Radek said:
It's very fluid and easy on the eyes to move the camera etc. Why is it overrated? Why don't they at least do 40 fps mode for 120 Hz TV's? Todd even said the game can hit 60 fps sometimes but they locked it to 30 for consistency. 40 fps mode should be possible. |
Frame times jumping all over the shop with an inconsistent 60fps results in a poor experience, 30fps is the better option.
And the reason why they don't do 40fps, is that the majority of TV's on the market are still 60hz.
Once console gamers finally catch up to the amazing-value that variable refresh rates brings to the table, then this issue will be behind us I think, maybe next gen?
Current consoles can leverage it, but the displays haven't caught up en-masse' sadly.
| Norion said: It's a big deal for many cause a lower frame rate will heavily detract from the experience for them. And that's outdated marketing talk from three years ago. The CPU's in these consoles while better than the genuinely shite ones the gen 8 consoles had still aren't that capable so a game like Starfield is gonna be tough to run well. There's only so much mid-range hardware from 2020 can do. |
People need to keep in mind that the Series X only has:
- 7 CPU cores reserved for gaming, 1 core/2 threads is for the OS and background tasks.
These only run at a max 3.8GHZ and are using the outdated Zen2 core.
Modern Zen chips will be upwards of 100% faster.
- 13.5GB of Ram for reserved for gaming. - OS takes 2.5GB.
Considering how DRAM intensive games are at the moment, you can only take it so far.
- Mid-Range Radeon 6700XT equivalent GPU with 560GB/s of bandwidth.
With RT, the capabilities of these chips tend to tank.
Add the desire to push 4k and the desire to push Ray Tracing, something will need to give, consoles run with fixed hardware, so developers need to start giving up resolution/performance to achieve targets.
Only way around it is with a mid-generation refresh console.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
