Options would be great, but in most cases I would take a good upscaled 1440p-ish imagine with 60fps and additional visual effects (like rt) over high framerate or native 4k.
-
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
- Thread starter Tiny Chihuahueño
- Start date
for console gamers?
either 120 fps (because console gamers won't own a screen that supports that refresh rate) or 4k (because 4k is a waste in general)
either 120 fps (because console gamers won't own a screen that supports that refresh rate) or 4k (because 4k is a waste in general)
Native 4k imho. High framerates and consistent frame times make the games feel better to me. Happy to knock the resolution down to 1440p
Native 4K is the biggest waste to me. Reconstruction techniques have gotten so much better that they need to be embraced over native.
I'd prioritize them as:
Framerate > ray tracing > resolution
I'd prioritize them as:
Framerate > ray tracing > resolution
Depends on the type of game, multiplayer should always prioritise framerate whereas single player games can have nicer visuals and higher resolution. A middle ground with most games running at 60fps would be ideal. I've still got a 1080p monitor so resolution means very little to me
I just wish the poll was the thread title then I'd say native 4k is the biggest waste of resources in my opinion.
The games I spend the most time with do t really benefit (as much) from super high frame rates so that's less important to me, not to mention I've played games on consoles the majority of my life so as long as the frame rate is stable that's more important to me than it being high.
The importance of Performance or Visuals will differ from person to person.
The importance of Performance or Visuals will differ from person to person.
Higher than 60fps most assuredly. I know people like to meme about not being able to tell the difference and such, but the average literally can not. And said average person isn't going to waste their time hunting down a monitor or TV that can take advantage of said framerates.
I would rather not have any fixed expectations and let the developers turn things on and off in order to create the best possible result for the specific game they are making. If they want to push the environments and ray-tracing and sacrifice resolution that's fine, if they want resolution but simpler effects that's fine too, etc. If they want everything to be the top of the line and when you see it, it pays off, then I'll be fine with 30 FPS as well. It's just all a compromise and every game has different strengths.
Having performance and graphics mode is also a good compromise.
Having performance and graphics mode is also a good compromise.
High framerates is what's important, but my (and many others) main gaming display can't handle 120fps and so many games are still running choppy 30fps, so let's compromise here and try making 60fps the standard. That would be such an improvement in look and feel if we could get most games back to that standard again.
Don't care at all about resolution and raytracing, before developers start nailing the framerate.
Don't care at all about resolution and raytracing, before developers start nailing the framerate.
I'm pretty curious if I'd actually be able to discern the differences between 4K and the checkerboard solutions of this gen in my normal playing environment.
I didn't think there was any excuse that games didn't hit a locked 60fps last gen and that certainly applies to next gen. You lock your framerate to 60 and balance your visuals around that.
But I really couldn't care less about 120. Do I have the display/hardware to run at 120? Yes. Have I tried it? Yes. Did it do anything for me? Not in the least.
But 4K native output can also be a waste. Still, pixel counting has gotten easier since getting an 85" tv. So... eh? Getting locked to 60 is far more important than hitting 4K, but it's a nice thing to have.
RT can produce some nice results but is a resource hog. Again, it's nice to have but as long as the artistic direction is good I care much more about that than technical graphics.
So 60fps is a must. 120 isn't necessary and 4K/RT are a bonus.
But I really couldn't care less about 120. Do I have the display/hardware to run at 120? Yes. Have I tried it? Yes. Did it do anything for me? Not in the least.
But 4K native output can also be a waste. Still, pixel counting has gotten easier since getting an 85" tv. So... eh? Getting locked to 60 is far more important than hitting 4K, but it's a nice thing to have.
RT can produce some nice results but is a resource hog. Again, it's nice to have but as long as the artistic direction is good I care much more about that than technical graphics.
So 60fps is a must. 120 isn't necessary and 4K/RT are a bonus.
Native 4K seems most wasteful in a world where everyone has 120Hz TVs — it provides the least benefit — but designing around 120FPS seems wasteful in a world where probably 1% of players will have the hardware to display it.
If you ask me, a 1080p game with raytracing is better than a 4K one without raytracing. RT really does add so much depth and visual fidelity.
Also, 120fps is nice but I'm happy with 60 tbh
Also, 120fps is nice but I'm happy with 60 tbh
120 fps will be a waste for the most part on these consoles. Without DLSS hitting high enough resolution with high frame rates considering the specs of the consoles will not be possible without significant trade offs. Now throw RTX into the mix.
Unless developers allow high levels of graphical customization ala PCs which I don't see many doing in order not to confuse users.
Unless developers allow high levels of graphical customization ala PCs which I don't see many doing in order not to confuse users.
Options are best. On my laptop, I have a high-refresh 1080p screen so 4k doesn't do a lot for me there. Conversely, my TV is 4k but not high-refresh, so over 60 fps is worthless for me there.
This is a weirdly framed question.
Anyway, I'd prioritize 4K and raytracing way over 60/120FPS. For games that allow that option, I will be taking it.
Anyway, I'd prioritize 4K and raytracing way over 60/120FPS. For games that allow that option, I will be taking it.
Sure options are nice but 4k to me is the least important thing lol. It's the biggest waste imo. 1440p is where it's at. None of those poll options worked for me too i'd take like 1440p with high frame rate and as much effects as possible.
Nothing in that list will be wasted. If Devs focused only on Raytracing for example, performance would be the thing that people would complain about. Resolution only and it would be about the effects quality.
Things should be balanced and I trust Devs to make the decisions that best suit them.
Things should be balanced and I trust Devs to make the decisions that best suit them.
As a few others have said - 1440p, 60FPS, HDR with Raytracing is the sweet spot imo. Everything after that is a victim of diminishing returns to my eyes. Give me that and use the rest of the horsepower to make bigger, more detailed worlds with better physics and effects.
It appears that quite a few of the mid-high range 4k sets from maybe the last two years can at least output 1080/120hz. I'm salty as I got my 4k set 4 years ago and it doesn't support 1080/120hz
True, but most people haven't upgraded their TV in that time frame, and most who have bought something in the sub-$1000 range that doesn't support those features. We're in a world where 4K penetration is low enough that MS still sees the value in releasing a 1080p box, let alone where 120Hz penetration is. It's a great feature for them to support, but one that only their very most engaged customers are going to be using for years to come.
Yeah, you're definitely right. Sometimes I forget that the vast majority of people are still using 1080p sets. Also, yeah 120hz is a feat likely seen on sets that cost $1000+
As a PC player who owns a 4K 120 Hz OLED, a 2080 Ti GPU and 3700X CPU I can say I have experienced all of these.
People need to start thinking in terms of dynamic stuff. Dynamic framerates with variable refresh rate support and dynamic resolution targeting a framerate range. That's how you get situational compromises that work. Let's take something like TLOU2 as an example of how it could work.
- Anything above 60 fps just improves the responsiveness of the game and reduces visible motion blur. It's the biggest improvement on this list to me.
- Raytracing can make scenes look far more realistic but at the same time the performance of next gen consoles is limited in this area so I doubt we will see the real good stuff like raytraced lighting in most games.
- 4K native resolves a lot of fine detail. That's its primary benefit.
People need to start thinking in terms of dynamic stuff. Dynamic framerates with variable refresh rate support and dynamic resolution targeting a framerate range. That's how you get situational compromises that work. Let's take something like TLOU2 as an example of how it could work.
- When you are in interiors the game could target 1800p-4K 45-60 fps with raytracing. These sections are slower paced so the framerate is less of an issue and overall there is less things to render in a single scene but can have a high amount of detail like items in houses and so on. So put the emphasis on improving visuals.
- When you step into the open world sections, it could instead target 1440p-1800p 60-90 fps. This will give you more responsive control over your character and horse and makes jumping and moving around look and feel good. Raytracing gets pared back to a minimum of some low fidelity puddle and window reflections.
- Action packed scenes with infected hordes? Go for 1080p-1440p 80-120 fps. No raytracing. Responsive control is key, you won't have time to admire the sights so not being able to see the reflection on the eyes of an enemy is not going to matter.
As a 2080 owner I have to say Raytracing.
Technically, it's an important and exciting step but no RTX game has really wowed me. It's more a chin stroking, "well that's interesting" kind of feature than a "wow" feature at the moment.
I'm sure it'll be great when developers can set raytracing support as a minimum requirement, at the moment they're limited to doing things that can be achieved by non RTX cards.
Next would be native 4K. Certainly gaming on a TV, on a couch at a reasonable distance native 4K is a bit of a waste. Checkerboarding on the PS4 Pro seems almost good enough. DLSS - I don't know why they even bother with an on/off in games that support it. Just enable it.
Technically, it's an important and exciting step but no RTX game has really wowed me. It's more a chin stroking, "well that's interesting" kind of feature than a "wow" feature at the moment.
I'm sure it'll be great when developers can set raytracing support as a minimum requirement, at the moment they're limited to doing things that can be achieved by non RTX cards.
Next would be native 4K. Certainly gaming on a TV, on a couch at a reasonable distance native 4K is a bit of a waste. Checkerboarding on the PS4 Pro seems almost good enough. DLSS - I don't know why they even bother with an on/off in games that support it. Just enable it.
Asking one question in the title and another in the poll is an Era thing now, it seems.