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
Mr Puggsly on 03 December 2019
ironmanDX said:
Mr Puggsly said:

But given the option, I think I would always choose 1440p/60 fps. 1440p is already a sharp presentation. At that point 60 fps will have more impact on gameplay than 4K.

Instead I think visually demanding games are gonna be more like 1440p-1800p/30 fps. Which is fairly common on premium consoles right now. Not just because of CPU limitations, but 60 fps is also taxing on GPU.

Even for story driven games if the 60 meant a sacrifice to other effects though?

"Instead I think visually demanding games are gonna be more like 1440p-1800p/30 fps."

I'd be more than happy with this. I'd even go down to 1080 for 60fps on incredibly demanding multiplayer games. 60 is more of a concern for me than resolution for multiplayer. I'm just really hoping on devs giving us more options next generation when it comes to letting us decide on how to play.

Just a few basic option "sliders". I feel like I'm asking too much but am optimistic anyway.

Depends on what we're talking about here. I think I would opt for 1440p/60 fps over 4K/30 fps in any game. Even some of the more story driven experiences because the controls feel more responsive. However, I don't think its a bad idea for cutscenes to be 30 fps if they really push visuals there like Gears 5 and Halo 5.

I would still opt for 60 fps even if it has some impact on graphics settings. Forza Horizon 4 for example takes a hit on graphics in 60 fps mode but still looks great. I suspect they may have even dropped some settings because they may require extra CPU power, which should be less of an issue for 9th gen hardware.



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
Darc Requiem on 03 December 2019

I've been hearing this nonsense for 20 years, I'll believe it when I see it.



Mr Puggsly on 03 December 2019
Technarchy said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I think its gonna take a massive GPU and CPU boost to make something like RDR2 4K/60 fps. Sometimes people forget doubling the frame rate is a huge drain on the GPU and CPU. The X1X only does 4K/30 fps (with dips) and it still averages $349-$399.

Gears 5 is well optimized and already built with 60 fps in mind. DF said its dynamic between 1584p-2160p, something like that could become 4K/60 fps more easily on Scarlett. I suppose Halo Infinite will also be 4K/60 fps.

My expectations aren't that high for Scarlett. I don't expect it to trounce X1X like you suggest because that sounds very expensive.

If Scarlett cant run the X1X version of the RDR2 at 60fps, I would regard that as concerning. I’m not talking about adding more particles or effects, just as it is and uncappping the frame rate. If not that would mean out the gate that Scarlett is under powered and is going to require a mid gen refresh even faster than the X1 did. 

In context, I can almost guarantee PS5 will be capable of running Horizon at 60fps in full 4K with HDR.

Depends on what the plan is. If hitting $399 is important to Sony and MS, then achieving 4K/60 fps in RDR2 may be difficult.

I mean they need to make a significant CPU upgrade which is already happening, they need about double the GPU power of X1X, ram could be 16GB or more and a potentially expensive SSD.

Personally, I do hope they make a great machines even if its $599. But my expectations are low if they aim for $399.



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)

Mr Puggsly on 03 December 2019
Hiku said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I think consumers prefer 60 fps even if they don't really understand it.

Well that's the thing. It's easier to market impressive looking visuals than smooth framerate. 
Whether it's screenshots, posters or trailers. They go for what's more immediately eye catching. Which probably plays a big role in why so many developers tend to prioritize visuals, no matter how much power they get in a system. I don't expect things to change much in this regard with Scarlett and PS5.

But there are games that offer both impressive visuals and smooth frame rate. Especially on the X1X because it more often achieves 60 fps with 1440p-4K. Gears 5 for example has great visuals, 60 fps, and the resolution is high (1584p to 4K).

I think its worth considering any games that can function at 1440p-4K/30 fps on 9th gen hardware, should also be able to function at a lower resolution with 60 fps. Hopefully developers will let us choose in those scenarios.

I'm curious to see if there will be 9th gen games that are so visually cutting edge they only run at 1080p/30 fps. I don't think those experiences will have 60 fps options.



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)

Pemalite on 03 December 2019
Mr Puggsly said:
Technarchy said:
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.

I think its gonna take a massive GPU and CPU boost to make something like RDR2 4K/60 fps. Sometimes people forget doubling the frame rate is a huge drain on the GPU and CPU. The X1X only does 4K/30 fps (with dips) and it still averages $349-$399.

Gears 5 is well optimized and already built with 60 fps in mind. DF said its dynamic between 1584p-2160p, something like that could become 4K/60 fps more easily on Scarlett. I suppose Halo Infinite will also be 4K/60 fps.

My expectations aren't that high for Scarlett. I don't expect it to trounce X1X like you suggest because that sounds very expensive.

The Xbox One X was derived from inefficient and outdated technology though.. The foundations of which date back 8~ years for the GPU and 9~ years for the CPU. - Things have simply moved on from then.

There is a massive jump between what Polaris can do and what we will do with RDNA2 and there is a massive jump between AMD's Cat cores and Zen, even GDDR5 has been around for 10~ years.

2020 there will be a sizable jump, even if peoples infatuation with "flops" doesn't imply as such.

Scarlett and the Playstation 5 will be pretty impressive pieces of hardware... And there are several technologies that will define that console generation like hardware accelerated Ray Tracing.

Mr Puggsly said:

But given the option, I think I would always choose 1440p/60 fps. 1440p is already a sharp presentation. At that point 60 fps will have more impact on gameplay than 4K.

Instead I think visually demanding games are gonna be more like 1440p-1800p/30 fps. Which is fairly common on premium consoles right now. Not just because of CPU limitations, but 60 fps is also taxing on GPU.

Same. I will always choose 1440P/60fps with the visuals dialed up rather than 4k.

In saying that, even a 4k rendered game will look fantastic on a 1440P panel because of downsampling... Not all games implement good Anti-Aliasing, so it's a good bonus, Microsoft deserves allot of credit for pushing this in the console space in my opinion.

1440P though isn't a common resolution outside of the PC and mobile markets, it doesn't exist in TV land as far as I know, which will be Scarlett's primary market.




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

Around the Network
COKTOE on 03 December 2019
Hiku said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I think consumers prefer 60 fps even if they don't really understand it.

Well that's the thing. It's easier to market impressive looking visuals than smooth framerate. 
Whether it's screenshots, posters or trailers. They go for what's more immediately eye catching. Which probably plays a big role in why so many developers tend to prioritize visuals, no matter how much power they get in a system. I don't expect things to change much in this regard with Scarlett and PS5.

I feel certain I've heard staff with devs and publishers touch on this very idea on a few different occasions, but very much don't have the patience to attempt to find any examples.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

StuOhQ on 03 December 2019

I think that should have been the goal a long time ago. We could be living in a world with almost no load times and 60fps locked for very pretty games and instead we are chasing pixel count so that our games look decent on unnecessary display upgrades.

The funny thing is, if we were still using CRTs - the resolution would matter so much less and what we could do with the games would be ridiculous. With 4K, we're wasting tons of resources run mediocre looking games.



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

Mr Puggsly on 03 December 2019
Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I think its gonna take a massive GPU and CPU boost to make something like RDR2 4K/60 fps. Sometimes people forget doubling the frame rate is a huge drain on the GPU and CPU. The X1X only does 4K/30 fps (with dips) and it still averages $349-$399.

Gears 5 is well optimized and already built with 60 fps in mind. DF said its dynamic between 1584p-2160p, something like that could become 4K/60 fps more easily on Scarlett. I suppose Halo Infinite will also be 4K/60 fps.

My expectations aren't that high for Scarlett. I don't expect it to trounce X1X like you suggest because that sounds very expensive.

The Xbox One X was derived from inefficient and outdated technology though.. The foundations of which date back 8~ years for the GPU and 9~ years for the CPU. - Things have simply moved on from then.

There is a massive jump between what Polaris can do and what we will do with RDNA2 and there is a massive jump between AMD's Cat cores and Zen, even GDDR5 has been around for 10~ years.

2020 there will be a sizable jump, even if peoples infatuation with "flops" doesn't imply as such.

Scarlett and the Playstation 5 will be pretty impressive pieces of hardware... And there are several technologies that will define that console generation like hardware accelerated Ray Tracing.

Mr Puggsly said:

But given the option, I think I would always choose 1440p/60 fps. 1440p is already a sharp presentation. At that point 60 fps will have more impact on gameplay than 4K.

Instead I think visually demanding games are gonna be more like 1440p-1800p/30 fps. Which is fairly common on premium consoles right now. Not just because of CPU limitations, but 60 fps is also taxing on GPU.

Same. I will always choose 1440P/60fps with the visuals dialed up rather than 4k.

In saying that, even a 4k rendered game will look fantastic on a 1440P panel because of downsampling... Not all games implement good Anti-Aliasing, so it's a good bonus, Microsoft deserves allot of credit for pushing this in the console space in my opinion.

1440P though isn't a common resolution outside of the PC and mobile markets, it doesn't exist in TV land as far as I know, which will be Scarlett's primary market.

The person I was talking to expects anything on Xbox One X to be 4k/60 fps. That's gonna require a huge boost in power, especially when you consider some games are just doing 1440p at 30 fps. I'm not sure double the GPU power would get the job done for every game. So I skeptical about what they can accomplish if they stick to a lower price.

I don't think it makes sense to make a 1440p TV. There are plenty of 4K TVs around 40"-50" at about $300. I'm sure Scarlett will have plenty of 4K content as well.



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)

Mr Puggsly on 03 December 2019
StuOhQ said:
I think that should have been the goal a long time ago. We could be living in a world with almost no load times and 60fps locked for very pretty games and instead we are chasing pixel count so that our games look decent on unnecessary display upgrades.

The funny thing is, if we were still using CRTs - the resolution would matter so much less and what we could do with the games would be ridiculous. With 4K, we're wasting tons of resources run mediocre looking games.

Eh, the leap from 480p to 720p was pretty significant to the presentation of games, its about triple the pixels. I can still tolerate 720p actually, even on a 4K screen. Playing games at 480p in comparison is not great.

Developers could simply build games around 60 fps if that was really a priority. Specs aren't the problem per se.



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)

Pemalite on 04 December 2019
Mr Puggsly said:
StuOhQ said:
I think that should have been the goal a long time ago. We could be living in a world with almost no load times and 60fps locked for very pretty games and instead we are chasing pixel count so that our games look decent on unnecessary display upgrades.

The funny thing is, if we were still using CRTs - the resolution would matter so much less and what we could do with the games would be ridiculous. With 4K, we're wasting tons of resources run mediocre looking games.

Eh, the leap from 480p to 720p was pretty significant to the presentation of games, its about triple the pixels. I can still tolerate 720p actually, even on a 4K screen. Playing games at 480p in comparison is not great.

Developers could simply build games around 60 fps if that was really a priority. Specs aren't the problem per se.

480P in a 16:9 format is 854x480 = 409,920 pixels. (Many Switch games in portable mode run at around this resolution!)
720P in a 16:9 format is 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels.

So more like a doubling of pixels.

480P can look great, depending on scaling and the input method in-use. I.E. The PS2/OG Xbox/Gamecube/Wii/Xbox 360 "version" of 480P tends to not look great on a HDTV due to composite/Component being used.

Of course you also have another aspect to consider... Perceived Pixels Per Inch... Smaller+further away the screen, the less resolution you need... TV sizes exploded when Full High-Definition became the norm, thus lower resolutions started to look dated very quickly on newer and larger panels.

I have a CRT in my games room and older games that are 480P look far better on the 27" CRT than my 75" LCD panel.



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