What do you prefer for games: Framerates and Resolutions? [2020]

Discussion in 'Console Industry' started by ultragpu, May 14, 2020.

?

What would you prioritize?

  1. 33ms for render quality

    21.4%
  2. <16ms for fluidity

    78.6%
  1. Cyan

    Cyan orange
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    exactly that.

    Console owners expect games at 30 fps to be fully loaded -as in..., you have all the best graphics features at max in exchange of the 30fps- but that's not how it works, imho. I've played plenty of games at 60 or more fps and "ultra" settings.

    Years ago I remember how we thought 720p or 1080p with AA x 8 would be the solution to everything and there would be no need for something else. But that's not the cause. There are still jaggies that could cut diamond at MSAAx8 with TAA and adding FXAA via nVidia panel at 1080p, if you run the game on a 1440p or 4k monitor.

    But on console people want games fully loaded.
     
  2. Cyan

    Cyan orange
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    okayyyy

    @pjbliverpool check the HDR thread, I posted a new video there. The screen's curvature, 1000R means it's 1m wide and also you can see the monitor in the video's author arms. The screen is QLED btw -it's the one you linked to in a reply of yours-.

    In addition, 32:9 support is available for most games, afaik. The most recent case being Death Stranding, according to the new nVidia drivers.

     
    pjbliverpool likes this.
  3. Strange

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Somewhere out there
    I think people need to get their expectations more grounded.

    Games will target the same fps on both platform as the difference between hardware doesn't justify a 30fps to 60fps jump.
    Exclusive games will have that choice done by the developer for same "reasons" that we've all discussed about since the PS3/360 era.
     
    Unknown Soldier likes this.
  4. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,841
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    Location:
    Guess...
    That's a matter of opinion really but I do share the same opinion that for me I'd see little benefit of >120fps. I think if I was managing 120fps in the first place, I'd sooner put more performance into improving image quality than going higher. Others may feel differently though and I don't agree that esports gamers don't care about picture quality. I'm sure we'd all like to have it all if we can

    Perhaps but it's still a lit lower than what you'll see int he TV market outside of OLEDs.

    So the question becomes are you saying 384 isn't enough? And how does 384 compare with the overwhelming majority of TV's on the market? And then you have the likes of this releasing later this year with 1152 zones. It's hard to argue that this isn't going to match the very best TV's on the market in terms of image quality outside of OLED and it'll certainly be comparable there too. You'll be paying a hefty premium for it due to the form factor, full Gsync Ultimate support, fast response times etc... but my point is you can't just cart blanche dismiss monitors as inferior to TV's when these kinds of things are available. And saying they're overpriced is a tricky one because it's an apples to oranges comparison with the monitors providing something over and above what the TV's do (whether or not that may be personally useful to you or me).
     
  5. Cyan

    Cyan orange
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    120 fps is a sight to behold, but higher framerates than that actually matter.



     
  6. iroboto

    iroboto Daft Funk
    Legend Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,871
    Likes Received:
    10,965
    Location:
    The North
    imo, they should be counting accuracy as opposed to just reaction times. reaction times are very physical, yes you'll get a small head start because of framerate, but the higher refresh is going to improve your clarity when it comes to tracking something in motion.
     
  7. Cyan

    Cyan orange
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    now that you mention it, I remember playing Xenon Racer without antialiasing to increase the framerate as much as I could and with the same graphics settings, just limiting the game to 60fps it was a jaggy fest. However, when I set the max framerate to 240fps played on my previous monitor -240Hz- the high framerate made alisasing disappear. It was @Silent_Buddha precisely who told me about the reason why it happened.

    On a different note, new DF video. Every game should game that Dynamic Resolution Target FPS setting. imho. Oddly enough I was downloading F1 2018 for gamepass PC today and then this video appears. Gotta play F1 2018 at 165fps -plus it supports HDR-.

     
  8. Cyan

    Cyan orange
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    pjbliverpool likes this.
  9. Cyan

    Cyan orange
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    nVidia has another video on the topic at hand with an excellent detailed explanation.

     
  10. Cyan

    Cyan orange
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    as for accuracy, I've been testing F1 2018 for gamepass PC (superb game btw), running it at 60fps and at 165fps. The difference in smoothness is huge, in how you can see the road and the asphalt.

    While driving I haven't noticed much difference in time trials (60 fps is fine) but it is noticeable that I could potentially make better times at a higher framerate 'cos of the way you react to the every curve. I will continue with the tests.

    More videos:



    In this video he beats his 60fps lap by almost a second, but of course you can never be sure it's because of the framerate.

     
  11. Cyan

    Cyan orange
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    Kazunori Yamauchi, Gran Turismo creator, said this VERY recently.

    Gran Turismo’s Future: “4K Resolution is Enough”, But 240fps is the Target

    “Rather than a spatial resolution that you’re talking about, I’m more interested in the advancements we can make in terms of the time resolution. In terms of frames per second, rather than staying at 60 fps, I’m more interested in raising it to 120 fps or even 240 fps. I think that’s what’s going to be changing the experience from here on forward.”

    https://www.gtplanet.net/gran-turismos-future-4k-resolution-is-enough-but-240fps-is-the-target
     
    disco_, iroboto, pjbliverpool and 2 others like this.
  12. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,841
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    Location:
    Guess...
    Unless it's in VR :wink4:
     
  13. PSman1700

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2019
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    926
    ’Yamauchi also noted that the increase in power from console generation to generation is, over time, resulting in diminishing returns: “Going from PS1 to PS2 there was a hundred times the performance difference between the two console generations. An advancement like that is no longer possible.” ’

    From the same link.
     
  14. Arwin

    Arwin Now Officially a Top 10 Poster
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Messages:
    18,071
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Location:
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Except, clearly, in load times this generation ...

    I’d be curious to compare 4k60 vs 1080p@240 VS VR at 120. I have a sneaking suspicion that in most cases I’ll be fine with 4k60, but in my experience although currently pretty ugly and not always comfortable, VR is by far the best for laptimes. I can judge the braking distance purely on depth and speed in VR, where in 2D I am relying for a very large part on track markers and memory. When I’m rusty I get much better laptimes in VR than in 2D. It takes me 10 laps to equal the time I did with the same car and track in VR even after I did the VR first and just before.
     
  15. PSman1700

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2019
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    926
    I think we saw big jumps there before aswell, going from tape to things like disk, cd to dvd. Going from PSX's CD read speed at 150kb/s to PS2's dvd read at 5.28mb/s gave a rather substantional improvement too (about 30 to 40times faster?).

    Anyway i agree with Yamauchi's point of view.
     
  16. Cyan

    Cyan orange
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    @Arwin if you can or use the PC try F1 2020 on the PC. I am going to purchase it after playing F1 2018. I didnt expect a game like that get me soooo hooked. I dont play anything else 'cos the game never bores me -unlike say the official Forza sim and Forza Horizon, which for whatever reason I find boring-. I play F1 2018 a 165fps, just not at the native resolution of my monitor, 'cos at 1440p I get like 120-140fps on average and the GPU works a bit hard, I prefer it to be silent.

    The Cockpit camera works very well at 60 fps -the nose camera at 60 fps is very jerky compared to 165fps-. It's not as smooth as 165fps but the difference is less noticeable. However, the extra smoothness helps a lot in tracks like Baku, where at 60fps I hit the walls a LOT more in the fast succession of turns between the buildings. At 165fps I get to manage those parts of the track just fine.

    If you have Steam, add me! My nick is laxcivo there.
     
  17. Cyan

    Cyan orange
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    while playing F1 2020 and experimenting quite a bit, I found that a sweet spot for higher resolutions and smoothness, starts at 75-77.

    Once you get used to say 144-165fps, 60 fps feel quite jerky and you see important transitions between the frames. Not bad, but not so pleasant either, it's smooth but... However, at 77fps, the games run smooth and it's more difficult to notice frame transitions so you can go for 1440p, Ultra and 77fps, everything will work fine.
     
    PSman1700 and pharma like this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...