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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Consoles and Their Wannabe Resolution.

DonFerrari on 16 June 2017
monocle_layton said:
Pemalite said:

I have a 1440P display on my Note 5. I keep it at 1440P all the time. And that's at 5.7".
The Switch at 6.2" is only a fraction of the resolution with a larger screen. It's Perceived Pixels Per Inch is significantly higher.
I want more in 2017, not a last century resolution, that's me, that's what I want as a consumer. I won't be spoon fed anything less.

And there is every reason to criticise the Switch, heck there is a reason to criticise every platform. And we should. We are consumers.

Never said don't criticize the Switch. However, a more premium screen on it wouldn't make sense. Making it glass would leave it prone to cracks, and a 1080p-4k screen would simply destroy the battery, something people complained about as well.

Either we get a good screen with acceptable battery life or a spectacular screen with horrendous battery life. have both and you get a higher price tag, something no one would want

Yep, the basics of trade-off.

Intrinsic said:
The way i see it, is if resolution (especially now that we are talking about 720p and up) is the base of anyones argument as to why one platform is better than the other? Then that person is not worth arguing with.

I personally see the focus on resolution as a ridiculous waste of resources. But unfortunately, this is the current gens buzz word.... ts always something. Once we argued about sprites. Then it was polygons. And now its rez......

I still stand by this...... put someone in front of a 55" tv from around 10ft away, and lets honestly see if the difference between 1080p and 4k will jump out at them.

Uhnnn do you consider me someone? For me there is a big difference from 1080p to 4k even on 55" from 10 ft away... but I actually do 4k on 65" at 5 ft away.



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."

Around the Network
Intrinsic on 16 June 2017
DonFerrari said:
monocle_layton said:

Never said don't criticize the Switch. However, a more premium screen on it wouldn't make sense. Making it glass would leave it prone to cracks, and a 1080p-4k screen would simply destroy the battery, something people complained about as well.

Either we get a good screen with acceptable battery life or a spectacular screen with horrendous battery life. have both and you get a higher price tag, something no one would want

Yep, the basics of trade-off.

Intrinsic said:
The way i see it, is if resolution (especially now that we are talking about 720p and up) is the base of anyones argument as to why one platform is better than the other? Then that person is not worth arguing with.

I personally see the focus on resolution as a ridiculous waste of resources. But unfortunately, this is the current gens buzz word.... ts always something. Once we argued about sprites. Then it was polygons. And now its rez......

I still stand by this...... put someone in front of a 55" tv from around 10ft away, and lets honestly see if the difference between 1080p and 4k will jump out at them.

Uhnnn do you consider me someone? For me there is a big difference from 1080p to 4k even on 55" from 10 ft away... but I actually do 4k on 65" at 5 ft away.

I hear you, but I'm sorry I don't believe you. I don't think you are lying though. So its complicated.

I have seen people get a HD tv, plug in composite cables to it and a DVD player... and god oh my god this is HD.

I also know, that as far as rez goes, it all comes down to the screen door effect. Basically, what happens when you can "see" the lines between pixels. The more pixels you have, or the further away you are, the less likely it will be for you to notice it. And noticing this happens in two ways. If you are close enough to the screen where you actually see the lines, or if you are a little further back from it where you cant see the lines but theimage overall is "softer". I put that in quotes cause that only applies when you have something to compare it to or when you have trained your eyes to look for it.

But at a certain distance, its just impossible to "resolve" that difference. And that is fact.... its why ads in soccer stadiums look so sharp and clear from a distance but near impossible to see upclose.

So big difference? from 10ft away? Nope. I just don't believe you. But I will agree with you though, so this doesn't become some sort of argument. I know beter than to argue with anyone when the discussion is on resolution.

I personally call it them "feeling" the resolution and not seeing it.



DonFerrari on 16 June 2017
Intrinsic said:
DonFerrari said:

Yep, the basics of trade-off.

Uhnnn do you consider me someone? For me there is a big difference from 1080p to 4k even on 55" from 10 ft away... but I actually do 4k on 65" at 5 ft away.

I hear you, but I'm sorry I don't believe you. I don't think you are lying though. So its complicated.

I have seen people get a HD tv, plug in composite cables to it and a DVD player... and god oh my god this is HD.

I also know, that as far as rez goes, it all comes down to the screen door effect. Basically, what happens when you can "see" the lines between pixels. The more pixels you have, or the further away you are, the less likely it will be for you to notice it. And noticing this happens in two ways. If you are close enough to the screen where you actually see the lines, or if you are a little further back from it where you cant see the lines but theimage overall is "softer". I put that in quotes cause that only applies when you have something to compare it to or when you have trained your eyes to look for it.

But at a certain distance, its just impossible to "resolve" that difference. And that is fact.... its why ads in soccer stadiums look so sharp and clear from a distance but near impossible to see upclose.

So big difference? from 10ft away? Nope. I just don't believe you. But I will agree with you though, so this doesn't become some sort of argument. I know beter than to argue with anyone when the discussion is on resolution.

I personally call it them "feeling" the resolution and not seeing it.

You didn't said "big difference" you said "no difference". So yes, I can see the difference in resolution on 55" 10 feet away from native 1080p to native 4k, being small or big is discussible.

But at 5 feet away on 65" I can almost see individual pixels and usually spoil other fun when pointing a tarnish on the screen. And I don't have trained eyes.



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."

Pemalite on 16 June 2017
monocle_layton said:

Never said don't criticize the Switch. However, a more premium screen on it wouldn't make sense. Making it glass would leave it prone to cracks, and a 1080p-4k screen would simply destroy the battery, something people complained about as well.

Either we get a good screen with acceptable battery life or a spectacular screen with horrendous battery life. have both and you get a higher price tag, something no one would want

If battery was such a huge concern they would have used a more efficient SoC such as the Pascal based Tegra.

Also. The display technology itself is more important than the displays resolutions in regards to power consumption. You *can* have higher resolution panels consume less power than lower resolution panels. Samsung did it.

Nintendo could have also opted for a different battery chemistry which was also denser in terms of capacity.

Battery life is just a terrible excuse, Nintendo could have chosen better components. They exist. They are available. It's what *I* would have wanted, which may not align to what someone else wants. And that is okay.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Ruler on 17 June 2017
Captain_Yuri said:

Yea 4k isn't coming until next gen... If it's hard to achieve 4k on PC even with top of the line cards (at least at 60fps + ultra settings), it's not gonna be achieved by a $400-$500 box without compromises regardless of how magical people think these boxes are.

My guess is that it is due to the way they implemented the Memory Bandwidth since AMD has done a similar implementation way back during the 7xxx series which did not pay out very much. According to AnandTech, if you cut out the amount of memory bandwidth that has been added by this implementation, the amount that is left is around 218GB/s instead of 326GB/s which is more around ps4 pro's level. And Memory Bandwidth is really important when it comes to 4k gaming as well as having a large pool of Vram which the xbox one X has checked.

All in all, people more or less saw this coming. What I didn't realize when I made my prediction of it being able to run most games at 4k is how the bandwidth was implemented due to limited information. We will see how it all pans out in the end though.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11250/microsofts-project-scorpio-more-hardware-details-revealed

You didnt, you said it would run most games in 4K on PS4 graphics settings

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=227461&page=1

You didnt need to be an AMD insider to figure all this out, i predicted it by using basic math and i was 100% right. In fact i was even too generous to the prospects of the Scorpio.  Given that checkerboard is running half the resolution, my generous prediction of 7 Million pixels was wrong, its 4 Million pixels for games like Anthem and Assassisn Creed, which is a resolution something like 1800p.



Why i left PC gaming

 

(2015) Question for PS4 owners: if the situation would be reverse? would you still play on PS4?

(2015) The "I don't care PS4 is the most powerful console" thread

Around the Network
FallingTitan on 17 June 2017

oh who cares...all we know is Xbox X is nicest looking pixels on consoles of all time.



Jizz_Beard_thePirate on 17 June 2017
Ruler said:
Captain_Yuri said:

Yea 4k isn't coming until next gen... If it's hard to achieve 4k on PC even with top of the line cards (at least at 60fps + ultra settings), it's not gonna be achieved by a $400-$500 box without compromises regardless of how magical people think these boxes are.

My guess is that it is due to the way they implemented the Memory Bandwidth since AMD has done a similar implementation way back during the 7xxx series which did not pay out very much. According to AnandTech, if you cut out the amount of memory bandwidth that has been added by this implementation, the amount that is left is around 218GB/s instead of 326GB/s which is more around ps4 pro's level. And Memory Bandwidth is really important when it comes to 4k gaming as well as having a large pool of Vram which the xbox one X has checked.

All in all, people more or less saw this coming. What I didn't realize when I made my prediction of it being able to run most games at 4k is how the bandwidth was implemented due to limited information. We will see how it all pans out in the end though.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11250/microsofts-project-scorpio-more-hardware-details-revealed

You didnt, you said it would run most games in 4K on PS4 graphics settings

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=227461&page=1

You didnt need to be an AMD insider to figure all this out, i predicted it by using basic math and i was 100% right. In fact i was even too generous to the prospects of the Scorpio.  Given that checkerboard is running half the resolution, my generous prediction of 7 Million pixels was wrong, its 4 Million pixels for games like Anthem and Assassisn Creed, which is a resolution something like 1800p.

I didn't wut?

And where did you get that number for Anthem/Asscreed?



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

monocle_layton on 17 June 2017
Pemalite said:
monocle_layton said:

Never said don't criticize the Switch. However, a more premium screen on it wouldn't make sense. Making it glass would leave it prone to cracks, and a 1080p-4k screen would simply destroy the battery, something people complained about as well.

Either we get a good screen with acceptable battery life or a spectacular screen with horrendous battery life. have both and you get a higher price tag, something no one would want

If battery was such a huge concern they would have used a more efficient SoC such as the Pascal based Tegra.

Also. The display technology itself is more important than the displays resolutions in regards to power consumption. You *can* have higher resolution panels consume less power than lower resolution panels. Samsung did it.

Nintendo could have also opted for a different battery chemistry which was also denser in terms of capacity.

Battery life is just a terrible excuse, Nintendo could have chosen better components. They exist. They are available. It's what *I* would have wanted, which may not align to what someone else wants. And that is okay.

We all appreciated anything which could've helped the Switch. However, Samsung IS the world leader in display quality, both in terms of technology and efficiency.

 

I'm sure Nintendo did whatever they could to bring an effective device. Sure, would be disappointing if they skipped out on better technology, but they're the ones who handle the finances and whatnot. I'll take a several billion dollar company's actions over whatever doubts I have



Ruler on 17 June 2017
Captain_Yuri said:
Ruler said:

You didnt, you said it would run most games in 4K on PS4 graphics settings

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=227461&page=1

You didnt need to be an AMD insider to figure all this out, i predicted it by using basic math and i was 100% right. In fact i was even too generous to the prospects of the Scorpio.  Given that checkerboard is running half the resolution, my generous prediction of 7 Million pixels was wrong, its 4 Million pixels for games like Anthem and Assassisn Creed, which is a resolution something like 1800p.

I didn't wut?

And where did you get that number for Anthem/Asscreed?

half of 4K resolution is 4 million pixels which something between 1440-1800p

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions

checkerboarding is displaying half the resolution essientialley. Its displaying this as resolution and switches the pixels with every frame, kinda like interlencaed resolutions



Why i left PC gaming

 

(2015) Question for PS4 owners: if the situation would be reverse? would you still play on PS4?

(2015) The "I don't care PS4 is the most powerful console" thread

Jizz_Beard_thePirate on 17 June 2017
Ruler said:
Captain_Yuri said:

I didn't wut?

And where did you get that number for Anthem/Asscreed?

half of 4K resolution is 4 million pixels which something like 1800p

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions

checkerboarding is displaying half the resolution essientialley. Its displaying this as resolution and switches the pixels with every frame, kinda like interlencaed resolutions

 

Yes but that is only for the amount of pixels that need to be upscaled... If a game renders at a higher resolution, less pixels need to be upscaled... Otherwise, why would some games on the ps4 pro checkerboard from 1440p while others from 1800p and etc...?

And if there is one thing we have seen this gen, it is anything but common resolutions thanks to dynamic resolution scaling...



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850