Devious
Regular
60FPS, minimal controller lantency, reconstruction/dynamic resolution, AND "balls to the walls" visuals.
Make it happen, devs.
What do you prefer for games: Framerates and Resolutions? [2020]
- Thread starter ultragpu
- Start date
Make it happen, devs.
As I only have one display that can output 60Hz I want capped 30hz modes with options to change to a performance mode for 60Hz or higher(for futureproofing). And since my 60Hz TV is also the only 4K TV, so I would want 1080p @ 30Hz standard. Now again I would want modes for higher resolution too. If I had to pick 4k60 vs 4k30. I would definitely pick the latter & then give me extra eye candy.
Tommy McClain
Tommy McClain
I have never played a game at 30fps that didn't offer a superior experience when played at 60fps. The significance varies from game to game, but in general I would rather dial down some settings, especially resolution to get 60fps. Many games are still very enjoyable at 30fps, and as long as its a stable framerate, it works just fine, but without question it would be even better at a solid 60fps. Resolution is a bit overated to me. If you game on a large display sitting close, then resolution will be more important, but for my I am about 8 ft from my 42" LCD, so regardless if its 4k or 1080p, its not going to be a significant benefit. Hell, even 720p looks good at that distance.
Just wait for those RTX3080Ti demos. I think the rebirth (and the other demos) where already impressive, much more so then the linear demo of yesterday.
In that case, HellBlade 2 demo > UE5 tech demo from yesterday. Not only the vast massive draw distances, but also character detail etc, it had so much more. Hats of to Epic/UnrealEngine, surpassed everything else, hell even UE4 was mighty impressive. Rockstar no longer at the top (untill GTA6?
)
acutally under discussion with some members on messages, it could very well (and likely is) UE4 as we don't know how long in development it's been. They would know about UE5 and be presented by Epic the path to take (or ensure not to take) if theyt want to migrate when it's available for them. I assume with games being available on both PC and XSX, this is the desired outcome, it's just going to cost them much less in the long run.In that case, HellBlade 2 demo > UE5 tech demo from yesterday. Not only the vast massive draw distances, but also character detail etc, it had so much more. Hats of to Epic/UnrealEngine, surpassed everything else, hell even UE4 was mighty impressive. Rockstar no longer at the top (untill GTA6?
Depending on the game type and performance.
If it's unstable 60, I prefer rock solid 30.
If it's 30 with bad frame pacing, I prefer unstable 60.
If it have tons of panning (side scroller, isometric, etc), or action, I prefer 60
By preferring 60, I'm good with sacrificing resolution and or visual quality
If it's unstable 60, I prefer rock solid 30.
If it's 30 with bad frame pacing, I prefer unstable 60.
If it have tons of panning (side scroller, isometric, etc), or action, I prefer 60
By preferring 60, I'm good with sacrificing resolution and or visual quality
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
So you're just going to dismiss the statements of an independent developer and the team behind one of the most successful multiplatform engines for decades? Sure.. you do that.
Epic marketing their engine, sure. Why would Epic be interested in marketing Sony's propriety storage tech?
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
After having played Re2 remake at 1080p@60fps I would say 60fps whenever possible. I tried 1440p and 4k but couldn't notice much/if any difference on my 55" tv. Most people sit quite far from their TV so I'd say for most 1080p@60fps with everything turned up to 11 probably gives a nicer image and nicer gameplay than 30fps but a higher resolution with maybe some settings turned down as well.
I don't see why epic would make a big deal about it for marketing purposes and I don't see how Cerney will be targeting a minimum 5GB/s for shits and giggles. Cerney has proven that his really good at predicting or knowing in which direction development is going.
Regarding the frame rate or resolution discussion its a blend of I would take 1440p at 60fps rather than 4k 30fps everytime but for certain games I would take 1440p 30fps for amazing graphics and dynamic worlds.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
For single-player 3rd-person experiences, 1440p plus upscaling at 30FPS like we saw in the UE5 demo seems excellent, as long as there's decent motion blur (object based?).
I don't think people give enough credit to how good motion blur provides a sense of faster framerates.
Also, on TVs with VRR we might actually see that most of the "steady 30 FPS" games are actually running at 40-50FPS most of the time, which also changes both the input latency and motion perception.
I don't think people give enough credit to how good motion blur provides a sense of faster framerates.
Also, on TVs with VRR we might actually see that most of the "steady 30 FPS" games are actually running at 40-50FPS most of the time, which also changes both the input latency and motion perception.
All true, but that's exactly what pc gamers dont want, motion blur to compensate etc, and a 'steady 30'. I could see it working in the console space though, for the mentioned games atleast. With the notion that there seems to be a rise in console gamers wanting 60fps.
Many speculated awhile ago that 4k60 was basically a minimum for next gen.
Many speculated awhile ago that 4k60 was basically a minimum for next gen.
Ike Turner
Veteran
Besides cool tech demos UE4 has always felt like crap at 30fps (Jedi Fallen Order being the worst offender recently for me & the unlocked "60fps" mode isn't much better either). 60fps is the way to go & so far only the Coalition managed to pull this of perfectly with Gears 5.
The engine's overabundant use of temporal accumulation for many of its effects is what's hurting.
Sony has a marketing contract with UE right now. This much is known.So you're just going to dismiss the statements of an independent developer and the team behind one of the most successful multiplatform engines for decades? Sure.. you do that.
Epic marketing their engine, sure. Why would Epic be interested in marketing Sony's propriety storage tech?
I think there could be lots to talk about with respect to Sony's system. But the SSD speed keeps coming up, keeps coming back. It's not to say that Tim doesn't want to say more, but I feel like he's bound to talk about and only about their SSD. Sony's SSD is a game changer in terms of speed and performance, is there nothing else to say about Sony's system? Or is he only bound to keep repeating what's being repeated. He can't talk about Xbox, he can't talk about PC performance.
I'm not saying that when he say's it's a great product that is a lie. I'm saying there's more to be said among other things, but he's only allowed to discuss the SSD.
Hm, it makes sense as to why. It is sony's only hardware advantage (transfer speed), if you have a marketing contract, your going to highlight your advantages, not the disadvantages. In hindsight, the advantage might not even be that big, considering both have gone with different ways to obtain the same end result in storage speed (raw speed vs better compression tech). One might be better suited for developers though (sony's).
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
That's not true. I think I've seen you state sentiments to this effect a few times now, and I don't understand why.
XSX = 2.4GB/s raw and 4.8GB/s compressed
PS5 = 5.5GB/s raw and 8-9GB/s compressed
Compare like for like and it's not at all the case that each have gone with different ways to achieve the same end result. Each has prioritised different aspects of their systems.
Yes, MS's compression tech is better if it's always 2:1 and we've no evidence to suggest that won't be the case. But 1.46:1 to 1.64:1 is no slouch either, especially combined with a higher raw speed.
Now, it may not see all that much use in multiplatform games - we'll have to wait and see - because it may be the case that developers focus primarily on how to get the most out of the XSX's compressed 4.8GB/s and just use the PS5's raw 5.5GB/s, given that it has headroom.
That said, if developers compress textures on the XSX version of games with BCPack, it stands to reason that they would compress the textures of PS5 games with Kraken.
It's likely to become more pronounced as the generation goes on, but I still predict that, in multiplatform games, this will predominantly be used to stream in a greater variance of textures that will mostly manifest as - using GTA as an example - greater variety in NPC's and cars, albeit the same quantity.
And it will matter as much as the XSX's 15% resolution advantage: not at all.
Pedantic: 18% GPU at minimum and 25% memory bandwidth