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
Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

The evidence youre giving is shit and I am moving on. Or it might also be we are having different arguments.

That's your opinion. It's certainly 1,000x better than the shit you have provided, which is absolutely nothing.

Mr Puggsly said:

Hypothetically, lets say youre playing that hot new release Halo Reach for PC on a 4K monitor. I assure you 720p will be a much cleaner looking game than 480p. I argue Thats leap is more obvious than 720p vs 1080p or 4K.

Again. Depends on distance you sit from your display, the size of your display and the quality of your display as to whether there will be a discernible difference between 480P and 720P.

Not sure why you aren't getting it.

Study this graph intimately:


Some night time reading material to get you educated on the topic: https://www.rgb.com/display-size-resolution-and-ideal-viewing-distance


Reason why I'm plenty satisfied with my 4k tv at 3 to 5' distance and will only think about upgrading for real when 8k 85" are reasonably priced both on panel and hw to have that quality.



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

4k/60 fps is an absolute must for next gen. If that means less particles and effects so be it. I remember playing Bad Company 2 on PC back in the day. Medium settings looked more aesthetically pleasing than ultra high. Less shit blowing around in the wind. And so if it doesn't look lifelike I would argue less is sometimes more.

Also don't bother doing ray tracing, developers if you can't get it right. Shiny bricks and gleaming pavements are not realistic.



Mr Puggsly said:
Pemalite said:

That's your opinion. It's certainly 1,000x better than the shit you have provided, which is absolutely nothing.

Again. Depends on distance you sit from your display, the size of your display and the quality of your display as to whether there will be a discernible difference between 480P and 720P.

Not sure why you aren't getting it.

Study this graph intimately:


Some night time reading material to get you educated on the topic: https://www.rgb.com/display-size-resolution-and-ideal-viewing-distance


You know what, youre absolutely right. I get your point now.

All games should be 480p. If people dont like it, tough shit. Just back away from the TV. Its so obvious.

When people were complaing about X1's resolution disparity, the solution was obviously move your couch further back.

We didnt even need the X1X. They should just develop a Xbox branded tape measurer. That way people with large screen could figure out the correct distance for their screen and couch.

I don't know why you are ignoring the evidence to keep clinging to your own false narratives?

Mr Puggsly said:
SpokenTruth said:

Lol, Pugsly.  If you take any game build around Spec A and then tweak it to run it on a Spec A+ box, you'll get better performance.  No game is made exclusive to Xbox One X.  They are all designed for the base model with some that have been tweaked after the fact to take advantage of the X model. 

Hmm... me thinks you're overestimating the capabilities of the "Spec A+ box." "LOL!"

X1X doesn't have enough CPU power to make all X1 content 60 fps. It just happens to have a significant CPU boost that makes 60 fps MORE feasible.

Its kinda like building a PC. 9th gen consoles need to have CPUs sufficient for 60 fps in demanding current and upcoming games. My guess is they will have about 10TF, so that should be enough for 60 fps in many games at about 1440p and higher.

There is more to achieving 60fps than just CPU performance.
If you are GPU limited... You aren't hitting 60fps.

And let's face it, the Xbox One is not only CPU limited, but GPU limited as well, it was never going to have a ton of 60fps games, especially as it can't even maintain 1080P.

Mr Puggsly said:

Well in the 8th gen resolution and effects saw great improvements. Not really feeling like physics or AI saw a massive boost, not to the same extent.

They did see massive increases, especially in the particles department on later titles.

A.I saw increases, especially in character counts, complexity of A.I routines I would argue haven't really taken a massive stride in years... I mean Halo: Combat Evolved on the OG Xbox verses Halo 5 on the Xbox One, it's a night and day difference in CPU performance, but not in A.I complexity.

DonFerrari said:

Reason why I'm plenty satisfied with my 4k tv at 3 to 5' distance and will only think about upgrading for real when 8k 85" are reasonably priced both on panel and hw to have that quality.

You do reach a point where things like better HDR is more important than resolution... MicroLED is likely going to be the next big panel tech which should allow for a big step up in that aspect.



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

ManUtdFan said:
4k/60 fps is an absolute must for next gen. If that means less particles and effects so be it. I remember playing Bad Company 2 on PC back in the day. Medium settings looked more aesthetically pleasing than ultra high. Less shit blowing around in the wind. And so if it doesn't look lifelike I would argue less is sometimes more.

Also don't bother doing ray tracing, developers if you can't get it right. Shiny bricks and gleaming pavements are not realistic.

Well, not happening. 60fps is much lower on the totem pole and people need to stay used to that. It will remain a luxury feature for consoles (think Toyota → Lexus). 

And raytracing will play a vital role next gen. 



                                                                                                                                                           

Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

You know what, youre absolutely right. I get your point now.

All games should be 480p. If people dont like it, tough shit. Just back away from the TV. Its so obvious.

When people were complaing about X1's resolution disparity, the solution was obviously move your couch further back.

We didnt even need the X1X. They should just develop a Xbox branded tape measurer. That way people with large screen could figure out the correct distance for their screen and couch.

I don't know why you are ignoring the evidence to keep clinging to your own false narratives?

Mr Puggsly said:

Hmm... me thinks you're overestimating the capabilities of the "Spec A+ box." "LOL!"

X1X doesn't have enough CPU power to make all X1 content 60 fps. It just happens to have a significant CPU boost that makes 60 fps MORE feasible.

Its kinda like building a PC. 9th gen consoles need to have CPUs sufficient for 60 fps in demanding current and upcoming games. My guess is they will have about 10TF, so that should be enough for 60 fps in many games at about 1440p and higher.

There is more to achieving 60fps than just CPU performance.
If you are GPU limited... You aren't hitting 60fps.

And let's face it, the Xbox One is not only CPU limited, but GPU limited as well, it was never going to have a ton of 60fps games, especially as it can't even maintain 1080P.

Mr Puggsly said:

Well in the 8th gen resolution and effects saw great improvements. Not really feeling like physics or AI saw a massive boost, not to the same extent.

They did see massive increases, especially in the particles department on later titles.

A.I saw increases, especially in character counts, complexity of A.I routines I would argue haven't really taken a massive stride in years... I mean Halo: Combat Evolved on the OG Xbox verses Halo 5 on the Xbox One, it's a night and day difference in CPU performance, but not in A.I complexity.

Resolution not important, just move back. I am ending on that. Its not a false narrative, you provided a graphic showing it.

I was discussing X1X in regard to 60 fps. Your response is a completely different discussion, but I agree with the irrelevant argument youre making.

You make a good point I wasnt neccessarily considering. There are certainly games that used the improved CPUs for increased scale. I dont feel the AI in those games got much better though. I mean the AI in some 7th gen games still trounce many 8th gen games. Hence, I argue great AI seems to difficult to design more than a specs limitation.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
ManUtdFan said:
4k/60 fps is an absolute must for next gen. If that means less particles and effects so be it. I remember playing Bad Company 2 on PC back in the day. Medium settings looked more aesthetically pleasing than ultra high. Less shit blowing around in the wind. And so if it doesn't look lifelike I would argue less is sometimes more.

Also don't bother doing ray tracing, developers if you can't get it right. Shiny bricks and gleaming pavements are not realistic.

I think the question we can't answer is what amount of horsepower games 4 years from now will need to fixed 4k at 60fps. 

However, I fully expect ANY console game from this generation to run at full 4K at 60fps without a single hiccup. If RDR2 makes Scarlett vomit a single iota, then it will be a mediocre upgrade.



CGI-Quality said:
ManUtdFan said:
4k/60 fps is an absolute must for next gen. If that means less particles and effects so be it. I remember playing Bad Company 2 on PC back in the day. Medium settings looked more aesthetically pleasing than ultra high. Less shit blowing around in the wind. And so if it doesn't look lifelike I would argue less is sometimes more.

Also don't bother doing ray tracing, developers if you can't get it right. Shiny bricks and gleaming pavements are not realistic.

Well, not happening. 60fps is much lower on the totem pole and people need to stay used to that. It will remain a luxury feature for consoles (think Toyota → Lexus). 

And raytracing will play a vital role next gen. 

Well considering that low frame rates can cause headaches and nausea I'm surprised 60 fps won't be top priority.



Technarchy said:
ManUtdFan said:
4k/60 fps is an absolute must for next gen. If that means less particles and effects so be it. I remember playing Bad Company 2 on PC back in the day. Medium settings looked more aesthetically pleasing than ultra high. Less shit blowing around in the wind. And so if it doesn't look lifelike I would argue less is sometimes more.

Also don't bother doing ray tracing, developers if you can't get it right. Shiny bricks and gleaming pavements are not realistic.

I think the question we can't answer is what amount of horsepower games 4 years from now will need to fixed 4k at 60fps. 

However, I fully expect ANY console game from this generation to run at full 4K at 60fps without a single hiccup. If RDR2 makes Scarlett vomit a single iota, then it will be a mediocre upgrade.

I agree. The hardware rumored is so high end. They can only fail to hit 4k/60fps if they go over the top with textures, effects. No point, it won't achieve photorealism.



ManUtdFan said:
CGI-Quality said:

Well, not happening. 60fps is much lower on the totem pole and people need to stay used to that. It will remain a luxury feature for consoles (think Toyota → Lexus). 

And raytracing will play a vital role next gen. 

Well considering that low frame rates can cause headaches and nausea I'm surprised 60 fps won't be top priority.

Because 30fps is totally playable and is the standard. Far less people get headaches or nausea than those that don’t. 

You want constant 60fps? Go PC.



                                                                                                                                                           

CGI-Quality said:
ManUtdFan said:

Well considering that low frame rates can cause headaches and nausea I'm surprised 60 fps won't be top priority.

Because 30fps is totally playable and is the standard. Far less people get headaches or nausea than those that don’t. 

You want constant 60fps? Go PC.

I agree, locked 30fps is totally playable for just about every genre including multiplayer FPS's. But not racers. I've had motion sickness from playing GTA IV and Rocket League. I don't get said issue playing other games.

Low frame rate for driving games is nigh on unforgivable. It's a choice. Tone down the detail and 60 fps is easily achievable, even on older platforms.