You must be seeing different reactions than I do. Mostly everyone understands why it's 30FPS in 4K with RT on. RT is demanding as heck. But people just want 60FPS performance mode without RT, not everyone cares about RT that much.
-
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.
Well, you're not wrong there. You'll probably miss out on a lot of games.
I'm fine with that.
Agreed.
That's assuming dropping to 1440p would even guarantee 60fps. It might not.
Naughty graphics designer on 60fps vs 30fps.
"A note on 30fps vs. 60fps: It's not as simple as you think. When we render at 60 fps, we have around 16ms per frame to render. A big chunk of that frame budget is reserved for the basics: polygons and material costs.
Let's say that, to give an example, in a dense scene there is about 10ms of cost per frame, just for the basics. This leaves us 6ms for things like ambient occlusion, screen space reflections, subsurface scattering, particle, bloom, and other post processing effects that serve to make things super cute. This is not a large budget.
But what happens if we go down to 30fps? We now have 33ms per frame for rendering. We have the same base cost of 10ms, but 23ms remain for the nice stuff. It is practically a budget for the advanced features FOUR TIMES higher.
Games running at 60fps make significant sacrifices in rendering quality to achieve a higher frame rate. It's not a magic button we press to suddenly double the FPS. If a gameplay runs at 30fps, it often makes sense to aim for 30fps with better rendering ".
The general assumption is that 30fps gives you double the frame time for additional graphical bells and whilstles etc, but as this more detailed analysis highlights, it's actually in some cases 4x more for graphics extras, as the rendering time for base elements eats away a large portion of that frame time, so the remaining amount is far more limited to the point where the difference is massively exasperated with a 30fps game vs a 60fps one.
RT impacting gameplay.
Add to that, what if RT reflections are actually conducive to gameplay mechanics? Eg when you can't see an enemy, you might be able to see their reflections on glass as they're hiding behind cover, and vice versa.
Developer intended gameplay mechanics shouldn't be affected by frame rate champions. If people care that much about 60fps, honestly they ought to just invest in an enthusiast gaming PC.
Last edited:
100% agree with this. If they can smooth out the fps for a rock solid 30, then depending on the game I am happy with that. Open world games are going to look amazing but I dont expect 60fps.
Huh, thinking about it this is the only one as far as I know too, neat!
Sure but folks are asking for a performance mode, not PC ultra settings at 4K/60 with RT.
Set it at 1440p or 1800p with lowered visuals for 60 fps amd offer it as an option. A lot of people would rather have 60fps for a smooth gameplay on an action game.
Give people a choice and there would be a lot less outcry.
Looking at the PC settings:
Watch Dogs: Legion updated PC requirements (including RT) released
www.resetera.com
Even the max requirements just recommend a 3700X so there should be enough CPU overhead to have a lower res 60 fps mode, hopefully it's there as an option.
I wonder where that puts the new consoles relative to PC GPUs? Obviously, the consoles don't have DLSS and the PC reqs don't mention a framerate target. It's also a total unknown what level of RT the consoles have relative to the PC version.
Leave it to DF?
The 3700X is a lot more powerful than what the console CPUs can produce, however.
I think it would be weird if they don't even have a performance option. Hopefully it is just because of the new hardware tools. People want 60fps. Give us some sort of dynamic resolution option to get there.
This is a terrible take, Shinobi. Developers offer options on PC. Its not too much to ask them to do so for their $60-$70 or more (in EU) on their next gen console.
People don't seem to realize how much of a sacrifice needs to be made to get to 60FPS (or, even worse, to 120FPS). It's not just a matter of "drop the res" - lots of frame time costs are virtually fixed regardless of resolution, so you end with much less than half the frame time (or a quarter, for 120FPS) to do shading and everything else that does scale with resolution.
Seeing how games that don't run at 60fps or have no optional 60fps mode is a minority next gen, no, they won't be missing out much. For instance, I don't think there even is any game on PS5 at launch that has no 60FPS option?
I really wish people stopped comparing this to previous generations and stopped this 30FPS doom and gloom, it's obviously not the same and it's obvious that amount of 60FPS games is mind boggling compared to what we had before.
Thats fine I would want 60 FPS but if the game looks insane I am okay with the 30FPS. However, I do with their was an option for my pals here who enjoy 60FPS. Knock the resolution down to 1440p and then go from there taking away the more graphical intensive settings.
Easier said then done, I know.
Easier said then done, I know.
Just a day after this thread:
www.resetera.com
My Prediction: 60FPS Will Be Available on XSX Throughout this gen.
Prediction: At least 80% of big budget titles made for the Series X (and PS5) will have a 60FPS mode from day 1 until the end of the system's life.* I already know the responses .. blah, blah, blah. . . it's the beginning of the gen, it's always like this in the begginning, we'll be back to...
www.resetera.com
And your point is...? OP of that thread isn't expecting to get full 4K at 60FPS with RAYTRACING enabled.Just a day after this thread:
My Prediction: 60FPS Will Be Available on XSX Throughout this gen.
Prediction: At least 80% of big budget titles made for the Series X (and PS5) will have a 60FPS mode from day 1 until the end of the system's life.* I already know the responses .. blah, blah, blah. . . it's the beginning of the gen, it's always like this in the begginning, we'll be back to...
This is at the start of the gen though, where the majority of games are cross-gen. Most of these multi-platform games barely look better than the best looking games this gen let alone an inspiring benchmark for next-gen. You might want to wait until more next-gen only games release before getting a gauge of the 60fps vs 30fps split.
naaah like I said their games run like shit on everything watchdogs is 1 is still stuttering on 2080ti
Lower than PC max settings for sure.....but also at half the refresh rate of that rec spec machine.
WatchDogs 2 also had Temporal Upsampling didnt it, im sure the console version is using some trickery to get to 4K.
Has 4KMax been not taxing in any AAA game lately other than like Doom?
?
It's not a 'take' lol...I'd like more options too, but realistically developers will still continue to push visual splendor and not everyone's going to offer options.
The vast majority of launch games are cross gen. I think once we get into the full swing of next-gen games a couple years from now, you'll see a lot more 60 compared to current gen but 30's still going to be most common. And I'm fine with 30, you won't find doom and gloom from me.
My point is that 60fps won't be an option for most of the games on the new gen like some people could be expecting. They will focus on graphics as always I guess.
It's not as if you can't already do this with planar reflections.
Really....this is nice. WIll get to see how this works with a 3rd party then.
I'm expecting that with first party games from both platforms. Any multi platform games that do it will just be a pleasant surprise.
This news is exciting to me I'm completely ok with single player games pushing graphics over frames, racing and shooters is where i prefer 60. Those concerned should also wait for Ubisoft to state if there's a performance mode this reminds me of the Miles Morales situation all over again
I have feeling that this kind of stuff will only happen at this gen's start. Later 30fps will be the norm like it always used to be.
Why does everyone yelling about how 4K 60 with RT is demanding assume we want 4K 60 with RT? Yes, we want 60fps with RT, but who ever said anything about 4K? Me personally, I'd have preferred a dynamic 1440p with RT at 60fps.
Sure, but it does feel like performance modes are becoming far more popular. Sony stuck hard to 1080p/30fps for its PS4 exclusives right to the end, but even they are offering 60fps modes from the start on games like Demon's Souls. Legion really should have a 60fps mode, though I'd prefer they drop resolution rather than removing RT if possible (Dictator has said before that some aspects of RT have some hard performance costs that do not scale with resolution, unfortunately).
You must be one of the first people I've seen want motion blur added. I, like a lot of people I think, instantly go into settings and turn off motion blur if it can be toggled. Always seemed to me to not be needed.
Here's hoping there is a 4k60 option somewhere too.
While i am not interested in the game, Valhalla runs at 4K/60fps on Series X and PS5. so much for "runs like shit"
seems WD: Legion is the more demanding game, they couldn´t get it running at 60fps and decided to add raytracing to 4K/30fps, simple as that.
It's not a terrible take, and what you're saying isn't the same thing either. Developers offer options on PC at the expense of finite optimisation. There can be countless hardware combinations with PC gaming, and thus each individual tinkers with settings until they get a rough target average frame rate.
Consoles aren't the same, they're instead fixed hardware and also conform to fixed frame rate and graphics priorities (eg a locked 30fps, or 60fps, with set graphics settings etc). Because of this closed nature, not only are they more specifically optimised (time consuming in and of itself), but they tend to run better than the equivalent PC hardware and settings too.
It's true that some console games do offer options too, but often it's those with more graphical headroom, where the settings differences are extreme (eg 1080p vs 4K), or where the toolkits used are more favourable to platform spreads.
Offering these options on console games also means more development time away from polish and content (this on top of already having to develop for more platforms), and may also compromise the graphical potential somewhat, since the devs are spending less time maximising optimisations around a specific set of fixed settings, and instead multiple.
Planar reflections also come at a much higher rendering cost.
Last edited:
And that probably ain't gonna happen because RT takes an absurd amount of frame time for it to work at 60FPS unless you massively drop the res.
BVH traversal is a very serial load, takes a long time regardless of res, for instance. The only real way to do it "better" is by going faster.
The problem I've seen is that WDL doesn't really show off those "ooh, raytracing!" moments that some people expect. Maybe it's a low-res implementation or something, but most of the reflections, like on cars, look like the standard low-res cube maps we've had for the last two generations. It's only when you look closely that you can see that the player character is actually reflected.
I agree that it should be an option for consoles, just like it is on PC. If Assassin's Creed doesn't have a 30fps raytraced mode, I think people, when comparing the two, will say that the performance hit isn't worth what little visual improvement they see and that they'd rather have the smooth gameplay.
I agree that it should be an option for consoles, just like it is on PC. If Assassin's Creed doesn't have a 30fps raytraced mode, I think people, when comparing the two, will say that the performance hit isn't worth what little visual improvement they see and that they'd rather have the smooth gameplay.
That's why i'm gonna go mainly PC even even this gen.
Sacrificing 60 fps for minor graphical effects (and RT is not so substantial) is simply not accettable.
It also sets a really bad precedent for the entire console gen frame rate wise, as WD is not even built for the new hardware.
Sacrificing 60 fps for minor graphical effects (and RT is not so substantial) is simply not accettable.
It also sets a really bad precedent for the entire console gen frame rate wise, as WD is not even built for the new hardware.
My thoughts, exactly.
I keep reading that RT is a win for developers, as they no longer have to put in the time and work required for "faked" reflections and lighting. What we're seeing, though, is a combination of RT and cube maps, etc., and if a "higher framerates with no raytracing" option is offered, then that means all of the refections still need to be done the "old fashioned" way, nullifying the time-saving benefits.
Perhaps we'll get there as the developers get more experienced with the hardware and learn new methods, but expectations need to be tempered.
High quality per object motion blur is a must-have for all games. It's beautiful.