What framerate will next-gen target? *spawn

[Xbat]

I predict that there will be more 60fps games next gen but there will still be 30 fps games. Take God Of War for example not once did I think they should of dumbed down the graphics so that they could of had 60 fps, yes 60 fps would of been nice but not at a cost of the graphic fidelity.

This is my opinion though and I understand others will disagree. If you have a top end gaming PC and are used to higher frames and if you go straight from gaming at high fps on PC to 30 fps on console it can be jarring. You do get used to it though.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

- 30 FPS for dirty HDMI 2.0 peasants
- 30-60 FPS VRR for the glorious HDMI 2.1 masterrace

- 60-90 FPS + reprojection for PSVR2 (Sony) and Windows Mixed Reality (Microsoft)

 

[Pixel]

I didn’t pay $5000 on a 4K OLED HDR not to take advantage of it.
4K resolution and graphics with proper HDR is my priority. 60fps gaming at 1080p, I could have kept my plasma.

There’s no next gen without 4K HDR.

If you are going to hook up relatively cheap hardware to your $5000 tv you are going to receive a compromised experience. Its just like if you were able to take a sleek lightweight F1 racecar and swap out the engine with that of a Chevy Spark your F1 racecar performance will be compromised by the cheaper less performant components.
I would connect that OLED to a gaming PC, and modify windows desktop so it autohides the taskbar & clock, disable visibility of desktop icons and get an oled friendly background picture and enable an oled friendly screensaver, modify a browser so you autohide hide or eliminate as many fixed bars and buttons as possible.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you are going to hook up relatively cheap hardware to your $5000 tv you are going to receive a compromised experience.

That's not really true. TV's are self contained and just require a signal, which can be ideal from all sorts of devices. What matters is the data - a $2000 Netflix streamer won't be as high quality as a $200 UHD player.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a $400 console connected to a TV and expecting it to look glorious, but of course if you can spend more and want to spend more and don't mind the other potential compromises/difference, a vastly more expensive gaming PC will look better.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

The point of buying the best tv is so all your content looks as best it can, not to pair it with only the strongest piece of pc hardware. Mario Kart 8 on your new fald or oled is going to look a hell of a lot better than on the bargain set you picked up in 2010.

 

[Pixel]

The point of buying the best tv is so all your content looks as best it can, not to pair it with only the strongest piece of pc hardware. Mario Kart 8 on your new fald or oled is going to look a hell of a lot better than on the bargain set you picked up in 2010.

That's not really true. TV's are self contained and just require a signal, which can be ideal from all sorts of devices. What matters is the data - a $2000 Netflix streamer won't be as high quality as a $200 UHD player.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a $400 console connected to a TV and expecting it to look glorious, but of course if you can spend more and want to spend more and don't mind the other potential compromises/difference, a vastly more expensive gaming PC will look better.

Indeed I'm not trying to saying that there is any wrong or right way to use a $5000 tv, I'm just looking for solutions to iroboto's dilemma of wanting universal true native 4K in his games, and as we all know that compromises on resolution will be made on a large % of games for the upcoming inevitable $400-500 ps5/x2 through a variety of rendering/upscaling techniques and those limitations can always be less so on PC. We all know console makers will not enforce Native 4K. Really PC is the only way to go if you want to get as close to get a mostly* uncompromised* 4K experience as possible.
*Since games similar to ARK Survival Evolved in hardware requirements will be created in the future that will prevent even future top level $1000 GTX xx80ti to their knees at 4K highest settings.

 

[iroboto]

Indeed I'm not trying to saying that there is any wrong or right way to use a $5000 tv, I'm just looking for solutions to iroboto's dilemma of wanting universal true native 4K in his games, and as we all know that compromises on resolution will be made on a large % of games for the upcoming inevitable $400-500 ps5/x2 through a variety of rendering/upscaling techniques and those limitations can always be less so on PC. We all know console makers will not enforce Native 4K. Really PC is the only way to go if you want to get as close to get a mostly* uncompromised* 4K experience as possible.
*Since games similar to ARK Survival Evolved in hardware requirements will be created in the future that will prevent even future top level $1000 GTX xx80ti to their knees at 4K highest settings.

no solution is perfect unfortunately. I thought that way too. I went with a 1070 before I got my X1X.
Some issues I ran into with the setup.
PC is beside my TV, sitting on a desk, so no issues there and I bought a remote keyboard to support using my PC on a couch.
That being said I noticed few pros and many cons.
a) Pros. Resolution and performance as expected.
b) Cons...
Keyboard menus and navigating windows and steam big picture was annoying, not ideal for couch work.
I ended up hating my remote keyboard
Any MP game you are gimped using a controller playing against the population of m+kb users
Most of the m+kb games I play on my G-Sync monitor, the speeds and sensititivites I play on for those games are better suited for a 24" monitor and not a 65" screen where I'm trying to create a mini theatre experience by sitting 6' away from the screen.
HDR - Adventure games will do well, but HDR could be an issue.
Friends and platform.
Overall I just found playing PC on a couch on a big screen TV, great when everything was working, annoying when things weren't. QOL issues etc. These are all thought out about thoroughly on the console platforms, but you're left to figure it all out on PC. Arguably, the PC experience is designed for desk, mouse and keyboard. They just have not invested enough into PC to make it a good setup and go couch experience.

I still have my PC, I just use it for games where monitor and m+kb are more appropriate than a big screen experience.

In the end, the console experience was better and getting in and out, having everything just work, I didn't need to fiddle with anything. And with 4K, you must fiddle, it's not like you can 4K Ultra preset and expect everything to run at 30/60. You're going to get crazy amounts of stutter without fine tuning. G-sync has spoiled me in this regard.

 

[DieH@rd]

No matter the HW strenght, there is no framerate target [except for VR, where framerate impacts health] set by anyone.

Every dev will decide for themselves, and most will pick 30.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

I'm still reading through this thread, but I'd like two modes like God of War as standard: high res at 30fps, or lower res at 60fps.

God of War at ~60 fps with a little bit of motion blur has been perfect

 

[Goodtwin]

I think 60fps will become the standard next generation, but that wont stop some developers to opt for 30fps which allows them the overhead to push the visuals beyond what its competitors are doing at 60fps. No matter the hardware, the difference in overhead saved by going with 30fps instead of 60fps is a monumental savings. I am a believer in the idea that we are in an era of diminishing returns. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for new platforms to offer that generational leap. I know some people do not agree with this, and that is ok, but the reason I bring it up is because I believe that games already look so nice that the discernible difference between the visuals of a 60fps game and a 30fps game will be even less noticeable with the next generation. I believe this will encourage more developers to shoot for 60fps. Selling games primarily by trying to wow the consumer with cutting edge visuals will be tougher with each additional generation. Gameplay is always preferable at 60fps compared to 30fps. This doesnt mean a 30fps is unplayable, but if a game is fun at 30fps it will likely be even more enjoyable at 60fps. That is why I will probably wait for a Steam sale and buy Doom for a second time. I enjoyed the hell out of it on my Switch, but I would like to try out the experience at 60fps at some point.

 

[eloic]

I believe that games already look so nice that the discernible difference between the visuals of a 60fps game and a 30fps game will be even less noticeable with the next generation. I believe this will encourage more developers to shoot for 60fps.

Games look very nice, indeed, but I expect much much more, and I'm not talking about resolution.

I have yet to see a game with proper hair and cloth simulation. Not even 2 players fighting games are achieving this, even though developers can put almost all the resources into the characters.

 

[OCASM]

Lighting and specially volumetrics still have a looong way to go before we hit diminishing returns.

 

[ultragpu]

Games look very nice, indeed, but I expect much much more, and I'm not talking about resolution.

I have yet to see a game with proper hair and cloth simulation. Not even 2 players fighting games are achieving this, even though developers can put almost all the resources into the characters.

If a meagre 54 gigflop 6800 Ultra could render this back then, I wonder why Nalu's hair isn't the standard on multi teraflop consoles yet?

 

[eloic]

If a meagre 54 gigflop 6800 Ultra could render this back then, I wonder why Nalu's hair isn't the standard on multi teraflop consoles yet?

Nalu's demo was well thought because it was in an underwater setting. Sure, it was a very pretty demo (I'll always remember it, it's so mesmerizing) but I think the hair strands don't have collision detection.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

The hair strands don't need collision detection (or any physics calculation at all?) because it's a scripted demo IIRC.

Regardless, the very large hair "volume" seen at all times makes me wonder if the individual hair strands aren't actually coming out of a large "blob" stuck to the mermaid's head.

It was still a great tech demo. IMO
Here's a 4K60 version of it that recorded with a GTX1080:

But the most impressive demo I've seen is the RV770 one that somehow never got released to the public..

 

[OCASM]

The hair strands don't need collision detection (or any physics calculation at all?) because it's a scripted demo IIRC.

Regardless, the very large hair "volume" seen at all times makes me wonder if the individual hair strands aren't actually coming out of a large "blob" stuck to the mermaid's head.

It was still a great tech demo. IMO
Here's a 4K60 version of it that recorded with a GTX1080:

But the most impressive demo I've seen is the RV770 one that somehow never got released to the public..

It was using early Octane technology so it was probably running in real-time... on 50 GPUs.

As for Nalu's hair, maybe simplified (spheres, capsules) GPU collision could be used.

EDIT: From 8 years ago...

 

[eloic]

It was using early Octane technology so it was probably running in real-time... on 50 GPUs.

As for Nalu's hair, maybe simplified (spheres, capsules) GPU collision could be used.

EDIT: From 8 years ago...

Cool, but hair strands don't collide with each other, either. The title should be "Almost realistic...". At any rate, It's very disappointing that we don't even have that as a standard, nowadays. I can't understand why so many people seem to care only about more res and 60 FPS, when there're so many other things developers could put their efforts and resources in.

I'd rather prefer a 1080p/30 FPS game with realistic hair and cloth simulation and perfect AA (as well as other graphical aspects which are already a standard or becoming one, of course) over a 4K game where the only noticeable improvement is just resolution.

 

[OCASM]

Cool, but hair strands don't collide with each other, either. The title should be "Almost realistic...". At any rate, It's very disappointing that we don't even have that as a standard, nowadays. I can't understand why so many people seem to care only about more res and 60 FPS, when there're so many other things developers could put their efforts and resources in.

I'd rather prefer a 1080p/30 FPS game with realistic hair and cloth simulation and perfect AA (as well as other graphical aspects which are already a standard or becoming one, of course) over a 4K game where the only noticeable improvement is just resolution.

60 fps is a very noticeable improvement over 30fps so that's understandable. Resolutions over 1080p, not so much unless you're playing on a giant screen.

 

[eloic]

60 fps is a very noticeable improvement over 30fps so that's understandable.

Depending on the game. I've played many good-looking 30 FPS games and I didn't have a problem with that. I still can accept that as well as the graphic quality is pushed as much as possible.

 

[Jupiter]

60 fps is a very noticeable improvement over 30fps so that's understandable. Resolutions over 1080p, not so much unless you're playing on a giant screen.

30fps looks worse on a giant screen than 1080p with good TAA. I always make compromises in resolution first. Then graphic and last frame rate. I put everything according to the frame rate. 30fps does not only looks bad it also playes bad. It's much less fun to play with 30fps.