Next gen: 1080p or 60fps....but not both!

stevenmu

ShadowHearth wrote: »

At 90s, most likely you had a non LCD monitor, which could do more resolution "Good", then just native. These days anything that is not native resolution on modern monitors look like ass. Games on 40inch++ TVs at 720p look like ass too.
I am lucky enough to be able to play PC 1080p on 42inch TV and 1080p makes everything look a lot damn better. I even had my console gamer friend to try out BF3 on 1080p PC and ps3 version on same TV. Needless to say I ruined his ability to play BF3 on Xbox at home for weeks.

Yeah, that's a fair point, I find the scaling on the 360/PS3 works reasonably well, but with LCD monitors/TVs there is a definite boost in image quality when running native resolution.

Magill

Still wish they'd built the systems more powerful and just put the price up a bit... just have to look at how many idiots buy a new iphone or another smartphone every year for ~£500. I'd happily pay a bit more for something that will probably last me 5+ years.

Richard Dower

Magill wrote: »

Still wish they'd built the systems more powerful and just put the price up a bit... just have to look at how many idiots buy a new iphone or another smartphone every year for ~£500. I'd happily pay a bit more for something that will probably last me 5+ years.

They tried that....it was called the PS3
Gamers, especially console gamers;, wont justify or are willing to pay 600 Euro. A part of that is to do with retail game prices. Lets not forget that the vast majority of consoles are bought by parents for their children!

They would never fork over 600 quid and then 65 quid per game.......

lertsnim

I am really not bothered by it if I'm being honest

Nevermind_

Richard Dower wrote: »

Lets not forget that the vast majority of consoles are bought by parents for their children!

Really?
i'd like to see a source for that, considering the average age of a gamer is in their 30's!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8564342/Average-video-gamer-is-37.html
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/726494/the-average-age-of-a-gamer-is-30-says-esa/
they may ostensibly be buying the console for the kids but many will plan on using it regularly themselves.

PickledLime

cursai wrote: »

My 50inch panasonic tv only blows up to 720p with a 200mhz rate what will it matter to someone like me.

Hope you turn off all that refresh rate gubbins when playing, if you're not playing with the native refresh rate of your console (assuming your using HDMI, so 60Hz) then the only thing you're gonna get is input lag.

Amirani

Nevermind_ wrote: »

Really?
i'd like to see a source for that, considering the average age of a gamer is in their 30's!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8564342/Average-video-gamer-is-37.html
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/726494/the-average-age-of-a-gamer-is-30-says-esa/
they may ostensibly be buying the console for the kids but many will plan on using it regularly themselves.

In fairness, that includes the people who are playing Angry Birds and Candy Crush on their iPod touch.

ScumLord

gizmo wrote: »

Will they have the raw power of PCs costing four figures and up? No, of course not but they were never going to have that in the first place.

A PC costing over a grand is a production level machine, My PC cost just over a grand but that extra power is for video editing like After effects and has redundancy built into the hard drives so I don't lose any data. Games don't need that kind of power at all. I never have to worry about frame rates or resolution though, bang everything up to the last and play away.

There's a constant here where people are comparing Uber PC's to consoles and of course the uber PC is going to seem expensive but you really don't need one for playing games.

My PC has been built up over ten years, which is handy. I don't have to go out buying all new stuff because the new version of windows isn't compatible with older games and hardware. That's the thing with new PC stuff, you can be guaranteed it's at least as good as before but more than likely much better.

gizmo wrote: »

I would be happy to wager that you would not be able to build a PC with a similar form factor to a console,

Mini ATX has been out for a long time now, I built one myself. Wouldn't recommend it though, a large case is so much easier to work with and I think look better at the end of the day..

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A PS4 will not be as technically ravishing when it comes to graphic intensive games like BF4, but nor has a PC ever hosted the vast amount of delightful exclusives from Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft consoles.

While we don't have those exclusives we do have a whole range of exclusives based on the adaptability of the PC. If you're into nerdy stuff like me, that being professional level race simulators there's nothing on consoles that comes close.

Lu Tze

ScumLord wrote: »

gizmo wrote: »

I would be happy to wager that you would not be able to build a PC with a similar form factor to a console,

Mini ATX has been out for a long time now, I built one myself. Wouldn't recommend it though, a large case is so much easier to work with and I think look better at the end of the day..

Just on this - i put in for one of these - similar size to the consoles coming out and wouldn't look out of place hooked up to the telly. Mini Itx form factor is pretty small, and with some interesting cases out there for it.

imitation

stevenmu wrote: »

I find a lot of this talk about 1080p 60fps to be a bit pointless.

I can remember in the 90s being disappointed if I had to drop my resolution to 1600x1200 to get something to run well. But I learnt pretty quickly that it didn't really matter too much, games looked pretty much as good in the lower resolutions. If it came to a choice between lowering the resolution or dropping some other graphical details, I lowered the resolution straight away.

I'd be perfectly happy with games running at 720p, but with lots of detail and effects, and most importantly, good design.

Dropping to 1600x1200 in the 90s ? You must of had an ungodly pc in the late 90s with an insane monitor, biggest I remember was that size on a 21" cad screen.

My own family pc with a voodoo and later a voodoo 3 was 800x600 if I was super lucky or 640x480 otherwise. 1024 was just for the desktop !

On topic, I do think 720p will stick around, its just too darn practical. The majority will game on less than 32" at which the difference is much less noticeable. As well, are you going to spend the extra resources on better textures and more polygons or just more pixels that might just highlight how dated your game looks ? Historically I know which one has won out and sells more games.

If people start moving up in screen sizes and resses we might see some change again, who knows considering my phone has a 1080p display.

cursai

PickledLime wrote: »

Hope you turn off all that refresh rate gubbins when playing, if you're not playing with the native refresh rate of your console (assuming your using HDMI, so 60Hz) then the only thing you're gonna get is input lag.

Never noticed anything like that. Its advertised to have a 600hz rate but in reality ive been told its actually 200hz. Never noticed any lag on anything and theres no option to turn it down. Great tv though. Does a super job!

ScumLord

imitation wrote: »

Dropping to 1600x1200 in the 90s ? You must of had an ungodly pc in the late 90s with an insane monitor, biggest I remember was that size on a 21" cad screen.

Old CRT monitors used to go up to crazy resolutions. I remember having settings up in the 2000s but going back down because you simply couldn't see the writing on the screen anymore. Games typically ran in 800x600 though.

ScumLord

Lu Tze wrote: »

similar size to the consoles coming out and wouldn't look out of place hooked up to the telly.

The other thing about PCs these days and especially now that more programs are being downloaded is that you often don't need access to the PC. You could simply hide it if it's ugly.

tuxy

Input lag is not very noticeable with a controller compared to a mouse because a mouse is much more responsive.

PickledLime

cursai wrote: »

Never noticed anything like that. Its advertised to have a 600hz rate but in reality ive been told its actually 200hz. Never noticed any lag on anything and theres no option to turn it down. Great tv though. Does a super job!

Some people don't notice it, while it drives other folk crazy. Not sure what my mate's telly was (think it was 200Hz as well) but playing games on it felt like you were pushing through treacle. Trying to play Killzone 2 on it (which already has a hefty amount of input lag) was unbearable for myself, while my mate didn't bat an eyelid.

Your console is only refreshing the information its sending to the screen 60 times a second while the TV is refreshing it 200 times, so you end up with the visuals refreshing 3.33 times faster than the information it's receiving from the console, which is why it can be perceived as lag.

Although if you don't notice it an enjoy your TV, it's entirely moot!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Apart from recording, why do you need 60fps?

nesf

stevenmu wrote: »

I find a lot of this talk about 1080p 60fps to be a bit pointless.

I can remember in the 90s being disappointed if I had to drop my resolution to 1600x1200 to get something to run well. But I learnt pretty quickly that it didn't really matter too much, games looked pretty much as good in the lower resolutions. If it came to a choice between lowering the resolution or dropping some other graphical details, I lowered the resolution straight away.

I'd be perfectly happy with games running at 720p, but with lots of detail and effects, and most importantly, good design.

You have to bear in mind the size of the monitor and your viewing distance. Assuming a normal computer monitor set-up, you'd expect 720p to look a hell of a lot better/more acceptable on a 24" monitor than a 27" or 30" one. With 1080p looking ok on 27" but not as sharp as say 2560 x 1440.

danthefan

I'd like to see a 5 year old €300 PC run Uncharted 3 or The Last of Us or Gran Turismo 6.

Devs are going to get more out of the console as time goes on. I can't believe people are surprised by the fact these consoles aren't going to be as powerful as PCs, of course they aren't.

And I'll tell you why I'm getting a PS4 - it's not for 1080p (tbh I doubt I'd notice the difference between 720p and 1080p) or because it can do a certain frame rate, it's because games are going to come out on it that I want to play. End of.

nesf

danthefan wrote: »

And I'll tell you why I'm getting a PS4 - it's not for 1080p (tbh I doubt I'd notice the difference between 720p and 1080p) or because it can do a certain frame rate, it's because games are going to come out on it that I want to play. End of.

Sir. This is a console thread. Take your sense and go away.

gizmo

ScumLord wrote: »

A PC costing over a grand is a production level machine, My PC cost just over a grand but that extra power is for video editing like After effects and has redundancy built into the hard drives so I don't lose any data. Games don't need that kind of power at all. I never have to worry about frame rates or resolution though, bang everything up to the last and play away.

There's a constant here where people are comparing Uber PC's to consoles and of course the uber PC is going to seem expensive but you really don't need one for playing games.

A PC costing about a grand is far from a production machine and a cursory glance at the Building & Upgrades forum would show it's probably middle of the ground when it comes to PCs built for gaming in mind.

That being said I'm certainly not one of those people who harped on about needing a ~€1000 PC throughout the entire console gen in order to stay competitive. With the move to the next generation of consoles though, we're going to see games which do take advantages of those multiple cores, extra RAM and higher spec'd GPUs most PC enthusiasts have been (under)using for the last few years. Now is probably the best time for those kinds of machines if only for the fact that a GPU upgrade in a couple of years will probably see it through to the end of the gen.

ScumLord wrote: »

Mini ATX has been out for a long time now, I built one myself. Wouldn't recommend it though, a large case is so much easier to work with and I think look better at the end of the day..

I'm aware of mATX. My point, however, had nothing to do with its existence.

danthefan

nesf wrote: »

Sir. This is a console thread. Take your sense and go away.

Terribly sorry

deceit

I will be getting both consoles, (ps4 then xbox) but I was disappointed to hear unlike the xbox and 360 they wont be more powerful than the high end pc's that where out at the time. (This is because they want to make a profit on the consoles this time around as well as the games).
To be honest I was expecting eyefinity on new consoles and 4k resolutions, not 1080p.
At this rate I can see myself only getting about 2-3 years use out of them where as I got about 5-6 years out of the 360 before pc's are too far ahead again that I switch solely to pc gaming again.
I was expecting to have to upgrade my two gaming pc's with the next set of gpu's to even be getting similar graphics/performance but at the moment it looks like I could manage higher settings on eyefinity than the consoles can on a single screen .
I do like a lot of the new features of the consoles which will hopefully make up for what its missing in the pure power department though and i'm delighted sony finally made a bigger joypad, the dual shock was too small to hold comfortably.

ScumLord

gizmo wrote: »

A PC costing about a grand is far from a production machine and a cursory glance at the Building & Upgrades forum would show it's probably middle of the ground when it comes to PCs built for gaming in mind.

Anything over a grand is going to be a very high end PC. You're talking about a machine with more than 8gb of ram and possibly SSDs. There's no need to spend over a grand if you're just gaming. The only reason you'd need more ram is for dealing with things like video editing or software that handles very large files.

With the move to the next generation of consoles though, we're going to see games which do take advantages of those multiple cores, extra RAM and higher spec'd GPUs most PC enthusiasts have been (under)using for the last few years. Now is probably the best time for those kinds of machines if only for the fact that a GPU upgrade in a couple of years will probably see it through to the end of the gen.

I've been thinking the same. The mainstream games haven't been fully utilising the PCs power because they're making games for the console market. Now that there's been a step up there we should see a knock on effect for PC games.

nesf

ScumLord wrote: »

Anything over a grand is going to be a very high end PC. You're talking about a machine with more than 8gb of ram and possibly SSDs. There's no need to spend over a grand if you're just gaming. The only reason you'd need more ram is for dealing with things like video editing or software that handles very large files.

Game on proper 30" monitors and you can easily end up over a grand. Yeah for 1080p there's little reason but at resolutions above that you won't get high end performance without some kind of dual GPU setup in many games.

Richard Dower

gtx 780.....650 euro, you could easily splash down well over a grand

Richard Dower

ScumLord wrote: »

Old CRT monitors used to go up to crazy resolutions. I remember having settings up in the 2000s but going back down because you simply couldn't see the writing on the screen anymore. Games typically ran in 800x600 though.

I had a mitsubishi, refresh rate of 85hz and support 2560x1600.....:D

nesf

Richard Dower wrote: »

I had a mitsubishi, refresh rate of 85hz and support 2560x1600.....:D

I had this huge thing. When I finally, after a good few years of LCDs being standard, went for a LCD monitor I was shocked by all the desktop space I now had.

ShadowHearth

Richard Dower wrote: »

gtx 780.....650 euro, you could easily splash down well over a grand

Just because there is is 780, does not mean you need one. High end gpus usually give about 10% increase over mid mid/high end card, which is twice cheaper. People buy the high end gpus for epenis more then for common sense. Something like old gen 680 can be gotten for 280eu and wount be far behind 780 and will run everything way better then next gen consoles for years to come.

High end gaming machine and high end machine are 2 different things in our time. It was in 90s where the only proper use of very very fast pc was gaming. Times changed.
In the end of the day, you need to build smart pc, not a high end pc. Any fool can spend 1000eu on high end pc to play games. smart gamer will build it for less with very little performance hit and ability of upgrade for a very small price. Yes, pc gaming is not for lazy people, you need to know what you doing, but it is not complicated or expensive, As people making it look like.

stevenmu

Richard Dower wrote: »

I had a mitsubishi, refresh rate of 85hz and support 2560x1600.....:D

I had a high end philips one that I got cheap (I was working for a hardware company at the time). It supported 120hz which was great for 3D with a pair of eDimensional shutter glasses. It's funny to see these technologies coming back around again 15 years later

Richard Dower

stevenmu wrote: »

I had a high end philips one that I got cheap (I was working for a hardware company at the time). It supported 120hz which was great for 3D with a pair of eDimensional shutter glasses. It's funny to see these technologies coming back around again 15 years later

Pretty sure mind did 100Hz.....