Is this recent generational jump, the lowest ever(PS5/XSX/XSS)?
bitbydeath
Gold Member
I've never had an issue with 30FPS, people who have played GTA before would be familiar with the frame rate dipping way below that.
Giallo Corsa
Member
I mean, the demo was so juddery/stuttery on a "normal" TV that I can't even begin to imagine how bad it'd have looked on an OLED motion-wise friend...
I'll have to repeat myself :
30 fps is OK for story driven, graphic intensive games - just not when you're playing on an OLED, it's so God damned bad that if I had witnessed it beforehand I'd have opted for a normal LED/Mini LED TV and not an OLED, for me at least it's that bad...
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
I laugh at both extreme side of the argument. I will NEVER EVER skip good game just because the game runs at 30FPS but given the choice I will ALWAYS choose smoother FPS over some eye candy any day.
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
sure.... but the hardware improvement was miniscule. The only thing holding 9th gen back is crossgen and UE4. when those 2 get dumped you're gonna see some serious shit better than anything a PS4 could conjure up.... Hell we're already seeing it with the Matrix demo
PeteBull
Member
Lets just say it like that- ps5pr0 gonna happen holidays 2024 or sometime in 2025, gotta be patient, and dont expect any gamebreaking visuals vs what we already have, especially not in terms of rt, cos both ps5 and xsx(not to mention xss, rip the lil guy
) are now 3 gens behind rtx 4090 in terms of raytracing capabilities- aka they can push a bit of it, but at very high cpu/gpu cost.
So far i didnt see even 1 game that could do 1080p30 on base ps4 and on ps5 it got upgraded to 4k60, and for that jump alone u need 8x gpu power, so u can tell base ps4 to ps5 jump, at least in gpu power, is less than that.
In comparision ps1 to ps2 was easily 100x powerjump. In other words ps3 to ps5 is smaller jump in power than that, but at least with such a jump we can easily see big improvement, like in demons souls remaster.
) are now 3 gens behind rtx 4090 in terms of raytracing capabilities- aka they can push a bit of it, but at very high cpu/gpu cost.So far i didnt see even 1 game that could do 1080p30 on base ps4 and on ps5 it got upgraded to 4k60, and for that jump alone u need 8x gpu power, so u can tell base ps4 to ps5 jump, at least in gpu power, is less than that.
In comparision ps1 to ps2 was easily 100x powerjump. In other words ps3 to ps5 is smaller jump in power than that, but at least with such a jump we can easily see big improvement, like in demons souls remaster.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
What about FPS over gameplay improvements like Zelda?
Gaelyon
Member
1080p to 4k = 4 times the resolution
30 FPS to 60 FPS = half time to render a frame.
Both combined it's like 8x more power needed (Not exactly but you get the idea). So there's some tech to get around it to an extend (like DLSS/reconstruction tech) but it still ate most of the power up of this gen.
Then you add ray tracing.
So dev needs to compromise these features (like pick 2 out of 3 best case scenario).
SSD and better CPU added the most quality of life so far.
30 FPS to 60 FPS = half time to render a frame.
Both combined it's like 8x more power needed (Not exactly but you get the idea). So there's some tech to get around it to an extend (like DLSS/reconstruction tech) but it still ate most of the power up of this gen.
Then you add ray tracing.
So dev needs to compromise these features (like pick 2 out of 3 best case scenario).
SSD and better CPU added the most quality of life so far.
March Climber
Member
This has less to do with 30fps and more to do with Nintendo being Nintendo. Nintendo have made 15-25fps games on N64 that have received awards. That didn't mean I wanted a standard of 15-25fps games back then.
Azurro
Banned
It's a small jump, only about 5 times in performance plus architectural improvements and features. GPUs have been programmable for a while, so the features on game engines run on them relatively easily, from the top of the line GPU to a cellphone, just performance making a difference of what features can be turned on and with which quality.
So, from my very limited understanding of graphics rendering, the biggest new features are ray tracing and the geometry engine. Ray tracing as we all know, is very performance intensive, so it can only be used sporadically and won't give THAT much of an impact, given all the trickery devs have been doing for years to emulate its behaviour. I'm not entirely sure about the geometry engine, which allows stuff like virtualised geometry, but I bet that given how complex graphics engines are, it's probably a big challenge to integrate it to existing game engines. Also, performance wise, even The Matrix demo was chugging quite a bit at a lower resolution and without much real game logic, so there are performance considerations there.
Finally, look at previous jumps. PS1 to PS2 was insane, 360,000 polygons per second to 70 million (yeah untextured but still), 2 MB in RAM + 1 MB RAM to 32 MB in RAM + 4 in VRAM. I could go on, but the point is, the jump there was insane and it reflected much easier in the visuals. I mean, Snake in MGS1 was made of 690 polygons, while on PS2 he had around 4000, which much better texturing and more bones to animate with, at higher resolutions and much more detailed environments, it was instantly noticeable. Now, you have Spiderman on PS4 with around 18000 polygons plus all sorts of additional mapping on each texture to give the illusion of a much higher polygon count. If you increase the texture resolution and use 36000 polygons instead, will you be able to actually notice? I'm not so sure.
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
Those devs at Nintendo are working on much weaker system and yet what they are able to pull off in TotK is fucking amazing. The devs on PS5 in other hand are working with much more powerful machine so I rather they give me smoother FPS over having bunch of eye candy.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Gold Member
It doesn't deny it from being a great game though.
01011001
Banned
it is both subjectively and objectively yes.
especially if we take the mid gen refreshes into account.
we usually see a 10x (+/- 2x) increase in GPU power.
Gen 6 to Gen 7 = ~12x
(~20 GFLOPs to ~240 GFLOPs)
Gen 7 to Gen 8 = ~8x
(~240 GFLOPs to ~1840 GFLOPs)
Gen 8 to Gen 9 = ~6x
(~1.8 TFLOPs to ~12 TFLOPs
and now
Gen 8.5 to Gen 9 = ~2x
(~6 TFLOPs to ~12 TFLOPs)
additionally, back in the day of the PS2, that console, the PS2, was leading the console development at the time. so while gen 6 to gen 7 was technically "only" a 12x jump, that's using the most powerful system, the og Xbox, as a reference.
the PS2 was way less powerful than that still, and it was mostly the lead platform, meaning other version were often simple ports based on PS2.
so subjectively the jump was even bigger than that 12x jump, because the 6.2 GFLOPs PS2 also didn't have any of the fancy new Nvidia pixel shader tech the og Xbox had, aside from also being way less powerful.
so objectively its a pretty small jump already.
now to the subjective part.
older generational jumps often allowed for new graphics effects, or the use of things that were technically possible before, but would have completely destroyed performance on older systems.
we saw this on Xbox One and PS4 early on with the abundance of particle effects and way more dynamic lighting.
the absolute massive jump in Video Memory ar the time also allowed for way better looking textures, way larger maps/levels/worlds and decent reflection maps on basically everything shiney.
the only real difference between an Xbox One X and a Series X is that the Series X can push higher resolutions and faster framerates.
raytracing is the only new thing this gen, but due to AMD's really weak first gen RT hardware it can only be used paringly.
we can't make rasterized graphics look any better really, aside from having higher drawdistances and higher resolutions.
but running at above 1080p or 1440p is already usually enough to have a clean image.
for an actual noticeable jump in graphics we would need actually competent raytracing hardware...
without good raytracing we're basically stuck with slightly more pretty and smoother PS4 games.
it's telling that Nvidia's GTX10 series can still easily keep up with current gen systems. a GPU line first released in 2016... hell the GTX1080ti can even keep up in raytracing performance! (whenever a game actually allows it on those cards, which is increasingly rare to be fair)
you can play Control at 1080p, and console equivalent Raytracing settings, on a GTX1080ti at around 40fps
Watch Dogs Legion at higher than console settings also at 30 to 40fps.
especially if we take the mid gen refreshes into account.
we usually see a 10x (+/- 2x) increase in GPU power.
Gen 6 to Gen 7 = ~12x
(~20 GFLOPs to ~240 GFLOPs)
Gen 7 to Gen 8 = ~8x
(~240 GFLOPs to ~1840 GFLOPs)
Gen 8 to Gen 9 = ~6x
(~1.8 TFLOPs to ~12 TFLOPs
and now
Gen 8.5 to Gen 9 = ~2x
(~6 TFLOPs to ~12 TFLOPs)
additionally, back in the day of the PS2, that console, the PS2, was leading the console development at the time. so while gen 6 to gen 7 was technically "only" a 12x jump, that's using the most powerful system, the og Xbox, as a reference.
the PS2 was way less powerful than that still, and it was mostly the lead platform, meaning other version were often simple ports based on PS2.
so subjectively the jump was even bigger than that 12x jump, because the 6.2 GFLOPs PS2 also didn't have any of the fancy new Nvidia pixel shader tech the og Xbox had, aside from also being way less powerful.
so objectively its a pretty small jump already.
now to the subjective part.
older generational jumps often allowed for new graphics effects, or the use of things that were technically possible before, but would have completely destroyed performance on older systems.
we saw this on Xbox One and PS4 early on with the abundance of particle effects and way more dynamic lighting.
the absolute massive jump in Video Memory ar the time also allowed for way better looking textures, way larger maps/levels/worlds and decent reflection maps on basically everything shiney.
the only real difference between an Xbox One X and a Series X is that the Series X can push higher resolutions and faster framerates.
raytracing is the only new thing this gen, but due to AMD's really weak first gen RT hardware it can only be used paringly.
we can't make rasterized graphics look any better really, aside from having higher drawdistances and higher resolutions.
but running at above 1080p or 1440p is already usually enough to have a clean image.
for an actual noticeable jump in graphics we would need actually competent raytracing hardware...
without good raytracing we're basically stuck with slightly more pretty and smoother PS4 games.
it's telling that Nvidia's GTX10 series can still easily keep up with current gen systems. a GPU line first released in 2016... hell the GTX1080ti can even keep up in raytracing performance! (whenever a game actually allows it on those cards, which is increasingly rare to be fair)
you can play Control at 1080p, and console equivalent Raytracing settings, on a GTX1080ti at around 40fps
Watch Dogs Legion at higher than console settings also at 30 to 40fps.
Last edited:
March Climber
Member
Of course not. Lower graphical quality doesn't deny 60fps games from being great either
ReBurn
Gold Member
At least you can usually pick between performance and visual fidelity in most games. But it would be awesome if we could have both.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Disagree. If the Uncharted games went for 60FPS over graphics and animations it would be far worse off.Of course not. Lower graphical quality doesn't deny 60fps games from being great either
There's appeal in having a good looking game.
Last edited:
01011001
Banned
that's because Uncharted has literally nothing going for it aside from the graphics... which is to say, they're bad games only propped up by flashy graphics.
Last edited:
cinnamonandgravy
Member
on PC, im happy.
4k/120 hdr vrr looks amazing.
and we dont even have comprehensive ray/path tracing yet.
i was really surprised by how good that star wars demo looked when running real time on my pc.
real time graphics have a loooooooooong way to go.
hopefully AI can significantly aid the development process, making it cheaper and faster to produce.
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
How's animation quality has to do with FPS? They plenty of games with great animation with 60FPS. Good animation has to animators themselves.
March Climber
Member
Would it though?
I erased 'animations' in your sentence because that can be done regardless of graphical capabilities. I mean, look at Zelda.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
bitbydeath
Gold Member
More power for extra things such as animations.
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
animations take minimal cpu cycles, they are easy to load. It's just a set of positions that you assign to a model skeleton (and then ask to interpolate), it can be done well regardless of framerate
Last edited:
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
It is more than fine.
Notice how not a single fuck has complained about TOTK being uNplAyAbLE 30fPs TrAsH.
Because it plays perfectly fine, at 30fps, and actually does something with a physics system.
Not a soul out here complaining about lack of 60fps in that game. Framerate warriors wanted us to think it would be unplayable because its a "blurry unplayable mess, especially on OLED" at 30fps.
What a fucking joke.
The best selling, highest rated game of the year will be a 30fps game.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Gold Member
FPS doesn't just restrict graphics but everything that requires an ounce of power to function.Would it though?
I erased 'animations' in your sentence because that can be done regardless of graphical capabilities. I mean, look at Zelda.
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
yeah, because everyone's complaining about it being unplayable 20fps trash.
That's why you play TOTK on Yuzu instead and forget about the eye cancer performance of the Switch
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
if the graphics are so important that the game'd be substantially worse off with lower quality graphics..... The graphics make a huge portion of the game, LMAO
01011001
Banned
of course the extremely scripted platforming, the climbing that won't let the player fail at any jump, and the handholding at every point are also amazing
also can't forget the slow walking and squeezing through cracks!
and what about that super easy combat on normal, which gets super annoying at higher difficulties! also amazing!
great games! but if I had to give some criticism, it's not quite scripted enough!
if they want to get on that Sega Mega CD FMV level they still have a lot of work to do!
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
Last edited:
March Climber
Member
But the first thing they would cut back on to achieve a better framerate would be graphics, no?
abacab driver
Banned
Gonna check back to this thread after the Xbox Showcase (after comparing Hellblade 2 to part 1, Forza MotorSport to FM7, Starfield to Fallout 76 and Avowed to The Outerworlds). 
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
They cut back on everything. Its not worth the trade off. No one is complaining about Zelda being 30fps. Its literally the most polished and smoothest playing game of the year. They used the little horsepower they had access to on things that actually matter. Not frame rate chase.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
. probably. I dunno how valid the pandemic factor is...but is crazy to think that so far these machines have been cross-gen machines....half of this generation
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
If thats your arguments, then most people also enjoying Zelda and FROM you hate so much despite not having high end graphics and eye candy.
Last edited:
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
They're sold below cost of goods. Console manufacturers (except for Nintendo) subsidize consoles and hope to recoup the money back on software and accessories. And since game consoles are made to prioritize games, they don't have all the overhead that PCs need to push amazing graphics.
Last edited:
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Who fucking cares. 30fps ftw if it means this graphics
bitbydeath
Gold Member
All games would be. Would GTA be as popular without the move to 3D? I'm sure they could have made GTA3 60FPS in 2D.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
That and features.
MikeM
Member
As a PC gamer, most games on my PS5 are 60+ fps. This gen has not been the gen of 30fps.
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
.... 3D completely changes and reinvents the design philosophy of a game. not in the same ballpark as graphics. Not to mention that GTA had to do all that while being a gigantic open world video game. 30fps would be justified here
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
You shallow pathetic pc master race brainwashed man.
There are other things that matter. Ignorance is bliss you know
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
In this case, diminishing returns is more of an economic factor than a technical one. The best-looking AAA games are still freaking miles away from offline CGI-rendered movies, so that tells you pretty clearly there is a LOT of room for improvement technically.
The bigger problem is that developing games that look like top-end CGI movies require assets that require so much time to craft that game would routinely cost many hundreds of millions of dollars to make.
Thankfully technologies like generative AI and procedural generation will help with that A LOT, as will asset creation tools like Quixel within UE5. Devs who don't have access to those tool suites will struggle to make games that push beyond the peak of the PS4 generation... but only because it costs too much.
Noxxera
Banned
The reason is graphics are kinda at photorealism now. It's gonna take a whole lot more work to push graphics or whatever. Reasonably maybe the idea of consoles in generations will be irrelevant in the future. We are kinda at a stalemate I feel like. If a PS6 ever comes maybe the generational leap will be more apparent there or maybe not. Don't expect such a leap graphically from Super Nintendo to Nintendo 64 is gonna happen anymore.