Scarlett Will Prioritize Frame Rate Over Graphics

[Mr Puggsly]

SpokenTruth said:

Mr Puggsly said:

It helps if MS gives them the specs to achieve 60 fps with relative ease.

I think its safe to assume more X1X and Pro games would offer 60 fps if the CPU wasn't so limited.

That's not exactly how that works.  Frame rate is a a bit of a trade off between what a machine is capable of and how much you throw at it (super simplified statement).

If you crank up the power, a developer would just crank up the effects, res, A.I, physics, etc...    Frame rate is a consciously targeted aspect of game development. It's not a feature a console just does. Can certain balances in specs help?  Yes, but that's going to be game dependent. You can't just make it apply to all game types, engines, etc...

Also, to add a little of what Permalite is referring to.  Pixel density per arc-minute resolution.  Combine that with higher bit digital channels and different display technologies and you can get scenarios where common wisdom on resolution flies right out the window.

They did crank up the power with X1X significantly and we got various examples of increased effects, resolution, textures and even more games with 60 fps due to less GPU bottleneck and increased CPU power.

Hypothetically, if the X1X had no CPU upgrade, then it would have less games with a 60 fps option. If the CPU power simply isn't there then attempts at 60 fps just won't happen as often.

If 9th gen consoles have massive increase to CPU power, like what's needed to run RDR2 or an open world heavy physicas experience like Just Cause at 60+ fps. Then they should be in a good position to make 60 fps more common even if its not at 4K. Maybe not in every single game, but certainly more common. I don't think anybody is arguing every experience absolutely needs to be a 60 fps experience. But it can be more common with appropriate specs for doing so even in current gen games.