Jump to content
IGNORED

The multiformat game comparison thread (resolution, frame rate etc)


simms
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Theholyhogg said:

Ive not played on a tv for years and going from a tv to a monitor felt a lot nicer,has things changed much?

 

As @metallicfrodo says, it sort of depends on exactly what you want to spend - and right now if you want HDMI 2.1, then there's nothing for you in the computer monitor world. The latest round of OLEDs from LG (specifically the CX48 if you want a "budget" option) are just straight up better than monitors costing +£1k on that price (lookin' at you Asus).

 

Unless you specifically want ultrawide, then ignoring the cost a TV will be better for them gamez. And there's an argument that if you want to do Ultrawide, just set up that custom resolution on your 4K TV and have some black bars. HDR is pretty terrible on the PC as monitors are still doing it for the first time and the implementation is properly Wild West, with Windows looking awful under HDR conditions, and some games needing it activated on an OS level and others being happy to do it from within themselves. I'm sure it'll be great one day, but I absolutely wouldn't spring for a monitor touting itself as HDR at the moment.

 

On the other hand, if you want to do anything productivity related, monitors are still the best way to go because attempting to navigate a spreadsheet on a massive 48" 4K screen gives me the fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dudley said:

 

If only that was how development actually worked.

 

We had a message in our release notes for years on windows due to an incompatibility with one specific model of Logitech mouse.  Logi didn't have a clue, we didn't have a clue...

 

Or for a games example, the infamous PC version of The Lion King that took exception only to one new graphics card only found on Compaq Presarios, which would have been fine if the Lion King wasn't bundled free with every new Compaq Presario.

 

Did you check to see if you'd ticked the Logitech mouse and Presario graphics card options when you did the Save As?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opened the Digital Foundry video on Forza Horizon 4 and at the point they zoomed in at 400% to analyse the differences in detail I switched it off. Prior to that they were analysing a dip of 3 frames whilst loading in to a race.

 

I mean fucking hell, life is really too short for that kind of shite :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really know where to put this post so that it upsets the fewest number of people - I worry the Xbox thread would shout at me.

 

Digital Foundry have just "reviewed" the Series S.

 

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-series-s-review-digitalfoundry

 

It's quite interesting. They're really positive about it, and it's clearly a good deal, a nice design and so on. Game Pass and a Series S is clearly a good buy.

 

But the interesting piece I wanted to mention was where they talk about performance and resolution etc. I would say that I don't think there's anything here for people to get their hackles up over - clearly anyone getting an S isn't a performance-worried meganerd. But they had the same query of messaging versus reality that was mentioned in the run up to launch:

 

Quote

Series S gaming: does the 1440p marketing hold up?

 

In principle, I see nothing wrong with the notion of bringing two consoles to market separated by their GPU power (although the clock differential on the CPU is harder to justify - why give developers anything more to worry about?) and Microsoft's pre-release marketing suggested that what Xbox Series X delivers at native 4K resolution, Series S will be able to match at 1440p. The messaging suggests only good things: if you're on a 1080p screen, 1440p rendering gives you a nice level of super-sampling anti-aliasing, improving image quality.

 

On the one hand, we have Gears 5 which sees the Coalition broadly achieve Microsoft's spec claims - though even this is difficult to verify owing to the use of dynamic resolution scaling on both X and S consoles. Elsewhere though, the claim holds less water. Forza Horizon 4 hits native 4K on Series X, but only 1080p on Series S - and it's the same story with Sea of Thieves.

 

My problem is not with the machine, however, but with the messaging - because if there is indeed feature parity between Series X and S at 4K and 1080p respectively, that's fine.

 

It also highlights another issue: if 4K Series X equates to 1080p Series S in some cases, what happens when X uses dynamic resolution scaling? In the case of Watch Dogs: Legion, it seems that the DRS range is 900p-1080p up against 1440p to 2160p on Series X

 

Certainly, I think I've essentially written the same as the bolded part in posts prior to launch. A 1080p machine makes loads of sense to me. Obviously, this is launch and games won't have been super-optimised in Covid times and in a launch window, but does the 1440p message create potential genuine concerns if they're not getting it and every multiformat comparison pixel counts everything?

 

I still think the Series S feels like a great purchase, so perhaps this is all just fluff. I assume I'll be getting one next year at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Lying Cat said:

 

As @metallicfrodo says, it sort of depends on exactly what you want to spend - and right now if you want HDMI 2.1, then there's nothing for you in the computer monitor world. The latest round of OLEDs from LG (specifically the CX48 if you want a "budget" option) are just straight up better than monitors costing +£1k on that price (lookin' at you Asus).

 

Unless you specifically want ultrawide, then ignoring the cost a TV will be better for them gamez. And there's an argument that if you want to do Ultrawide, just set up that custom resolution on your 4K TV and have some black bars. HDR is pretty terrible on the PC as monitors are still doing it for the first time and the implementation is properly Wild West, with Windows looking awful under HDR conditions, and some games needing it activated on an OS level and others being happy to do it from within themselves. I'm sure it'll be great one day, but I absolutely wouldn't spring for a monitor touting itself as HDR at the moment.

 

On the other hand, if you want to do anything productivity related, monitors are still the best way to go because attempting to navigate a spreadsheet on a massive 48" 4K screen gives me the fear.

 

Depends on the game, too. I have a 65" c9 and it's spectacular and I will definitely be hooking the PC up to that for Cyberpunk, but for stuff like World of Warcraft the TV is just a bit too big and a monitor suits better. Maybe it's just me, but I imagine games like 4x games or Xcom would be better on monitor, too. And monitor is definitely better for browsing the internet and lurking on RLLMUK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doctor Shark said:

 

Depends on the game, too. I have a 65" c9 and it's spectacular and I will definitely be hooking the PC up to that for Cyberpunk, but for stuff like World of Warcraft the TV is just a bit too big and a monitor suits better. Maybe it's just me, but I imagine games like 4x games or Xcom would be better on monitor, too. And monitor is definitely better for browsing the internet and lurking on RLLMUK.

 

Well my actual plan of action is to: -

 

1. Rejig the home office a bit

2. Get a TV for the wall

3. Get an ultrawide monitor to work on

4. Succumb to enormous buyers remorse

 

Plus I'm going to need to find somewhere else to hang my amazing Ghostbusters vs. The Thing artwork, as that's where the TV is going to need to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the games on Series S do hit 1440p, or even higher, so I can understand why they would go with that in their messaging. My Series X box has 4k 120fps on the front and 8k on the side but the number of games hitting either of those, and especially the latter, will be miniscule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Majora said:

Some of the games on Series S do hit 1440p, or even higher, so I can understand why they would go with that in their messaging. My Series X box has 4k 120fps on the front and 8k on the side but the number of games hitting either of those, and especially the latter, will be miniscule.

 

Yeah but the fact they're shooting for 120 means they might spend a lot of time at 60, which is super exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, ignoring the marketing the Series S is a very interesting machine, but it's likely, especially in a couple of years it's not quite the machine MS claims it is and it's not for me.  But nothing wrong with that.

 

29 minutes ago, Xevious said:

 

Did you check to see if you'd ticked the Logitech mouse and Presario graphics card options when you did the Save As?

 

FUCK!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the S is for the likes of us or indeed the reviewers. I think it is a cheap console for those gamers on 1080p who want the latest gen games but don't have/want 4k 120fps etc

 

I got one for my 9 yr old specifically for that reason... he has a 1080p tv and no interest in framerates etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Doctor Shark said:

 

Depends on the game, too. I have a 65" c9 and it's spectacular and I will definitely be hooking the PC up to that for Cyberpunk, but for stuff like World of Warcraft the TV is just a bit too big and a monitor suits better. Maybe it's just me, but I imagine games like 4x games or Xcom would be better on monitor, too. And monitor is definitely better for browsing the internet and lurking on RLLMUK.

 

Well I prefer to play Civ 6 on my 55inch TV while lying on the sofa like Caligula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Lying Cat said:

 

As @metallicfrodo says, it sort of depends on exactly what you want to spend - and right now if you want HDMI 2.1, then there's nothing for you in the computer monitor world. The latest round of OLEDs from LG (specifically the CX48 if you want a "budget" option) are just straight up better than monitors costing +£1k on that price (lookin' at you Asus).

 

Unless you specifically want ultrawide, then ignoring the cost a TV will be better for them gamez. And there's an argument that if you want to do Ultrawide, just set up that custom resolution on your 4K TV and have some black bars. HDR is pretty terrible on the PC as monitors are still doing it for the first time and the implementation is properly Wild West, with Windows looking awful under HDR conditions, and some games needing it activated on an OS level and others being happy to do it from within themselves. I'm sure it'll be great one day, but I absolutely wouldn't spring for a monitor touting itself as HDR at the moment.

 

On the other hand, if you want to do anything productivity related, monitors are still the best way to go because attempting to navigate a spreadsheet on a massive 48" 4K screen gives me the fear.

 

I just wanted to chime in, as someone with a daft-expensive 32" ultrawide monitor which I love dearly... That this is entirely accurate. The monitor is fantastic for productivity, it's a wonderful aspect ratio for lots of games, and just the experience of Sitting At A Desk With A Trackball And Keyboard is ideal for certain genres (as I was reminded when I tried to play Wasteland 3 and Pillars of Eternity from the couch). But I frequently find myself opting to play games on my BoneX/PS4 Pro, even where the PC version runs smoother/at higher res/with higher settings, simply because my (equivalently priced, 'entry-level') 55" OLED just blows it away in terms of presentation, thanks largely to HDR and lovely OLED blacks.

 

It would, however, assuredly be a nightmare to use Excel on. Or, well, Windows in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

I don't really know where to put this post so that it upsets the fewest number of people - I worry the Xbox thread would shout at me.

 

Digital Foundry have just "reviewed" the Series S.

 

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-series-s-review-digitalfoundry

 

It's quite interesting. They're really positive about it, and it's clearly a good deal, a nice design and so on. Game Pass and a Series S is clearly a good buy.

 

But the interesting piece I wanted to mention was where they talk about performance and resolution etc. I would say that I don't think there's anything here for people to get their hackles up over - clearly anyone getting an S isn't a performance-worried meganerd. But they had the same query of messaging versus reality that was mentioned in the run up to launch:

 

 

Certainly, I think I've essentially written the same as the bolded part in posts prior to launch. A 1080p machine makes loads of sense to me. Obviously, this is launch and games won't have been super-optimised in Covid times and in a launch window, but does the 1440p message create potential genuine concerns if they're not getting it and every multiformat comparison pixel counts everything?

 

I still think the Series S feels like a great purchase, so perhaps this is all just fluff. I assume I'll be getting one next year at some point.

 

I'd agree with the issue being messaging, but I think the difference is more important than multiformat pixel counts.

 

As a 1080p machine, I see it as a machine for gamers who don't have a 4K TV. As a 1440p machine, I think it's a great machine for people gaming at 4K, similar to how the PS4 Pro was mostly 1440p but looks great on a 4K display. The difference between 1080p and 1440p presentations is huge to me, and probably more significant than the difference between 1440p and 4K. The former look soft, and not something I'm that pleased with on my 4K TV, where as 1440p looks fine to me, and everything above that is a bonus.

 

I probably won't buy either an S or an X for the forseeable, but will be waiting to see what the big hitters going forward do. If big Microsoft first party stuff is mostly 1440p, I'll probably go for an S. I think the launch third party stuff is all a bit rushed and unoptimised. COD being 1080p and AC: Valhalla being 30fps are quite disappointing, but I am hopeful - I don't think they would have mentioned 1440p target if they didn't think it was reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another comparison of Valhalla, showing performance in different regions:

 

 

It shows that the PS5 version can tear as well – so it isn't v-synced – it just seems to be less frequent. Strangely the Series X appears to have more (relative) trouble with highly populated areas, which I wouldn't have expected given its CPU is clocked slightly higher; perhaps that version has a detail slider set a notch too high.

 

Basically there's very little in it. Which is interesting in its own way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ferine said:

Strangely the Series X appears to have more (relative) trouble with highly populated areas, which I wouldn't have expected given its CPU is clocked slightly higher

That could tie in with what DF were saying about potential API bottlenecks they were seeing in DMC5. A lot of launch window XSX software would have been built against very rough and incomplete SDKs (Sony were known to be well ahead in getting theirs up to scratch and into the hands of developers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lying Cat said:

 

As @metallicfrodo says, it sort of depends on exactly what you want to spend - and right now if you want HDMI 2.1, then there's nothing for you in the computer monitor world. The latest round of OLEDs from LG (specifically the CX48 if you want a "budget" option) are just straight up better than monitors costing +£1k on that price (lookin' at you Asus).

 

Unless you specifically want ultrawide, then ignoring the cost a TV will be better for them gamez. And there's an argument that if you want to do Ultrawide, just set up that custom resolution on your 4K TV and have some black bars. HDR is pretty terrible on the PC as monitors are still doing it for the first time and the implementation is properly Wild West, with Windows looking awful under HDR conditions, and some games needing it activated on an OS level and others being happy to do it from within themselves. I'm sure it'll be great one day, but I absolutely wouldn't spring for a monitor touting itself as HDR at the moment.

 

On the other hand, if you want to do anything productivity related, monitors are still the best way to go because attempting to navigate a spreadsheet on a massive 48" 4K screen gives me the fear.

Thanks for this,i dont do any work on my pc at all, so a tv is the way forward me thinks.

Thanks guys

Now what tv shall i get ??:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting vid from DF, especially the part were to get the console settings you have to use custom settings (which shows the XsX and PS5 having the same settings so the ps5 version will simply look the same). As some are below the options menus, and then, the complaints about "optimisation" and "performance" seem to...go away!?! as it looks as good as the XsX and runs...better...on a 2060S...:blink:

 

I agree with Alex, if only devs would just put "console" as a setting option in the menu! (like HZD did!)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OLED and HDR are the biggest next gen jumps I’ve ever met in gaming (bar VR). Getting my 55” LGC9 before the next-gen and only using it with a base PS4 and One and switch was a far larger (and more exciting) next gen leap for me, than getting a Series X has been.

 

If you can only afford one, then getting the TV is a better investment I would say. Especially as everything on the xbox will run on the bone for the foreseeable. I battled tooth and nail to upgrade with my SO (who thought it was too large - I’m so glad they didn’t make a 48” at the time, as we would have ended up with that!) but now she is now a massive convert. It’s a real cinema at home experience.  Perfect for lockdown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 5R7 said:

Interesting vid from DF, especially the part were to get the console settings you have to use custom settings (which shows the XsX and PS5 having the same settings so the ps5 version will simply look the same). As some are below the options menus, and then, the complaints about "optimisation" and "performance" seem to...go away!?! as it looks as good as the XsX and runs...better...on a 2060S...:blink:

 

I agree with Alex, if only devs would just put "console" as a setting option in the menu! (like HZD did!)

 

 

 

PC wins war again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, gooner4life said:

Look at this, LOOK AT THIS... that's that 12.4teraflops of DirectX12 Ultimate and VRS and the full RDNA2 power of the most powerful console ever.

 

Wait what... the top one is PS5? wait... the PS5 has vsync enabled and the Xbox has screen tearing all over the place....wait... the PS5 maintains a higher resolution overall? 1440p lows on Xbox Series X and 1620p lows on PS5....

 

Boozy is this your King? 

 

image.thumb.png.6f670f72f7528580b4e9c144e8ae56a8.png

 

image.thumb.png.1628edbd86d4e264bb1501025e13311f.png

They both look shite ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Opinionated Ham Scarecrow said:

 

LG OLEDs and top end LED TVs now do 120Hz so you get framerates on TV that previously you only could on a monitor but yeah you do have to pay for the privilege.

You do get real HDR and a bigger screen for your money though. Unless you’re going to buy one of those ridiculous Gsync HDR super monitors, which were ok in their specs (if £1k over priced) when announced, and outdated a year later when any one of them started to ship (no HDMI 2.1 support).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Charliemouse said:

Microsoft should have just made it a 1080p machine in the first place, I mean how many people will be connecting their Series S consoles to a 1440p screen?

 

Exactly this. It's like they got carried away.

 

Streamers = 1080p

Kids bedrooms = 1080p

Core Joe Public = Largely 1080p

 

The only people who have 1440 monitors are enthusiasts and a minority of others. It's weird. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.