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! 16 34.78%
 
No. 3 6.52%
 
Depends on the game. 21 45.65%
 
I dont care. 6 13.04%
 
Total:46
CGI-Quality said:

The only reason you'd notice a difference is because of the lack of a 55" 1440p TV. Otherwise, in a like-for-like situation, the difference gets smaller (hence why many PC gamers opt for 1440/144Hz over 4K/60 on 27-32" monitors). There's not a huge difference between those resolutions. HDR makes a bigger difference.

Well if we are comparing 32inch monitors side by side with one at 4k and the other at 1440p, than there will be very little difference. However when you jump to 55inch screens and above, 1440p starts to look blurry or stretched. You will want to start hitting 4k on the bigger screens. 4k on a 4k TV is outstanding, anything below starts to become noticeable to my eyes when using big screens. The bigger the screen the more pixels you will want. HDR does make a difference as well, HDR combined with native 4k is the obvious sweet spot for these new TVs.



Around the Network

I prefer 120fps VR, any word on VR headset plans for Scarlet?



Hard to sell frame rates to casuals. If the game looks dated some will likely skip it.



Depends on the game. But I agree that the majority of games would benefit from 60FPS



 

Azzanation said:
CGI-Quality said:

The only reason you'd notice a difference is because of the lack of a 55" 1440p TV. Otherwise, in a like-for-like situation, the difference gets smaller (hence why many PC gamers opt for 1440/144Hz over 4K/60 on 27-32" monitors). There's not a huge difference between those resolutions. HDR makes a bigger difference.

Well if we are comparing 32inch monitors side by side with one at 4k and the other at 1440p, than there will be very little difference. However when you jump to 55inch screens and above, 1440p starts to look blurry or stretched. You will want to start hitting 4k on the bigger screens. 4k on a 4k TV is outstanding, anything below starts to become noticeable to my eyes when using big screens. The bigger the screen the more pixels you will want. HDR does make a difference as well, HDR combined with native 4k is the obvious sweet spot for these new TVs.

This confirms what I've said already, that unless you're able to provide 55" screens under like-for-like conditions, the existence of 4K isn't that big of a leap over 1440p. And, HDR doesn't simply just make a difference, it is bigger than just the pixel bump.

For just this very topic, here is an unmissable read. Sure, 8m vs 3.6m pixels is a big deal, but when you start pealing back the goods, you realize that things are not so simple. Never mind that most people are seeing in Ultra HD, not true 4K.

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 16 August 2019

                                                                                                                                            

Around the Network

Isn't framerate vs graphics largely up to the developers? I mean, maybe MS will force framerate over graphics on its own developers?



Won't matter what they prioritize if they don't have RPGs. I would prefer stable good frame rates. If that is 1080p/60fs than I prefer that over 4k/30fps. I don't really give a damn about 4k itself. I don't even have a 4k tv and I probably won't until I can get a 34" 4k tv for a cheap enough price.

Last edited by dharh - on 16 August 2019

A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.



Nice. Horizon 4 looks gorgeous in 4k but I always play in the 60fps mode. 



I don't know which is funnier. To see a layman discussing spec, engines, limitations etc against Pemalite or CGI-Quality.
The guy develop assets and is part on game design but would know less about the difference on pixel count, framerate, etc than regular user of VGC.
I do love my 4k on 65" at 5ft from the TV, and I may discuss my impressions (which may be false perception) on the differences, but on technical discussion would be silly stuborness to disprove what is being said (with sources) by CGI.



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

Interview reads more like it’s Microsoft who will be prioritizing frame rate over graphics, which makes more sense. They’ll nail it. Look at Scorpio. So much talk about how it would barely see native 4k games since the Pro was struggling to produce many at all and Scorpio ended up getting a ton of them. 

BC is another interesting tidbit from that interview. Apparently they’re going to continue expanding the BC of older games on Scarlett? I was under the assumption they closed BC down. I guess that was just for this gen. And wow controllers are going to be BC? I guess I forgot about that. That’s amazing because the Xbone pad is my favorite ever, just ahead of DC.