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
fatslob-:O said:
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 ... 

That doesn't mean it's lower level. Just that's it's optimised for that hardwares particular feature set... Which reinforces my prior point of the Switch having the advantage in this area.

At this point we really are just nitpicking anyway.



Around the Network

Nothing.

I still haven't noticed any difference between 30fps and 60fps, so I couldn't care less.

For resolution, 480p is enough.



I'm happy to sacrifice 60fps for 30fps to have my games playable on a portable device (switch). Games like Doom and Sonic Forces look visually close to their beefier console counterparts and can be played on the go, I'm happy to drop to 30fps to achieve this. It gives me more options as a gamer and fits into my lifestyle better.



vivster said:

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.

We sacrifice money so we can have everything else. And it's worth it.



CrazyGamer2017 said:
curl-6 said:

Nintendo are no longer making dedicated home consoles; there isn't room on the market for three similar consoles to do well, there never has been. On the other hand, making an alternative product, the Switch, is clearly paying off. Plenty of Switch games are 1080p60 actually, and given the success of titles like Zelda gamers don't seem to mind too much if a game doesn't hit an arbitrary pixel count.

 

Well if the future of Nintendo is decided by people who lower their standards gen after gen then I fear that you might be right: There may never be a home system by that company again. Also the rest of the industry seems to steer towards norms (1080p, 4K, HDR, 60fps etc.) It seems strange to me that Nintendo is the only one that does not go that way. It's of course good news for the company as it means no need to invest money in advancing components and technology, just work on different concepts and voilà, people will flock to you. But as a consumer who wants a decent product, I am not too happy about this turn of events.

I'll cross fingers and hope one day to play BOTW on some future home system that will do justice to the new generations of televisions we see in the market today but if not then, I will have to send my divorce papers for Nintendo to sign.

You should have been here commenting on the Wii back in 2006.  You could have pretty much kept most of the same response.



Around the Network

I am in the minority on this site but for me 1080p 30fps >>>>>>>>> 720p 60fps.
I have noticed that people that play Nintendo tend to prefer the later. Probably why higher fps always wins polls on this site.



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st

I can sacrifice AA, not a lot of difference at 3K.



SvennoJ said:
caffeinade said:

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.

Have you seen the StarVR headset?
Mmm.



Nothing. And please don't lie about things being facts when they're not.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

It really depends on the type of game. With some genres 60fps is a lot more important than with others. I really couldn't care less if a game like Dragon Quest XI runs at 30 or 60fps, as the gameplay doesn't require that in any way, and I'd rather have titles like that have high audiovisual quality instead. In racing and fighting games it'ss quite different, as 60fps makes them much smoother to play and control.