the system cheaper so it's likely to be brought by consumers. MS may be looking at delivering the most powerful gaming machine for the discerning or enthusiast gamer, but it's still a consumer level device, and as such, even MS knows that it can not succeed commercially by pricing itself out of the market, and relying solely on the extremely niche high end power user to buy their systems. Doing so would pretty much cripple any chance MS has to make headway in the market, and if they can't manage to make a reasonable install base, it means they get no support, or struggle at every turn(or pay) to get that support, for what would only lead to marginal software sales at best. MS, and any intelligent person knows, that without the games support, their elite system is dead in the water, and they will not price it beyond mass market adoption prices. It may be priced high at first, just to get that extra power early on, but that power won't be wasted on something as trivial as a high end CPU. They'd be better off spending an extra $100 on the GPU or better memory architecture, than spending another $100 on the GPU. Any dev will say this, anyone that understands tech will say this. Even the high end elite PC users will tell you this. It's authors like this, and ignorant fan boys who want to believe otherwise.

Better than none at all, right boy?!

Are they hemorrhaging money?