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

@calvincfb: I think this depends mostly on the platform and the gamer. I don't think it's accurate to say 'nobody cares'. :P

There are plenty of people like myself who have invested enough in building a computer that we expect to get 60fps out of our games and for some genres; visual fidelity takes a total back-seat over frame-rate in racing games and fighting games.

I think you are right in saying people who play on consoles, including myself, are conditioned to accept 30fps as a means of making the game more handsome. It's a fine balance on hardware we all accept isn't cutting edge. However, when applied to computer gaming, I feel these expectations shift to that of the machine. Most devoted PC gamers won't be too happy with 30fps - depending on the game, of course.

Do I think people care more about 4K than frame-rate. Nah, but I do think people care about visuals. I just don't believe that this immediately translates to higher resolution. If that was the case, I would have expected more from PS4 Pro and Xbox One X, but of the current gaming consoles; Nintendo Switch and PS4 seem to be the best selling platforms currently.

@pelvist: true. When I started kingdom hearts on ps4 I found it extremely weird to play it on 60fps since being used to 30fps for more than 10 years. I don't know if I'd be able to go back to 30fps on this same game, probably not.

But a fact remain: you can adjust to any fps if you give it time.

@calvincfb: you keep saying things like this:

"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."

But they just aren't true. I've pointed out before that your thesis doesn't make any sense because a) it fails to account for pc exclusives, which at one point were almost every game on PC - so, no, those weren't held back by console development; and b) games can run at almost any frame rate or resolution on PC because of adjustable settings, not because of console settings. Perfect example: my gpu is weaker than X1X but can run games at higher framerates. How is this possible? It can't be because the games were held back for the X. It's because I can run at lower resolutions or settings (with a dash of better cpu in some cases)

I wouldn't. If I had to play Street Fighter IV at 15 fps, I'd turn it off. It would be awful. :P

I wouldn't give it time to grow on me.

@jumpaction: sub 20fps is inhuman, I give you that.

@xantufrog: no PC exclusive has graphics way beyond what consoles can achieve, given certain compromises, they could run on consoles.

Only Crysis had and we saw what happened.

I agree, if divided 1 second in 30 parts that's completely unplayable for my super human senses.

@calvincfb: I don't understand where you are going with that. That has nothing to do with your argument that PC can only achieve better graphics or framerates or both thanks to consoles holding game IQ back. I don't understand how you get to that conclusion.

Take your framing and let it play out: say consoles didn't exist (which they didn't until basically last gen as far as PC games were concerned, but you refuse to think about the implications of that for your point).

You are suggesting that if consoles didn't exist, games would only run at 30fps at 1080p on 1080TIs, because they weren't gimped to run on consoles? They would be unplayable messes on gtx970s with nothing that could be done by the user to make them run at higher framerates?

The games would be developed to only be playable by 1% of the PC gaming population?

If that makes sense to you, more power to you, but that's flat out wrong, and I can prove it because we had decades where virtually all PC games were PC-only and yet they had adjustable settings and ran on the full gammut of available hardware to consumers. Consoles weren't in the equation and yet our games were just fine, thanks

How many gamers owned 4K TV's or monitors? The emphasis was on getting games a 1080p from crap resolutions like 720p and 900p that the consoles were putting out. They they skipped all of that and went straight for 1600p-4K. I don't think people in great numbers were asking for that.

And support it better than MS does atm, watched the DF freesync vid, still ways to go

Fps and racing games for me have to be 60fps. All other games I don't care about frame rate. I'd rather have the resolution on my TV

I'd rather have 1080p at 30fps if it means the graphics will look AMAZING, with really detailed lighting, nice looking textures and materials, lots of particles effects, realistic physics, nice looking shadows and all that... thankfully I'm a PS4 owner and they usually deliver on that front.

I can see why PeeC lames would think that with their shitty LCD monitors.

but 4K is definitly worth the performance hit on OLED Displays

It depends on the genre. You don't want to play a racing game at 30 fps, but an action adventure game at that framerate is fine.

1080p60 over 4k30 any day for me.

@xantufrog: no, if consoles didn't exist, only the most high end and expensive rig would be able to achieve maximum quality with modern games.

The way it is now, you can play most games on a entry or mid range rig on ultra with 1080p/60fps

@jumpaction: I meant console gamers and games developed to consoles, of course.

I enjoy my PC on my OLED without having to resort to 30fps like on console.

Because you've convinced yourself or the media has convinced you that the 4K is better than the 60 FPS. even though I bet your 6 foot from whatever sub 72' tv you have and barely see any benefit.

@Orchid87: I agree, 4K doesn't mean anything to me if I can't run a decent amount of games at 60+ Ultra.. I'm not making the jump until 4K runs as smooth as 1080p does now.

I agree. 30fps is borderline unplayable for me now

Depends on what the game is. Competitive titles need to be at 60 fps, at least.

Sadly i agree. This 4K ruined the potentially graphical and performance advancement in games

I would choose far better in game graphics at 60 fps at 1080p over decent graphics to 30fps at 4K any day

60 fps is by no means difficult on Ultra Wide. In fact, over 80 isn't even that difficult for that resolution.

So...can we expect next generation’s focus to be 60fps for everything?

Probably 20-30 fps again. The casuals care more about teh resolution even though they can't notice it as much as FPS due to TV distance. It's mostly marketing and what not.

Fortunately we have PC as an option.

A lot of games have performance mode on the xboxone x

Nah, 30 fps is better anyways. The human eye can only see 24 fps. Plus it’s more cinematic.

Better off worrying about HDR and atmos.

Well hold on now. By next gen, 4K Tv's will just barely be taking over as commonplace in most homes (if that). There won't be 8K for a looooong time, the time will be right for the hardware to deliver native 4K @ 60 FPS. Can't see another big feature for the next gen.

ha ha he sure knows what hes talking about lol

For 4K 60 fps game consoles, it needs to be atleast twice of X1X's hardware e.g. 12 TFLOPS and 652 GB/s memory bandwidth (assuming there's no improvements from Polaris delta color compression). CPUs needs to scale by 2X.

GTX 1080 Ti has 12.9 TFLOPS at 1800Mhz and it's close to 4K 60 fps for most X1X ports.

GTX 1080 level that replaces RX-580/RX-580X in 7nm process tech is not enough. MS may have to build another Xbox One X like beast for 7 nm generation that exceeds RX-680.

Xbox One X's PCB has 384 bit trace lines which is a high end PC PCB design.

X1X's GPU solution exceeds RX-580 solution.

FreeSync reduces the need for locked 60 hz.

Sacrifices are already heavily made to archieve 4k resolution on any stable level. If they dump there 12tflops gpu on 4k 60 fps. the next generation is going to be a bore fest to no end.

I personallly think they will move towards a aggressive checkboard rendering that later on moves to 1080p frequently in order to keep performance up, then 3 years later a pro launches and repeat.

What? 60hz is 60fps.

@rmpumper: HOLY SHIT I've been getting wrong for sooo long, I don't know how. I swear when I first researched it that 60hz was only 30fps and 50hz was 25fps

Dark Souls 2 was a the game that put me off 30fps.

I played through most of it on the 360, it ran between 30-40 fps.

When I got the SOTFS version on PC running at 60fps, I completed it and didn't think much was different, a year later I brought my 360 to work to play in downtime and fired up Dark Souls 2 and found it unplayable.

Other posters earlier in this thread said you adjust to a certain framerate, so the people who say they cant tell the difference I believe, if you have only ever played at 30fps for an extended period of time.

I also believe the people who say 30fps is unplayable, because thats how I feel now

@ronvalencia: devs will still prefer to lock @ 30fps to get the most of graphics

Yup, which is the issue.

That's the thing though, the console manufacturers have gone after 4K resolution where as they could have easily had the same graphics quality and 60fps if they'd stuck to 1080p (and used better CPU's).

The irony in all of this is that an awful lot of console gamers have been claiming for years that resolution doesn't matter (whenever PC was mentioned in a graphics discussion that is) and have only recently changed their tune, mostly since the PS4 Pro and then the Xbox One X came on the scene.

Horrible tradeoff? Nope.

@GarGx1: I care only if the games are pretty and have a solid 30fps.

It's not looking good for a next gen $400-500 box that will do anything that much better than the Pro or X then, by 2020 anyway. To invest in an entire new product, they need to show a clear night and day difference to get consumers out the door to buy it. "You know how some games were 4K low settings, 30fps? Now they're going to be 4K ultra settings, 30fps"...that just won't cut it.

Not for the peasants its not. I remember when the upgraded version of respective consoles were announced, the conversations between lems/cows and PC gamers going something like this:

"Lew/Cow: This new version of the console can do 4K! suck it Hermits!

PC gamers: The hardware isn't strong enough to render games at native 4k and even if it does the frame rate will suffer for it, you will essentially have pretty but unplayable games, and unlike PC you can't lower the resolution so you will be stuck with what devs decide, honestly 4k isn't really worth it for me.

Lews/Cows: LORLOFLOLROLOLFOLOFLOLFLOL YOU JUST JEALOUS HERMIT!! PC GAMING IS NOW OBSOLETE BECAUSE OF PRO/ONE X!! AND PLUS ITS CHEAPER AND PLUS EXCLUSIVES AND PLUS YOU JEALOUS AND ALSO STEAM SURVEY SAYS MOST PC GAMERS DON'T HAVE 4K RIGS AND OTHER STUFF AND LORLOFLOLROLOLFOLOFLOLFLOL!!!!!!

PC gamer: you completely missed the point but if you want an e-dick measuring contest then I present to you the GTX 1080 Ti

Lem/Cow: OMG GAAAWD!! NOBODY CAAAAARES ABOUT GRAAAPHICS!!! FPS DOESN'T MATTER!! HERMITS ARE SOOO DUUMBBD!!!"

I'm obviously paraphrasing here but I think people get the picture.

In that case, I think the best case scenario for consoles will be 2020-21, the "next gen" will be beefed up versions of the Pro and X, of course not double the power but incremental improvements to allow all games games to be either 4K 30fps OR dynamic 1080-1440p 60fps "performance modes" as a standard feature (rock solid 60 fps this time, not "except, you know, busy areas where it dips down to the 40's), sold at no more than $400. And good luck to them with that.

EDIT: Of course I'm not talking about the COD's, BF's and Titanfalls that are already 60fps

60fps as the 4k ads are just that ads!!!

Fps or resolution alone won't turn a horseshit into a masterpiece, only on some gullible minds!!!

On the opposite a masterpiece at 720p and 30 fps is still a masterpiece, only gullible will claim it otherwise!!!

its amazing that popular opinion is used so often to make a point. Like in terms of review scores mattering. But bring up the point that millions upon millions of human beings buy 30 fps games, it doesn't bother their enjoyment and its dismissed. That's babybackballbagbullshit ftw.

Bullshit and horseshit. It wasn't the casual gamer, the people who do not populate forums like this one that bitched and moaned about 900p being so teh bad compared to 1080p from 2014-2016. That's bullshit, its us, the core of the gaming community that made and posted, tweeted the memes and jokes. The industry didn't force anything on us, the sites ran with that narrative that we made important. Own our shit.

@Dark_sageX: pretty much.

I play games like Forza at 120 fps ͏a͏t 1080p on my PC and I play games like God of War at 30 fps at 4K on my 65 inch UHD tv. 30 frames per second is perfectly fine to my eyes. Not once did I think I was getting a low end experience. Sure I won’t argue 60 frames would be smoother , buts not the end of the world you make it out to be.

Far Cry 5 and Gears of War 4 are not low settings on X1X.

Next progress is with DirectX Ray-tracing (DXR) over PBR (Physical Based Rendering).

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/directx/2018/03/19/announcing-microsoft-directx-raytracing/

DXR is compute like workload which plays into AMD's strength on mainstream $250 cards against similar NVIDIA's $250 mainstream cards.

From MS's blog

You may have noticed that DXR does not introduce a new GPU engine to go alongside DX12’s existing Graphics and Compute engines. This is intentional – DXR workloads can be run on either of DX12’s existing engines. The primary reason for this is that, fundamentally, DXR is a compute-like workload. It does not require complex state such as output merger blend modes or input assembler vertex layouts. A secondary reason, however, is that representing DXR as a compute-like workload is aligned to what we see as the future of graphics, namely that hardware will be increasingly general-purpose, and eventually most fixed-function units will be replaced by HLSL code. The design of the raytracing pipeline state exemplifies this shift through its name and design in the API. With DX12, the traditional approach would have been to create a new CreateRaytracingPipelineState method. Instead, we decided to go with a much more generic and flexible CreateStateObject method. It is designed to be adaptable so that in addition to Raytracing, it can eventually be used to create Graphics and Compute pipeline states, as well as any future pipeline designs.

"Output merge blend modes" and "fixed function units" deals with ROPS hardware and it's less on DXR.

With very little software, AMD jump the gun on TFLOPS compute bias GPU design. Prepare for another Finewine advantage for AMD.

Larger NVIDIA GPUs such as GTX 1080 and 1080 Ti has high TFLOPS comparable to Vega 56/64s.

There's a high probability, DXR will smash GTX 1060s into the ground i.e. Kepler style aging.

NVIDIA is promoting Titan V due to it's 15 TFLOPS FP35 compute shader for DXR. NVidia's tensor units are useless for Direct3D APIs.