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

What would you prioritize?

  • Total voters
    42
Tkumpathenurpahl said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because we don't know the details yet and have had sources claiming XSX will be just as fast in SSD speeds in the end. Maybe you're right and PS5 has a large advantage, but untill then, it's all speculation based on (limited) raw paper specs.
I just could see that MS kinda had to go with different tech to reach the same goal, because of the small memcard ssd upgrades, they dont want or can stress the drive itself, but make up for it with better compression.

I see many stating things are not possible on XSX or even PC like the tech demo, i just think that there is more to it. Don't forget that both consoles are designed around the SSD, and again, i think both had different reasons to reach the same goals (brute force vs efficiency). Also, WC has been a rather reliable source so far, they seem to be tight with Microsoft, and they claimed to know that the XSX will close the gap with it's tech versus the raw transfer rates.
It could all be lies though for marketing reasons, but that goes both ways so we will have to see. I guess MS will also show some more tech demos once we get closer and closer to actual release dates.

In the end, both are going to be amazing systems, as shown in tech demos what they are capable off.
 
PSman1700 said:
...considering both have gone with different ways to obtain the same end result in storage speed (raw speed vs better compression tech).
Click to expand...
You keep saying this but it's just not true. Both use compression extensively. The only advantage MS has there is the use of BCPack which gets better performance for textures, but only textures and not twice as fast decompression as Kraken. There's no point where MS catches up with Sony here. Sony choose to max out storage where MS chose to max out GPU.

Not only do you repeat this FUD, you do so stubbornly with with refusal to accept fair arguments. Earlier you posted about MS using more quivalent CPU power to drive their compression as evidence it was more effective. You were corrected on this, that Sony uses more relative CPU power than MS, and just ignored that reality. You don't even respond when I directly pointed out to you when I made a point to ask for your adapted thoughts in light of your misinformation. And here you are again, repeating the same fake narrative as if all the previous discussion hasn't happened.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but please don't repeat the same points ad nauseum as if fact when you refuse to actually connect in a real debate on the subject.
 
BRiT said:
Pedantic: 18% GPU at minimum and 25% memory bandwidth
Click to expand...

Fair one. I calculated the compression rates, but just went off memory for the GPU differential. And my memory's terrible, so I should know better.

PSman1700 said:
Because we don't know the details yet and have had sources claiming XSX will be just as fast in SSD speeds in the end. Maybe you're right and PS5 has a large advantage, but untill then, it's all speculation based on (limited) raw paper specs.
Click to expand...

The speculation is that the XSX will be just as fast in SSD speeds. The data we have right now isn't speculative, it's actual data.

I don't know the source to which you're referring, but the way in which things are phrased can mightily change their meaning. And Chinese whispers are worth bearing in mind too.

If it's been stated that BCPack offers a better rate of compression than Kraken, and that will allow MS to be at less of a deficit than raw speed alone would suggest, then it's quite conceivable that it's been misinterpreted to mean the two will be of equal speed.

But we have no data to suggest that 2.4=5.5. The only way that could come to pass is if Sony used such a dreadful compression tech that it compressed at a rate of 0.87:1.

I've seen you saunter in to the PSVR thread and complain about that, same as a bunch of other PlayStation threads. You don't like PlayStation, that's fine, we all have our opinions. But please do all of us and yourself a favour by at least respecting maths.

Xbat said:
He keeps repeating the same rhetoric all the time. His either a troll or Astro turfing.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the term astro turfing. Could you define it for me please?
 
Yes.
Can we just put a pin in the compression topic for later discussion?
Can we also as a basis work with assumption that PS5 SSD system has a 2:1 advantage over XBSX which has a 125:1 advantage over current-gen designs in the meantime?

Let's move the discussion onto something we haven't ad nauseumed.
 
BRiT said:
Yes.
Can we just put a pin in the compression topic for later discussion?
Can we also as a basis work with assumption that PS5 SSD system has a 2:1 advantage over XBSX which has a 125:1 advantage over current-gen designs in the meantime?

Let's move the discussion onto something we haven't ad nauseumed.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't wait to see more information about both systems. Hopefully we get more deep dives. Did MS reuse shape , did they enhance shape and if so in what ways. Devs familiar with the xsx say that ms has customer hardware for decompression also. How does it work ?

Lots of questions so little answers
 
eastmen said:
I honestly can't wait to see more information about both systems. Hopefully we get more deep dives. Did MS reuse shape , did they enhance shape and if so in what ways. Devs familiar with the xsx say that ms has customer hardware for decompression also. How does it work ?

Lots of questions so little answers
Click to expand...

Good thing we'll hear more details at HotChips on August 17.

Tommy McClain
 
In the interest of getting back on topic, I like options. For example, I played God of War on my PS4Pro before I got a 4K TV. Even though the framerate was variable at 1080p, I much preferred it to supersampled 4K. That changed when I upgraded my TV.

It would be nice to have a similar option this coming generation: 4K30 or 1440p60 with a variable framerate. I would hope that VRR makes this more viable/appealing to developers.

Given that dips below 30fps begin to make a game nigh unplayable (although I have fond memories of Shadow of the Colossus choking my PS2, and how epic that made it feel) I do wonder if a target of 60fps with regular dips below might actually make the QA process a little more straightforward for developers?

A strenuous scene, halving the framerate, in a 30fps game would kill it. The same scene, with the same cost to framerate, in a 60fps game would still leave it completely playable. So a 30fps game always has to be designed around the worst case scenario which, I expect, means a good chunk of performance is often going unutilised.

The developers behind UE5 spoke at length (I think in the DF article? Not sure off the top of my head) about temporal accumulation. Wouldn't temporal data be aided by a higher framerate? If so, and if utilisation of temporal data increases over the coming generation, shouldn't we expect higher framerates by default?
 
To address the thread topic, I mostly game on PC connected to a TV, so 60fps first (pending a TV upgrade) and then max IQ and then whatever resolution I can hit while maintaining those levels.
 
iroboto said:
Sony has a marketing contract with UE right now. This much is known.
Click to expand...
This is very much news to me. I am aware Sony and Epic have a strategic licensing agreement, but that's not marketing and Epic are not marketing people. Can you elaborate?

iroboto said:
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.
Click to expand...

I felt there was way more implied detail of PS5's GPU performance around the discussion on of the graphics tech than the SSD, which unless I missed something, nobody at Epic said anything more than Sony have said? As for not being able to talk abut PC (why wouldn't they?), the Epic guys did talk about PC performance relative to PS5's SSD.

iroboto said:
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.
Click to expand...

I must have missed some things. What did Epic reveal/market that Sony have not already disclosed. Unless you think a developer talking about the nextgen tech the are leveraging is marketing, but how is that any different from any developer talking about how their code works.
 
DSoup said:
This is very much news to me. I am aware Sony and Epic have a strategic licensing agreement, but that's not marketing and Epic are not marketing people. Can you elaborate?



I felt there was way more implied detail of PS5's GPU performance around the discussion on of the graphics tech than the SSD, which unless I missed something, nobody at Epic said anything more than Sony have said? As for not being able to talk abut PC (why wouldn't they?), the Epic guys did talk about PC performance relative to PS5's SSD.



I must have missed some things. What did Epic reveal/market that Sony have not already disclosed. Unless you think a developer talking about the nextgen tech the are leveraging is marketing, but how is that any different from any developer talking about how their code works.
Click to expand...
No worries. I sort of figured that when I was writing.
Article here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulta...rd-about-xbox-series-x-with-ue5/#9fb161b2716d

As a part of marketing campaigns, you often get notes as a stipulation of the arrangement where you’re not supposed to mention or promote the competition of the entity you’ve done the deal with. In this case, I could easily see the Epic team being told before this “please don’t mention Xbox,” hence all the back-breaking linguistic twists and turns they did to avoid mentioning it at all. But UE5 will certainly work on Xbox Series X, and members of that team, from Phil Spencer to Aaron Greenburg, said as much after the presentation.
Click to expand...

They refused to discuss comparisons between PC, XSX, and PS5 in terms of performance.
 
iroboto said:
No worries. I sort of figured that when I was writing.
Article here:
Click to expand...
This is speculation. It definitely is not "known". And it's Forbes!! :runaway:

iroboto said:
They refused to discuss comparisons between PC, XSX, and PS5 in terms of performance.
Click to expand...

You could argue that avoiding comparisons is a smart move, it would just have turned into a fanboy bunfight. At no point did Epic suggest these visuals weren't possible, or wouldn't be better, on other hardware. They are looking to flog you an engine after all.

Epic may have a deal with Sony, we don't know. Epic may have approached Sony and Microsoft and only Sony engaged - this was made back in March and maybe Microsoft felt it just didn't fit with their other plans. Maybe PS5 was the only option, who knows what actual state UE5 is in right now - maybe they needed that stupid SSD to stop the realtime playable demo from falling to pieces.

It's Unreal Engine, "janky" is their middle name ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...l-be-immersion-more-than-visuals-spencer-says

framerate over visual

unknown.png
 
"I think we're at a point now -- with immersion, with the tools we have and the compute capability -- that the deltas will be smaller from a visual impact, or that feature X was never possible before and now it is. And that might sound depressing to some, but what I would say is the advantage side of what I'm seeing now is really the immersive nature of the content that's getting created."

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...l-be-immersion-more-than-visuals-spencer-says

Explains why we didn't get that true next generational jump in graphics at the Sony showcase as we where used to from other generation shifts. MS won't be able to deliver that either. We are at that point in time where we have to invent new idea's to introduce for generations, like VR, faster load/instant play and resume, perhaps 3d audio and controllers inventions like latency, haptic etc.Ray tracing for more correct lighting and reflections but only in minimal way.
 
chris1515 said:
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...l-be-immersion-more-than-visuals-spencer-says

framerate over visual

unknown.png
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I don't get that interpretation. To me it reads as we're getting to the point where it'll be relatively easy to approach photorealism.

At which point to achieve a greater perception of realism is it worth it to spend Ooodles of power for a small graphical gain (say 5% for arguments sake) or a little bit less oodles of power for graphics while still getting most of the benefits (say 3-4% for arguments sake) while allocating a bit more in order to hit 60 FPS making the presentation smoother, more responsive and most importantly more lifelike versus "cinematic" (low framerate barf).

60 FPS, IMO, will increase graphical fidelity FAR more than spending all of your budget only on pretty pictures in a 30 FPS slideshow (exaggeration). This is especially true when using temporal rendering techniques.

If this generation moves to embrace more temporal forms of rendering, there's a chance that no 30 FPS game will be able to challenge well made 60 FPS games WRT graphical presentation.

Regards,
SB
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Hmmm, I don't get that interpretation. To me it reads as we're getting to the point where it'll be relatively easy to approach photorealism.

At which point to achieve a greater perception of realism is it worth it to spend Ooodles of power for a small graphical gain (say 5% for arguments sake) or a little bit less oodles of power for graphics while still getting most of the benefits (say 3-4% for arguments sake) while allocating a bit more in order to hit 60 FPS making the presentation smoother, more responsive and most importantly more lifelike versus "cinematic" (low framerate barf).

60 FPS, IMO, will increase graphical fidelity FAR more than spending all of your budget only on pretty pictures in a 30 FPS slideshow (exaggeration). This is especially true when using temporal rendering techniques.

If this generation moves to embrace more temporal forms of rendering, there's a chance that no 30 FPS game will be able to challenge well made 60 FPS games WRT graphical presentation.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...
mmm indeed. Temporal rendering techniques are pretty incredible when nothing is moving, but once you turn, at 30fps, everything is a blur fest and then once you stop, things get sharp again. It's really brutal imo. 60 should clean that up better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top