Let's face it: framerate less than 60 FPS is a horrible tradeoff for 4k

As long as the resolution is more than 1440p (or at least 1080p), framerate is what matters the most. 30 FPS should be left forgotten. Not only the games look like shit, they also play like shit with all this input lag that low framerate causes. 60 FPS is a must. 144 FPS is better of course but console players can only dream about that.

This one is wise. A promotion is in order.

Millions of gamers that make up the majority of gaming don't have a problem gaming at 30fps.

They had to adapt. Not like they could choose, lol. MS and Sony could give them 60 fps but they opted to go 4k because 4k is a gimmick that's easier to explain and sell to the casual crowd. In case of Sony, they also did it to sell more 4k TVs.

Once you experience 120+ FPS, even 60 is unplayable.

No, they opted for 4k because gamers and the media emphasis on resolution. This emphasis on resolution originated from the "hardcore gamers" and not from the casual crowd who still don't give a damn.

Depends on the player, really. If you actually want to play a game, you are right. But most just want to jump from one cutscene to the next in an average at best story.

@Pedro: lol, no hardcore gamer would choose 4k over 60 or more fps. Smooth visuals and less input lag really matters.

@ArchoNils2: so true

I used to be one of those people who thought 30fps is fine a few years ago, and I must say it has become THE most important thing to me as far as games go. As far as resolution goes, I honestly think 2k or 4k depend on how big your screen is and how far away you're sitting from it. Also, the jump from 1080p to 1440p is really not that big, the difference is much smaller than from non-HD to 1080 . It's better, for sure, but not that much better to justify lower FPS.

Or it could be because unless you have a high end TV there still only 60hz and don't support 60fps

Shit, once you experience 2,400+ FPS, even 1,200 is unplayable. Whatever man. If you suck, you suck. You're just watching yourself die at a higher framerate.

I'm going to now play Destiny 2 in 4K @ 30fps, and to spite TC I'm going to have fun. Take that!

It's kinda like "you don't know what you have until it's gone". After gaming almost exclusively at 60+ for a few years and then buying a new gen console it took quite a lot of adjusting to get used to the experience at half the frame rate. For me it doesn't kill the experience and I won't stop playing a game because it sits at 30 instead of 60 or more but if I have the option to play the same game at 30 on a larger tv vs 60 on a smaller monitor, it's a very easy win for the PC. Different strokes for different folks though.

Very true. But you're not a casual gamer, as opposed to most console gamers. They can't even see the difference between 30 and 60 fps, let alone understand that resolution isn't the most important thing about graphics.

There is a reaaon why there is no e-sports scene on consoles.

Most console gamers are casuals who have never been expossd to higher frames. The difference is astounding.

I would rather 4k @ 30fps than 1080p @ 60fps just because there is a huge quality difference, its a lot more noticeable.

If you play "cinematic experiences" that are 80% cutscenes, then probably yes. For actual games, 60 fps and 30 fps is like night and day.

That is a given. Now tell Sony and Microsoft to put better CPUs so developers can achieve higher and more stable frame rates.

@Orchid87: I just cant notice it with games, I can see it in videos but not with games.

I am also OK with them putting in better CPUs and continuing to target 30fps on consoles so the scope of games can evolve and PC can continue to reap the benefits. Got to raise the lowest common denominator. hehe :)

And, good for them. Think of the money they save by not giving a shit. Perhaps they should be looking down their noses at "serious gamers".

60 fps target is not a large problem when FreeSync can support V-sync locked between 30 hz to 60 hz e.g. 48 hz is good enough.

60 is the minimum target people should strive for. VRR is nice to compensate for occasional dips, but 48fps does not suffice. Noticeably better than 30fps though.

God of War base ps4: 1080p 30fps and on the Pro in performance mode 1080p ~45fps, amazing.

Maybe. But 90% of the people playing games on console don't give a shit about stuff like that.

Yeah, they save money by not knowing or caring about things. But looking down their noses at people who know more than them, care more and wants more out of the hobby? No.

PC gamers shouldn't look down upon console gamers either, that is those who understand they don't have the option for the same quality as PC. A console gamer that tells people their console is better than PCs? Yeah, I have no problem with PC gamers looking down upon those..

During 28 nm era and based on MS/Sony price guidance

IBM was offering PowerPC A2 to replace PPE. SPE is EOL (End of Life). FPU/SIMD is optional. PowerPC 750 was the alternative. MS/Sony needs to pay for 128bit SIMD upgrade.

AMD was offering Jaguar. 128 bit FPU/SIMD is built-in. AMD could be offering 2-for 1 "Fusion deals with GPU.

ARM was offering Cortex A15. FPU/SIMD is built-in, but it's 64bit hardware.

Intel was offering Atom Baytrail. 128 bit FPU/SIMD is built-in.

AMD, Intel and IBM wasn't willing to offer big chip CPUs at low cost embedded CPU prices. There not much choices in the embedded CPU market before 28 nm era.

After desktop PC's Ryzens was released, AMD offered embedded Ryzen based on 14 nm Raven Ridge mobile parts sometime in 2018 while desktop PC's Ryzen switches to 12nm second generation design.

AMD Ryzen Embedded V1000 SoCs family replaced Jaguar Embedded SoCs family. On absolute performance, ARM is not offering any competition.

IBM... where's PowerPC 970 (G5) embedded???? why the garbage PPC 4xx, 7xx and A2s?

Where's the high performance embedded CPU competition?

During 1990s, you have healthy high performance CPU competition from PowerPC (3DO), DEC Alpha, DEC Strong ARM, Sun Sparcs, HP's PA-RISC (to used in Commodore's Amiga CD64 that supported Windows NT 3.x/OpenGL), MIPS32/MIPS64 (Sony, Nintendo) and Super-H.

X86 CPU vendors run away with wider SIMD wars.

I agree, if I can get away with 60fps 4k gaming I will, but I'll drop to 1440p whenever 60 isn't stable. Most people don't notice a difference though, most people don't know anything about tech and just game casually.

I can't buy the "people can't tell the difference" thing.

Nice to see that some people here have standards.

Sony should support FreeSync for 45 hz.

So can PC gamers.....

For me, if I start the game on 30FPS I'm usually ok with it. However, when I'm gaming at 144 FPS and lower it to 60FPS it feels horrendous, I don't even want to know what 30FPS would feel like after gaming on 144 for several hours.

I feel like console games are also designed in a way that gets more out of the FPS they are using, so a 30FPS console game will feel better than a PC game running at 30FPS, but once again, that may just be me and what I'm used to.

I don't care about 60fps, neither do the developers

I am hesitant about upgrading to a 4K monitor because I prefer a high frame-rate when I am playing on PC. That being said, my monitor isn't great and it could do with an upgrade, but I won't be investing in 4K.

I don't have any 4K capable gaming consoles, and I don't intend to buy one so no need for a 4K TV. I'm also more forgiving of frame-rates on a TV. :)

It's nice to see you're a representative of the developers

Lets face it, Mighty X1X 4K MonsterBox MasterRace makes you...

Cry like a lil girl. lolol :P

Better invest in GSync/Freesync monitor.

@MonsieurX: if they did care about fps they'd push 60fps, they don't, they'd rather push for graphics, physics and other stuff.

It's a trade-off and it's clear they'd rather use the power avaliable on achieving stable 30fps with better graphics, AI, physics and post processing effects than fps.

It's not that hard to notice, you know?

@Orchid87: Anything is an improvement over my 60hz, 1080p monitor, to be honest. :P

But I am shopping around and always keeping an eye out on the right one for me.

I’m one of those millions of casual gamers that don’t give a damn about FPS, 30 FPS ain’t like if the game shows like a slideshow.

@raugutcon: brace yourself, PC elitists are going to be butthurt and call you a soccer mom and try to look down on you because of that.

@calvincfb: For me the difference comes from:

1. Expectations

2. Hardware

My TV has a higher refresh rate than the equivalent on my PC monitor so even though the game itself runs at 30fps on my Nintendo Switch, the TV is able to make it look smoother. Some people hate that when applied to movies and say that it makes the film look like a soap-opera, but I quite like it. It does, however result in input lag, but for most of the games I play it's not noticeable enough to be a detriment. The other element to this is that I know the limitations of my Xbox One and Nintendo Switch. I know that they won't be capable of running numerous games at 60fps, so I don't expect that performance from them. I can, at least hope for a steady enough frame-rate that it's never a detriment to gameplay.

Playing on PC is different. My PC is doing all the work in ensuring that the play experience I have is smooth, and I know my PC is capable of running games at 60fps+ at 1080p. That's what I have come to expect from my system, and so when a poor port means that this is not achieved, I am disappointed. Mostly though, I have had smooth experiences. :)

@calvincfb: like if I care about them.

@jumpaction: any hardware is capable of 60fps, it all depends on where the developers want to put the power of the hardware.

If we were having ps3 style games, we'd have 1080p/60fps on consoles, but that's not what devs want. They want eye candy because that sells more, hence games on consoles being 30fps.

I'm fine with 30fps, always been, always will be.

@calvincfb: I know that Far Cry 5 would not run on my Nintendo Switch at 60fps without serious compensations made. After all, it's a systemic game with many different AI actors and physics systems working at once. This is the reason why I expect and am okay with a game like Breath of the Wild running the way it does on Nintendo Switch.

But on PC, I know my system can run Far Cry 5 at or higher than 60fps regardless of the systems in place or the visual fidelity of the game. It's not a standard I personally expect from my Nintendo Switch but one I do expect from my PC.

@jumpaction: the only reason PC can achieve what it can is because the games are made first with console in mind, so everything is made with compromises so they can achieve 1080/30fps, the extra power on PC is used to achieve better graphics and performance on top of what was made first for consoles.

If consoles were out of the picture, the Dev would be free to pull out a Crysis and see the world cry on uproar and despair.

But they don't want that anymore, nobody does.

I read somewhere that the amount of frames a person can perceive depends on what they're used to watching/playing as the brain needs time to get used to processing the information faster and this is why some people cant tell the difference as they haven't experienced higher frame-rates for a prolonged time. If a person only plays games at 30fps then I can believe it when they say they cant tell the difference. You can see a difference when it is demonstrated side by side in a .gif but thats about it, they cant feel the difference while playing. This made sense to me because I find it really hard to go back to playing games on consoles nowadays, yet I played them all the time when I was a lad and never had an issue.

However, certain games that were hugely popular especially among console gamers since last gen have forced 60fps in their multiplayer modes and I find it hard to believe that console gamers haven't had enough time playing at least one of these games to not tell the difference at some point when going back to 30fps, it just seems like an excuse for most of their games running at less than 30fps in 2018.

Iv been spoiled with PC gaming to the point where I find it hard to enjoy gaming on consoles due to how sluggish they feel while playing them. It took a couple of weeks of casual, bite size gaming sessions to get into BOTW, though im glad I did because it was a really, really good game that I would buy again if it was available (legally) in 60+ fps on PC.

There is no trade off for the consoles in most cases, graphics power is not the bottleneck.