Rumor: Xbox "Lockhart" specs leaked, is $300

[Mr Puggsly]

goopy20 said:

Mr Puggsly said:

An obvious problem with your argument and graphs is you're looking at 4K resolution with highest graphics settings.

Current gen games on consoles don't necessarily run games at highest graphics settings, its often more like a mix of low, medium and high. They lower the graphics settings primarily to maintain a high resolution.

Look at this video of RDR2 for example. The low and medium settings is probably more reflective of the console settings. The ultra settings are well beyond what we get on consoles and gets about half the frame rate of low and medium. Meanwhile high settings looks good and sits comfortably at 60 fps.

Like you I agree aiming for 4K can be a waste of resources, but aiming for ultra settings can also be a waste when high already looks comparable and runs much better. However, another compromise is ultra settings with a dynamic resolution. But if developers do aim for 4K/60 fps, its evident 4K with high settings is fine in this scenario.

That's true but I already said ultra settings are also an enormous waste of resources. You can take almost any current gen game and buckle a 2080ti to it's knees by using ultra or insane settings. That's why developers usually stay clear of settings like that on consoles. They want to be as efficient as possible and won't use settings that take up too much resources with a relatively small gain in visuals. It's why things like FXAA and checkerboard rendering exists.

If you feel max settings can be a waste of resources, why do you keep posting graphs using those settings?

RDR2 on current gen machines is essentially low/med settings at 30 fps. But it looks like next gen specs can do 4K/60 fps with higher settings.

Hence, 4K and/or 60 fps becomes more accessible as long as developers don't waste too much resources on visual effects with little impact on overall visual fidelity.