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
DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

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.

And still wouldn't look better than Horizon, Spider-Man, TLOU2 or God of War on PS4Pro being 30% weaker.

Doubling the fps will take away from what is possible on IQ, be it resolution, effects or anything else.

You're missing the point, there are games that look great while doing 60 fps. Especially on Premium hardware.

Gears 5, BFV and the latest CoD are all great looking games even while doing 60 fps. Also, they all have higher resolutions on X1X than all the PS4 games you mentioned.

God of War has a 60 fps mode and I think it only affects the resolution. Its not locked at 60 fps probably due to lack of CPU power. Seems to stay around 45-60 fps from a quick glance at a VGTech video.

Edit: I just saw the DF video look at TLoU2 on Pro. Its 1440p, in theory they could lower the resolution for 60 fps. But its unlikely the CPU could maintain 60 fps. If next gen hardware has great CPUs, then hitting 60 fps will be easier with just a resolution compromise.

Also, games shouldn't have to scale back effects if they compromise resolution enough. But sometimes effects are scaled to use less CPU power, a big issue on 8th gen specs. Which should be less of an issue for next gen.

Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 06 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:
DonFerrari said:

And still wouldn't look better than Horizon, Spider-Man, TLOU2 or God of War on PS4Pro being 30% weaker.

Doubling the fps will take away from what is possible on IQ, be it resolution, effects or anything else.

You're missing the point, there are games that look great while doing 60 fps. Especially on Premium hardware.

Gears 5, BFV and the latest CoD are all great looking games even while doing 60 fps. Also, they all have higher resolutions on X1X than all the PS4 games you mentioned.

God of War has a 60 fps mode and I think it only affects the resolution. Its not locked at 60 fps probably due to lack of CPU power. Seems to stay around 45-60 fps from a quick glance at a VGTech video.

Edit: I just saw the DF video look at TLoU2 on Pro. Its 1440p, in theory they could lower the resolution for 60 fps. But its unlikely the CPU could maintain 60 fps. If next gen hardware has great CPUs, then hitting 60 fps will be easier with just a resolution compromise.

Also, games shouldn't have to scale back effects if they compromise resolution enough. But sometimes effects are scaled to use less CPU power, a big issue on 8th gen specs. Which should be less of an issue for next gen.

Nope, you miss the point. The graphics will look better if the choose 30fps instead of 60fps, that much is certain.

And none of the games you listed looks better than GoW, SM or TLOU2.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

You're missing the point, there are games that look great while doing 60 fps. Especially on Premium hardware.

Gears 5, BFV and the latest CoD are all great looking games even while doing 60 fps. Also, they all have higher resolutions on X1X than all the PS4 games you mentioned.

God of War has a 60 fps mode and I think it only affects the resolution. Its not locked at 60 fps probably due to lack of CPU power. Seems to stay around 45-60 fps from a quick glance at a VGTech video.

Edit: I just saw the DF video look at TLoU2 on Pro. Its 1440p, in theory they could lower the resolution for 60 fps. But its unlikely the CPU could maintain 60 fps. If next gen hardware has great CPUs, then hitting 60 fps will be easier with just a resolution compromise.

Also, games shouldn't have to scale back effects if they compromise resolution enough. But sometimes effects are scaled to use less CPU power, a big issue on 8th gen specs. Which should be less of an issue for next gen.

Nope, you miss the point. The graphics will look better if the choose 30fps instead of 60fps, that much is certain.

And none of the games you listed looks better than GoW, SM or TLOU2.

In some ways CoD:MW, BFV and Gears 5 certainly look better than GoW, SM and even TLoU2. They also achieve 60 fps and have higher resolutions than 1440p (that's extra GPU power working).

More importantly, GoW demonstrates those same graphics can function in the ballpark of 60 fps with a lower resolution. I would actually say Gears 5 looks better than Spider-Man and God of War even though its 60 fps with a much higher resolution. But its not open world like Spider-Man.



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:
DonFerrari said:

Nope, you miss the point. The graphics will look better if the choose 30fps instead of 60fps, that much is certain.

And none of the games you listed looks better than GoW, SM or TLOU2.

In some ways CoD:MW, BFV and Gears 5 certainly look better than GoW, SM and even TLoU2. They also achieve 60 fps and have higher resolutions than 1440p (that's extra GPU power working).

More importantly, GoW demonstrates those same graphics can function in the ballpark of 60 fps with a lower resolution. I would actually say Gears 5 looks better than Spider-Man and God of War even though its 60 fps with a much higher resolution. But its not open world like Spider-Man.

In which way does it certainly looks better than these games?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

In some ways CoD:MW, BFV and Gears 5 certainly look better than GoW, SM and even TLoU2. They also achieve 60 fps and have higher resolutions than 1440p (that's extra GPU power working).

More importantly, GoW demonstrates those same graphics can function in the ballpark of 60 fps with a lower resolution. I would actually say Gears 5 looks better than Spider-Man and God of War even though its 60 fps with a much higher resolution. But its not open world like Spider-Man.

In which way does it certainly looks better than these games?

Different effects, attention to detail in different aspects, much smoother performance and higher resolution doesn't hurt either.

These are also games varying in scale. Some have large open areas, some are more linear. God of War and Gears 5 being the most linear.



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
Chrkeller said:
4k is terms of resolution is so overrated. Unless one has a massive screen or sits incredibly close, 1080p is fine. What is important is HDR, not the actual pixel count. As far as I'm concerned:

1440p + HDR + 60 fps

This times a thousand! I've had my 1440p IPS HDR monitor for about a month. Games look better on it than my 55 inch 4K HDR TV, whether I'm running those games from my PS4 Pro or my PC. 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Mr Puggsly said:

480p is fine... on a screen that's a few inches these days.

I'm not really sure what your point about modern gaming on CRT monitors is. I agree games look good on them but they're also a much higher resolution than 480p CRT TVs. If they were playing those same games at say... 480p, it would look bad.

Nah.
Ironically, Digital Foundry has a new video that backs up my argument on the unimportant of resolution depending on display technology employed... 480P on a 24" CRT is going to look good.



Mr Puggsly said:

I mean 1024x768 (resolution he played Control) is actually pretty close to 960x720 (720p cut to a 4:3 ratio). I feel 720p even now is fine for most modern gaming, its not amazing but acceptable for pretty much all games.

1024x768 is 4:3 aspect for a pixel count of 786,432 pixels.
960x720 is 4:3 aspect for a pixel count of 691,200 pixels.
1280x720 is 16:9 aspect for a pixel count of 921,600 pixels.

That is a difference of 13.78% between 1024x768 and 960x720 and a difference of 33% between 960x720 to 1280x720.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/percentage-calculator.html
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/ratios.php

I agree 720P is acceptable for gaming, depending on display technology, display size and the distance you sit from the display.
I still disagree that it's a catastrophic leap from 16:9 480P/854x480 when the above factors are taken into account.

Mr Puggsly said:

I actually played a lot of PS3 and 360 on a 480p CRT TV, games probably looked better due to the higher native resolution. But small text was mud. I imagine playing 7th/8th gen RTS games on a 480p display could be difficult as well, I've already had trouble distinguishing units at 720p unless I zoom in.

I still have my Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 hooked up to a 480P 5:4 aspect CRT TV in the games room.

I haven't had much issues with text.

Watch the Digital Foundry video above and the effect lower resolutions have on games with a CRT. It's not even an issue.
The evidence has literally been provided.


As for RTS games, depends on the game. Halo Wars for example, the units and buildings were excessively large, so it will scale well to a CRT anyway, StarCraft 64 looked good on a CRT and I would argue that wasn't as refined as Halo Wars.

Mr Puggsly said:

You're missing the point. I know there is a big difference between 720p, 1080 or 1440p on a HD/4K TV or PC monitor. I'm really saying 720p looks okay even on a large 4K screen. In many modern PC games, 720p is a functional resolution that's still somewhat sharp and reading text shouldn't be an issue. Many modern games in 480p, it just turns into a mess.

I am not missing the point. I am disagreeing with your point.

720P will look like trash on a 75" 4k, OLED display. It's as simple as that.

But it will look "fine" on a 6" Switch Display just like 480P. - Or it would look great on a 24" 4:3 CRT as the scanlines aren't really pronounced at that resolution.

On any high-resolution, large flat panel display that you sit up-close to... 480 and 720P will look like trash.

DonFerrari said:

How much impact would you expect on the visuals of a game if they gone from 2160p30fps to 2160i60fps?

Would that basically generate the same processing power need (since you are trading half the lines for double the refresh rate)? And the quality of the image would be much worsened? And if that half lines used the technique of temporal holding the old line so it refreshes half the lines but keep the older one for another frame?

Depends on the game and the hardware in use, there are specialized scalers which work extremely well to reconstruct interlace feeds into progressive.
Otherwise the issue with interlace is you get "line" artifacts with fast motion.



In short though, interlaced is half the bandwidth.

Mr Puggsly said:

Edit: I just saw the DF video look at TLoU2 on Pro. Its 1440p, in theory they could lower the resolution for 60 fps. But its unlikely the CPU could maintain 60 fps. If next gen hardware has great CPUs, then hitting 60 fps will be easier with just a resolution compromise.

It's not just the CPU that limits you from achieving 60fps, the GPU and memory plays a role and can hold back framerates.

Mr Puggsly said:

In some ways CoD:MW, BFV and Gears 5 certainly look better than GoW, SM and even TLoU2. They also achieve 60 fps and have higher resolutions than 1440p (that's extra GPU power working).

More importantly, GoW demonstrates those same graphics can function in the ballpark of 60 fps with a lower resolution. I would actually say Gears 5 looks better than Spider-Man and God of War even though its 60 fps with a much higher resolution. But its not open world like Spider-Man.

Games have a "render time". - You double your framerate, you halve the time you need to render a games scene for it to be displayed.

In short, if you halve your framerate to 30fps, then you have twice the render time to add in more graphics effects.
Those games which look stunning at 60fps, they would certainly look better with half the render time and more effects added in.

Cerebralbore101 said:
Chrkeller said:
4k is terms of resolution is so overrated. Unless one has a massive screen or sits incredibly close, 1080p is fine. What is important is HDR, not the actual pixel count. As far as I'm concerned:

1440p + HDR + 60 fps

This times a thousand! I've had my 1440p IPS HDR monitor for about a month. Games look better on it than my 55 inch 4K HDR TV, whether I'm running those games from my PS4 Pro or my PC. 

Depends on the person.
But I have found that the current "Sweet spot" is 1440P, it's sharper than 1080P, but not as demanding on the hardware as 4k, so you CAN dial up the visual effects and framerates.

It's a shame that TV's don't really come with a 1440P native resolution in the low-end or mid-range, it's a jump from 1080P to 4k, which means that scaling needs to be employed on 4k panels with content that isn't 4k, which just doesn't look as nice.

Either way, it is what it is, 4k content is getting more common thankfully.






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

Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

480p is fine... on a screen that's a few inches these days.

I'm not really sure what your point about modern gaming on CRT monitors is. I agree games look good on them but they're also a much higher resolution than 480p CRT TVs. If they were playing those same games at say... 480p, it would look bad.

Nah.
Ironically, Digital Foundry has a new video that backs up my argument on the unimportant of resolution depending on display technology employed... 480P on a 24" CRT is going to look good.

Mr Puggsly said:

I mean 1024x768 (resolution he played Control) is actually pretty close to 960x720 (720p cut to a 4:3 ratio). I feel 720p even now is fine for most modern gaming, its not amazing but acceptable for pretty much all games.

1024x768 is 4:3 aspect for a pixel count of 786,432 pixels.
960x720 is 4:3 aspect for a pixel count of 691,200 pixels.
1280x720 is 16:9 aspect for a pixel count of 921,600 pixels.

That is a difference of 13.78% between 1024x768 and 960x720 and a difference of 33% between 960x720 to 1280x720.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/percentage-calculator.html
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/ratios.php

I agree 720P is acceptable for gaming, depending on display technology, display size and the distance you sit from the display.
I still disagree that it's a catastrophic leap from 16:9 480P/854x480 when the above factors are taken into account.

Mr Puggsly said:

I actually played a lot of PS3 and 360 on a 480p CRT TV, games probably looked better due to the higher native resolution. But small text was mud. I imagine playing 7th/8th gen RTS games on a 480p display could be difficult as well, I've already had trouble distinguishing units at 720p unless I zoom in.

I still have my Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 hooked up to a 480P 5:4 aspect CRT TV in the games room.

I haven't had much issues with text.

Watch the Digital Foundry video above and the effect lower resolutions have on games with a CRT. It's not even an issue.
The evidence has literally been provided.


As for RTS games, depends on the game. Halo Wars for example, the units and buildings were excessively large, so it will scale well to a CRT anyway, StarCraft 64 looked good on a CRT and I would argue that wasn't as refined as Halo Wars.

Mr Puggsly said:

You're missing the point. I know there is a big difference between 720p, 1080 or 1440p on a HD/4K TV or PC monitor. I'm really saying 720p looks okay even on a large 4K screen. In many modern PC games, 720p is a functional resolution that's still somewhat sharp and reading text shouldn't be an issue. Many modern games in 480p, it just turns into a mess.

I am not missing the point. I am disagreeing with your point.

720P will look like trash on a 75" 4k, OLED display. It's as simple as that.

But it will look "fine" on a 6" Switch Display just like 480P. - Or it would look great on a 24" 4:3 CRT as the scanlines aren't really pronounced at that resolution.

On any high-resolution, large flat panel display that you sit up-close to... 480 and 720P will look like trash.

Mr Puggsly said:

Edit: I just saw the DF video look at TLoU2 on Pro. Its 1440p, in theory they could lower the resolution for 60 fps. But its unlikely the CPU could maintain 60 fps. If next gen hardware has great CPUs, then hitting 60 fps will be easier with just a resolution compromise.

It's not just the CPU that limits you from achieving 60fps, the GPU and memory plays a role and can hold back framerates.

Mr Puggsly said:

In some ways CoD:MW, BFV and Gears 5 certainly look better than GoW, SM and even TLoU2. They also achieve 60 fps and have higher resolutions than 1440p (that's extra GPU power working).

More importantly, GoW demonstrates those same graphics can function in the ballpark of 60 fps with a lower resolution. I would actually say Gears 5 looks better than Spider-Man and God of War even though its 60 fps with a much higher resolution. But its not open world like Spider-Man.

Games have a "render time". - You double your framerate, you halve the time you need to render a games scene for it to be displayed.

In short, if you halve your framerate to 30fps, then you have twice the render time to add in more graphics effects.
Those games which look stunning at 60fps, they would certainly look better with half the render time and more effects added in.

If you're playing a 480p game, it'll look okay on a 480p CRT screen. It can still look a bit muddy depending on the input from my experience, but even HD games can be acceptable as well.

However, 480p will look crappy on 768p CRT monitor. Its simply a low resolution (for 3D games) so it looks poor on pretty much any screen 720p or higher. To the contrary, 720p can look good even on 4K displays especially with a good anti aliasing solution, maybe temporal effects, etc.

I'm saying 720p is about the resolution you need for tiny objects to be fairly crisp and small text to be easily readable. You can also apply good AA effects to clean up the noise. With 480p though, its just too low for many games on an average home display.

Halo Wars probably seemed "excessively" large because the base was just a cluster of buildings. When you zoom out it looks at par with other RTS games.

The RTS games on 5th gen consoles were only 240p and generally cartoonish. They were generally bright colorful to distinguish objects.

I've played 720p games on a large 4K screen and could tell you it looked fine. Not ideal, not nearly as muddy or pixelated like 480p would be either. That's not something you can really disagree with, this is objective. You speak as if 480p and 720p look about equal on large 4K displays. Obviously there is a huge difference.

I'm aware 60 fps put stress on GPU as well. TLoU2 is running 1440p/30 fps on the Pro, it could potentially achieve 60 fps at 1080p if CPU bottleneck wasn't an issue. GoW in performance mode is 1080p with frame rate around 45-60 fps, this is probably CPU bottleneck as well.

So yeah... thank you for explaining graphics can look better at 30 fps. I'm explaining games can also keep high quality graphics settings with resolution compromise. But of course, CPU bottleneck is often an issue that a low resolution can't solve.



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:
DonFerrari said:

In which way does it certainly looks better than these games?

Different effects, attention to detail in different aspects, much smoother performance and higher resolution doesn't hurt either.

These are also games varying in scale. Some have large open areas, some are more linear. God of War and Gears 5 being the most linear.

Using different techniques doesn't make they look better.

GoW is plenty open, you can go to any area in the game without having a loading, the full game is a single setpiece.

None of the games you listed look better on Xbox than the games I listed for PS4Pro. If you want to pick games on the best PC HW then sure you can find some.

Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

480p is fine... on a screen that's a few inches these days.

I'm not really sure what your point about modern gaming on CRT monitors is. I agree games look good on them but they're also a much higher resolution than 480p CRT TVs. If they were playing those same games at say... 480p, it would look bad.

Nah.
Ironically, Digital Foundry has a new video that backs up my argument on the unimportant of resolution depending on display technology employed... 480P on a 24" CRT is going to look good.



Mr Puggsly said:

I mean 1024x768 (resolution he played Control) is actually pretty close to 960x720 (720p cut to a 4:3 ratio). I feel 720p even now is fine for most modern gaming, its not amazing but acceptable for pretty much all games.

1024x768 is 4:3 aspect for a pixel count of 786,432 pixels.
960x720 is 4:3 aspect for a pixel count of 691,200 pixels.
1280x720 is 16:9 aspect for a pixel count of 921,600 pixels.

That is a difference of 13.78% between 1024x768 and 960x720 and a difference of 33% between 960x720 to 1280x720.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/percentage-calculator.html
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/ratios.php

I agree 720P is acceptable for gaming, depending on display technology, display size and the distance you sit from the display.
I still disagree that it's a catastrophic leap from 16:9 480P/854x480 when the above factors are taken into account.

Mr Puggsly said:

I actually played a lot of PS3 and 360 on a 480p CRT TV, games probably looked better due to the higher native resolution. But small text was mud. I imagine playing 7th/8th gen RTS games on a 480p display could be difficult as well, I've already had trouble distinguishing units at 720p unless I zoom in.

I still have my Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 hooked up to a 480P 5:4 aspect CRT TV in the games room.

I haven't had much issues with text.

Watch the Digital Foundry video above and the effect lower resolutions have on games with a CRT. It's not even an issue.
The evidence has literally been provided.


As for RTS games, depends on the game. Halo Wars for example, the units and buildings were excessively large, so it will scale well to a CRT anyway, StarCraft 64 looked good on a CRT and I would argue that wasn't as refined as Halo Wars.

Mr Puggsly said:

You're missing the point. I know there is a big difference between 720p, 1080 or 1440p on a HD/4K TV or PC monitor. I'm really saying 720p looks okay even on a large 4K screen. In many modern PC games, 720p is a functional resolution that's still somewhat sharp and reading text shouldn't be an issue. Many modern games in 480p, it just turns into a mess.

I am not missing the point. I am disagreeing with your point.

720P will look like trash on a 75" 4k, OLED display. It's as simple as that.

But it will look "fine" on a 6" Switch Display just like 480P. - Or it would look great on a 24" 4:3 CRT as the scanlines aren't really pronounced at that resolution.

On any high-resolution, large flat panel display that you sit up-close to... 480 and 720P will look like trash.

DonFerrari said:

How much impact would you expect on the visuals of a game if they gone from 2160p30fps to 2160i60fps?

Would that basically generate the same processing power need (since you are trading half the lines for double the refresh rate)? And the quality of the image would be much worsened? And if that half lines used the technique of temporal holding the old line so it refreshes half the lines but keep the older one for another frame?

Depends on the game and the hardware in use, there are specialized scalers which work extremely well to reconstruct interlace feeds into progressive.
Otherwise the issue with interlace is you get "line" artifacts with fast motion.



In short though, interlaced is half the bandwidth.

Mr Puggsly said:

Edit: I just saw the DF video look at TLoU2 on Pro. Its 1440p, in theory they could lower the resolution for 60 fps. But its unlikely the CPU could maintain 60 fps. If next gen hardware has great CPUs, then hitting 60 fps will be easier with just a resolution compromise.

It's not just the CPU that limits you from achieving 60fps, the GPU and memory plays a role and can hold back framerates.

Mr Puggsly said:

In some ways CoD:MW, BFV and Gears 5 certainly look better than GoW, SM and even TLoU2. They also achieve 60 fps and have higher resolutions than 1440p (that's extra GPU power working).

More importantly, GoW demonstrates those same graphics can function in the ballpark of 60 fps with a lower resolution. I would actually say Gears 5 looks better than Spider-Man and God of War even though its 60 fps with a much higher resolution. But its not open world like Spider-Man.

Games have a "render time". - You double your framerate, you halve the time you need to render a games scene for it to be displayed.

In short, if you halve your framerate to 30fps, then you have twice the render time to add in more graphics effects.
Those games which look stunning at 60fps, they would certainly look better with half the render time and more effects added in.

Cerebralbore101 said:

This times a thousand! I've had my 1440p IPS HDR monitor for about a month. Games look better on it than my 55 inch 4K HDR TV, whether I'm running those games from my PS4 Pro or my PC. 

Depends on the person.
But I have found that the current "Sweet spot" is 1440P, it's sharper than 1080P, but not as demanding on the hardware as 4k, so you CAN dial up the visual effects and framerates.

It's a shame that TV's don't really come with a 1440P native resolution in the low-end or mid-range, it's a jump from 1080P to 4k, which means that scaling needs to be employed on 4k panels with content that isn't 4k, which just doesn't look as nice.

Either way, it is what it is, 4k content is getting more common thankfully.

Thanks for the input.

On the 1440p rendering on console, they can opt to "save" the entry level tvs with upscalers on the console itself (like MS and I think Sony also used on X1X and PS4Pro). Sure they would rather have 4k rendering, but we all know that by gen end with other effects improving it will have to take a hit on resolution so an upscaler would be helpful.

Mr Puggsly said:
Pemalite said:

Nah.
Ironically, Digital Foundry has a new video that backs up my argument on the unimportant of resolution depending on display technology employed... 480P on a 24" CRT is going to look good.

1024x768 is 4:3 aspect for a pixel count of 786,432 pixels.
960x720 is 4:3 aspect for a pixel count of 691,200 pixels.
1280x720 is 16:9 aspect for a pixel count of 921,600 pixels.

That is a difference of 13.78% between 1024x768 and 960x720 and a difference of 33% between 960x720 to 1280x720.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/percentage-calculator.html
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/ratios.php

I agree 720P is acceptable for gaming, depending on display technology, display size and the distance you sit from the display.
I still disagree that it's a catastrophic leap from 16:9 480P/854x480 when the above factors are taken into account.

I still have my Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 hooked up to a 480P 5:4 aspect CRT TV in the games room.

I haven't had much issues with text.

Watch the Digital Foundry video above and the effect lower resolutions have on games with a CRT. It's not even an issue.
The evidence has literally been provided.


As for RTS games, depends on the game. Halo Wars for example, the units and buildings were excessively large, so it will scale well to a CRT anyway, StarCraft 64 looked good on a CRT and I would argue that wasn't as refined as Halo Wars.

I am not missing the point. I am disagreeing with your point.

720P will look like trash on a 75" 4k, OLED display. It's as simple as that.

But it will look "fine" on a 6" Switch Display just like 480P. - Or it would look great on a 24" 4:3 CRT as the scanlines aren't really pronounced at that resolution.

On any high-resolution, large flat panel display that you sit up-close to... 480 and 720P will look like trash.

It's not just the CPU that limits you from achieving 60fps, the GPU and memory plays a role and can hold back framerates.

Games have a "render time". - You double your framerate, you halve the time you need to render a games scene for it to be displayed.

In short, if you halve your framerate to 30fps, then you have twice the render time to add in more graphics effects.
Those games which look stunning at 60fps, they would certainly look better with half the render time and more effects added in.

If you're playing a 480p game, it'll look okay on a 480p CRT screen. It can still look a bit muddy depending on the input from my experience, but even HD games can be acceptable as well.

However, 480p will look crappy on 768p CRT monitor. Its simply a low resolution (for 3D games) so it looks poor on pretty much any screen 720p or higher. To the contrary, 720p can look good even on 4K displays especially with a good anti aliasing solution, maybe temporal effects, etc.

I'm saying 720p is about the resolution you need for tiny objects to be fairly crisp and small text to be easily readable. You can also apply good AA effects to clean up the noise. With 480p though, its just too low for many games on an average home display.

Halo Wars probably seemed "excessively" large because the base was just a cluster of buildings. When you zoom out it looks at par with other RTS games.

The RTS games on 5th gen consoles were only 240p and generally cartoonish. They were generally bright colorful to distinguish objects.

I've played 720p games on a large 4K screen and could tell you it looked fine. Not ideal, not nearly as muddy or pixelated like 480p would be either. That's not something you can really disagree with, this is objective. You speak as if 480p and 720p look about equal on large 4K displays. Obviously there is a huge difference.

I'm aware 60 fps put stress on GPU as well. TLoU2 is running 1440p/30 fps on the Pro, it could potentially achieve 60 fps at 1080p if CPU bottleneck wasn't an issue. GoW in performance mode is 1080p with frame rate around 45-60 fps, this is probably CPU bottleneck as well.

So yeah... thank you for explaining graphics can look better at 30 fps. I'm explaining games can also keep high quality graphics settings with resolution compromise. But of course, CPU bottleneck is often an issue that a low resolution can't solve.

You really don't get it. If the CPU wasn't the bottleneck and smooth 60fps happen for that game then you are using roughly twice the power on the GPU to have that graphic.

So doesn't matter where you look from reducing fps from 60 to 30 increase what is possible in graphical achievement, it is that simple.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Mr Puggsly said:

If you're playing a 480p game, it'll look okay on a 480p CRT screen. It can still look a bit muddy depending on the input from my experience, but even HD games can be acceptable as well.

I have provided evidence that completely contradicts this statement.
Try again.

Mr Puggsly said:

However, 480p will look crappy on 768p CRT monitor. Its simply a low resolution (for 3D games) so it looks poor on pretty much any screen 720p or higher. To the contrary, 720p can look good even on 4K displays especially with a good anti aliasing solution, maybe temporal effects, etc.

I have provided evidence that completely contradicts this statement.
Try again.

Mr Puggsly said:

I'm saying 720p is about the resolution you need for tiny objects to be fairly crisp and small text to be easily readable. You can also apply good AA effects to clean up the noise. With 480p though, its just too low for many games on an average home display.

I have provided evidence that completely contradicts this statement.
Try again.

Mr Puggsly said:

Halo Wars probably seemed "excessively" large because the base was just a cluster of buildings. When you zoom out it looks at par with other RTS games.

It's not just the "buildings" that were large.
The units and doodads were as well.

It actually had to be in order to look palatable on a display you sit a distance from and function optimally with a slow console controller.

Even zoomed out... It's still much larger than say... Total Annihilation units zoomed out on PC.

Mr Puggsly said:

The RTS games on 5th gen consoles were only 240p and generally cartoonish. They were generally bright colorful to distinguish objects.

And?

Mr Puggsly said:

I've played 720p games on a large 4K screen and could tell you it looked fine. Not ideal, not nearly as muddy or pixelated like 480p would be either. That's not something you can really disagree with, this is objective. You speak as if 480p and 720p look about equal on large 4K displays. Obviously there is a huge difference.

The scaling will always make a 720P image on a 4k screen non-optimal unless you have a high quality scaler.
Otherwise 1080P content being a perfect division of 3840x2160 scales far better.

Yes there is a difference between 480P and 720P. That isn't the argument I have put forth, please go back and re-read my posts instead of ignoring them and the evidence presented.

The point I am trying to convey is that the difference between 480P and 720P isn't as significant as other resolution gaps.

DonFerrari said:

Thanks for the input.

On the 1440p rendering on console, they can opt to "save" the entry level tvs with upscalers on the console itself (like MS and I think Sony also used on X1X and PS4Pro). Sure they would rather have 4k rendering, but we all know that by gen end with other effects improving it will have to take a hit on resolution so an upscaler would be helpful.

I think in general developers are moving away from plain-jane "upscaling" and opting towards reconstruction techniques which offer higher levels of fidelity.

By default all the 8th and 9th consoles have a high quality upscaler built into the AMD GPU anyway.




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