PlayStation 5 - Now with FAQ in OP.

GhostyMcGhost

Well, now is the test folks

Donegal moved to Level 4.... let’s see if smyths in letterkenny remains opened or not

Markitron

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Well, now is the test folks

Donegal moved to Level 4.... let’s see if smyths in letterkenny remains opened or not

If Smyths were to be given special status (which I believe they will) I don't think it would happen in October.

GhostyMcGhost

Markitron wrote: »

If Smyths were to be given special status (which I believe they will) I don't think it would happen in October.

It’s in place until November 10th so that’s cutting it fine

sticker

heebusjeebus wrote: »

What's the model number?
It's not about upscaling the image, the TV has to be able to accept 120 frames from the console every second. If the hdmi connector cannot handle the bandwidth (from 40GB per second at 4k) then it can't do 4k 120fps.
1080p at 120fps might still be possible but you'd need to check your TV model specifications.

Sorry to interupt, but whats this about? I have a 2/3 year old Sony android 55"4K TV. Will I be able to change it settings for better PS5 output?

Markitron

sticker wrote: »

Sorry to interupt, but whats this about? I have a 2/3 year old Sony android 55"4K TV. Will I be able to change it settings for better PS5 output?

You probably won't be able to get 4k/120 fps, but so few games will actually be doing this that I doubt it will matter.

Unfortunately you are gonna have to slum it with 4K/60 fps

quokula

I expect 120fps is the new stereoscopic 3D. Some enthusiasts will get into it but so few sources will support it that it will get gradually phased out and forgotten about.

Once we get past the cross-gen phase over the next 6 months, developers will start actually using the power of the new hardware for more detailed meshes and textures, more complex lighting models, and more characters on screen etc, making for better looking games, rather than just rendering last-gen graphics twice as fast.

Lord Spence

I honestly can't tell if I am playing a game at 30fps or 60fps

johnny_ultimate

Lord Spence wrote: »

I honestly can't tell if I am playing a game at 30fps or 60fps

Oh the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS is incredible and IMO unmistakable. I’ve been playing some of the Mario collection on Switch and jumping between 60FPS smoothness in Odyssey and 30FPS in Sunshine is night and day. The difference in playability and responsiveness is huge. (I should note I think 30fps can be fine and acceptable for some games as long as the performance and frame pacing and timing are rock solid - e.g TLOU2 - but 60fps is always preferred).

I have a 144hz monitor for my pc and it’s smooth as anything. But there are definitely diminishing returns as you move up the frame rates, unless you’re super twitchy and obsessed with perfect performance for competitive games. There’s a general sense of extra smoothness at higher frame rates, just nowhere near as pronounced as the 30 to 60 jump.

TheIrishGrover

quokula wrote: »

...... Once we get past the cross-gen phase over the next 6 months, developers will start actually using the power of the new hardware for more detailed meshes and textures, more complex lighting models, and more characters on screen etc, making for better looking games, rather than just rendering last-gen graphics twice as fast.

That's actually a good point: This is one of the core differences between PC gamers and Console gamers (Let's not get into which is best, folks. This thread has been refreshingly devoid of fanboyism )

PC gamers are constantly searching for higher and higher FPS. I mean this makes sense at pro/hardcore level where 2 or 3 frames can make all the difference on a twitch-reaction shooter like COD or whatever. Especially as all PCs are not equal (Outside of pro-gaming of course).

But for your console gamer (Like me), with everyone playing on the same hardware, this FPS edge is not really a factor in PvP games. There is a compromise here: As mentioned above, do you want last-gen graphics (Maybe not even fully maxed out) running at 120 FPS or do you want next gen running at max 60FPS.

Speaking for me personally, I am not overly gone on extreme framerate. I find it similar to the over-processing that I always turn off on a new TV. But then, I am old and do not have the reaction time for PvP gaming so don't do it.

So I have a year-old 50inch Samsung 4K (I actually had a 55 in previously but thought the 50 want neater) that I am very happy with and will stick with that.

I certainly don't need/want to spend money on a 120FPS TV for Spiderman: Miles Morales

Edit: Regarding 30-60? Yeah, I do notice that but yeah, I'd rather have a 50 inch 4K TV running @ 60FPS that I can also use for everything else than a 32 inch 144FPS monitor. I'm just not that hardcore

fixXxer

Lord Spence wrote: »

I honestly can't tell if I am playing a game at 30fps or 60fps

Try moving between playing Overwatch on the Switch and on a PS4 Pro, then you'll notice it

sticker

Markitron wrote: »

You probably won't be able to get 4k/120 fps, but so few games will actually be doing this that I doubt it will matter.

Unfortunately you are gonna have to slum it with 4K/60 fps

Lord Spence

fixXxer wrote: »

Try moving between playing Overwatch on the Switch and on a PS4 Pro, then you'll notice it

I play mainly Apex Legends on One X and not even sure what fps it is. Looks like I wont have to worry about it soon enough as mostly everything should be 60fps on PS5

loughrey

marcbrophy wrote: »

Okay so they aren't 100hz panels that have been software updated to appear to flicker higher, they were always 120hz panels!
That makes sense then

I wonder will there be some level of support for my panel, that will max out at 100 native?

Your TV needs to have HDMI 2.1 ports to support 4k at 120hz. Very few TVs have Hdmi 2.1, only a few very high end TVs from 2019 and 2020. The average 4K 120hz TV on the market only supports native 4K 120hz (i.e. from the TV's YouTube app for example) but only 4K at 60hz for external devices connected to the Hdmi as most TVs only have 2.0 ports. Your TV will just be like any bog standard 4K TV out there with 4K at 60hz for the PS5. It's not a big deal anyway, it will be a long time before 120hz 4K becomes standard in games and even at that it's not going to be that noticeable to the casual gamer. It definitely wouldn't be something I'd be rushing out to buy a new TV for. I happen to be getting an OLED tv this year with Hdmi 2.1 support for the PS5 but I won't be using it for the PS5 when I get it, it'll be for my movie from, the PS5 will be connected to my Hdmi 2.0 TV, that's how negligible it will be for most people. So don't worry about it.

Markitron

Having just watched the DF video on the new Dirt rally game, it seems that games are going to seriously have to down-res to reach 120 fps , anything above 1080p will have to downsample anyway.

My TV can manage 1440p at 120 Hz, and that will do me absolutely fine, tbh I am only expecting arcadey games like Stardust and Resogun at that refresh rate. If 60 FPS and a dynamic res that approaches 4K is the standard this gen, I would consider that a huge upgrade.

GhostyMcGhost

Lord Spence wrote: »

I honestly can't tell if I am playing a game at 30fps or 60fps

:pac: .... it’s definitely one of the most noticeable changes in a game

quokula

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

That's actually a good point: This is one of the core differences between PC gamers and Console gamers (Let's not get into which is best, folks. This thread has been refreshingly devoid of fanboyism )

PC gamers are constantly searching for higher and higher FPS. I mean this makes sense at pro/hardcore level where 2 or 3 frames can make all the difference on a twitch-reaction shooter like COD or whatever. Especially as all PCs are not equal (Outside of pro-gaming of course).

But for your console gamer (Like me), with everyone playing on the same hardware, this FPS edge is not really a factor in PvP games. There is a compromise here: As mentioned above, do you want last-gen graphics (Maybe not even fully maxed out) running at 120 FPS or do you want next gen running at max 60FPS.

Speaking for me personally, I am not overly gone on extreme framerate. I find it similar to the over-processing that I always turn off on a new TV. But then, I am old and do not have the reaction time for PvP gaming so don't do it.

So I have a year-old 50inch Samsung 4K (I actually had a 55 in previously but thought the 50 want neater) that I am very happy with and will stick with that.

I certainly don't need/want to spend money on a 120FPS TV for Spiderman: Miles Morales

Edit: Regarding 30-60? Yeah, I do notice that but yeah, I'd rather have a 50 inch 4K TV running @ 60FPS that I can also use for everything else than a 32 inch 144FPS monitor. I'm just not that hardcore

Agree on this. The FPS arms race on PC is also a result of the fact that most devs, certainly AAA devs, will be making games that work on XBone and PS4 as a base because that's where the money is. Even PC-only devs will be using engines, tools and industry standards that have evolved around those consoles.

There are various level of detail and graphical settings of course, but there gets to a point where the games just aren't throwing around enough polygons to challenge top spec GPUs and the only benefit of going ever higher spec is ever higher framerate or resolution.

When the new consoles become the base I expect a step change so that those GPUs start getting challenged more. Of course there will be new GPUs by then that will continue to push framerates up for those that want them.

I still expect 60fps to be the maximum for people playing on consoles on large TVs on their sofa. And 30fps will still be around for a long time to come. the PS4 could have rendered PS3 level graphics at 120fps, the PS3 could have rendered PS2 level graphics at 120fps, but that's just not how the industry works. People will be wowed by games running at 30fps with exceptional image quality and lots of action on screen, and that means better screenshots and marketing material and more sales than targeting 120fps, which many people can barely even perceive, even if they have the TV hardware for it.

Grumpypants

I bought this TV yesterday for €610 on Prime. Usually €699. It seems to be a great TV with lots of high specs features for decent enough money.

https://www.avforums.com/reviews/hisense-u7-4k-lcd-led-tv-review.17094?cmpredirect=

padair

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Well, now is the test folks

Donegal moved to Level 4.... let’s see if smyths in letterkenny remains opened or not

Here's hoping, I have mine booked for pickup

CastorTroy

Likewise. See ye there, looking in the window.
Last time they were closed they still allowed click and collect so hopefully

wes

Markitron wrote: »

Having just watched the DF video on the new Dirt rally game, it seems that games are going to seriously have to down-res to reach 120 fps , anything above 1080p will have to downsample anyway.

My TV can manage 1440p at 120 Hz, and that will do me absolutely fine, tbh I am only expecting arcadey games like Stardust and Resogun at that refresh rate. If 60 FPS and a dynamic res that approaches 4K is the standard this gen, I would consider that a huge upgrade.

My TV is the same 1440p 120 Hz, I think running at 1440p with super sampling for the games that can actually do 4K 120 will be good. I do reckon that as the generation goes on we will see less 120 Hz games. Do we know if Sony supports 1440p? I know Series X should do, as they support that on the One X, but PS4 Pro doesn't support 1440p from what I remember (maybe I am wrong on that).

I do hope at minimum we see developers aim for 60 fps in games for this gen, even if we have to drop resolution.

mmerton365

Front page of Smiths website confirms that Letterkenny remains open for C&C!

Markitron

wes wrote: »

My TV is the same 1440p 120 Hz, I think running at 1440p with super sampling for the games that can actually do 4K 120 will be good. I do reckon that as the generation goes on we will see less 120 Hz games. Do we know if Sony supports 1440p? I know Series X should do, as they support that on the One X, but PS4 Pro doesn't support 1440p from what I remember (maybe I am wrong on that).

I do hope at minimum we see developers aim for 60 fps in games for this gen, even if we have to drop resolution.

Yea 1440p isn't a problem, that's actually the res that many games run at even on the Pro, most notably The Last of Us 2. Even if 1440p isn't selectable, the system will technically be outputting full 4K to the TV with a native 1440p image.

And yea, 120 fps and 1440p res with super-sampling will be very nice.

mmerton365 wrote: »

Front page of Smiths website confirms that Letterkenny remains open for C&C!

Nice, we can end the speculation so.

marcbrophy

loughrey wrote: »

Your TV needs to have HDMI 2.1 ports to support 4k at 120hz. Very few TVs have Hdmi 2.1, only a few very high end TVs from 2019 and 2020. The average 4K 120hz TV on the market only supports native 4K 120hz (i.e. from the TV's YouTube app for example) but only 4K at 60hz for external devices connected to the Hdmi as most TVs only have 2.0 ports. Your TV will just be like any bog standard 4K TV out there with 4K at 60hz for the PS5. It's not a big deal anyway, it will be a long time before 120hz 4K becomes standard in games and even at that it's not going to be that noticeable to the casual gamer. It definitely wouldn't be something I'd be rushing out to buy a new TV for. I happen to be getting an OLED tv this year with Hdmi 2.1 support for the PS5 but I won't be using it for the PS5 when I get it, it'll be for my movie from, the PS5 will be connected to my Hdmi 2.0 TV, that's how negligible it will be for most people. So don't worry about it.

I guess my question was, for HDMI 2.0 compliant TVs, that have a transfer rate of 18Gbps or 4K 60hz maximum, will the console itself take advantage of CPU smoothing in the TV's to take content that's 30/60 hertz and double or quadruple the interloped frames to appear to be 120 hertz?

I.e. can the consoles make the TV's do some of the heavy lifting?

mirrormatrix

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

:pac: .... it’s definitely one of the most noticeable changes in a game

I've literally just looked at a youtube vid with a side-by-side comparison of 30fps vs 60fps and I can barely notice the difference. I must be old so! :eek:

Creamy Goodness

mirrormatrix wrote: »

I've literally just looked at a youtube vid with a side-by-side comparison of 30fps vs 60fps and I can barely notice the difference. I must be old so! :eek:

and what fps was the YouTube video at? if it was 60fps you won't notice the 30fps being shoddy, if it was 30fps the 60fps will be lost and if they were crazy film people and produced the video at 24fps then all bets are off.

this is the sort of stuff you can really only notice from direct sources, a video of it won't do. 30fps is easy enough to spot if you look closely but 30fps on a 60hz screen each frame just stays for an extra refresh cycle so can be hard to see.

the best way to see this change is go into a store that has an iPad Pro (120hz) and a regular iPad (60hz)*, get them to the home screen and swipe really quickly between the two. you'll notice the refresh of the Pro is miles better.


* Used iPad's here as it's an easy setup to see in store as they usually have them side by side, Android tablets are rarely set up as well in stores i.e. a 60hz right beside a high refresh rate one).

mirrormatrix

mirrormatrix wrote: »

I've literally just looked at a youtube vid with a side-by-side comparison of 30fps vs 60fps and I can barely notice the difference. I must be old so! :eek:

The video might have been playing at 30fps on your device.

30fps vs 60fps is extremely noticeable when playing, both the look of the game and more importantly the feel.

Markitron

mirrormatrix wrote: »

I've literally just looked at a youtube vid with a side-by-side comparison of 30fps vs 60fps and I can barely notice the difference. I must be old so! :eek:

Are you 100% sure 60 fps was enabled in the video quality? I am not one of those framerate nazis that think 30 fps is an abomination to be killed with fire, but the difference between 30 and 60 fps should be noticeable to anyone.

mirrormatrix

Markitron wrote: »

Are you 100% sure 60 fps was enabled in the video quality? I am not one of those framerate nazis that think 30 fps is an abomination to be killed with fire, but the difference between 30 and 60 fps should be noticeable to anyone.

Yeah, was looking at this at 1080p60 on a 24" monitor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zquClG3j9so

I can sort of see a difference, I think...

Markitron

mirrormatrix wrote: »

Yeah, was looking at this at 1080p60 on a 24" monitor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zquClG3j9so

I can sort of see a difference, I think...

I honestly can't fathom how you couldn't see the clear difference there, actually playing it would be night and day.

johnny_ultimate

Digital foundry write-up on the UI:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-a-first-look-at-the-ps5-user-interface

As teasing as it is, I think this slow-drip feed of info actually makes the launch lead-up more interesting. Whether that was Sony’s strategy all-along or a panicked one, I couldn’t say :pac: