Definitely not every game, certainly first person shooters will probably be 4K/60.
I am thinking 4K/30 for everything else, totally depends on the developers.
I am thinking 4K/30 for everything else, totally depends on the developers.
-
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.
PC Gamers: How 'attainable' is 4K/60fps today?
- Thread starter Fiery Phoenix
- Start date
If the console is truly 12TF it should be more powerful than a 2080 super, 2080 super is what 11.4TF roughly
Never really a fan of pushing hardware to its limits.
For me even if I own a 2080Ti I would still prefer playing at 1080p maxed out everything, even if there's still ''room for power''. I guess I just don't like 4K.
For me even if I own a 2080Ti I would still prefer playing at 1080p maxed out everything, even if there's still ''room for power''. I guess I just don't like 4K.
Even with checkerboard 4k instead of native, and dynamic resolution that "targets" 4k, that's going to be tough to pull off if you also want to see a generational leap in visual quality.
I'm betting checkerboard dynamic resolution stays (and I really hope it does, it's a great compromise) and the majority of AAA games still target 30fps.
It's possible it really is just a custom 5700 XT & 12 GCN TFLOPS, but i get in trouble for saying PS5 won't be 14 RDNA TFLOPS, so im not brave enough to argue that in the next gen thread lol.
I hope there's a ''Guaranteed 1080p 60fps'' option for literally every game on the PS5, I'd rather have that than being force to play 4K 30fps.
Yeah I don't mean literally the same card necessarily, but that level of power roughly.
I know what you mean, I'm just saying its rdna 2 so it will probably be 5800 at the minimum
Right but it would have to be a down clocked 5800 for space and thermal reasons is what I mean. So it's gotta come down to the cards below it power wise.
As always, it depends on the game. Some games stress the system more than others, so there never has been, and never will be, a fixed standard to say "everything at res/fps". There's plenty of games you can play at 4K/60 right now.
But for some reason, those games never factor into discussions like this... it's always directly related to whatever the latest and greatest graphical marvel is. By the time that game can be run at res/fps, we'll be on to something else, some other game years from now, and arguing why it doesn't run at 8K/120.
In other words, this is a pointless discussion. Build your system to your specs, play the games you like at the settings, resolution, and framerate that you like, and to hell with everything (and everyone) else.
But for some reason, those games never factor into discussions like this... it's always directly related to whatever the latest and greatest graphical marvel is. By the time that game can be run at res/fps, we'll be on to something else, some other game years from now, and arguing why it doesn't run at 8K/120.
In other words, this is a pointless discussion. Build your system to your specs, play the games you like at the settings, resolution, and framerate that you like, and to hell with everything (and everyone) else.
With my 2070S, it's attainable in about 30% of the games that say it's possible. 4K 57-60fps is attainable in an additional 50%. I kind of wish a lot of games were a tad more aggressive with their dynamic scaling. I wouldn't mind a locked 60 with the occasional dip to 1860 or 1440.
Idk maybe it will handle thermals of a more powerful apu fine. In the gamespot exclusive they claimed the parts were chosen and then design took place seems like the box was created with this stuff in mind.
True, the design of the box definitely raises some questions.
1440p 60 FPS is what I go with on most big open world games like Witcher 3, FFXV, GTA V. I have a 1080 TI.
Depends on the game and settings. I'm fairly confident that next-gen would be much more capable of higher resolution gaming than PCs at anywhere near a similar price though, given that games will probably benefit more from stuff like dynamic resolution, VRS, etc, whereas pcs will get stuck brute forcing resolution.
I think that going into next-gen, consoles will generally be better than pc for high resolution gaming, until pc makes some bigger hardware jumps, and perhaps even some software jumps to prevent high resolution from making UI too small in certain (older) games.
I think that going into next-gen, consoles will generally be better than pc for high resolution gaming, until pc makes some bigger hardware jumps, and perhaps even some software jumps to prevent high resolution from making UI too small in certain (older) games.
It is possible but not really easy or affordable to attain with the hardware of today. I think in more cases, it's "easier" to reach 4K than it is to sustain it at 60 FPS for the more demanding titles of today.
And as noted above, it also depends on the methods the new consoles use to attain 4K or higher resolutions. A press release isn't going to make that clear but we have seen methods in the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X, like upscaling and checkerboarding. Different baked-in methods could always be used in the future depending on all the design and development decisions that went into these new consoles.
The PC's most interesting competitive advantage, in that case, will be high-FPS gaming, but this might also change - FreeSync is appearing in TVs even now, though their refresh rates vary. We do know that variable refresh is part of the mix for future consoles, but how that works also depends on when and how this gets deployed for less expensive televisions (only larger Samsung models currently appear in AMD's linked list above), how the demands of VRS are met with these consoles if not through brute force, and how PC monitors evolve during this time frame. For example, though it's outside the specific question, some PC monitors go as fast as 200 hz and many inexpensive monitors refresh at up to 144 hz, beating the Samsung TVs available now.
PCs also benefit from an aggressive refresh cycle - by the time the console generation is over, we'd be able to purchase revised Zen 2+ or Zen 3 parts and revisions to both RDNA and Nvidia designs. Alas, that's not cheap - what a console buyer purchases once, a cutting-edge PC enthusiast would need to buy twice or thrice.
And as noted above, it also depends on the methods the new consoles use to attain 4K or higher resolutions. A press release isn't going to make that clear but we have seen methods in the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X, like upscaling and checkerboarding. Different baked-in methods could always be used in the future depending on all the design and development decisions that went into these new consoles.
The PC's most interesting competitive advantage, in that case, will be high-FPS gaming, but this might also change - FreeSync is appearing in TVs even now, though their refresh rates vary. We do know that variable refresh is part of the mix for future consoles, but how that works also depends on when and how this gets deployed for less expensive televisions (only larger Samsung models currently appear in AMD's linked list above), how the demands of VRS are met with these consoles if not through brute force, and how PC monitors evolve during this time frame. For example, though it's outside the specific question, some PC monitors go as fast as 200 hz and many inexpensive monitors refresh at up to 144 hz, beating the Samsung TVs available now.
PCs also benefit from an aggressive refresh cycle - by the time the console generation is over, we'd be able to purchase revised Zen 2+ or Zen 3 parts and revisions to both RDNA and Nvidia designs. Alas, that's not cheap - what a console buyer purchases once, a cutting-edge PC enthusiast would need to buy twice or thrice.
It's been like that for a while...
Other stuff in the GPU comes into play for overall performance.
Why would anyone need to tell him that? It's been an observable and documented trait of the two manufacturers since forever. AMDs higher flop numbers have only translated into crypto mining performance and other compute heavy tasks. For gaming benchmarks their best cards have consistently lagged behind regardless of the raw performance.
RDNA 1.5 or 2.0 TF will be the closest to Nvidia TF so far.
The machine is supposedly 12+TF.
That 12TF is supposedly a RDNA.
Given that it has Hardware RT it is not any member of the know RDNA cards. Imo it's not. 5700xt equiv, it's a 6700 RDNA 1.5/2.0 equiv.
12TF RDNA 1.0 is equivalent to around 18 TF GCN (found in Original Xbox one series.)
So that's 3 times the power of Xbox one X.
(Not including any RDNA 1.5/2.0 improvements)
However they always claim only 2 times the power, which in simple TF numbers it is, which is a simpler sell to the public.
The machine is supposedly 12+TF.
That 12TF is supposedly a RDNA.
Given that it has Hardware RT it is not any member of the know RDNA cards. Imo it's not. 5700xt equiv, it's a 6700 RDNA 1.5/2.0 equiv.
12TF RDNA 1.0 is equivalent to around 18 TF GCN (found in Original Xbox one series.)
So that's 3 times the power of Xbox one X.
(Not including any RDNA 1.5/2.0 improvements)
However they always claim only 2 times the power, which in simple TF numbers it is, which is a simpler sell to the public.
From what i know they calculate tf for gaming the same (single point) the difference is double point and so on. Do you have something that says otherwise?
My point was when comparing GPUs from the two, you cant just look at the TF number and say "oh it will be better than x", because that's not necessarily true from what we've seen on the PC side.
I haven't seen anything about those.
Other speculation of where is big Navi!
Got a link?
Regarding naming convention 5800 and 6700 basically I just mean next gen Navi card and a guess at the tier.
It leaked from chiphell i believe 5800 is the 2080 super competition and 5900 is the Ti competition supposedly they're both faster and will be shown off at ces 2020, I'll have to go looking to find the links
Interesting. And the rumour is they are not on RDNA 1.0?
I assumed that bump would be on the 6XXX cards next year.
And that's why I don't get that this conversation starts again and again and again. Some developers will always prioritise visual fidelity over fps. So we're never gonna get 4k60 for everything.
I have a 2080ti and an 8700k OC'd to 5.0GHz, but I still have to do a lot of tuning to get decent performance at 4K in most games. Some games it's just not possible without dropping resolution scale.
But games will probably be better optimized to take advantage of next-gen hardware, so I imagine it will be an easier goal to accomplish. I wouldn't go in expecting it to be standard, though. Some developers will be more interested in pushing other aspects of their game to its limits.
But games will probably be better optimized to take advantage of next-gen hardware, so I imagine it will be an easier goal to accomplish. I wouldn't go in expecting it to be standard, though. Some developers will be more interested in pushing other aspects of their game to its limits.
Optimized 7nm+ process node
Enthusiast-grade desktop graphics card options
Hardware-Level Ray Tracing Support
A mix of GDDR6 and HBM2 graphics cards
More power-efficient than First-Gen Navi GPUs
CES 2020 first showing
This is what rdna 2 has based on the leaker he's been correct with all his previous leaks apparently
Literally been playing 4k/60fps games on my $200 GPU from nearly 3 years ago, many at maxed settings. Sure, it's games like Sonic Generations, Atelier Series, Dishonored, and many more recent indie games... but the point is, 4k/60 is all about what you're running and how your hardware can handle it.
Sounds nice that you'd be able to get a full system that contains a GPU that outperforms the best GPU on the market which by itself (no system included) is sold at 2x the price of the better GPU that also comes with an entire system of parts, but i'll believe it when I see it.
I also think most games could probably hit 4k/60 if you just reduce the settings enough and they're not too bloated or bottlenecked by some weird engine issue.
I also think most games could probably hit 4k/60 if you just reduce the settings enough and they're not too bloated or bottlenecked by some weird engine issue.
-Scaling resolution based on load
-advanced reconstruction techniques (rendering different components of a scene at different resolutions)
-advanced scaling techniques
-temporal reconstruction techniques
- new optimizing rendering techniques not yet utilized or even invented yet
Calling something "4k" is going to get hazier and hazier as time goes on. This is the future and it's fine.
-advanced reconstruction techniques (rendering different components of a scene at different resolutions)
-advanced scaling techniques
-temporal reconstruction techniques
- new optimizing rendering techniques not yet utilized or even invented yet
Calling something "4k" is going to get hazier and hazier as time goes on. This is the future and it's fine.
If it is 12 tflops so it is equivalent to a rtx 2080. For the size probably is. Nvidia fucked us with this crap series RTX 2xxx expensive and weak GPUs with the excuse of Ray Tracing.
The diff nowadays with Navi is around 10% with Navi2 probably less so they are equivalent nowadays. RTX 2070 SUPER is 9.1 TFLOPS 5700XT 9.75 diff in performance is 5%
This is what I'm curious about as well. It's rwally going to inform my purchase for hardware next gen. Are consoles TRULY going to be going for 60fps? I'm not huge into mods or anything but I'm hooked on 60fps now.