• Light/Dark
  • 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.

What do you think will be the biggest waste of resources this gen: native 4k, HQ Raytracing or 120fps

Now that you've decided which is the most wasteful, what would you rather have then?

  • High resolution native 4k, lower detail raytracing, lower framerate

    Votes: 223 13.9%

  • Raytraced everything, lower resolution and detail, lower framerate

    Votes: 173 10.7%

  • 120fps, lower resolution and detail, low quality raytracing or even nothing at all

    Votes: 276 17.1%

  • I'd rather have something in between -like sub-4k at 60fps with some form raytracing-

    Votes: 938 58.3%
  • Total voters
    1,610
Tiny Chihuahueño

Tiny Chihuahueño

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,344
So, perhaps PC folks who have been trying these features for a while now will be able to answer this question better than anyone else.
We know that every game is compromised in some way or another, and the new techniques implemented in these new consoles can push the hardware to its limits very quickly.

We know that native 4k is doable, but more resolution means less budget for other stuff and we're already seeing games with "dynamic 4k" labels and sub 4k resolutions in order to keep the game playable.
We also know raytracing, for the time being, hits performance pretty hard and something else needs to be cut down to make room for those reflections/global illumination
And then, 120fps modes. That's double 60 fps, double the amount of frames we usually never see in story driven AAA games on consoles, save a few exceptions. Will this gen be any different?

So, to everyone who has experienced all three, which one do you think would be the most useless or unpractical, and what would you rather expect from the new consoles then (vote in the poll!)
 
Sande

Sande

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,975
Probably raytracing.

By the way you're doing the thing where the title and poll are asking the opposite questions.
 
BeeDog

BeeDog

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,549
I'd place my bet on 120 fps. The majority of console owners will lack the proper displays and/or receivers to be able to pass those frames, and it'll just be a worthless optimization effort for most development companies. Most people will react more to the ugly graphics than having a "faster image".
 
BassForever

BassForever

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
29,914
CT
I hate poll questions that are the inverse of the topic title -.-

As long as I get consistent 60fps I don't care about 4k or ray tracing.
 
Soap

Soap

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,159
Native 4K by far. I would be happy with 1440p or 4K checkered in exchange for higher FPS and better graphics.
 
liquidmetal14

liquidmetal14

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,094
Florida
None of that is a waste. The beauty is having options on PC and devs locking thing into a res lower if necessary to meet performance/visual goals.

Games at 1440p still looks great but 4k is as good as it it's advertised billing.

And remember we have DLSS on PC and hopefully something from AMD coming to match.
 
Dogui

Dogui

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,778
Brazil
The moment you vote for the option that is the biggest waste but then you remember the secret era rule of poll questions being the opposite of the thread title lmao.
 
sredgrin

sredgrin

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
12,276
Why would it be wasteful if they gave you a choice in the first place? It's not liked DIrt 5 is gonna force 120hz on anyone.
 
Euler007

Euler007

Member
Jan 10, 2018
5,035
Clever choices on ray tracing need to be made, the kitchen sink approach will bring all consoles to their knees. I'd rather get a higher framerate at 1600/1800, I can't tell the difference with 2160 unless I'm comparing zoomed in screenshots.
 
Darktalon

Darktalon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,265
Kansas
Why is it so hard for people to make a poll and thread title match? You even TYPED OUT that you knew you were doing it backwards.

Just so this isn't seen as thread whining, my answer is FPS is king, and always will be. Give me 120 fps, buttery smooth, over ANYTHING else.
 
Chaystic

Chaystic

Member
Mar 2, 2020
4,453
Switzerland
For me both native 4K and 120fps is a waste of resources. I don't want last gen graphics with higher resolution/framerate. I'd be fine with 1440p-1800p and 30 or 60fps, I want that eye candy.
 
FooF

FooF

One Winged Slayer
Member
Mar 24, 2020
686
reading the title then trying to select something from this poll gave me a stroke.

for me on pc raytracing has always been the thing to cripple my fps and a few games on ps5 like dmc 5 se allows me to turn it off for a 120fps option so that's all good in my books
 
ghostcrew

ghostcrew

The Shrouded Ghost
Administrator
Oct 27, 2017
30,347
There is no answer to this because gaming is a hugely broad spectrum of different visual styles and different games will target different tech and different gamers will appreciate different things.

Like this generation, many games will shine at native 4K. Many games will target lower framerates and feature ray tracing that'll improve the look of them massively. And some, less demanding games, will feature 120fps modes when they have huge overhead to spare.

This feels like quite a narrow view of what gaming is and how different players can want different things out of different games.
 
CharlesAznable

CharlesAznable

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,591
I'd probably say Ray tracing is the biggest "waste" It looks nice and all, but it definitly doesn't seem worth the massive computing cost. Next i'd say 4K, which especially in my situation, seem overhyped to all hell.

BassForever said:
I hate poll questions that are the inverse of the topic title -.-

As long as I get consistent 60fps I don't care about 4k or ray tracing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thanks for pointing that out. wtf OP lol.
 
Dan Thunder

Dan Thunder

Member
Nov 2, 2017
14,009
Thread title: What's the biggest waste
Poll: Which one do you want?

I want what will be the most likely outcome. Upscaled 4k at 30/60fps so you get the best compromise between resolution, frame-rate and graphics.
 
nib95

nib95

Contains No Misinformation on Philly Cheesesteaks
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,498
For the love of all that is holy, please try to have polls that actually match the OP thread title.

Anyway, the biggest waste of resources for me is 120fps, and in terms of what I've like prioritised most, my answer is neither of the above options.

As per the Unreal 5 demo, you don't necessarily need native 4K or RT, just blow out the fidelity, asset density and quality, use better global illumination, have more complex environments, shaders and so on.
 
DigSCCP

DigSCCP

Banned
Nov 16, 2017
4,201
ERA and polls will never learn, right?
Gimme that mix of resolution good enough to provide good IQ, RT in a way it doesn't hurt perfomance and leaves room for eye candy while maintaining stable frames, whether on 30 or 60 FPS depending on the game.
 
BigTnaples

BigTnaples

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,752
This thread is a waste. All of the features listed are amazing...
PC here with Raytracing/200hz/4K/1440p Ultrawide and HDR.

Already bought PS5, will buy Series X as soon as possible.

As far as compromise in game? Give me 4K with AI reconstruction, 60fps quality and 120fps performance modes, (or 30/60 if the visuals are that good) ray traced elements.
 

Skeff

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,628
Give me some kind of reconstructed 4k at 30fps and moderate ray tracing please.

I dont need 120fps and I dont need native 4k. Both really take a lot of power and at least for resolution we have some great techniques. In regards to 120fps, that can help on rare occasions but looking at the limited amount of TVs supporting it and the fact most genres are fine at 30fps or even 60fps. It's sort of like...why?

And these consoles cant do full retracing, trying to will tank the performance, so hopefully developers will focus on making the best looking games rather than a marketing version that has native 4k or 120fps as headlines.

To clarify, some games such as indie games will do well at 120fps because smaller teams dont have the capacity to create at such detail that would prevent them hitting that target of 120fps.
 
Mr.Vic20

Mr.Vic20

Member
Oct 31, 2017
583
Developers need different things for different games, so I would take this concern on a case by case basis, and not generalize as to which is of greater value for all games.
 
Necron

Necron

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,278
Switzerland
I'll take fps over image resolution and RT.

But I think giving out two options for a majority of titles (i.e. 'resolution mode' and a 'performance mode') is the main goal in all of this.
 
BeI

BeI

Member
Dec 9, 2017
5,972
For a competitive shooter game, I'd probably prefer 120 fps over anything. Even at 60 fps, something like Halo felt pretty sluggish on X1X.
 
Amauri14

Amauri14

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,694
Danbury, CT, USA
Native 4k us the obvious answer, although that also could apply to ray tracing if they only implement it with hardware based techniques and not using other techniques to complement and optimize it. As some developers are already using other techniques to complement the hardware based one I think I should not be worry about it that much. So yeah, native 4k will be the biggest waste of resources.
 
TechnicPuppet

TechnicPuppet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,808
I'd like the game to look as good as it can whilst running at 60fps. Preferably sacrificing resolution dynamically.
 
Ikuu

Ikuu

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,294
Anyone voting for 120fps should try and experience before dismissing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.