Quantcast
What are you willing to sacrifice for 60 FPS or higher?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What are you willing to sacrifice for 60 FPS or higher?

What do you prefer?

Framerate 139 62.05%
 
Resolution 48 21.43%
 
Other 37 16.52%
 
Total:224
CrazyGamer2017 said:
Azzanation said:
Well its easier to hit 60 frames than 4k with the upgraded hardware however the one main reason why they bump the Res and not the Frames is due to compeititive play with consoles. Playing a FPS game against someone playing at 60 and you are capped at 30 gives a major disadvantaged. Unlike with PC where you have settings that can help achieve this. Consoles you dont.
We need a new a gen where the old games arent in the ecosystem anymore. However in doing so ruins Backwards compatitable and shrinks your library by a good margin.
I honestly hate starting again every gen with no games. Why i love PC gaming and my prefered choice.

Well you lost me there, you said the reason they bump the resolution instead of the frames is due to a competitive play with consoles...

But that's not a reason, that's actually an ANTI reason, cause it sounds like you are saying they bump res and not frames to specifically give a disadvantage to console players. Why would they want to do that?

Games run off an ecosystem. Its not as easy to just boost the frame rate because you ruin that ecosystem and will get a flood of complains of players claiming its not fair. 

Boosting Res does not give players an advantage. It's an entirely a visual thing. Frame rate on the other hand does give a massive advantage.

Imagine if all X1X games went for 60 frames over 4k. And your a compeitive MP gamer and cant afford the X? See the problem it causes.



Around the Network

Edited the thread title to the question asked in the OP.


From: 60fps


To: "What are you willing to sacrifice for 60 FPS or higher?"

Original title was too vague. :)



think-man said:

Edited the thread title to the question asked in the OP.


From: 60fps


To: "What are you willing to sacrifice for 60 FPS or higher?"

Original title was too vague. :)

Fair enough; Thanks.



Pemalite said:

Nope, they are all as low-level as each other.

That doesn't mean NVN/Switch isn't doing things Metal/iOS couldn't...

I mean, Microsoft offloaded the handling of draw calls from the CPU and threw it onto the command processor on the GPU for instance which is something that can only be reliably achieved in a fixed hardware environment... But that doesn't make NVN a lower level API that say Metal, it just exposes different features and does a few things differently.

@Bold Well that depends ... 

NVN is specifically built around Nvidia GPUs but I doubt Nvidia would even reveal the Maxwell 2 ISA to Nintendo since that's a closely guarded secret that could potentially fall into the hands of their competitors if they discover it so what Nintendo most likely has is an intermediate representation for common Nvidia GPU uArchs, possibly what I'd describe as custom PTX shaders ... 

NVN is a near perfect match for the Switch in terms of exposing feature sets and matching the shader bytecode format ... 

The original release of Metal is not really on par with NVN. Metal 2 closes the gap somewhat but it still doesn't expose all of the features that Maxwell 2 has such as overestimate conservative rasterization and it just features regular LLVM bytecode which doesn't do the best job in comparison to NVN's shader bytecode for Nvidia GPUs ... 

On PC, Nvidia doesn't really have that many options as far as low level gfx APIs goes but the closest thing you'll get to as direct access as possible comparable to consoles would be DX12 but that's more specific to AMD than it is to Nvidia ... 

That being said, low level shaders are not popular among console devs. They'd rather just depend on GPU compiler to do good codegen for them instead ... 



nothing I guess.

i mean i dont really care. If you want to push good graphics and cant get 60 then give me 30 stable (no drops).

if you want to push 60 with lower graphic fidelity then that is cool too. Its the devs call and I want them to make the game they want to make as long as they make it well.



Around the Network

Framerate matters much more than resolution to me. Generally I don't really care about graphics, but in Pokemon of all games, I couldn't get over how gratingly slow Gen IV (DPPHGSS) were when I got them after Ruby, going from a game like Ruby that ran at 60fps and looked great, to Pearl which looked exactly the same, bar very minimal 3D geometry that ran at 30fps was jarring for me, made it unenjoyable (the ridiculous amount of time it took to save may have also contributed, but the fps was a major issue). I would have preferred if they had just put the game on the GBA engine, but run as a DS game (As was done with Mystery Dungeon).



I'd say resolution



caffeinade said:
SvennoJ said:
Since I've switched to mostly playing in VR, yes absolutely framerate > resolution. Actually 120fps > 60fps, it makes a visible difference in VR. Polybius and Trackmania Turbo are so silky smooth at 120fps, while fences and close detail still seem to strobe by at 60fps in DC and Dirt Rally.

There's not much you can sacrifice in VR. Any 2D elements stick out like a sore thumb. Black bars are out of the question and you're stuck with 110 degree fov putting a lot of extra geometry in view. Multi res rendering helps, since the edges are already lower res due to the way the optics work (higher pixel density in center). RE7 uses dynamic res, it drops down quite a bit when you sprint. It also uses lower res at the edges on the base ps4.


On a 2D screen 30fps never bothered me. DC before VR played perfectly fine at 30fps. Of course, since the VR version I haven't gone back to racing on a screen. The downgrade back to screen is so severe, I doubt 30 or 60 fps will make the slightest difference...

Foveated Rendering should help VR, and it should be relatively easy to do since you can have a camera right in front of the user's eyes.

Yup, it's what will make VR cheaper to render than full screen in the future. It's the same as multi res rendering, except more extreme and dynamic. However the early headsets are so low res that it doesn't help much, once 4K and 8K headsets become the norm, foveated rendering will cut the workload dramatically.

Instead of a full hi-res screen this startup is trying to do it differently
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/19/this-startup-wants-to-build-vr-headsets-with-human-eye-resolution/
Move a high res image over the low res image keeping pace with where you look. Sounds complicated to make that work without being noticeable. Less moving parts is usually better.

Foveated rendering can also help making the headsets wireless. The image should compress a lot better for transmission, plus the software can aid the compression to preserve detail where you are looking. Dual 4K at 90hz is a lot of bandwidth, especially through wifi.



I like this game



The great thing about PC as a platform is that you don't have to sacrifice anything if you don't want to. So I find questions like this funny and sad. Just shows how terrible some other platforms are where you are forced to choose and sometimes can't even choose because of reasons.

Choice is great, choosing between more than 2 options is better.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.