By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Mirror's Edge Catalyst is 900p on PS4, 720p on Xbox One

900p is mostly ok compared to 1080p, but 720p is the resolution which we should worry about.



GAMING is not about spending hours to pass/waste our time just for fun,

its a Feeling/Experience about a VIRTUAL WORLD we can never be in real, and realizing some of our dreams (also creating new ones).

So, Feel Emotions, Experience Adventure/Action, Challenge Game, Solve puzzles and Have fun.

PlayStation is about all-round "New experiences" using new IP's to provide great diversity for everyone.

Xbox is always about Online and Shooting.

Nintendo is always about Fun games and milking IP's.

Around the Network
Porcupine_I said:
But we already know these things don't really matter AT ALL!


...they will only become important again when Scorpio turns out to be more powerful than PS4neo

As several DF threads this gen have proven. Only MS fans care for these things.



greenmedic88 said:
Mummelmann said:
And people still have delusions that the PS4 Neo (or whatever it will be called) will somehow pull off 4k gaming?

Well for small, low hardware overhead indy games sure, just as there were the same type of games on the PS3 that ran 1920x1080x60fps smoothly.

But obviously, we're all thinking about games using engines that push the bar or are at least within a generation of what's considered current. 

For those types of games, I'm not sure why the delusion that $400 worth of hardware will accomplish what several times that in independently sourced off the shelf PC hardware will cost persists for any other reasons than wishful thinking or a fundamental lack of understanding of the amount of processing power required for that level of performance. I don't even think $400 worth of video card alone can be considered 4k capable for high end game engines. 

Nope. Even with a single GTX 1080 ($600+) you cant do 4k @ a rock solid 30 fps without dropping your settings in some games. No way a $400 console is gonna be able to pull it off. I think were still a Generation of Video cards away from 4k @ a rock solid 60 FPS with high to ultra settings. And even then were gonna be talking about the highest end GPUs aka Volta Titan or the amd equivilent.



I mostly play RTS and Moba style games now adays as well as ALOT of benchmarking. I do play other games however such as the witcher 3 and Crysis 3, and recently Ashes of the Singularity. I love gaming on the cutting edge and refuse to accept any compromises. Proud member of the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race. Long Live SHIO!!!! 

TheSting said:
I just hope it's good, screw the resolution.

EXACTLY!  This pretty much sums up what I think about all this resolution talk, people care too much about this resolutions and FPS as if it's the defining part of a game. As long as the the gameplay and story are good that's what I want.



PSN ID: Stokesy 

Add me if you want but let me know youre from this website

1337 Gamer said:
greenmedic88 said:

Well for small, low hardware overhead indy games sure, just as there were the same type of games on the PS3 that ran 1920x1080x60fps smoothly.

But obviously, we're all thinking about games using engines that push the bar or are at least within a generation of what's considered current. 

For those types of games, I'm not sure why the delusion that $400 worth of hardware will accomplish what several times that in independently sourced off the shelf PC hardware will cost persists for any other reasons than wishful thinking or a fundamental lack of understanding of the amount of processing power required for that level of performance. I don't even think $400 worth of video card alone can be considered 4k capable for high end game engines. 

Nope. Even with a single GTX 1080 ($600+) you cant do 4k @ a rock solid 30 fps without dropping your settings in some games. No way a $400 console is gonna be able to pull it off. I think were still a Generation of Video cards away from 4k @ a rock solid 60 FPS with high to ultra settings. And even then were gonna be talking about the highest end GPUs aka Volta Titan or the amd equivilent.

Nvidia likes to play it loose with their marketing in the whole "4k ready" bullet point for their cards. If I'm not mistaken, the GTX 970 was even marketed as such back when it was released and it's really a WQHD/WQXGA card for games.

This is where manufacturers can be a bit disingenuous. Technically, you can run 4k displays and even run lower overhead software at acceptable framerates, but realistically, the vast majority of people who are buying these video cards are using them for high end gaming. 

All new, current gen GTX 1080 represents more of a value increase than a sheer performance increase proposition for potential buyers. The same amount of money is buying quite a bit more performance, but like you said, it's just not realistic to expect 4k at 60fps on high settings for everything or even most high end game engines.

For 4k/60fps without running the sliders down, that's still in the $1000 video card range and even then there are examples where the framerates are well below 60fps. 

So really the challenge is getting that level of performance down to the $300-400 range which is:

A) not something I would expect to see by the next generation of video cards

B) still way too high for a $400 console

C) refers to Nvidia, not AMD who are not at the forefront of GPU performance even if for no reason that Nvidia has more money for R&D

 



Around the Network
greenmedic88 said:
1337 Gamer said:

Nope. Even with a single GTX 1080 ($600+) you cant do 4k @ a rock solid 30 fps without dropping your settings in some games. No way a $400 console is gonna be able to pull it off. I think were still a Generation of Video cards away from 4k @ a rock solid 60 FPS with high to ultra settings. And even then were gonna be talking about the highest end GPUs aka Volta Titan or the amd equivilent.

Nvidia likes to play it loose with their marketing in the whole "4k ready" bullet point for their cards. If I'm not mistaken, the GTX 970 was even marketed as such back when it was released and it's really a WQHD/WQXGA card for games.

This is where manufacturers can be a bit disingenuous. Technically, you can run 4k displays and even run lower overhead software at acceptable framerates, but realistically, the vast majority of people who are buying these video cards are using them for high end gaming. 

All new, current gen GTX 1080 represents more of a value increase than a sheer performance increase proposition for potential buyers. The same amount of money is buying quite a bit more performance, but like you said, it's just not realistic to expect 4k at 60fps on high settings for everything or even most high end game engines.

For 4k/60fps without running the sliders down, that's still in the $1000 video card range and even then there are examples where the framerates are well below 60fps. 

So really the challenge is getting that level of performance down to the $300-400 range which is:

A) not something I would expect to see by the next generation of video cards

B) still way too high for a $400 console

C) refers to Nvidia, not AMD who are not at the forefront of GPU performance even if for no reason that Nvidia has more money for R&D

 

I completely agree with you on every point you just made. I also agree that for console gamers its best to look at GPUs in the $200 range as being possible Neo and Scorpio upgrade paths. IF the whole system costs $400 theres no way the GPU is going to account for more than $150 - 200 of that budget.  And thats assuming they sell the console at cost. If they try to make a profit its going to drop further as well. Based on that price range The most I see the Neo having is an R7 370 or perhaps an r9 380 if sony and MS are willing to take a bit of a loss. While its a solid increase from the current GPUs, enither are going to run current Gen games at 4k. I have doubts it will actually be able to pull off VR too actually BUT thats a different point for a different day. However both options especially a 380 could definitely push 1080p resolutions of atleast 30 fps for all games in the future (unless of course devs try to do too much). At the end of the day everyone wins and it will be nice to see some consoles with some not quite so pathetic hardware.

 

TLDR I agree with you!



I mostly play RTS and Moba style games now adays as well as ALOT of benchmarking. I do play other games however such as the witcher 3 and Crysis 3, and recently Ashes of the Singularity. I love gaming on the cutting edge and refuse to accept any compromises. Proud member of the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race. Long Live SHIO!!!! 

It's not just a case of money though. Neo's chip not only has to be affordable, but also be able to fit into a console chassis and not melt the damn thing. Powerful chips run hot; they need fans, heat sinks, room for air to circulate, all of which take up space.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a pattern emerge with future releases where Xbox One runs at 720p, Vanilla PS4 at 900p, and Neo/Scorpio at 1080p. Battlefield 1 might be the first such release if Neo does arrive this year.



1337 Gamer said:
greenmedic88 said:

Well for small, low hardware overhead indy games sure, just as there were the same type of games on the PS3 that ran 1920x1080x60fps smoothly.

But obviously, we're all thinking about games using engines that push the bar or are at least within a generation of what's considered current. 

For those types of games, I'm not sure why the delusion that $400 worth of hardware will accomplish what several times that in independently sourced off the shelf PC hardware will cost persists for any other reasons than wishful thinking or a fundamental lack of understanding of the amount of processing power required for that level of performance. I don't even think $400 worth of video card alone can be considered 4k capable for high end game engines. 

Nope. Even with a single GTX 1080 ($600+) you cant do 4k @ a rock solid 30 fps without dropping your settings in some games. No way a $400 console is gonna be able to pull it off. I think were still a Generation of Video cards away from 4k @ a rock solid 60 FPS with high to ultra settings. And even then were gonna be talking about the highest end GPUs aka Volta Titan or the amd equivilent.

It will for JRPG type games and indies, the PS3 could even run games like Ridge Racer 7 in 1080p 60fps so hes correct what hes saying



Pre-orders aren't looking too hot, atleast on Amazon. Supposed to come out June 7, and it's not even in the top 100.



curl-6 said:

It's not just a case of money though. Neo's chip not only has to be affordable, but also be able to fit into a console chassis and not melt the damn thing. Powerful chips run hot; they need fans, heat sinks, room for air to circulate, all of which take up space.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a pattern emerge with future releases where Xbox One runs at 720p, Vanilla PS4 at 900p, and Neo/Scorpio at 1080p. Battlefield 1 might be the first such release if Neo does arrive this year.

This is where die size, power consumption, thermals and end cost are all complementary. 

Assuming the transistor count isn't increased to the degree where a same size piece of etched silicon requires more power to operate, generating more waste heat in the process, hardware designers typically utilize a lower die size process, allowing the same number of transistors to be etched on a smaller piece of silicon, or more transistors on the same size of silicon, but in practice, find a balance anywhere in between that still results in lower power consumption, lower thermals yet with better performance. 

Per unit production cost goes down as well when the reduced size of a silicon chip means more chips can be cut from the same size silicon wafer. 

I can't think of any examples where a manufacturer used a larger piece of silicon per chip in later iterations of their previous hardware, so the thermals are generally pre-set when the console is initially being designed. And sometimes the cooling solutions have to be re-engineered when the designers didn't do their job well. Granted, MS flubbed badly with the XB360, as did SCE with the original A01 model PS3s, later iteration power consumption and thermals are the perfect illustration of what will happen with the XBO and PS4.

They're just going to add more transistors to the chip designs that are replacing the original ones within the expected power consumption and cost restrictions using the new smaller die process.