Key differences Xbox Series X Xbox Series S: Microsoft's two next-generation consoles - Finally we know the price and release of the new generation console from Microsoft: Xbox Series X, but what many did not count on is that the American company presented another much cheaper machine, Xbox Series S, which comes with the intention of conquering a specific type of users.

The first thing to be clear is that both are new generation machines and the features of both are frankly interesting, but there are some differences between Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S that can be key when deciding between one or the other.

Also striking is the striking design that will have Xbox Series s against the more sober and typical style of a computer tower that will have Xbox Series X, but in the end, the most important thing is hidden inside, since in the end each console is destined for a specific type of player.

These are the main technical differences between Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S

- Xbox Series S will not have disc player

One of the big differences is that Xbox Series S will have no disc player and will bet entirely on the digital market. For its part, Xbox Series X will integrate 4K UHD Blu-ray disc player.

- Xbox Series X can reach 8K resolution, while Series S can be played with 4K scaling

Another differentiating point of interest between Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S will be the maximum image resolution that both consoles will reach. While the most powerful console will be able to reach 4k without problems and reach 8K resolutions, Series S will remain at 1440p resolution and will be able to scale the image to 4K.

Key differences Xbox Series X Xbox Series S

However, in order to achieve such resolutions it will be necessary to have a television capable of reproducing images with such viewing quality.

-Two very powerful consoles that differ mainly in RAM and GPU power

Going into detail in the specifications of Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S, what is clear is that both consoles store inside a really powerful hardware that differs mainly in RAM memory and GPU power.

While Series X reaches 12.15 teraflops of power and has 16 GB of GDDR6 of RAM, Series s stays at 4 teraflops and 10 GB of GDDR6.

These are the differences between Xbox series X and Series S CPU and GPU:

Xbox X Series:

- CPU: 8 AMD Zen 2 cores CPU at 3.8 GHz, 3.6 GHz with SMT enabled
- GPU: AMD RDNA 2 GPU, 52 CUs at 1.825 GHz

Xbox Series S:

- CPU: 8-core AMD Zen 2 CPU at 3.6 GHz, 3.4 GHz with SMT enabled
- GPU: AMD RDNA 2 GPU 20 CUs at 1.565 GHz

Another key difference between Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S is storage. Here it is striking that Series s is left only at 512 GB, especially because it bets everything on the digital market, while Xbox Series X offers 1TB of memory.

One of the critical elements when deciding between Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S is the price. While Series X will have a price of 499 euros, Series S will be left with a really attractive price, especially considering the performance of the new Microsoft console: 299 euros.

Despite the obvious differences between Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S, both have many points in common.

The two machines will have backwards compatibility with the entire Xbox catalog, can benefit from Microsoft Project xCloud, as well as Xbox Game Pass and the catalog of games that will come out on both consoles will be the same changing only the resolution at which they will be seen, loading times and little more.

End of Key differences Xbox Series X Xbox Series S

More on

The worst news for apps that track coronavirus contacts: there is no foolproof method to calculate if they are useful

Applications to help track coronavirus contacts are already underway in several European countries, including Spain. The government asserts that the technology for communicating positives in RadarCOVID is already integrated in 13 autonomous communities, which means reaching "70% of the population".

This integration with regional health systems began in mid-August, after the Secretary of State for digitalization and Artificial intelligence carried out in July a pilot simulating fictitious contagion in a municipality in the Canary Islands. RadarCOVID began to be deployed nationally only after confirming, in this test, that it was a useful and effective tool.

The operation of the Spanish contact tracking app is identical to that of apps such as the German Corona Warn or the Italian Immuni. They use a technology developed by Apple and Google to communicate with each other via Bluetooth-transmitted codes. If your phone detects that you have been near another terminal for more than 15 minutes less than a meter and a half away, it will alert you if the person you were with notifies you that they have tested positive for coronavirus.

This way you will know if you have been near a person who has tested positive for COVID-19 even if you do not know who it is or know it: these apps are able to let you know if you have been near a positive at work, in the queue of the bank or on the terrace of a bar.

The problem is that it is still difficult to discern whether these digital tools will be truly effective in fighting the pandemic.

Many headlines have detailed that such apps would only be able to stop transmission if they are used by 60% of the population of a country. An article in Technology Review, the magazine of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), spoke with the researchers of the paper that came out this data, who clarified that even with the use of a 10% or 20% of the population would not eradicate, but to curb the infection.

For this reason, one of the data that experts look at to determine whether a contact tracking application will be more or less effective in combating COVID - 19 is its number of downloads. By the end of August, 17 million citizens had downloaded the app in Germany. However, many critics argued that the number was insufficient.

In Spain, RadarCOVID has been downloaded about 3 and a half million times from the official platforms of Apple and Google: the App Store or the Play Store.

Now, a new AlgorithmWatch report questions the number of downloads or the number of positives detected on these platforms as an indicator of effectiveness. AlgorithmWatch is an algorithm 'Observatory' ; a European Association of experts who study the social scope of artificial intelligence or all technological systems that help automatic decision - making.

The report in question is, in fact, the progress of a more comprehensive investigation to be published next October. This breakthrough is entitled 'Automated Decision-Making systems in the COVID-19 pandemic: a European perspective', and carries out an analysis with several experts on how the health crisis has driven the adoption of technological solutions-from contact tracking apps to thermal cameras-to try to facilitate life in the new normal.

AlgorithmWatch stops at recalling the disparity of criteria that existed across Europe when the technology for tracking contacts began to be developed. One of the first apps that drew international attention to how to address the problem of community transmission of COVID-19 and stop asymptomatic was developed by the Singapore Government, TraceTogether.

Many countries tried to emulate this experience as soon as possible, despite the fact that its developers have been warning for some time that this app does not replace, in any case, the efforts that executives have to make in epidemiological surveillance. Tracking apps are a complement, not a substitute.

"Countries like France, the UK and Germany tried to develop apps with 'centralised' Bluetooth solutions, while Italy, Switzerland, Denmark, Estonia (and ultimately also Germany) opted for 'decentralised'solutions." The document recalls the most difficult moments of the development of this technology: before Apple and Google monopolized the public discussion deciding that their iOS and Android operating systems would be compatible with apps using their technology, researchers from all over the continent split on these two sides.

Those who advocated centralized management argued that the data generated when two mobile phones enter 'contact' would have to be hosted on a centralized server of the administration. Those who advocated decentralized management argued that only mobile data whose user had confirmed to be a positive by COVID-19 should be hosted on the server.

But beyond this discussion-which defeated those who advocated decentralized management, since that is how the Apple and Google protocol works - other nuances were lost.

Some countries developed contact tracking apps that even use mobile GPS to locate their users. Even location data, thanks to tracking credit card payments, or cash withdrawals from ATMs. These solutions were considered very invasive with the privacy of users. Amnesty International reported that tracking apps from countries such as Norway, Bahrain or Kuwait were actually monitoring tools.

With an app that anonymizes its users to preserve their privacy and that de facto prevents administrations and health authorities from 'tracking' a person by their state of health, it makes little sense to refer to these digital platforms as apps.

You may also find interesting: