Microsoft's Second Next-Gen Xbox Reportedly Set For August Reveal

Microsoft's second next-gen Xbox is rumored to be fully revealed in August. According to Eurogamer, the console will be named the Xbox Series S. From a report: Microsoft has been working on this second cheaper next-gen Xbox console for months. A Microsoft document, leaked last week, shed some further light on the company's plans. Microsoft's Xbox Series X devkit, codenamed "Dante," allows game developers to enable a special Lockhart mode that has a profile of the performance that Microsoft wants to hit with this second console. While we've been reporting this performance includes a slightly underclocked CPU, The Verge has seen additional documents that suggest Lockhart will actually have the same speed CPU as the Xbox Series X. The Lockhart console will also include 7.5GB of usable RAM, and around 4 teraflops of GPU performance. The Xbox Series X includes 13.5GB of usable RAM and targets 12 teraflops of GPU performance for comparison.

If the reports are accurate, Microsoft could choose August to unveil this second next-gen Xbox alongside pricing for the Xbox Series X. This second console is designed as a more affordable option, with 1080p and 1440p monitors in mind. Microsoft would have to detail some type of pricing alongside its Lockhart reveal, and it's reasonable to assume it will be heavily tied to the Xbox All Access subscription.

Not excited

[backslashdot]

Why would anyone be excited by this? A useless broken cheaper version?

Re:

[kamapuaa]

Couple hundred dollars cheaper, 1080p vs 4k gaming is almost indistinguishable. "Exciting" is the wrong word, but sure people might buy it.

Re:

[thegarbz]

1080p vs 4k gaming is almost indistinguishable

You got sucked into the marketing. Today the answer is 1080p vs 4k. A few months after release it will be "locked to 45fps because 60fps was unachievable". A few years down the line it will be "only available on the high end console".

Fun times

[stikves]

We are nearing a console refresh in a downturn economy. I am hoping the manufacturers, Microsoft, and Sony will really try to get our attention by offering low prices. They cannot afford to go high, which is a great thing for gamers.

On the other hand, these "second" tier consoles might allow them to go really high on the real ones, and I hope that is not the case. A $400/$500 or better $350/$450 split would be great. But they can of course push the top tiers to $600 territory.

So far everything looks great,

Fragmentation?

[khchung]

The Lockhart console will also include 7.5GB of usable RAM, and around 4 teraflops of GPU performance. The Xbox Series X includes 13.5GB of usable RAM and targets 12 teraflops of GPU performance for comparison.

Wait, what? Is MS going to launch 2 consoles with different capabilities at the same time?

Did they learn nothing so far? Who would want a console platform that have multiple variants of different capability? Do they think people *enjoy* checking the minimum (barely runs) and recommended (actual minimum) requirements when browsing PC games in the past?

Is MS planning to make XBox gaming a replication of PC gaming? Maybe the next XBox will have extension slots that you can plug expansion cards into for mor

Re:

[timeOday]

Making a distinction between the 1080p vs 4k makes sense to me. Having the same CPU but 1/3 the GPU implies that's what's going on.

Re:

[Khyber]

But you'd need 4x the GPU as there are 4x the pixels in 4k vs 1080p (2k)

Bet that 4k is FPS-gimped.

They other way around

[DrYak]

Bet that 4k is FPS-gimped.

Think the other way around. Most likely the studios' gamedevs are creating and testing the AAA games mainly on the top tier consoles.

But you'd need 4x the GPU as there are 4x the pixels in 4k vs 1080p (2k)

In theory, the budget version of the console would need to push only 1/4 of the pixel.
Using a GPU that is only 1/3 as powerful gives an extra headroom, because it probably doesn't scale linearly.

But personally I don't give a damn.
Console were interesting back when they had some interesting specific hardware capacity (back mostly during the 16bit era: Megadrive, SNES, NeoGeo, e

Re:

[syntap]

Nowadays, they are just more or less extremely standardized-specs PCs, with tons of DRM and walled-gardens backed in. There's no technical reason why you couldn't play the exact same games on a decent PC Workstation. The only reason are commercial reasons (Platform exclusive).

I moved to consoles from PCs for gaming because the "minimum requirements" on PC gaming change too frequently. What is a "decent PC workstation" one year may not play the next year's flagship game.

Standardized hardware with goalposts that won't move for four or five years of effective gaming life can be very helpful. Stable platform configs for game publishers to test against (and provide patches for) is also very helpful. Exclusivity of certain games is way down on the list. When I grab a PS4 game I kno

Re:

[kingbilly]

Interesting. I have been playing everything I want on PC, only upgrading a part or two every other year. I've only had 2 CPU's in the last 10 years. GPUs, eh a bit more. Maybe 5 since 2010? Perhaps my games aren't as demanding. Then again, some of the games I play on PC have at least 60 frames, while my console colleagues are locked to 30. While the performance level was predictable, it was also neutered.

Not taking away from what you said, but letting other readers on the fence know that at least anecdota

Re:

[syntap]

I thought of an exception... I play Minecraft _only_ on a PC and never on a console or mobile device... I am willing to game on a PC in that case :)

Re:

[iampiti]

Nah. You really don't need to upgrade your hardware very often nowadays unless you really want to play everything at max quality/4k/100 fps.
My CPU is 5 years old. My GPU just 3 and I plan to keep it 1 or 2 years more. This config is enough to run most games at 1080p/60 fps.
What console gaming has for it it's that it's really simpler.

Re:

[GonzoPhysicist]

It's too the point where Microsoft could put Windows on an Xbox and sell it as a PC. It could be to desktops what the Surface line is to portables.

Actually Windows already

[DrYak]

It's {to} the point where Microsoft could put Windows on an Xbox and sell it as a PC.

XBox since the original first-of-the-name has already been running Windows derivative with DirectX support.
(As opposed to Sony PlayStation 2/3/4/5 that run a BSD derivative (optional for PS2, standard built-in OS since PS3) or optionally Linux (for PS2, and older PS3)).
(As opposed to SEGA DreamCast which will happily boot whatever happens to be inserted in the GD-ROM drive: could be Windows CE with DirectX (used by a couple of quickly ported games), SEGA's own Katana (most of the official SEGA games) or an

Re:

[Pascoea]

I think the theory is they expect the game developers to design the game to handle both. Much like PC games today where you can select different graphics modes depending on what your hardware can handle. Except there are only two "modes", and you as the user don't get to pick. But that's the deal, you pony up for "top tier" console and get the graphics/performance that goes with it, or save a few bucks and deal with lower quality graphics.

Re:

[khchung]

Good luck with that, as we have seen how well PC games run in with "minimum" config in the past 3 decades.

One advantage console had over PC was single configuration -- players don't need to care about models and developers don't need to test many different config (except minor variants as the console age due to different parts used).

Can MS make the 2 models run similar enough so this won't negate the console advantage? We will see.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

One advantage console had over PC was single configuration -- players don't need to care about models and developers don't need to test many different config (except minor variants as the console age due to different parts used).

Can MS make the 2 models run similar enough so this won't negate the console advantage? We will see.

That worked until we went with HDTVs. Then developers had to concern themselves with multiple resolutions. Back in the Xbox/PS2 era, you could get away with assuming everyone used a

Re:

[Seamoss1]

You do realize they've already been doing this for years right? There were mid generational improvements from the xbox one to the xbox one x and games run fine on both. With the addition of xbox smart delivery, itll be even easier.

Second?

[GigaplexNZ]

Look, I know the names are confusing, but this isn't the second, despite the previous one being called "One".

Re:

[_xeno_]

No, it's the second next-gen Xbox. Apparently Microsoft is planning on having two different next-gen Xboxen - a slower one and a faster one, like the current Xbox One has an Xbox One S and an Xbox One X model. (S is the slower one, X is the faster one.)

Re:

[GigaplexNZ]

With the exception of the original Xbox, they have all been next-gen at some point.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

It’s the second version of the second gen. It’s the same reasoning behind USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. That’s not confusing at all to a consumer. ;)

No reason to own consoles anymore

[thegarbz]

All the best features of the PC being ported to consoles: Fragmentation and performance inconsistencies.
All the best console feature are already available on PC: 3rd party exclusives tied to the Epic games store because Tim is going to save PC gaming.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

I had hoped that MS learned lessons from the Xbox One but so far they haven’t in terms of naming and marketing. Maybe hardware wise they have but this doesn’t give me any good feelings. Both MS and Sony launched second versions of their consoles years after initial launch. These had the same if not slightly better performance than the original. They also added or removed certain thing like being slimmer or removing the optical drive and were cheaper. But to launch two different consoles at the s

Re:

[tlhIngan]

But to launch two different consoles at the start with difference performances?

Why not, it provides leverage into next-gen.

Today you have a 1080p TV. You plan to upgrade to 4K, but not immediately. Plus, the whole pandemic pretty much threw out the budget you had planned on such things this year and probably next.

But, you can play next gen games on your existing hardware - and since you don't have a 4K TV, getting the top end console makes little sense - you won't use half the power it has. But hey, Microso

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Your assertion is based on the premise that the lower end console will be much cheaper. I am guessing it will be cheaper by maybe $100. My guess is that the PS5 will be $599, the Xbox Series X will be $599 and the new cheaper console will be $499. To many that’s not really worth it.