'1600p' - The New Standard? Consoles: Stuck with 1080p?

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

and do you have proof, or is that just another one of your very petty attempts at PC is better propaganda?

So your saying if i play Virtua Tennis 4 or Wipeout my console will pretty much fail...ok thats logical.

razgriz_101

My video card increases in temp exponentially the higher resolution I select. The same would likely apply to console.

riddle me this, how can some games run at 1080i or is it P i cant remember on PS3/360 and above 720p on consoles.Being serious here or you just spouting PC propaganda.

By your statement your saying my PS3 is more likely to die if i play virtua tennis than a game at a lower resolution sorry but that doesnt compute at all.Sounds like silly propaganda and misinformation and lack of knowledge to me.

First off: 1080i == 720p, for all intents and purposes

Gears of War at 720p is dramatically less pixels than 1080p; Your non-sensical insistence that I'm referencing a game like virtua tennis is an obvious ploy.

A major console game (Gears/UC2) running at +30% resolution would kill the console from overheating.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

My video card increases in temp exponentially the higher resolution I select. The same would likely apply to console.

ehussein1379

riddle me this, how can some games run at 1080i or is it P i cant remember on PS3/360 and above 720p on consoles.Being serious here or you just spouting PC propaganda.

By your statement your saying my PS3 is more likely to die if i play virtua tennis than a game at a lower resolution sorry but that doesnt compute at all.Sounds like silly propaganda and misinformation and lack of knowledge to me.

First off: 1080i == 720p, for all intents and purposes

Gears of War at 720p is dramatically less pixels than 1080p; Your non-sensical insistence that I'm referencing a game like virtua tennis is an obvious ploy.

A major console game (Gears/UC2) running at +30% resolution would kill the console from overheating.

http://www.1up.com/news/ps3-virtua-tennis-3-1080p

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

riddle me this, how can some games run at 1080i or is it P i cant remember on PS3/360 and above 720p on consoles.Being serious here or you just spouting PC propaganda.

By your statement your saying my PS3 is more likely to die if i play virtua tennis than a game at a lower resolution sorry but that doesnt compute at all.Sounds like silly propaganda and misinformation and lack of knowledge to me.

razgriz_101

First off: 1080i == 720p, for all intents and purposes

Gears of War at 720p is dramatically less pixels than 1080p; Your non-sensical insistence that I'm referencing a game like virtua tennis is an obvious ploy.

A major console game (Gears/UC2) running at +30% resolution would kill the console from overheating.

http://www.1up.com/news/ps3-virtua-tennis-3-1080p

NP

My point stands though, increase resolution in an already demanding game, and the heat level will increase.

Heat is the primary cause of all the console failures isn't it? It behooves MS/Sony to stick with sub-HD for games that tax the system.

I wouldn't be surprised if its a higher res well into next gen bur for the time being 1080p is a sweet spot :) I love the hypocrisy were consoles are concerned here though, the Wii is a worthless console all gen because it was standard def yet apparently 720p and 1080p are pretty much the same (the step is about the same going from 480p to 720p as 720p is to 1080p, the clarity is astounding at least until you get used to it).

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

My video card increases in temp exponentially the higher resolution I select. The same would likely apply to console.

ehussein1379

riddle me this, how can some games run at 1080i or is it P i cant remember on PS3/360 and above 720p on consoles.Being serious here or you just spouting PC propaganda.

By your statement your saying my PS3 is more likely to die if i play virtua tennis than a game at a lower resolution sorry but that doesnt compute at all.Sounds like silly propaganda and misinformation and lack of knowledge to me.

First off: 1080i == 720p, for all intents and purposes

Gears of War at 720p is dramatically less pixels than 1080p; Your non-sensical insistence that I'm referencing a game like virtua tennis is an obvious ploy.

A major console game (Gears/UC2) running at +30% resolution would kill the console from overheating.

The cooling system of a console GPU should be so designed that it can handle the highest possible load. Therefore I would say that it would not overheat, it will just have unplayable framerates when you push it beyond its computational limit.

A major console game (Gears/UC2) running at +30% resolution would kill the console from overheating.

ehussein1379

NO, it will actually will reduce the fps to the unplayable territory.

Sitting with your face pressed up against the screen at a desk is the standard for pc gaming. Relaxing on a couch back a ways from the screen is the console standard. If it really takes having your eyeballs glued to the screen to make out the differences...you have a very odd sense of gaming enjoyment.

TheMoreYouOwn

The issue at hand is that many console gamers who claim to see next to no difference between the PC version and the console version compare the console game played from a good distance on their HDTV to the PC one from in front of a desk, or, worst case scenario, not at all, or from a YouTube clip. It's a little like comparing the direct feed screens of a PC game to off-screen console ones, where the latter obviously hides a great amount of flaws.

It's not about the differences being hard to make out, because there is obviously a huge difference between 720p with next to no antialiasing and 1080p with a great deal of it.

Problem is, a lot of console users refuse to recognize this, whether that's because they haven't actually witnessed the gap, or because they feel the need to downplay it just because it isn't available on their platform of choice is anyone's guess. I can guarantee you though, that when the next batch of consoles arrive, and most likely will be able to put out 1080p more consistently in games, people who were earlier in denial will do a 180 and the difference will suddenly be acknowledged and considered huge.

Lastly, this of course has nothing to do with hardware differences between a high-end PC and the consoles. This is mainly addressing the issue that most multiplat games these days, for better or for worse, are developed with low spec components in mind, making the difference between PC and consoles relatively small compared to what can be expected if we look at the hardware, but bigger than some make it out to be.

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

A major console game (Gears/UC2) running at +30% resolution would kill the console from overheating.

MK-Professor

NO, it will actually will reduce the fps to the unplayable territory.

You are right as well!

Try pegging a processor with Prime95 for 2 hours; you'll see what I mean.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

A major console game (Gears/UC2) running at +30% resolution would kill the console from overheating.

ehussein1379

NO, it will actually will reduce the fps to the unplayable territory.

You are right as well!

Try pegging a processor with Prime95 for 2 hours; you'll see what I mean.

1200$ for a tiny monitor that only does 16.7 million colours and 1000-1 contrast no thanks

1200$ for a tiny monitor that only does 16.7 million colours and 1000-1 contrast no thanks

dontshackzmii

high fidelity graphics + framerates is what gamers should be interested in, not high resolution.

Which one you'd rather have, low detail textures, low geometry, & low post processing effects with 1600p or high geometry + post processing & textures + 4xAA at 720p?

increasing resolution to unnecessary levels will only result in lower framerate and/or lower graphics fidelity.

I think devs should prioritize using the power of the next gen consoles to put more details, higher res textures, and more effects within the 720p/1080p resolution rather than making the game running at the highest resolution possible.

Last gen, consoles maxed out the 480p. They could not have added more details to the games, because most of it would'nt be visable anyways. This gen they have'nt even started maxing out the 720p. There is still alot more polygons, higher res textures, and effects that can be fitted into the 720p res, so 1080p will last a long time.

1600p is pointless unless you have a 100" screen anyways. The quality of the TV can have a bigger impact than the resolution to how good a game looks. I have seen console games running on +46" TV's that looks better than smaller PC monitors at the same resolution.

1. No, 1600p is not the standard for PCs. A 1600p monitors are TOO EXPENSIVE

2. When are guys arguing PC vs Console graphics are gonna stop? The answer is obvious

There are a lot of guys saying: 'We dont want no PS4 or Xbox720 yet'

What happens with me everyday is:

I enter my room, I look at my PS3 (720p :( ) , I look at my PC ( 3840x1080 Eyefinity with AA and Multisampling :twisted: )

I always end up playing PS3 :P because the exclusives are way better than anything PC can offer but that's another story

1600p, what do we need that for?

Games as well as screens have some cathcing up tp do befor such a res becomes relevant.

Edit: Actual 1080p is still PC exclusive for any graphically adept game.

If everyone sits with their face 2 feet from the screen, sure, PC graphics look better.

Console games look fine.

If everyone sits with their face 2 feet from the screen, sure, PC graphics look better.

Console games look fine.

GOGOGOGURT

Someone once told me never to settle for mediocrity.

According to Steam, the most common resolution for PC gamers is 1080p. If there were 1600p monitors for less than ~£700 then people might buy them, but since you can get 1080p screens for £100 nobody is gonna buy a 1600p one when you can get 3 1080p screens for half the price and game across them.

We have hit a law of diminishing returns with resolution. 1080p is already super high res. You would have to use a magnifying glass to see a difference, and have to be VERY close. Not to mention contrast in far more important. I would rather have a 1080p Kuro plasa with inky blacks, rather than garbage "1600p" led tvs.

We have hit a law of diminishing returns with resolution. 1080p is already super high res. You would have to use a magnifying glass to see a difference, and have to be VERY close. Not to mention contrast in far more important. I would rather have a 1080p Kuro plasa with inky blacks, rather than garbage "1600p" led tvs.

slarkyslark

The human eye can distanguish the difference quite easily.

But pixel density does play a part in it too.

When 1600p monitors become more affordable and standard gaming consumer GPUs produce with Higher VRAM are able to handle the resolution while having high res textures then this will be the standard. Makes me wonder if devs will use 1080p textures or higher when this happens on PC.

I have a question here, if PC monitors can support very high resolution, why those written specs on PC monitors these day are 1080p??
I need answers, cuz it's really confusing...

According to Steam, the most common resolution for PC gamers is 1080p. If there were 1600p monitors for less than ~£700 then people might buy them, but since you can get 1080p screens for £100 nobody is gonna buy a 1600p one when you can get 3 1080p screens for half the price and game across them.

kraken2109

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

According to Steam, the most common resolution for PC gamers is 1080p. If there were 1600p monitors for less than ~£700 then people might buy them, but since you can get 1080p screens for £100 nobody is gonna buy a 1600p one when you can get 3 1080p screens for half the price and game across them.

Inconsistancy

It's also interesting to note that less than 9% of Steam users play at resolutions higher than 1080p (mostly 1920x1200), and less than 30% of Steam users play at 1080p or higher. 1440p and 1600p is statistically insignificant.

Most PC gamers still happily play on sub-1080p systems.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"][QUOTE="kraken2109"]

According to Steam, the most common resolution for PC gamers is 1080p. If there were 1600p monitors for less than ~£700 then people might buy them, but since you can get 1080p screens for £100 nobody is gonna buy a 1600p one when you can get 3 1080p screens for half the price and game across them.

SakusEnvoy

It's also interesting to note that less than 9% of Steam users play at resolutions higher than 1080p (mostly 1920x1200), and less than 30% of Steam users play at 1080p or higher. 1440p and 1600p is statistically insignificant.

Most PC gamers still happily play on sub-1080p systems.

Those >19x10 monitors are expensive. The only reason that I'm gonna buy a 1080p monitor soon is because it's the cheapest option, and it doesn't require me to lug around my ridiculously heavy 19x12 monitor. It's like $200 for a 1080p monitor and like $300 for a 19x12 monitor.

[QUOTE="Giant_Panda"]

Most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on normal sized screens. So have fun arguing over a resolution that most consumers won't be able to tell apart from 1080p. It is a non-factor and you know it TC.

ocstew

Lol, you're the one that failed. If you're talking about a small desktop monitor that you sit two feet fromthen you could see a difference, but I said normal sized screens hence TVs because that is what the TC is trying to bash. You would need to a huge TV to see the difference between 1080p and higher resolutions.

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]I don't know who you are referring to, but that is a screenshot I found googling "console fallout new vegas".

Looks legit to me, having seen the game on PS3.

clone01

I have a sneaking suspicion you do...on topic, here's a 360 image that wasn't cherry picked to look atrocious: http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/14341976/fallout-new-vegas/images/fallout-new-vegas-20100813104759246.html

Does PC offer higher resolution? Of course. But at least try to be somewhat objective about your comparisons.

lmao yeah its dumb of him to post that lowres picture of the xbox360 version, but then you also are using bullshot pix from that ign gallery site too, since when was fall out 3 new vegas rendered in 1400x900 res a 16:10 resoultion with 8x aa on the xbox360