I think that's when we should have it and prob 8k support within the first year, especially with some of the wonky issues people are having with current implementations it's prob good for them to test everything more, but it prob more for their TVs.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I believe so, but don't have an Xbox myself - so I could be mistaken.
I think that's more of a technicality to cover their bases. Other systems that have VRR support still have oddball titles where it doesn't provide a benefit, so I figure it's the same as that.
It should've been said before launch considering it's been listed as a feature for the better part of a year.
Future is appropriately vague 😒
VRR works at 40-120fps so games that don't hit 60 fps are helped as well
"When playing games that Support VRR" is a statement inspiring a bad idea. All games should Support VRR no matter what ideally. It should be System Level interactions with the Display, not per game.
Last edited:
This is really cool to see, though it was already confirmed to be coming (eventually).
I'm actually in the market for a new TV right now since I'm still on a 1080P set from several years ago, but I won't jump into 120hz/VRR just yet since the tech doesn't seem to be quite there for the price. I'll just grab a decent quality 4k TV with nice HDR and call it a day, and upgrade in a few years again when VRR is more stable and there are more games to support it. The one I've been eying is the TCL 5 Series (5S535). It's only a little over $500 CDN for a 50" which is more than adequate for where I'm planning to put it, and it's not expensive enough to where I feel guilty in upgrading again in a few years.
I'm actually in the market for a new TV right now since I'm still on a 1080P set from several years ago, but I won't jump into 120hz/VRR just yet since the tech doesn't seem to be quite there for the price. I'll just grab a decent quality 4k TV with nice HDR and call it a day, and upgrade in a few years again when VRR is more stable and there are more games to support it. The one I've been eying is the TCL 5 Series (5S535). It's only a little over $500 CDN for a 50" which is more than adequate for where I'm planning to put it, and it's not expensive enough to where I feel guilty in upgrading again in a few years.
VRR is more useful below the 60 fps target than it is above it, honestly.
Yes, please. I would argue that 1440p is more requested and actually used them VRR is.
It should only work on a system level. And full locked games don't really support variable refreshes.
True. To be more precise. VRR is at its most useful in the 50 to 60 FPS range, followed by the 40-50 FPS range, followed by the 60-120FPS range. The 120-240 FPS range benefits the least from it.
It's useful in any scenario. When the frames drop, without VRR you really feel it, no matter how fast the game's going.
Most developers opt for a locked 30fps if they can't target locked 60fps or above. I understand it may be more useful from a perceptibility perspective but it's often not how games are implemented.
Between 60-120 there is far more variability in frame rates.
At this point in time, it appears the choice is locked 30fps with RT or 60fps without. VRR will probably improve the target resolutions devs will aim for with many games as they're likely erring on the side of caution to ensure stable frame rates.
It's definitely a bigger issue when you give end users choice in their experience like on PC. Right now I doubt it'll make any meaningful changes for the end user, as games start to push the systems more, that's a different matter.
I don't understand this too much but I think oldergames are maxed out FPS wise, if it was unlocked it would go to 60 but i cannot see old games having 120fps. Unless they are remastered or patched or made again. I could be wrong though.
Sony uses that kind of language all the time and people always freak out about it and they're usually wrong.
Not everybody has a TV that supports it. Assassin's Creed Valhalla on Xbox Series X benefits from VRR, but for people with older TVs a more agressive dynamic resolution and rocksolid 60 fps would be better.
Sony are probably just covering their bases with that statement, like they did with "boost mode", etc. No need for fearmongering until the feature can be properly tested. Nvidia added G-Sync support to windowed applications on PC some time ago, but, in practice, the implementation is terrible for all APIs older than DX12 and Vulkan (which don't support FSE - full screen exclusive - mode).
Everybody should know by now how Sony communicates its features by under promising and "just" delivering or "over" delivering. I see no reason to have concerns about that statement just assume it's for all games and if it isn't then voice your displeasure.
I strongly disagree with that.
If you're below 60, it's a bad time with or without VRR. Not as bad, but far from ideal.
Once you start pushing above 60, it becomes increasingly difficult to hit a consistent target like 120 FPS. With VRR you no longer need to.
Being able to hit frame rates like 80, 90, 100 FPS on a 120Hz display is far more significant than making sub-60 a bit less bad.
Games should still be targeting a locked frame rate on fixed-refresh displays, but raise that limit with VRR.
You could build a game which targets an average of 90 FPS with VRR and lock it to 60 with a non-VRR display.
I hope you are right.
You don't have to be within 60 - 120 to see the benefits of VRR. Even a variable 30 - 60 will look so much better with VRR engaged
Good to see this, we had some in the hdmi 2.1 bandwidth thread state the current bandwidth value was why the PS5 wouldn't have VRR and ALLM or Dolby Vision support.
We even had some geniuses tell us they had cheaper out on the HDMI chip, this was disproved.
It's unfortunate, most of us knew this would be coming but others seem happy to try and paint pictures in a negative light so these confirmation threads are needed.
We even had some geniuses tell us they had cheaper out on the HDMI chip, this was disproved.
It's unfortunate, most of us knew this would be coming but others seem happy to try and paint pictures in a negative light so these confirmation threads are needed.
This. Hopefully since a ton of comments in said blog asks for it they will make it also a priority among other things.
I'm well aware of that. Given the nature of consoles however, that is where the fluctuations are most likely to occur.
Developers have the choice of controlling the experience that you don't get on PC. Even with VRR the preference is to have a locked frame rate. So devs will choose 30 or 60, then adjust target res and bells and whistles to match. Up above the 60fps mark is where unlocked frame rates come into play.
We aren't seeing many games if any right now dropping frames when targeting 30 or 60. You aren't going to see devs change their approach here in the presence of VRR, it's still preferable to have a locked frame rate.
VRR suddenly became a hot topic because AC: Valhalla is one of the highest profile releases in a long while and isn't V-Synced on SX or PS5. Both tear with the Series X tearing a lot.
If it wasn't for Valhalla then there wouldn't be much discussion of VRR at all right now because there aren't really any other current releases that see the same benefit.
To, me this is a convenience feature, not some must have day0 service. OS and game stability is much more important, and they are obviously busy working on that.
It will come.
Bugsnax would see a huge benefit just for starters. Framerate is all over the place in that game. And CoD. Literally any game that isn't a locked 60 or 120.
I'm pretty sure you need a tv that has VRR regardless if the system has VRR. For example, You won't get VRR enabled on Xbox if the TV itself doesn't have it.
Literally any game wiht an unlocked framerate sees benefit. This isn't some mystery sauce nobody has experience with, this is the PC gaming standard of the last decade.
Obviously? That doesn't mean it's not a system level feature.
Two parts that matter: the TV supporting it, and the system supporting it. That's it. The game shouldn't enter the equation, the system is playing the game and outputting the video.
How widespread is VRR support in new TVs? I'm the "upgrade my tv once every 10+ years" kinda guy and I'm still rocking 1080p plasma, but thinking about finally jumping to a 4k in 2021 with all this PS5 4k content. Will it be pretty easy to find a high quality TV that supports 120hz/VRR?
I use a 144hz/g-sync 1440p monitor for my PC so I've definitely seen the benefits and would be cool to have that on my couch+tv console setup.
I use a 144hz/g-sync 1440p monitor for my PC so I've definitely seen the benefits and would be cool to have that on my couch+tv console setup.
Ahhh Just re-read it. Hmmm could be typical legal jargon. Just in case there's a game where it doesn't work well.
