-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Dirt 5 will also have a 120FPS mode on PS5
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
Allow me to ask why? It makes no sense to think that 120FPS will be limited to XSX.
I know they can't show it on stream but that would be the real generational leap of GT7 over GT Sport going from cb4k/60fps to 1080p/120fps. Native 4k and RT is great but 120fps is mind blowing especially for someone who hasn't experienced it before.
I'm expecting a lot of the esport / sports / racing / fighting / indie games to have 1080/120 options on PS5/XBSX. A shame some of the big AAA action adventure games will push resolution, visuals and RT at 30fps without an option.
Difference of power between the two systems. Xbox being 12 TF. I thought that the 2 TF difference would allow xbox to easily achieve it OR you know MS would have paid the creators of Dirt to do a 120 FPS mode just for xbox because you know MS keep touting the power of series x and the importance of framerates.
Depends on the game. My PC runs Trials of Mana in 1080p/144hz and I have an i5/GTX970. And Dirt 5 doesn't look that good tbh.
4k may be too high but 1440p could be possible.
It was for some people that think the difference between these two consoles is huge. For the rest of us that know both consoles are almost identical in power it wasn't.
The difference between the PS5 and XSX is a lot smaller than the difference between the PS4 Pro and X1X.
Exactly lol the bigger news is that 3rd party devs are utilizing the Dualsense
I think for some things you will just see MS market it more. Like Velocity Architecture vs Sony not giving their new file system a cool name AFAIK.
Which reminds me....I really hope there is a PS5 teardown, OS, UI breakdown soon. Sony out here edging ppl about their version of suspend/resume.
I mean there could still be differences. Native 4K vs a lower res is one.
After seeing a 3rd party game like Death Loop will be 4K, 60fps on PS5, I always had hope for 120fps, especially early in the gen.
Gamespot editor Tamoor Hussain claimed that Sony paid Bungie to keep Destiny 2 at 30fps on X1X.
For someone who is claiming to not be defensive you sound awfully defensive. The guy just said don't post unconfirmed numbers, there's nothing unreasonable about what he said. It's always best to hear these things from the devs.
What will happen is that the PS5 will have a lower resolution (which is calculable, but I honestly don't know how to do it) compared to the XSX, this is where you will see the (small) impact of TF difference.
And it's resolution and FPS, I don't remember a dev accepting money to favor any console in that(I don't think it's impossible to have happened tho).
I literally didn't post any numbers at all. And I was clearly just speculating. And they claimed "fake news" which doesn't apply at all to what I posted.
Why do you want GT7 going from 4k 60 fps with RT to 1080p 120 fps. I take the bet the game will be 1440p 120 fps if there is a 120 fps mode in GT7.
Oh my bad. You are right. I mistakenly thought you posted numbers, it was someone else's post.
It's in the latest HDMI spec, so it supports it by default.
DF face offs will be an absolute mess. Not sure what I will do: get the popcorn ready or put the thread on ignore, lol.
Trying to read up on this and yeah.....DF faceoffs will be an absolute mess.
How ppl claimed forced parity and the One X had res improvements over the Pro is some amazing logic.
lol, omg...
Trying to read up on this and yeah.....DF faceoffs will be an absolute mess.
How ppl claimed forced parity and the One X had res improvements over the Pro is some amazing logic.
Yeah i don't know the details myself but at the very least i wasn't expecting a 120 FPS mode on PS5. But iam pleasantly surprised, both customers getting the same amount of value from these 3rd party games in terms of gameplay.
That's not necessarily true,
I haven't seen any reconstruction technique go from 1080p to 4k effectively outside of DLSS 2.0, and that's Nvidia only. Image reconstruction also has it's own issues (flickering shadows, objects that don't reconstruct properly, noticable image quality drop when moving).
I imagine games that drop below 1440p will still take a noticable image quality hit on 4k screens, but that should only really happen on 120hz modes on PS5 and XSX.
Yup the question is what resolution will it have in that mode. most likely 1080 or 1440p at max
I don't understand how people continue to have the stamina....this is good news about a PS5 game and once again it turns into a Series X superiority thread
Oh yeah i'm definitely expecting 1080/120 then a 4k/60 option
120 fps is mostly because of the new CPU's on PS5 and XSX. If they both still had jaguar cores, then even with 10 and 12 TF GPUs they wouldn't be able to do 120 fps in games, even at low resolutions.
Fighting games have a problem, because 120fps would a huge upgrade for input lag but most people only have 60hz displays. They can't support both without having different frame data.
I think hes basically wanting a 1440p option in the resolution settings in the OS.
PS4 doesnt have a 1440p resolution mode, only 720, 1080 and 2160.
But now with these settings it would be wise for sony to add a 1440p resolution to that (@120 ofc). All samsungs from 2018 and even a handful of sony 4ktvs with hdmi 2.0 support 1440p120(and 1080p120 ofc). So if there is a game with 120fps support they can play it at the max resolution the HDMI port is capable off.
If XSX hits 1440p, PS5 could hit around 1200p, which isn't too bad at all.
Both consoles are running the game at 4K/60, it shouldn't fall behind 30% in pixel count if both are running at 120fps.
HDMI 2.1 is required for 2160p120.
HDMI 2.0 can do 1440p120.
But the PS4/Pro did not support 1440p, they could only output 1080p or 2160p.
Hopefully the PS5 supports 1440p now, but if it does not, an HDMI 2.0 display that supports 1440p120 would be stuck with 1080p120 or 2160p60.
This assumes that your display has an HDMI 2.0 port though.
Many monitors support high resolutions and refresh rates via DisplayPort, but only include an HDMI 1.4 port.
Going from 60 to 90 is as big a difference as 30 to 60 for me.
Going to 120 or higher is even better still, but perhaps not quite as impressive as getting to 90.
Getting to 90 FPS is a big improvement in comfort for me, but going above it is more of a reduction in motion blur and better fluidity/responsiveness.
That being said, my monitor is a 3440x1440 100Hz display, while my 120Hz display is a DLP projector - which draws the image differently from LCD.
The impact of > 90 FPS may be greater on LCD/OLED due to the way they draw the image (60 FPS on DLP has less motion blur than 90 on LCD/OLED).
A fixed 120Hz refresh rate means that the display updates every 8.33ms.
This means that the game must render a new frame in under 8.33ms. If it takes even slightly longer than 8.33ms, say 8.55ms, the previous frame must be repeated instead.
That means the game will stutter if it is running at anything less than an absolutely perfect 120 FPS.
120Hz variable refresh rate (VRR) works differently. The refresh rate is synchronized to the frame rate, so long as it is at or below 120 FPS.
Instead of an 8.55ms frame being delivered too late for the next refresh, the display waits until that frame is ready before it refreshes.
If it took 8.55ms to render, that means the display is updating at 117Hz instead of 120Hz. This is imperceptible because the frame was only displayed 0.22ms later than the previous one, rather than missing an entire 8.33ms refresh.
So long as the frame rate variation is smooth, like this frame-time graph, you really aren't going to notice if a game is fluctuating between say 100–120 FPS.
But if the frame-time graph looks like this, there will be noticeable stutter even with a VRR display.
And that's the beauty of VRR.
It's very difficult to build a game which runs at a locked 120 FPS at all times and never drops a frame - and if it's constantly fluctuating between 100–120 FPS it may be preferable to lock that to 60 instead. I've had to do just that with some games on my 120Hz fixed-rate projector.
But with VRR you don't have to worry about that. You can leave the frame rate unlocked, or limit it to something in-between 60 and 120, like 90 FPS, and it still feels perfectly smooth.
With HDMI 2.1 as part of the PS5 specs, this sort of felt like it almost a given when it was announced for the XSX as the PS5 version is already 4k/60fps.
The new CPU is what really drives these higher framerates and with only a 3% difference between PS5 3.5 and XSX 3.6, and not a complete knowledge of what workloads are more CPU dependent on each console with their custom O/I tech, it's doesn't seem amount to much of a difference.
You could though try to argue the XSX higher frequency mode of 3.8Ghz, but what dev would want to turn off 8 threads just to try to use that frequency if they have good multithreaded performance?
The new CPU is what really drives these higher framerates and with only a 3% difference between PS5 3.5 and XSX 3.6, and not a complete knowledge of what workloads are more CPU dependent on each console with their custom O/I tech, it's doesn't seem amount to much of a difference.
You could though try to argue the XSX higher frequency mode of 3.8Ghz, but what dev would want to turn off 8 threads just to try to use that frequency if they have good multithreaded performance?
PS5 and XSX TF difference is 18%.
1080p PS5 = 1274p XSX... is that what you're saying? Based on your math, neither can XSX. Or are we back to secret saucing an Xbox console? Maybe they have a second GPU or can use the power of the cloud.
Non news really as this was to be expected. But good to have confirmation I guess.
www.eurogamer.net
Pro: 1920x2160 = ~ 4,1m
X: 3840x2160 = ~8,2m
Thats more percentage than the GPU difference using your math suggest. Shouldn't suprise anyone and your last claim doesn't make sense either. So you believe Xbox will render at 1440p and PS5 will render most of the time at the same resolution, despite having a less powerful GPU (and less bandwidth). Doesn't add up.
I will patiently wait for Digital foundry and look forward how these two amazing consoles perform. But it really needed to be said that you can't just use the infamous TF and calculate the resolution difference.
It's not that simple as you suggest with your math. Let's take arguably the most impressive third party game on Xbox One X and PS4 Pro, Red Dead Redemption 2.
Red Dead Redemption 2 looks and plays best on Xbox One X
PlayStation 4 - and latterly, PS4 Pro - have taken centre-stage in Red Dead Redemption 2's pre-release marketing campai…
www.eurogamer.net
Pro: 1920x2160 = ~ 4,1m
X: 3840x2160 = ~8,2m
Thats more percentage than the GPU difference using your math suggest. Shouldn't suprise anyone and your last claim doesn't make sense either. So you believe Xbox will render at 1440p and PS5 will render most of the time at the same resolution, despite having a less powerful GPU (and less bandwidth). Doesn't add up.
I will patiently wait for Digital foundry and look forward how these two amazing consoles perform. But it really needed to be said that you can't just use the infamous TF and calculate the resolution difference.
What? The consoles are close.
I don't know how people have the stamina to downplay both consoles or the stamina to suggest only one of the console gets downplayed.
No we are back at arm chair math not working. Resolution gets impacted by more than the infamous TF number as you see with RDR2. 50% res difference, even thought the TF of Pro vs X aren't 50% apart.
Last edited:
Non news really as this was to be expected. But good to have confirmation I guess.
It's not that simple as you suggest with your math. Let's take arguably the most impressive third party game on Xbox One X and PS4 Pro, Red Dead Redemption 2.
Red Dead Redemption 2 looks and plays best on Xbox One X
PlayStation 4 - and latterly, PS4 Pro - have taken centre-stage in Red Dead Redemption 2's pre-release marketing campai…
Pro: 1920x2160 = ~ 4,1m
X: 3840x2160 = ~8,2m
Thats more percentage than the GPU difference using your math suggest. Shouldn't suprise anyone and your last claim doesn't make sense either. So you believe Xbox will render at 1440p and PS5 will render most of the time at the same resolution, despite having a less powerful GPU (and less bandwidth). Doesn't add up.
I will patiently wait for Digital foundry and look forward how these two amazing consoles perform. But it really needed to be said that you can't just use the infamous TF and calculate the resolution difference.
What? The consoles are close.
I don't know how people have the stamina to downplay both consoles or the stamina to suggest only one of the console gets downplayed.
No we are back at arm chair math not working. Resolution gets impacted by more than the infamous TF number as you see with RDR2. 50% res difference, even thought the TF of Pro vs X aren't 50% apart.
wjy are you comparing x1x and PS4 pro, and applying that to XsX/ps5? X1x had faster GPU, faster ram, and more ram.
xsx And ps5 seem pretty damn close in terms of TF and bandwidth per TF. Most likely guess would be to expect resolution to scale by about 20% as suggested
Non news really as this was to be expected. But good to have confirmation I guess.
It's not that simple as you suggest with your math. Let's take arguably the most impressive third party game on Xbox One X and PS4 Pro, Red Dead Redemption 2.
Red Dead Redemption 2 looks and plays best on Xbox One X
PlayStation 4 - and latterly, PS4 Pro - have taken centre-stage in Red Dead Redemption 2's pre-release marketing campai…
Pro: 1920x2160 = ~ 4,1m
X: 3840x2160 = ~8,2m
Thats more percentage than the GPU difference using your math suggest. Shouldn't suprise anyone and your last claim doesn't make sense either. So you believe Xbox will render at 1440p and PS5 will render most of the time at the same resolution, despite having a less powerful GPU (and less bandwidth). Doesn't add up.
I will patiently wait for Digital foundry and look forward how these two amazing consoles perform. But it really needed to be said that you can't just use the infamous TF and calculate the resolution difference.
X1X also has more memory and memory bandwidth than the PS4 Pro so that played a very big part in conjunction with GPU also being ~40% faster making a difference.
Now we are talking the PS5 being 15% less powerful or XSX being 18% more power depending on how you look at the metrics. That is a far cry from the last generation between PS4 and X1 and Pro and 1X which hovered around 40%.
Then there is memory, both have 16GB, PS5 is unified and XSX is split where 10GB is 25% faster and the remaining 6GB is 25% slower than the PS5 RAM. The actual bandwidth per teraflop is really close now because of the frequency difference of the GPUs, unlike the Pro and 1X.
PS5 and XSX are so much less of a performance gap than in this generation.
