Lol at people here trying to proof PS3 couldn't push 120fps. Ofcourse it could if it wanted too.
I played counterstrike / quake 3 / unreal tournament at 300 fps on a god dam 9800se video cards.
High framerates for shooters was absolutely a must back in the day.
It started to move backwards with games becoming more and more demanding and with consoles being the focus of them at some point, 60 fps became the norm rather then 200/300 fps.
We are just now seeing a move back into the high framerate department.
Trouble with 120Hz is that you need a beefy CPU and a 3GHz Zen CPU just doesn't cut it regardless of resolution... Also I don't see a developer bothering with this at all even if they could since most people don't have HDR compatible TV's let alone 120Hz TV's.
Its just a tech spec of the hardware involved has no connection with the actual capability of the hardware, its something to get hype if that. PS5 will be a 4K/30FPS console with some games at 60FPS if the developer targets it but most developers will target 30FPS because it gives them headroom to push the graphics further and because a Navi is 2060 & 2070 performance which is not enough for 60FPS for most games at 4K let alone 120Hz at anything above 1080P with a 3GHz AMD CPU.
I found out the hard way with my 2700X after getting my first 144Hz monitor. Good CPU but it isn't top of the line for high 120/144Hz and as for 3900X, it's all or nothing otherwise, I'll have no choice but to go with i9 9900K. But yeah, a beefy CPU such as a i9 9900K is all it takes but we all know PS5 will never have such a CPU due to cost and knowing Sony, they'll do whatever it takes to maintain PS5 price at $500 and below. Sony won't make the same mistake going over $600.
Trouble with 120Hz is that you need a beefy CPU and a 3GHz Zen CPU just doesn't cut it regardless of resolution... Also I don't see a developer bothering with this at all even if they could since most people don't have HDR compatible TV's let alone 120Hz TV's.
Its just a tech spec of the hardware involved has no connection with the actual capability of the hardware, its something to get hype if that. PS5 will be a 4K/30FPS console with some games at 60FPS if the developer targets it but most developers will target 30FPS because it gives them headroom to push the graphics further and because a Navi is 2060 & 2070 performance which is not enough for 60FPS for most games at 4K let alone 120Hz at anything above 1080P with a 3GHz AMD CPU.
I found out the hard way with my 2700X after getting my first 144Hz monitor. Good CPU but it isn't top of the line for high 120/144Hz and as for 3900X, it's all or nothing otherwise, I'll have no choice but to go with i9 9900K. But yeah, a beefy CPU such as a i9 9900K is all it takes but we all know PS5 will never have such a CPU due to cost and knowing Sony, they'll do whatever it takes to maintain PS5 price at $500 and below. Sony won't make the same mistake going over $600.
Before I upgraded to a RTX 2080... I had a RTX 2070 with my 8700K and a friend of mine had a 1800X with a RTX 2070, his GPU was clocked higher than mine but in games like BFV Firestorm I was averaging with 10-30FPS more at 1440P and it was more consistent and his 1800X is at 3.95GHz on all I doubt Zen 2 IPC will beat a 1GHz advantage so a 3GHz Zen 2 console will struggle not to mention it will have a weaker GPU.
Also this is all futile really developers have no insentive to bother with 120Hz anyway... They would mucher rather get more graphical features running at 30 or 60FPS than even bother with 120Hz since 99% of people wont even have the TV that supports it.
Trouble with 120Hz is that you need a beefy CPU and a 3GHz Zen CPU just doesn't cut it regardless of resolution... Also I don't see a developer bothering with this at all even if they could since most people don't have HDR compatible TV's let alone 120Hz TV's.
Its just a tech spec of the hardware involved has no connection with the actual capability of the hardware, its something to get hype if that. PS5 will be a 4K/30FPS console with some games at 60FPS if the developer targets it but most developers will target 30FPS because it gives them headroom to push the graphics further and because a Navi is 2060 & 2070 performance which is not enough for 60FPS for most games at 4K let alone 120Hz at anything above 1080P with a 3GHz AMD CPU.
I found out the hard way with my 2700X after getting my first 144Hz monitor. Good CPU but it isn't top of the line for high 120/144Hz and as for 3900X, it's all or nothing otherwise, I'll have no choice but to go with i9 9900K. But yeah, a beefy CPU such as a i9 9900K is all it takes but we all know PS5 will never have such a CPU due to cost and knowing Sony, they'll do whatever it takes to maintain PS5 price at $500 and below. Sony won't make the same mistake going over $600.
Before I upgraded to a RTX 2080... I had a RTX 2070 with my 8700K and a friend of mine had a 1800X with a RTX 2070, his GPU was clocked higher than mine but in games like BFV Firestorm I was averaging with 10-30FPS more at 1440P and it was more consistent and his 1800X is at 3.95GHz on all I doubt Zen 2 IPC will beat a 1GHz advantage so a 3GHz Zen 2 console will struggle not to mention it will have a weaker GPU.
Also this is all futile really developers have no insentive to bother with 120Hz anyway... They would mucher rather get more graphical features running at 30 or 60FPS than even bother with 120Hz since 99% of people wont even have the TV that supports it.
1800X has latency issues with two CCX modules while Zen v2 CCX module has 8 CPU cores.
Interesting to hear tomorrow what MS says about its memory solution. If they will talk SSD and what not. Or what their focus in terms of tech-"breakthrough" for next gen will be. The two follow eachother closely so I guess we will know more about it then.
No body mentioned the word 'ALL GAMES', it's your pathetic attempt to DC Sony's lie. No company ever claims all or use explicit words like that, even in this very thread they didn't say every game will run at 120 FPS. They always say it supports. That's what frauds like you do, ignore the context and try to put words in others mouth.
That's not 120 FPS, that's re-projection. Idiots like you wouldn't know that, they even mentioned in the very same interview that they incorporated these frames in PS3's 60Hz playback. PS3 don't even support 120Hz. Kutaragi outright lied as always. But keep trying to google to find something. You think your pathetic attempt at words play work on me?
Not a single game ran at dual 1080p, panoramic view of 32:9 or 120 FPS. Remain buttmad for 20+ years of Sony lies and they are only 15 years late with their promise.
As I predicted you will ignore the challenge and chicken out as always. You think your deliberate attempt to misapprehension work on me? You know precisely what I said and asked you to do. Here's the challenge again fraud:
Okay then report me to mods and let's see what happens? Why don't you bet your account on it and see if I'm a lemming hiding behind an alt? Let's do it, fraud. Let's see if you have the guts or again chicken your way out as always.
You're a fraud and a flip flopper, always have been, always will be. You lie every time you type something.
As for what you think:
So after trying to prove me wrong and failing now you claim no one mention the word all games.
After been prove wrong and showing you that 1 game was in deed 120FPS now is backtracking time.
NO.
Read the damn article from DF
This is hugely significant, confirming that the new version of Super Stardust HD is effectively running at a native resolution of full 720p at a staggering 120 frames per second (60 for each eye).
Seppo Halonen: We render two full-resolution 720p frames with identical content compared to standard mode. Doubling the rendering is quite a challenge in itself to begin with, and we are happy with current 720p 60FPS stereo mode.
There is no re-projection buffoon and any GPU could reach 120FPS ass its totally dependent on the game in question.
The RSX is like any other PC GPU,push it and it crumbles,don't push it and it runs super fast.
This is far cry at 1600x1200 the RSX is stronger than any of this 2 GPU,and then some it has Cell for help,so yeah depending on the game it would run at 120FPS,but again what Kuturagi was probably referring to was 3D.
Where sony used re-projection techniques was on VR is i am not mistaken on PS4.
Off course not the PS3 was let with just 1 HDMI,the PS3 was to expensive as it is,on a time were the 360 didn't even come with HDMI port,but again if sony would have put dual hdmi it could had been done the RSX is just a PC GPU i don't know what make it so impossible in your fragile mind.
The more you debate me here the more you get expose as a fake hermit dude,again you are a lemming in disguise we know your angle since you started posting alt.
And yuou again exposed your hypocrisy with that. Just in another thread you called MS on calling X1X true 4K, funny you didn't apply your logic of 'every game' there. Remain mad that none of your schtick work on me. I know exactly who you're - a fraud and a flip flopper. Oh wait, did I just expose my self as a lemming because I highlighted your hypocrisy by using X1X as an example? Your responses are so easy to anticipate because you have none apart from lies and deflection
Not a single game ran at 120FPS on PS3 let alone at dual 1080p or in panoramic 32:9 view or all those other lies. 20+ years of lie and so far still behind their 15 year old promises. The offer remains open, feel free to go to mods/admin when you grow a pair (which you won't), until then you're on my ignore list.
@Gatygun: And at which resolution was that? No way with todays graphics a console of 400 bucks can push up to 8k, they can't even handle 4k 60fps.
Loading Video...
They can push 8k and even 60 fps, they can push 120 fps and 4k, they can push 240 fps and 1080p with a ryzen cpu and they can push for super fast load times with the PS5 if they care for.
There is absolutely nothing holding them back for doing so unless they focus again heavily like the last two gens on a visual jump forwards. Then fps and resolution will take a huge dump as the gpu will be chocked to death.
About the resolution in the past i honestly couldn't recall anymore. I do know i had a 100hz screen already in that day or higher. with a flat crt screen. Thing was a beast. People where gaming every single multiplayer game with as low as possible visuals in order to pump up framerate and lower shadows or grass that would only block your clear vision of the enemy.
It was since gear of wars and uncharted i think got introduced where demand started to shift towards more cinematic high quality janky fps with loads of piss filters.
PC's also struggled at this point for the simple fact that crt's got ditched for lcd screens which where god awful with ghosting 30ms screens. That took a while before it actually became useful again but still far away from being useful for twitchy content. Also a reason why 16 ms tv screens and motion blur with controllers are a priority for console devs. Tech simple isn't there for television to have snappy fast reaction gameplay going on.
Not a single game ran at 120FPS on PS3 let alone at dual 1080p or in panoramic 32:9 view or all those other lies. 20+ years of lie and so far still behind their 15 year old promises. The offer remains open, feel free to go to mods/admin when you grow a pair (which you won't), until then you're on my ignore list.
You were proven wrong there was no reprojection that is for VR and you are an atl. :)
The more you argue against me the more it shows you are a bitter lemm alt.
Bumping for lols because actual xbox fans deserve better than brand label apologists like the lemmings on this forum. Please take snap shots of troll posting as needed after the Scarlet reveal reel.
@Shewgenja: How much crow should all of these fanboys eat now that they know their Scarlet is using the exact same tech as PS5 and MS has claimed that it can do 8k and 120fps?
@mazuiface: Pretty much all of it. I've spent two generations (okay, one and a half) trying to tell the brand name loyalists that they were doing more harm than good. Today is my goddamn day lol
@Shewgenja: Man, I have to admit that even I posted with skepticism about 8k. I thought they meant only for streaming video, but it looks like MS is going for that too! It's gonna be real. Honestly with the new GPUs, 4k 120fps sounds realistic.
@mazuiface: mad respect for owning up to it. My friend, you are a Jaffa in our war against non-gamers. I raise my frosty mug to a bloody magnificent Gen9!
@Zero_epyon: They're too busy pretending to be mad at cows for the next narrative to come clean up for their previous foibles. PS5 being more powerful has got them a bit on the back foot. Too many fires, not enough buckets today lol
Haha, MS should have probably waited and done a full-reveal. I know they want to create hype, but that was just lame. Obviously next E3 will be a better showing than a vague video reveal.
This is all fine and dandy until you realize no 4K 120hz TV's are even out there.
Your PS5 won't have the horsepower for many games to even hit this FPS either, 60FPS is reasonable, but if they want to push graphics, be ready to still be at 30FPS and even lower with Ray Tracing now involved.
This is all fine and dandy until you realize no 4K 120hz TV's are even out there.
And a lot of TV's fake higher refresh.
It looks like it's gonna be 2019 models for certain manufacturers adopting 2.1. It makes sense to have higher-level support to give some form of "future-proofing." Even though all we'll get at 4K/120 will be really basic games.
This is all fine and dandy until you realize no 4K 120hz TV's are even out there.
Your PS5 won't have the horsepower for many games to even hit this FPS either, 60FPS is reasonable, but if they want to push graphics, be ready to still be at 30FPS and even lower with Ray Tracing now involved.
And a lot of TV's fake higher refresh.
Well sony nor MS claimed 4k at 120FPS they say 4k,(coma) 120FPS.
This is all fine and dandy until you realize no 4K 120hz TV's are even out there.
Your PS5 won't have the horsepower for many games to even hit this FPS either, 60FPS is reasonable, but if they want to push graphics, be ready to still be at 30FPS and even lower with Ray Tracing now involved.
And a lot of TV's fake higher refresh.
Well sony nor MS claimed 4k at 120FPS they say 4k,(coma) 120FPS.
Yes however, for stupid people which sadly there are many, to them this means 4K 120FPS rendered at 4K.. there are even videos on YouTube doing this.
@pyro1245: I think anyone who expects the next Final Fantasy or Soulsborne game to be anything other than eye candy at 30fps is delusional and purposefully obtuse.
However, the next VirtuaFighter and Doom? Those guys may well find themselves in a measuring contest to attain high framerates and clean optimization by the downward slope of mid 9th gen. I temper expectation with cautious optimism.
The good news is, the hardware is finally there to put them into that seat. TV displays have always been the Achilles Heel of console gaming.
This is all fine and dandy until you realize no 4K 120hz TV's are even out there.
And a lot of TV's fake higher refresh.
It looks like it's gonna be 2019 models for certain manufacturers adopting 2.1. It makes sense to have higher-level support to give some form of "future-proofing." Even though all we'll get at 4K/120 will be really basic games.
Log in to comment