Xbox Scorpio Coming 2017, Not As Powerful As Titan X
Xbox One S
(Last Updated On: June 13, 2016)

Microsoft announced that two new Xbox consoles are coming. The Xbox One S is coming this August for $299. It’s 40% smaller, comes with a new controller with built-in Bluetooth support, and it sports a USB port on the front of the console. The second console, which is due to release next year during the holiday season of 2017, is codenamed the “Scorpio”.

During the E3 conference Microsoft revealed that the Xbox Scorpio will be designed for 4K gaming and VR support. The Xbox Scorpio features a 6 teraflop GPU that supports 320 gigabytes per second worth of bandwidth and an eight-core CPU.

They didn’t show the Xbox Scorpio but they did release a video for the Xbox One S, which you can check out below, courtesy of Extreme Tech.

Despite the upgraded specs, the Xbox Scorpio is still a ways behind even a last generation GPU. Nvidia’s Titan X sports 7 teraflops of floating point processing precision, 336GBp/s and 12GB of RAM.

From a pure brute force point of view, the Scorpio is not as powerful when looking at the raw stats.

Why is this important? Because Microsoft is claiming that the Xbox Scorpio will run games in native 4K resolution and support games running at 60fps. It will also be designed with VR in mind, with many speculating that it will be Oculus Rift-ready.

The major problem is that despite being weaker than the Titan X and claiming to run games at 4K and 60fps, the Titan X can’t even run many games at 60fps and 4K on the max settings.

According to benchmarks from places like 4K.com, you can see that very few of the games, from Hitman Absolution and Evolve, to Dying Light and BioShock Infinite, many of the top titles don’t scale above 60fps running at max settings on 4K on the Titan X.

So logic says if a more powerful card is having trouble hitting 60fps at 4K, I tend to doubt that a less powerful GPU is going to be able to hit 4K for high-profile games. But it will definitely be interesting to see nonetheless.

In the meantime, the Xbox One S will be launching this August for $299.99.


Ads (learn more about our advertising policies here)



About

Billy has been rustling Jimmies for years covering video games, technology and digital trends within the electronics entertainment space. The GJP cried and their tears became his milkshake. Need to get in touch? Try the Contact Page.

  • Jeff Scout

    Here we go with another uneducated author making false claims comparing a console with 6 teraflops of gpu compute power inside of a closed loop extremely low level api console type environment vs a pc hardware gpu and guess what guys you can’t compare it this way as it’s not even close ok I WON’T GO ON A HUGE LONG RANT BUT INSTEAD ILL KEEP IT SIMPLE OK A CONSOLE IN A CLOSED LOOP CONSOLE ENVIRONMENT CAN GET UP TO 40% MORE POWER N EFFICIENCY OUT OF THE EQUIVALENT PC HARDWARE IT’S THAT SIMPLE OK 6 TERAFLOPS INSIDE OF A GAMING CONSOLE IS MORE LIKE 9 OR 10 TERAFLOPS IN A GAMING PC

    • where all this hardware needs to do is compute games, games, games, games and nothing else

      WTF are you talking about dude? Another console fanboy out from the wild. First up, the Xbone doesn’t just do games, you’re thinking about Nintendo. The Xbone does TV on your TV, too, or did you forget about that? Did you also forget that the Xbone (and Scorpio) uses Snap so you can run multiple apps at once? The multi-purpose entertainment console even reserves 3 of its 8GB for system resources.

      Dude, the Xbone uses more system RAM on extraneous apps than my own work PC does when I’m playing games.

      Also you’re way off on the the hardware scaling. The Xbone can’t even run games as efficient as the Radeon 7790, which topped out on Tomb Raider at 1080p and 44fps on the ultra settings. The Xbone barely ran the game at 30fps at 1080p. Your fanboying and numbers are waaaaay off.

  • LurkerJK

    If the aim is 4k and AAA VR both “upgrades” are still underpowered, PCs are still underpowered for that

    For 1080p60hz they look more like it

  • scemar

    what if the games are better optimized for the systems?
    could that let their lower specs squeeze out enough power to actually run what they claim they will run?

    seems like grasping at straws but it’s the only option I can think of

    either way this is going to be a very weird half generation leap with both sony and microsoft releasing upgrades to current gen stuff

    it’s almost like in the older days of gaming when consoles used to get odd upgrade hardware and halfway revisions, it’s gonna be a very experimental new experience to have those out now and sony/microsoft are taking a leap of faith hoping their audiences will actually buy into it

    • it’s almost like in the older days of gaming when consoles used to get odd upgrade hardware and halfway revisions,

      Oh snap, you’re right. I forgot about those days. Sega was notorious for it, and even Nintendo had some of those awful upgrades too. They weren’t particularly popular back then and I doubt they’ll be popular now.

      The only saving grace is that VR is supposed to be big in the consumer market. So it’s a real gamble on this new hardware in hopes that the core gamer will want to adopt VR. The fallback would be that anyone who doesn’t care about VR will possibly get their hands on the console(s) for 4K rendering.

    • LurkerJK

      There is no technological learning curve, they are both known tech, PCs

      Also optimizing is a cost that these days early access and paid beta preorder customers have colored as an optional thing, we paid for half made games, we asked for half made games, we are getting half made games

  • So judging by the specs, is this thing more powerful than the PS4 Neo then?

    • They could set a standard again IF they go back to proprietary technology, but it’s too expensive and requires creative ingenuity and engineers who are forward thinking. That’s not how corporations work these days in the console space.

      But to answer your question, it is more powerful than the PS4 Neo.

      However, neither console is going to be able to play 4K games natively at the ultra high fidelity. They would be able to play AAA games on ultra settings at 1080p and maybe 2K.

      • They could set a standard again IF they go back to proprietary technology, but it’s too expensive and requires creative ingenuity and engineers who are forward thinking. That’s not how corporations work these days in the console space.

        That’s exactly it. That would be the only way a console can get to have the upper hand against a decent (above-mid spec) PC.

        The PS2 had the Emotion Engine thing going on, and the PS3 had the Cell PPE stuff, which both when first relased, was quite special back then for it’s time (the PS3 less so).

        The original PS4 and XBOne seems to have no ‘unique’ hardware aspects about them at all that makes them stand out from the PC.

        I could be wrong on this but that’s how I feel.

        • Nah you’re right. The PS4 and XB1 are practically off the shelf APUs with mid-range specs.

          Actually, the PS3’s Cell was (and still is) very special. That thing can scale like a freaking beast, and with proper optimization it can still run circles around the PS4’s octocore CPU. Now THAT was forward thinking engineering. The problem was that it was one of stupidest designs when it came to usability and, well, it was more expensive to design for than what it was worth.