By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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! 30 40.00%
 
No. 5 6.67%
 
Depends on the game. 32 42.67%
 
I dont care. 8 10.67%
 
Total:75
chakkra on 17 August 2019
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

Seems like many still use those reverse distance x resolution chartz that are spread around. Where it is bad to have a 4k TV if the monitor is to small, or that it's bad to have a big TV if you sit to close.

DF mentions many times on the Switch that 720p looks sharp on a small screen in portable mode. This is no different the bigger the screen the more noticable the pixels get.

I gamed on a 42inch 1080p screen and it looked super sharp. Going to 55inch 4k screen, i can tell if i am running 1080p instead of 4k. 

Honestly anything around 30inches i am happen to drop resolution for preformance however on a big 4k TV i wont, due to how noticable it is.

It doesnt take a rocket science to see a difference, however it depends if its worth the preformance gap.

I agree with you there. I had a 21" monitor and for the life of me I was never able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p in there. I was like, wtf are these people talking about?

It wasn't until I upgraded to a 24" that I started to notice the difference, and even then it was negligible.



Around the Network
Ganoncrotch on 17 August 2019
chakkra said:
Azzanation said:

DF mentions many times on the Switch that 720p looks sharp on a small screen in portable mode. This is no different the bigger the screen the more noticable the pixels get.

I gamed on a 42inch 1080p screen and it looked super sharp. Going to 55inch 4k screen, i can tell if i am running 1080p instead of 4k. 

Honestly anything around 30inches i am happen to drop resolution for preformance however on a big 4k TV i wont, due to how noticable it is.

It doesnt take a rocket science to see a difference, however it depends if its worth the preformance gap.

I agree with you there. I had a 21" monitor and for the life of me I was never able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p in there. I was like, wtf are these people talking about?

It wasn't until I upgraded to a 24" that I started to notice the difference, and even then it was negligible.

Love the chats about 24/32/55 inches and all my games done on a 1080p projector @160" unless I take the Switch out of the dock when I'm leaving the flat, then it's back to 6" but that recent Virtua Racing game... on my setup each player gets a 40" screen for themselves...

And I still think back to times when I used to play 4 player Halo on a 16" portable lol.

also (non shit) 4k Projectors cost 4k at the time I was buying... so wasn't an option, maybe sometime in the future it will be!



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

HollyGamer on 17 August 2019

Well this is obvious , and also it depend on the developer . I hope next gen consoles able to choose between graphic quality , frame rates or resolution just like how PS4 pro or X does currently.



Azzanation on 17 August 2019
CGI-Quality said:
Azzanation said:

You tell me who, apparently someone in here is a layman and i am curious to know. Happy to help, i dont charge for knowledge however sometimes i think i should on here. Apparently everyone in here is an eye optometrist.

Considering it was you who called something 'eye-popingly better', this should have been left out of the post. In reality, you don't have to be an eye optometrist (a term you're using out of place as it is) to give a view on something.

As far as who you can 'educate', what exactly do you think it is you can teach someone in here? 

Okay, I obviously used the wrong term here. Eye popping to me is that I can notice a difference easily without going into a in-depth look, that wasn't meant to come across as a worlds difference, but I can personally tell switching back and forth my resolutions on my TV that it isn't something I need a magnified glass to see. So ill take it back and say, 1440p to 4k is noticeable but not a worlds difference if that makes things better.  

That last part of your post wasn't meant for you.



Barkley on 20 August 2019

Just remembered that it was only a couple of years ago that Phil Spencer was asking people why they even cared about 60fps. Bit weird to go from that to this.



Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed on 20 August 2019
Barkley said:
Just remembered that it was only a couple of years ago that Phil Spencer was asking people why they even cared about 60fps. Bit weird to go from that to this.

Are you referring to that metro interview where he simply asks the interviewer why he prefers frame rate to visuals? Or did I miss some interview where he actually asked why anyone would care about frame rate?

Because in that interview he was clearly just asking a personal question and did say frame rate was important. But he’s also selling products to the masses. 4k, UHD, etc look better to the masses than 60fps, thats why Sony and Microsoft went with that for marketing their refresh consoles. 

I’m genuinely curious about whether I missed some interview or if this is the biggest stretch for misrepresenting a Phil quote in a long while lol.



DonFerrari on 20 August 2019
Barkley said:
Just remembered that it was only a couple of years ago that Phil Spencer was asking people why they even cared about 60fps. Bit weird to go from that to this.

Papa Phill is ever right so reality changes whenever he say so.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Technarchy on 02 December 2019

Scarlett needs to be able to run every single Xbox One X game at a rock solid 4K and 60fps. There can't be a drop of dynamic resolution or frame drops.

If Scarlett can't do that it will be underpowered out the gate. Nothing about an X1X game should be taxing on Scarlett.



Dante9 on 02 December 2019
Barkley said:
thismeintiel said:

100% agreed. It's the same reason 48fps failed for films. It no longer looks like an epic movie, but a cheap soap opera, no matter how much is spent on the effects.

The only reason for this is because movies have always been 24fps and soap opera's have always been 60fps. It's just how your brain has been conditioned.

60fps is objectively better.

Except that is clearly not, because most people say that even 48fps look stupid in movies. Although I don't think it's quite the same thing in movies and in games, it's kind of confusing. In games it's about fluidity versus stutter, whereas in film it's about the visual look.



CrazyGamer2017 on 02 December 2019

I'm all in favor of a higher frame rate over graphics if a choice must be made. But that is something that I consider when playing on this generation of machines. I find it a little concerning when they make that statement cause it implies (and I hope I'm wrong) that "our system while more powerful is not going to be that much more powerful, therefore we need to assign a priority between frame rate and graphics.

I would imagine next gen should be capable of 4K60 at all times. But if a choice must be made I'd be ok with 1080p 60fps as 1080p is actually good (No once can honestly say: I can't see details on this 1080p picture)

But if 1080p then I will not accept a single drop in frame rate, whereas an occasional frame rate drop on 2160p could be forgiven (No more than occasional though).