Topic: Resolution or Frame Rate?

Wow, didn't realise I had typed so much... Sorry

The TL:DR is what do think should take priority and why?

If all games have to be 60fps, is there a Resolution or other visual downgrades that is 'unacceptable'?

Are you happy with a 'balance' between having 60 and 30fps games - some games being good enough at 30fps whilst others have to be 60fps.

Prefer to have games that 'look' incredible regardless, but are 30fps, maybe with the occasional 60fps game if/when possible?

For me, I would rather have a game that looks the best and doesn't hit 60 fps. I'm not a competetive gamer so that point doesn't bother me as much and I prefer pretty visuals. That said, I want a very stable framerate if I am getting great visuals.

Of course, that is purely me. If you are playing competetive games I can see why fps level is a bigger deal. Games with modes would be good imo.

Action, fighting and racing requores 60fps.

30 is fine, but it has to stay and maintain for the most part. Below 20 and we have issues.

Given a choice id go for framerate over resolution, because what good are those pixels if they arent smooth? But I dont care as long as the game for the most part maintains its frame rate.

i don't care, 30 or 60 as long as it's stable

Once graphics reach a certain acceptable quality, FPS is more important to improve than graphics. But if you are throwing some indie pixel nonsense at us, then graphics are more important. So basically if you graphed it with graphics quality on the X axis and the priority of FPS on the y axis, you'd be looking at a linear or perhaps slightly exponential curve.

It's not that a higher resolution truly matters for some games, it's just that 30 or 60fps doesn't always matter. Fast paced games like racing games and fighters absolutely need 60fps. For other games I don't really care, as long as they are stable, but 60fps is always appreciated.

I'd like to see 4K, 60fps become the norm next gen, but I don't know if that's feasible. Having the choice to pick one would be neat too. Let the player decide.

@Octane I would love the minimum standard to be 4k/60. I don't even care if its Checkerboard 4k/60 over Native 4k/30. I would expect though that the native 30fps mode would have higher visual settings too as they also have more time to calculate and draw these effects in.

I do sit somewhere in the middle though and happy enough with 30fps in a lot of games - as long as its locked to 30. I find it smoother and better all round than games that jump between say 35 and 55. I would rather devs capped these at 30fps and used additional resources on increasing a setting somewhere.

Maybe with the new gen, we will get a choice - native 4k with higher visual settings 30fps or a CB 4k 60fps with lower visually settings (not so great shadows, less reflections etc.

I had to ask as I see so many comments about the Pro and the upcoming 'X' with people stating the manufacturers should have ensured they could do 1080/60 instead of pushing for 4k - despite the fact that virtually all the best games (according to critics at least) tend to be 30fps so it hasn't hurt them...

@BAMozzy Well.. ''best'' games is always subjective of course. Then again, I wouldn't expect a racing sim to get nominated for GOTY anytime soon either. I think Uncharted and The Witcher don't need to hit 60fps. They can live without that, 30fps is sufficient. But I do always appreciate the smoothness of 60fps games.

I think the difference is that resolution never impact the gameplay, but frame rate can affect it. So I understand why some would always prefer frame rate over resolution.

But yeah, I too prefer a capped 30fps over something that's fluctuating between 30 and 60. And given the choice, I think I'd prefer checkerboard 4K 60fps over native 4K 30fps.

Generally frame rate, though of course if it's like a turn based strategy game or RPG I'd say resolution.

Depends on the game, people thought FPSs and Racing games needed to be 60 but Destiny and Driveclub proved that theory wrong. If anything stable framerates are just as important as higher ones.

I don't care about resolution as long as it's 720p or above.

With regard to framerate... I always prefer 60fps, but a non-ideal framerate in an otherwise high-quality game (TLG, BOTW) isn't a big deal to me.

@BAMozzy @Octane How could a next gen really distinguish itself if it delivers less than 4k/60??? We're already getting checkerboard 4k/30..... Even for 4k/60, would that constitute a generational leap for most consumers?

@Mega-Gazz You are rarely getting checkerboard 4k/30. The Pro at best is a 1440p Machine. The resolution that games like Uncharted 4, Titanfall 2 etc run at - assuming the base mode is 1080p of course. 1800p checkerboard (2x 900p = 2.88m Pixels) is actually less than 1440p (3.69m Pixels) to draw and Checkerboard 4k (2x 1080p = 4.15m pixels) is only a bit more to draw. Which is why the machine is at best a 1440p. If it has a bit more overhead, it can deliver 4k CB, if a bit less 1880p checkerboard or even 1440p. However n some cases, The cases where the base mode can't hit the full 1080p,the Pro can - lik e Tekken for example. And lets talk about that '4k' the Pro offers, its not offering 4k assets - just upscaled from HD Assets

What would constitute a generational leap is the new CPU and the fact its built more the next generation of gaming - Atmos, Game VRR and 4k inc the RAM to handle 4k Assets - not 1800p or 1440p or 1080p just to hit 60fps but 4k. Not a mchine that just outputs HD at a 1440 res (like the Pro) but a machine capable of delivering the full 4k, with 4k Assets

The difference is that maybe you will need to use CB 4k to hit 60fps with some games but most games should run at Native 4k/30fps - maybe if the CPU is decent enough, Most games should run at 4k/60 with may be a few needing to drop to 4k CB to keep it at a locked 60fps. It really depends on how its balanced. It could be strong in the CPU to hot 60fps and comfortably but not so strong in the GPU to render native 4k in 16.6666ms. Point is though, games won't be running at 1080p. At worst 2160CB because its a 4k machine, with 4k assets, higher visual settings etc - That's a BIG jump from the PS4 and a jump up from the Pro.

Smooth stable frame rates along with overall performance is more important than pixal count. Overall performance includes loading times, save options, graphic effects like camera motion blur, dynamic dof, object motion blur, weather/atmosphere effecs, grain effect, ect. That is how those effects are used and if options of usage is offered. A sharp smooth image for me means nothing if it is ruined by camera motion blur and or fake grain effect , washed out colors, ect.

Hype about an unreleasd game seems always about the pixels with performance seldom if ever mentioned. How nice it would be to have the hype include butter smooth fps, short loading times, no fake lens flare, and no nauseous camera motion blur unless you choose to enable it.

Frame rate, but I would add that any game running sub 1080p looks rubbish nowadays.

@BAMozzy any news on these fluid frame rate TVs? Once it's over 45fps I'm pretty happy but skipping frames looks terrible. So this could be the answer.

@themcnoisy Its difficult to know for sure when these TV's that support Game VRR will arrive. Its part of the HDMI 2.1 feature set which should arrive later this year but some TV's are built to be upgradeable and others not so much. The features 'can' be used by 'lower' than 2.1 BUT could sacrifice some other aspect - like 4k or HDR - its to do with the necessary bandwidth.

HDMI 2.0 has a bandwidth of around 18Gb/s but HDMI 2.1 has a bandwidth of 48Gb/s so as you can see, that's a big jump up in the amount of data tat can flow through per second. Its enough to deliver 4k/120 (great for HFR or high frame rate content), as well as Atmos/DTS-X Audio with NO Loss etc.

At the moment, Only the Xbox X can take advantage of the 'Fluid frame rate' as you call it and with Atmos too, it seems that MS has built the console to be upgraded to HDMI 2.1 as soon as it launches. HDMI ports obviously stay the same, but the HDMI controller on the motherboard looks like it may be upgradeable and obviously the wiring between port and controller must have 'adequate' bandwidth to cope with this too. It doesn't need the full 48Gb/s for example but enough to cope with these features at 4k. HDMI 2.1 is also able to deal with 8k signals too...

Game VRR should do away with screen tear, judder etc - if a frame is ready, it will just display it. It doesn't need to be 30 or 60fps so it falls perfectly with the TV's own refresh rate but can tel the TV the next frame is ready now refresh the screen and show it. This is why frame rates above 30 can look and feel worse than the lower frame rates - because they are out of sync with the TV's refresh rate. By having a variable refresh rate, the overall impression feels much smoother and you actually benefit more by having a higher frame rate.

I would imagine that the 2018 TV's will be HDMI 2.1 compliant but as for which 'older' TV's can be upgraded, it will be purely down to how much foresight the manufacturers had. All the HDMI 2.0 controllers 'can' in theory be updated BUT that doesn't mean that the hardware can cope with it so will depend on whether the manufacturers built enough scope to upgrade.

@themcnoisy Any game running below 1080 looks rubbish?

Dont play Zelda, Tekken, Snake Pass....a lot of games actually. And dont go back a generation.

@BLP_Software yup all of them would look better 1080p.

@themcnoisy True. But you also said they look bad. Thats how you chose to frame it. Not that theyd look better at 1080p, but that they are bad they arent.

Truth be told im still a frake rate person. The more pixels go on the screen the more muddled my vision gets eith the increased space for colours. So im happy down here until one day 1080p isnt an option.