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

[victor83fernandes]

CGI-Quality said:

victor83fernandes said:

I completely agree with you, 1080p is more than enough for anything up to 32inches, and 1440p is more than enough for anything up to 120inches.

Uh, 1440 on a 120" screen would look, to put it mildy, bad.

We will not get much benefit from 4K

Wrong. We already have, including corrective aliasing that rids the need to do it through hardware.

they should use resources to improve graphics and performance in games. Example, would people prefer red dead 2 graphics at 1440p or red dead 1 at 4K? I'd prefer graphics, because my red dead 1 at 4K on my xbox X doesn't look better than my red dead 2 on my ps4

Well, no, it wouldn't, because Red Dead is a last gen game simply using a better resolution and not truly taking advantage of the better hardware. That's not a fault of 4K.

Resolution is the new megapixels, all about numbers to upsell.

Wrong again. That would be teraflops.

For me, having experience with PCs, I know for a fact that I prefer 16xAA over higher resolution, the 16xAA will have a cleaner picture than 4K with no AA

16xAA and lower resolutions will also keep you from seeing the finer details, leaving the trade-off and canceling out the whole point.

My take.

You could have fooled me, the xbox X looks amazing on my 1080p projector at 120inches, way more impressive than my 4K 50inch Panasonic. Everyone seems to be in awe with the projector and not once has anyone mentioned resolution. Movies have been 1080p for ages and they looked amazing no one ever complained of bluray poor image. 4K bluray only exists to make money as those are expensive, but in real life most people do not need 4K, theres many other aspects of the image that have more impact.

Even high end PCs struggle to get 4K at 60frames with graphics on maximum, and next gen games will just push it further, so if you want a 4k 60fps, then you will have to cut somewhere else.

4K is unneeded, god of war on ps4 pro looked amazing, not for once did I need for higher resolutions, so yeah I prefer they use the power to add more stuff to the worlds and increase features.

HDR is another thing I don't like, if everyone would use one standard it would be great but I feel I have to mess with the calibration for each game, takes away the purpose of a console, which was to make videogaming simpler and quicker, it turns into a PC when I spend several minutes calibrating the screen.

This is why I am considering skipping consoles for good and go full PC in January, because on PC I have the option for quality of graphics, or resolution.

I used 16xAA since the early 2000, not once did it keep me from seeing the details in games. At 1080p, obviously I want a nice picture in general but I do not stop and zoom in to check little unimportant details. That defeats the purpose of a videogame, which is meant to be played not analysed. 

My point with the red dead example is, use the hardware for something else, bigger worlds, more dense populations, etc If ps4 pro can not run red dead 2, a current gen game at full 4K 60fps, then what makes you think the next gen games will run smoothly? Lets say 5 years from now when they start pushing on graphics. They will need that extra power for something else. Just like current generation even the ps4 could not run all games at 1080p at 30fps with any AA, it takes 5x or more the power to run those same games at 4k 60fps, and if developers really want to bring new graphical abilities and new features, they will need that power as worlds get bigger and more detailed.

Teraflops is nowhere near as popular as 4K as a marketing selling point. For the general public. People have already mentalized about the 4K due to TVs and 4K bluray.

Most people who will buy the consoles couldn't care less about teraflops, go ask any average joe if he knows hoe many teraflops are in the ps4, most people don't know, they just know it has the exclusives they want, such as spiderman, uncharted, last of us, god of war, GT