Makabb
Arcane
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 11,753
I play in 3840x2160
On a PS4 Pro? No you're not. You're upscaling to that resolution.
on pc
I play in 3840x2160
On a PS4 Pro? No you're not. You're upscaling to that resolution.
I play in 3840x2160
On a PS4 Pro? No you're not. You're upscaling to that resolution.
on pc
I play in 3840x2160
On a PS4 Pro? No you're not. You're upscaling to that resolution.
on pc
Now you're talking, good job.
I play in 3840x2160
On a PS4 Pro? No you're not. You're upscaling to that resolution.
on pc
Now you're talking, good job.
ps5 will also have native 4k
“When it comes to graphics, if you’re really dedicated to a game, normally you lower all settings in order to get the maximum performance. So I don’t really care about graphics.
There's no way the PS5 or XboxWhatever will have a card that powerful, let alone much MORE powerful
I play with 120/144Hz too, but sometimes going back to 60 fps (with frame limiter) only takes me a couple minutes to re-adjust. For most slower-paced games it's very adequate. Your sensibility may vary.
Controllers need buttons on their back.Yeah that kind of hardware has to be $500 or more, or sold at an extreme loss. Guess the idea of a $400 console is over.
4 teraflops for the base model seems low, the Xbox One X has a faster GPU (or two? I recall it has the base model APU and a Polaris GPU which can work together.)
The primary thing I hope for is some sort of advancement in controllers and giving consoles rebinding. Dual analogue sticks are just flat out boring and weak these days, they need to include gyroscope aiming in more games.
No sane person would expect a general TFLOPS number to be FP16 but that's probably what they're doing with these numbers. So the GPU by that metric is probably a 5500 or 5600 budget solution. All the folks expecting 2080 tier performance are gonna be really ball-busted.FP16 (half) performance
19.51 TFLOPS (2:1)
FP32 (float) performance
9.754 TFLOPS
FP64 (double) performance
609.6 GFLOPS (1:16)
lol 4k is not pointless, it's like arguing that 1920x1080 is pointless or 800x600 is pointless because hey, you can also play in 320x200 like in early 90's, some time ago 1080p was 'pointless'.
I play in 3840x2160 and the textures and image is much more sharper..... just what you would expect out of a resolution bump, nothing more, nothing less.
A higher resolution is always preferred to a lesser one for image quality.
Or they reverse it and everything is based around the high-performance version, and if you use the cheaper one they just say, "That's intended. Upgrade if you want the real experience."
When there is a cross-generational time they sell new games on older systems and yeah sure a few plebs complain, but no one cares and it doesn't seem to bother the console makers any.
I really doubt the difference between the $400 and $500 hardware would be a deal breaker for console audience. If you look at the specs the only difference is in the GPU unit. It's basically swapping a video card on a PC.
That news would suck for the industry as a whole, if you're interested in graphics advancement.
The weaker lockhart (ms console):
- 1440p 60FPS
- No disc drive
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/6913...ignificantly-less-ram-1440p-gaming/index.html
Sony has no 'weaker' console, so let's hope devs won't be using lockhart as the 'base' console for next gen games.