Quantcast
Scarlett Will Prioritize Frame Rate Over Graphics

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Scarlett Will Prioritize Frame Rate Over Graphics

Tagged games:

Do you prefer 60/4k with reduced visuals or 30/4k with increased visuals?

YES! 30 40.00%
 
No. 5 6.67%
 
Depends on the game. 32 42.67%
 
I dont care. 8 10.67%
 
Total:75
Mr Puggsly said:
Hiku said:

Well that's the thing. It's easier to market impressive looking visuals than smooth framerate. 
Whether it's screenshots, posters or trailers. They go for what's more immediately eye catching. Which probably plays a big role in why so many developers tend to prioritize visuals, no matter how much power they get in a system. I don't expect things to change much in this regard with Scarlett and PS5.

But there are games that offer both impressive visuals and smooth frame rate. Especially on the X1X because it more often achieves 60 fps with 1440p-4K. Gears 5 for example has great visuals, 60 fps, and the resolution is high (1584p to 4K).

I think its worth considering any games that can function at 1440p-4K/30 fps on 9th gen hardware, should also be able to function at a lower resolution with 60 fps. Hopefully developers will let us choose in those scenarios.

I'm curious to see if there will be 9th gen games that are so visually cutting edge they only run at 1080p/30 fps. I don't think those experiences will have 60 fps options.

There are games where they strike a balance. Especially those where high/stable framerate is especially important, or games where the incentive for visual improvements is lower.

When it comes to X1X/P4P, developers are limited in what they can do for enhancements. Because the games still have to run properly on base systems, so fundamentally changing aspects of the game is essentially out of the question.

If in one scene, 1 giant skyscraper collapses, and that pushes things to the limit on base systems, they don't make it 3 skyscrapers on XB1X.
Instead they go for for higher/more stable framerate, and 'higher settings' on textures, effects, etc. 
Publishers don't want to spend a lot of unnecessary extra time and money on the X1X/P4P versions anyway.

But if they're developing this game for Scarlett/PS5? Then yeah, they can add that second and third skyscraper. Hell, let's make it 5. Sure, it'll drop the framerate to 30, but it looks fantastic!

They may originally aim for 60fps, but along the way new ideas are born and implemented into the game, which makes 60 fps harder and harder to maintain. At one point they make the decision to aim for a lower framerate, which will then allow them to implement more of those ideas.

COKTOE said:
Hiku said:

Well that's the thing. It's easier to market impressive looking visuals than smooth framerate. 
Whether it's screenshots, posters or trailers. They go for what's more immediately eye catching. Which probably plays a big role in why so many developers tend to prioritize visuals, no matter how much power they get in a system. I don't expect things to change much in this regard with Scarlett and PS5.

I feel certain I've heard staff with devs and publishers touch on this very idea on a few different occasions, but very much don't have the patience to attempt to find any examples.

I know I read about this as well some years ago on at least one occasion. But I can't remember exactly which developer it was.

Last edited by Hiku - on 03 December 2019

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I think its gonna take a massive GPU and CPU boost to make something like RDR2 4K/60 fps. Sometimes people forget doubling the frame rate is a huge drain on the GPU and CPU. The X1X only does 4K/30 fps (with dips) and it still averages $349-$399.

Gears 5 is well optimized and already built with 60 fps in mind. DF said its dynamic between 1584p-2160p, something like that could become 4K/60 fps more easily on Scarlett. I suppose Halo Infinite will also be 4K/60 fps.

My expectations aren't that high for Scarlett. I don't expect it to trounce X1X like you suggest because that sounds very expensive.

The Xbox One X was derived from inefficient and outdated technology though.. The foundations of which date back 8~ years for the GPU and 9~ years for the CPU. - Things have simply moved on from then.

There is a massive jump between what Polaris can do and what we will do with RDNA2 and there is a massive jump between AMD's Cat cores and Zen, even GDDR5 has been around for 10~ years.

2020 there will be a sizable jump, even if peoples infatuation with "flops" doesn't imply as such.

Scarlett and the Playstation 5 will be pretty impressive pieces of hardware... And there are several technologies that will define that console generation like hardware accelerated Ray Tracing.

Mr Puggsly said:

But given the option, I think I would always choose 1440p/60 fps. 1440p is already a sharp presentation. At that point 60 fps will have more impact on gameplay than 4K.

Instead I think visually demanding games are gonna be more like 1440p-1800p/30 fps. Which is fairly common on premium consoles right now. Not just because of CPU limitations, but 60 fps is also taxing on GPU.

Same. I will always choose 1440P/60fps with the visuals dialed up rather than 4k.

In saying that, even a 4k rendered game will look fantastic on a 1440P panel because of downsampling... Not all games implement good Anti-Aliasing, so it's a good bonus, Microsoft deserves allot of credit for pushing this in the console space in my opinion.

1440P though isn't a common resolution outside of the PC and mobile markets, it doesn't exist in TV land as far as I know, which will be Scarlett's primary market.


The person I was talking to expects anything on Xbox One X to be 4k/60 fps. That's gonna require a huge boost in power, especially when you consider some games are just doing 1440p at 30 fps. I'm not sure double the GPU power would get the job done for every game. So I skeptical about what they can accomplish if they stick to a lower price.

I don't think it makes sense to make a 1440p TV. There are plenty of 4K TVs around 40"-50" at about $300. I'm sure Scarlett will have plenty of 4K content as well.



Recently Completed
Doom 64
for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

StuOhQ said:
I think that should have been the goal a long time ago. We could be living in a world with almost no load times and 60fps locked for very pretty games and instead we are chasing pixel count so that our games look decent on unnecessary display upgrades.

The funny thing is, if we were still using CRTs - the resolution would matter so much less and what we could do with the games would be ridiculous. With 4K, we're wasting tons of resources run mediocre looking games.

Eh, the leap from 480p to 720p was pretty significant to the presentation of games, its about triple the pixels. I can still tolerate 720p actually, even on a 4K screen. Playing games at 480p in comparison is not great.

Developers could simply build games around 60 fps if that was really a priority. Specs aren't the problem per se.



Recently Completed
Doom 64
for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:
StuOhQ said:
I think that should have been the goal a long time ago. We could be living in a world with almost no load times and 60fps locked for very pretty games and instead we are chasing pixel count so that our games look decent on unnecessary display upgrades.

The funny thing is, if we were still using CRTs - the resolution would matter so much less and what we could do with the games would be ridiculous. With 4K, we're wasting tons of resources run mediocre looking games.

Eh, the leap from 480p to 720p was pretty significant to the presentation of games, its about triple the pixels. I can still tolerate 720p actually, even on a 4K screen. Playing games at 480p in comparison is not great.

Developers could simply build games around 60 fps if that was really a priority. Specs aren't the problem per se.

480P in a 16:9 format is 854x480 = 409,920 pixels. (Many Switch games in portable mode run at around this resolution!)
720P in a 16:9 format is 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels.

So more like a doubling of pixels.

480P can look great, depending on scaling and the input method in-use. I.E. The PS2/OG Xbox/Gamecube/Wii/Xbox 360 "version" of 480P tends to not look great on a HDTV due to composite/Component being used.

Of course you also have another aspect to consider... Perceived Pixels Per Inch... Smaller+further away the screen, the less resolution you need... TV sizes exploded when Full High-Definition became the norm, thus lower resolutions started to look dated very quickly on newer and larger panels.

I have a CRT in my games room and older games that are 480P look far better on the 27" CRT than my 75" LCD panel.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Eh, the leap from 480p to 720p was pretty significant to the presentation of games, its about triple the pixels. I can still tolerate 720p actually, even on a 4K screen. Playing games at 480p in comparison is not great.

Developers could simply build games around 60 fps if that was really a priority. Specs aren't the problem per se.

480P in a 16:9 format is 854x480 = 409,920 pixels. (Many Switch games in portable mode run at around this resolution!)
720P in a 16:9 format is 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels.

So more like a doubling of pixels.

480P can look great, depending on scaling and the input method in-use. I.E. The PS2/OG Xbox/Gamecube/Wii/Xbox 360 "version" of 480P tends to not look great on a HDTV due to composite/Component being used.

Of course you also have another aspect to consider... Perceived Pixels Per Inch... Smaller+further away the screen, the less resolution you need... TV sizes exploded when Full High-Definition became the norm, thus lower resolutions started to look dated very quickly on newer and larger panels.

I have a CRT in my games room and older games that are 480P look far better on the 27" CRT than my 75" LCD panel.

I thought 720x480 was 16:9 because that's a fairly common widescreen resolution in gaming and video.

Either way, I don't think we really had much 480p content actually doing 854x480 due to lack of support. Consoles capable of 480p were really doing 640x480, but games did go natively lower to reduce GPU load.

Even when games were doing widescreen they didn't really change to a 16:9 resolution. I believe they just made the picture narrow so it would look normal when stretched wide. A few PC games actually allowed this. You could run the game at 4:3 ratio like 800x600, but there would be option to make it widescreen. I think Halo 2 did this, it ran smoother than just using 1280x720 and still looked pretty good.

I was comparing 640x480 to 1280x720p as these were the common resolutions in console gaming. Either way, even the sub HD games like CoD on 7th gen look much sharper than 480p.

Yeah, old games look much better on CRT TVs. It softens the pixels, old games also look pretty good on projector even though its HD.

When I had my Wii connected I actually used component cables. I prefer games look pixelated versus muddy on standard RCA cables.

Either way, just increasing the resolution 240p and 480p 3D games to 720p makes a world of difference in clarity. He was complaining about the transition of SD to HD. I think it was a very needed transition.

Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 04 December 2019

Recently Completed
Doom 64
for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:
Pemalite said:

480P in a 16:9 format is 854x480 = 409,920 pixels. (Many Switch games in portable mode run at around this resolution!)
720P in a 16:9 format is 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels.

So more like a doubling of pixels.

480P can look great, depending on scaling and the input method in-use. I.E. The PS2/OG Xbox/Gamecube/Wii/Xbox 360 "version" of 480P tends to not look great on a HDTV due to composite/Component being used.

Of course you also have another aspect to consider... Perceived Pixels Per Inch... Smaller+further away the screen, the less resolution you need... TV sizes exploded when Full High-Definition became the norm, thus lower resolutions started to look dated very quickly on newer and larger panels.

I have a CRT in my games room and older games that are 480P look far better on the 27" CRT than my 75" LCD panel.

I thought 720x480 was 16:9 because that's a fairly common widescreen resolution in gaming and video.

Either way, I don't think we really had much 480p content actually doing 854x480 due to lack of support. Consoles capable of 480p were really doing 640x480, but games did go natively lower to reduce GPU load.

Even when games were doing widescreen they didn't really change to a 16:9 resolution. I believe they just made the picture narrow so it would look normal when stretched wide. A few PC games actually allowed this. You could run the game at 4:3 ratio like 800x600, but there would be option to make it widescreen. I think Halo 2 did this, it ran smoother than just using 1280x720 and still looked pretty good.

I was comparing 640x480 to 1280x720p as these were the common resolutions in console gaming. Either way, even the sub HD games like CoD on 7th gen look much sharper than 480p.

Yeah, old games look much better on CRT TVs. It softens the pixels, old games also look pretty good on projector even though its HD.

When I had my Wii connected I actually used component cables. I prefer games look pixelated versus muddy on standard RCA cables.

Either way, just increasing the resolution 240p and 480p 3D games to 720p makes a world of difference in clarity. He was complaining about the transition of SD to HD. I think it was a very needed transition.

That's because CRTs are capable of displaying native resolution from source rather than fixed nature of LCD/Plasma/OLED.

Its a crying shame that that technology was dropped. SED technology held such promise before it was abandoned for LCD and Plasma. It also had considerably higher contrast ratio and lower input lag to boot.



Mr Puggsly said:

I thought 720x480 was 16:9 because that's a fairly common widescreen resolution in gaming and video.nce in clarity. He was complaining about the transition of SD to HD. I think it was a very needed transition.

Nope. It is 854x480. 16:9 is the ratio or 409,920.

720x480 is a 4:3 ratio... Or 345,600 pixels.
The PAL variant is 720x576 which is 5:4 ratio or 414,720 pixels.

Feel free to throw some numbers into this calculator.
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/ratios.php

Yes it was a very needed transition, but it wasn't as dramatic in terms of pixel count as 1080P to 4k or 720P to 1440P.

Mr Puggsly said:

Either way, I don't think we really had much 480p content actually doing 854x480 due to lack of support. Consoles capable of 480p were really doing 640x480, but games did go natively lower to reduce GPU load.

Depends on the console.
In general any console that is doing 480P widescreen is likely doing 854x480 scaling. I.E. Gamecube, Wii, Original Xbox, Xbox 360.
The rendering resolution may differ from that.

Older consoles like the Nintendo 64, Playstation 1, Sega Saturn will tend to fall towards 320x240 with some titles being 640x480.

Mr Puggsly said:

Even when games were doing widescreen they didn't really change to a 16:9 resolution. I believe they just made the picture narrow so it would look normal when stretched wide. A few PC games actually allowed this. You could run the game at 4:3 ratio like 800x600, but there would be option to make it widescreen. I think Halo 2 did this, it ran smoother than just using 1280x720 and still looked pretty good.

Again. Depends on console and the output methods used. That didn't really happen on the OG Xbox with component.

Mr Puggsly said:

I was comparing 640x480 to 1280x720p as these were the common resolutions in console gaming. Either way, even the sub HD games like CoD on 7th gen look much sharper than 480p.

They are sharper because of the output method being digital rather than analogue.

Mr Puggsly said:

Yeah, old games look much better on CRT TVs. It softens the pixels, old games also look pretty good on projector even though its HD.

Lots of aspects to consider like progressive vs interlace scanning as well.

Mr Puggsly said:

When I had my Wii connected I actually used component cables. I prefer games look pixelated versus muddy on standard RCA cables.

Component is generally better than composite due to the extra channels employed for the video.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 06 December 2019

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

hinch said:

That's because CRTs are capable of displaying native resolution from source rather than fixed nature of LCD/Plasma/OLED.

Its a crying shame that that technology was dropped. SED technology held such promise before it was abandoned for LCD and Plasma. It also had considerably higher contrast ratio and lower input lag to boot.

I just read through the link... Wow, that actually sucks. I looks like it acts like OLED in many respects and has quite a few advantages over plasma and LCD. It's a wonder what SED could have been had Toshiba actually followed through with it.



Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I thought 720x480 was 16:9 because that's a fairly common widescreen resolution in gaming and video.nce in clarity. He was complaining about the transition of SD to HD. I think it was a very needed transition.

Nope. It is 854x480. 16:9 is the ratio or 409x920.

720x480 is a 4:3 ratio... Or 345,600 pixels.
The PAL variant is 720x576 which is 5:4 ratio or 414,720 pixels.

Feel free to throw some numbers into this calculator.
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/ratios.php

Yes it was a very needed transition, but it wasn't as dramatic in terms of pixel count as 1080P to 4k or 720P to 1440P.

Mr Puggsly said:

Either way, I don't think we really had much 480p content actually doing 854x480 due to lack of support. Consoles capable of 480p were really doing 640x480, but games did go natively lower to reduce GPU load.

Depends on the console.
In general any console that is doing 480P widescreen is likely doing 854x480 scaling. I.E. Gamecube, Wii, Original Xbox, Xbox 360.
The rendering resolution may differ from that.

Older consoles like the Nintendo 64, Playstation 1, Sega Saturn will tend to fall towards 320x240 with some titles being 640x480.

Mr Puggsly said:

Even when games were doing widescreen they didn't really change to a 16:9 resolution. I believe they just made the picture narrow so it would look normal when stretched wide. A few PC games actually allowed this. You could run the game at 4:3 ratio like 800x600, but there would be option to make it widescreen. I think Halo 2 did this, it ran smoother than just using 1280x720 and still looked pretty good.

Again. Depends on console and the output methods used. That didn't really happen on the OG Xbox with component.

Mr Puggsly said:

I was comparing 640x480 to 1280x720p as these were the common resolutions in console gaming. Either way, even the sub HD games like CoD on 7th gen look much sharper than 480p.

They are sharper because of the output method being digital rather than analogue.

Mr Puggsly said:

Yeah, old games look much better on CRT TVs. It softens the pixels, old games also look pretty good on projector even though its HD.

Lots of aspects to consider like progressive vs interlace scanning as well.

Mr Puggsly said:

When I had my Wii connected I actually used component cables. I prefer games look pixelated versus muddy on standard RCA cables.

Component is generally better than composite due to the extra channels employed for the video.

The move to 480p to 720p was a very significant transition in regard to what our eyes can easily perceive. As was moving from 240p to 480p. The transition to 1080p and 4K wasn't as obvious, even if the number of pixels grew significantly.

From the little research I did, I'm pretty sure 6th gen consoles and Wii were primarily doing 640x480 natively in games, lower wasn't unusual to help performance. Although its worth noting the original Xbox had a surprising large list of games that did 720p.

Component is analog yet its at par wit HDMI. Also just by adjusting the resolution in PC games, its obvious that 480p and 720p are a world of difference.



Recently Completed
Doom 64
for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:

The move to 480p to 720p was a very significant transition in regard to what our eyes can easily perceive. As was moving from 240p to 480p. The transition to 1080p and 4K wasn't as obvious, even if the number of pixels grew significantly.

I agree. The move from 480P to 720P was a significant transition.
Some consoles (Like the Switch and WiiU) are able to show us the differences of say... 480P and 720P in real time though.

It's not as significant though as the transition from 6th gen to 7th gen +480P to 720P, because that also generally had an accompanying shift in output technology. (Analogue to Digital.)

The shift to 4k can be just as big, all depends on your panel size and how far you sit from it, but it's very noticeable when I shift from the Xbox One X with a game racing towards a 4k output to a Nintendo Switch/Xbox One/Playstation 4 game which tops out at 1080P.

Mr Puggsly said:

From the little research I did, I'm pretty sure 6th gen consoles and Wii were primarily doing 640x480 natively in games, lower wasn't unusual to help performance. Although its worth noting the original Xbox had a surprising large list of games that did 720p.

640x480 and 720x480 titles typically relied on Anamorphic widescreen on the Gamecube and Wii. That's the output.
Doesn't mean they aren't rendering games internally at 854x480... In-fact many games on Gamecube and Wii did 512x448 or less.
I.E. Dragon Ball Budokai 2 was 512x224 on the Gamecube or 224P.

However the Wii's internal frambuffer allows for 854x480.

Worthy of mention is that the WiiU's gamepad is also 480P or 854x480 and many switch games fall to that same resolution.

But for a true 480P 16:9 widescreen image the resolution is most certainly 854×480.

Mr Puggsly said:

Component is analog yet its at par wit HDMI. Also just by adjusting the resolution in PC games, its obvious that 480p and 720p are a world of difference.

Component is nowhere near HDMI. - Component tops out at 1080 interlaced for starters...
I have a component+composite+HDMI cable for the Xbox 360 and the difference is night and day. HDMI > Component > Composite in that order.

The difference between 480P and 720P differences and how pronounced those differences are... Of course stems from display type (I.E. Native resolution), display size and distance from the display.
The difference between 480P and 720P on a PC via CRT monitor is stuff all.
The difference between 480P and 720P on an LCD panel which is 720P/1080P native is massive.

Digital Foundry did a CRT breakdown just recently, go check that video out.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--