Can next-gen fulfill the 1080p60 dream?

Hardcore gamers have been demanding it, and next-gen console could well deliver it: the joy of 60 frames per second gameplay, potentially at full HD 1080p resolution.

The news from Microsoft's E3 press conference that Battlefield 4 runs at full frame-rate was impressive enough, but the fact that the next Halo game will also deliver 60fps action was a genuine surprise.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Marcus Fenix1982d ago

for a lot of games it did, if u tell me before E3 that Battlefield 4 on next-gen is going to be 1080p and 64 players all while running @60fps I would've told u that it's too good to be true, those consoles r more powerful than I thought, especially PS4, and all those amazing titles we're seeing r LAUNCH TITLES, damn.

Mariusmssj1982d ago

If your talking about Battlefield 4 demos we saw at E3 they all ran on PC's:

BUT I am pretty sure that next gen consoles will happily run [email protected]

IcyEyes1982d ago

I can't believe how many stupid comment I read over eurogamer ...

Just give few hours and this place will turn in an happy PC troll party.

Anyway, give to developer just a bit of time to improve their engine over the consoles and the [email protected] will be a standard.

Army_of_Darkness1982d ago (Edited 1982d ago )

Can't wait to play it personally!
Killzone: shadowfall was probably only 1080p @ 30FPS because it's a launch title and GG most likely had a time restraint, but I'm confident that the next killzone will be 1080p @ 60FPS.

Ju1982d ago (Edited 1982d ago )

Funny, though, my guess - if that's indeed running a GTX7xx something - the specs are much closer to the PS4 than the XBone (~2.5GF GPU, LOL). So, maybe MS did us all a favor and showed what this looks like on a PS4. Ha ha ha. Cat is out of the bag now. I'm curious how they can give performance number if they are not actually running on final silicon.

BeatDizzle1982d ago


Sony already confirmed Killzone will be
[email protected]

jsslifelike1982d ago

1080p60 or 1080p30 are moot without Vsync. THAT'S where next-gen needs to be.

mattdillahunty1982d ago (Edited 1982d ago )

i think a lot of people are forgetting that there's a difference between:

1080p and 60fps, but on low or medium settings


1080p and 60fps, but on maximum settings

so, the real challenge is whether next gen games can deliver 1080p and 60fps AND all the bells and whistles like awesome particle effects, high res textures, AA and AF, etc.

to be honest, what i really want is for next gen games to always be at 60fps. ALL of them, no exceptions. i mostly game on PC nowadays, so anything below 50fps starts feeling slow, and 30fps or lower feels downright sluggish. since gaming is about the gameplay 99% of the time, i want games that give me the smoothest gameplay experience. if you can do that, then work towards 1080p too if possible. save all the bells and whistles for last.

0ut1awed1982d ago

I'm pretty sure dice said a month or so ago that next gen bf4 would be 60fps at 720p.

That's still pretty good in comparison since bf3 dosen't even run at 720p.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1982d ago
IcyEyes1982d ago (Edited 1982d ago )

I just played BF4 at the E3 with an Xbone controler. The platform was a PC.

(ps I really dislike that controller .. the sticks are too much loose)

PepperjackJig1982d ago

You can alright play Warframe on PC

THamm1982d ago

This is why I think MS was talking about the cloud. I believe they want devs to take advantage of the cloud so that all games run at 60fps. This in turn will assure them smoother and faster games than the PS4. I think thats what MS is after

esemce1982d ago

Wrong 'the cloud' cannot increase the rendering performance of any console.

limewax1982d ago

Better tell MS to get out there and supply the whole world with 1000+ Mbps internet connections first then. Currently the cloud can offer about 6mbps of data to most standard internet connections.

Just to put that into perspective. You might get an extra pixel or two out of that if you're lucky, but it's gonna cause everything to lag like crazy.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the cloud can't offer solutions to the sort of problems your thinking of and even MS have said it themselves in PR format.

THamm1982d ago

@esemce @limewax

Thanks guys for clarifying that to me, because i thought that the cloud can take much of the rendering weight off the engine to allow faster processing

chcolatesnw1982d ago

@esemce, @limewax
Two words, Nvidia GRID. You're saying that the cloud can't even render 2 pixels and will give you input lag? LOL
Either blind and misinformed or ps sheep/employee
Or in denial, or too poor to afford both consoles.
Man how I would love for Microsoft yo just come out and say they have something that works exactly like Nvidia Grid and show us some BF4 or whatever on a microsoft surface and then switch to Xbone.
And no you ps employees it doesn't require more bandwith and speed then maybe 2x or 3x the amount that Netflix uses. You guys are so pathetically in love with Sony that you actually think all that money that Microsoft has still can't bring things like Nvidia GRID.
Oh and I wish so bad that with that 1 billion that Microsoft is throwing into advertising, that they would actually buy a few studios from Sony, like Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, Quantic Dream, Polyphony .. etc, JUST to spite people like you, reta*ds who mindlessly troll everything Microsoft. To me personally it wouldn't matter because I'm getting both consoles, but man it would be fun seeing you troll low lifes run around like headless chicken

KRUSSIDULL1982d ago (Edited 1982d ago )

Cloud computing is not going to render graphics the cloud processing is gonna be used to keep tracking and crunch random numbers so the Xbox one can be used to focus on other things.

Take for an example Gears of War horde mode the hosts Xbox is currently keeping track and calculating the enemies actions. Actions can be things like: Where do I go, Should I go to cover? etc. If these AI thinking is would be done by the cloud the Xbox could use that horsepower to something else.
In other words the Cloud calculates and then tells the Xbox what actions the enemies will take. So it will pretty much work like an dedicated server that tells you what your enemies is doing so you will still have to deal with the latency problems.

pixelsword1982d ago

It's going to spy on j00.

MysticStrummer1982d ago

@chcolatesnw - Trying to dispel misinformation about the cloud isn't mindlessly trolling everything Microsoft.

"when the logic circuits of a CPU want some data, they have to wait a few nanoseconds (billionths of a second) to retrieve it from its cache. If not in cache, the CPU has to wait as much as a few hundred nanoseconds to fetch the data from main RAM - and this is considered bad news for processor efficiency. If the CPU were to ask the cloud to calculate something, the answer won't be available for potentially 100ms or more, depending on internet latency - some 100,000 nanoseconds!

As a game has only 33 milliseconds to render a frame at 30FPS, such long delays mean the cloud cannot be relied upon for real-time, immediate results per frame."

"With latency an issue, the scope for cloud computation is limited to a subset of game tasks."

"Average broadband speeds in the developed world struggle to reach over 8mbps as of Q3 last year - that's only one megabyte per second. This means that whatever cloud computing power is available, consoles will have available to them an average of 1MB/s a second of processed data. If we compare that to the sort of bandwidth consoles are used to, the DDR3 of Xbox One is rated at around 68,000MB/s, and even that wasn't enough for the console and had to be augmented with the ESRAM.

The PS4 memory system allocates around 20,000MB/s for the CPU of its total 176,000MB/s. The cloud can provide one twenty-thousandth of the data to the CPU that the PS4's system memory can. You may have an internet connection that's much better than 8mbps of course, but even superfast fibre-optic broadband at 50mbps equates to an anaemic 6MB/s. This represents a significant bottleneck to what can be processed on the cloud, and that's before upload speed is even considered. Upload speed is a small fraction of download speed, and this will greatly reduce how much information a job can send to the cloud to process."

"What this means is that cloud computing cannot be used for real-time jobs, something Microsoft has admitted."

"If we look at a typical game's requirements of its processors, we can look for opportunities to utilise the cloud. A typical game engine cycle consists of:

Game physics (update models)
Triangle setup and optimisation
Various render passes
Lighting calculations
Post effects
Immediate AI
Ambient (world) AI
Immediate physics (shots, collisions)
Ambient physics

Of these, only the ambient background tasks and some forms of lighting stand out as candidates for remote processing."

"it's perhaps best not to get too carried away with the idea of a super-powered console, and there's very little evidence that Sony needs to be worried about its PS4 specs advantage being comprehensively wiped out by "the power of the cloud"."

karl1982d ago

fanboy logic at its best

dcbronco1982d ago (Edited 1982d ago )


There's a saying that "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach". I believe they should add "Those that can't do or teach become journalist".

And they get jobs at Eurogamer.

Folks technology moves forward because someone figures out ways to get get more out of what you have or a new way to do things. I doubt if anyone working at Eurogamer has any new ideas. They rely on a basic understanding of thing and pull the rest out of body parts. I worked around reporters, they often are learning as they are reporting. Eurogamers is the same site that said 60fps wasn't possible on One.

The Real Peter Moore1982d ago


talk about pulling things out of body parts? that fanboy belief you have towards the x1 and cloud computing is bullsh1t. Fanboys are dumb! eurogamer knows and understand way more about technology than you do and your stupid little saying wont change that

Cuzzo631981d ago

I know its hard to realize the facts laid out for you. From the games at E3 running on nvidia based hardware and not the actual specs tjey are using says alot for them. And I know that it would make that 5 incher harder but Naughtydog quanticdream Santamonica or Poly will never be M$ exclusive. I know its hard to live in the real world when all you do is day dream of the impossible. Dnt kno why you would even make a dumbazz remark like that. Insomiac left but honestly they can have them. Lol I the the Halo devs Bungie will work out for Sony lol. Sorry for the low blow. That cloud shit is irrelevant as Sony has the same resources 'Gaika' or wat ever its called. But im sure if Sony felt like its an important thing then im sure they would push it. Seeing as the XB1 is a little underpowered I understand why they are advertising it like its a game changer.... not... Now to my last point. Until you brung ur bum azz in with all the negativity there was no trolling or anything. You jus jump in with all this bs. Well I tell you wat. I think we should all buy a xbox1 on top of the ps4 we are all gonna get. We are gonna need a stand for the ps4, dnt want it to sit on that carpet collecting dust. While I use the kinetic camera to watch me play Infamous and Battfield 4. That way Micro will see how im having orgasms without 24hr check in

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1981d ago
MikeMyers1982d ago (Edited 1982d ago )

@Marcus Fenix,

Funny how you mention especially the PS4 when Killzone: Shadow Fall has already been confirmed to be 30fps. Forza 5 on the Xbox One has been confirmed to be 1080p and 60fps. I expect this generation to be a lot like last generation where it will be a game by game basis especially for frame rates. 1080p @60fps is ideal but some developers still insist on 30fps. All games should be mandatory 1080p native.


Time restraints? 1st party studios have had developer kits much longer than anyone else. Activision and EA can do it, there's no reason Guerilla can't other than they are pushing higher visuals and care more about that than higher frame rates. I do expect over the years they will be able to get more out of the system by learning new tricks like any developer on any system.

limewax1982d ago

"1080p @60fps is ideal but some developers still insist on 30fps. All games should be mandatory 1080p native."

I'd say it should be the other way around. 1080p if possible 720p if not. 60fps should be the standard and resolution adjustable. The difference between 720 and 1080 is minute, even to a trained eye. 30fps vs 60ps is night and day.

Ju1982d ago

60fps/720 vs 1080/30. Nope. For twitchy shooters maybe the 60fps is preferred because all you do is running around and turning. No time to actually look at the scenario. So, yeah, resolution doesn't matter much anyway because all you see is some watered down textures obscured in motion blur.

But if you want life like animations and cinematic visuals every pixel counts. I have the feeling those 60fps games don't "feel" right. They are too arcade. Animations must match the fast game play and look quite unnatural to me (no life like animation is that fast).

For a game like Uncharted dropping to 720p just to reach 60fps is a death penalty. For a game like CoD it doesn't really matter. You got no time to look at the animations anyway.

Well, you could probably play CoD with 30fps and the same input lag as 60 fps (that's usually how modern engines work these days - input runs completely independent of rendering) and you wouldn't even notice the difference (if nobody told you). Refresh rate != Game Speed.

tuglu_pati1982d ago


100% agree with you on that.

limewax1982d ago (Edited 1982d ago )


The resolution of the actual screen has little to no effect without the use of extremely high resolution textures too, beyond what we're seeing in the next gen.

In essence we can still have games with crisp graphics and 1080p would actually not dictate it at all since the resolution of the textures could still be something very high like 4k for instance and the bump taken to the visual fidelity would still be minimal compared to the fluency of a high frame rate.

I'd go as far as to say that an image at 1080p with little AA is also worse than a 720p image with lots of AA.

You say that these animations and cinematic scenes depend on the pixel count but if you had 60fps then you'd be seeing more these animations and cinematic scenes in more clarity.

Ju1982d ago (Edited 1982d ago )

I'm saying the 60fps are a trade for a worse animation system. That has nothing to do with pixels but how you do vertex based animations and how fast and how many animations you can blend. So much, that you scale them down just for the benefit of 60fps - which doesn't make sense, because those animations just don't need to run at that frame rate. But with that said, for "arcade" like gameplay, those animation would need to run faster to appear natural, otherwise your characters simply would look slower no matter what the framerate is. And that is exactly what I see in these "twitchy" shooters. Animations are taking a back seat - shortcuts every where. Go, watch some KZ:SF videos and tell me what frame rate that runs - assuming you wouldn't already know. There is no lag, it is faster (fast!! gameplay) and it has 0 screen tear or frame rate issues.

Texture resolution is irrelevant in the next gen because there is just an overkill of memory that this will not matter what so ever. 1080p will allow you to have lower impact AA than 720p and probably look much sharper (using more pixels but can probably use lower bandwidth algorithm because the higher resolution helps with the "sampling").

Sorry, this is the 21st century. There is a reason we built TVs with 1080p or even 4K and not some sub bar 720 screen which runs a signal processor "enhancing" the image.

Jazz41081982d ago (Edited 1982d ago )

Ms has not said they are spendibg 1 billion on advertising they said the one billion is going to game development. Google ms firsg part studios and then sony and you will see ms has more but most of sonys studios have proven themselves bu with ms they are very new studios recently purchased either unproven or made a kinect game. I find it interesting ms really never mentioned one kinect game at the e3 conferece i was lucky enough to go but did not get to the conferences . I sill confirm however both ms and sony had demos of there games using there new pad hooked into dev kits along with a pc right ne t to them. So im guessing the dev kits still utilize the pc till final dev kits are out. So any rumors to troll sony or ms is just that trollibg as I was there and played a bunch of demos from ms and sony and even liked some of nintendos offerings which was the onlh company I did not notice running demos from dev kits and pcs. Ifs been like this every e3. I think both systems look fantastic and i have preordered both and im 42 years old and still excited like a boy but im not falling for the bs trolling on both sides. Its silly and it proves nothing as i said before sony and ms have the exact same retail traxe in policy but sony allows you to hand your friends physical copies where ms lets you lend your games digitally to ten people plus allows ten glld members now on one accoount. They both charge fkr onine and it looks ms is revamping theres with this ten person rule and possiblh free games. Guys sorry for the long rant.

tee_bag2421982d ago

@ limewax.

I totally agree. But sadly I bed frame rate will get chopped before detail and resolutions. Especially the way console fanboys do their side by side screen shot comparisons only comparing extra shrubs of grass in the distance.
Sadly, I think there won't be as many 60fps games as we hope for after a year or so.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1982d ago
esemce1982d ago

BF4 on next gen consoles will be [email protected] apparently.

sinjonezp1982d ago

Call me negative but it has been verified that a game as simple as killer instinct will only run at 720p let's me know games like battlefield will never. I am sorry. As much as I would love to be sold a dream of these systems playing at that resolution and 60fps, I just don't think a single card gfx solution - coupled with a low power base eight core cpu can pull it off unless the developers really cut assets. The one promising factor comes from sonys 8 gigs of gddr5. No modern day card even have that. The gtx titan has 6gigs but that matters on the memory interface. The titan uses 384bit but I am sure sony is only using 128bit which could slow things down. I think 1080p 60fps is a pipe dream. Maybe the offloading of data ro the cloud in the near future be the tipping scale in consoles favor. Only time will tell as I am hoping for good things from consoles this gen.

1nsaint1982d ago

For me personnally, i care more for the native 1080p then for the 60 frames.
I've played tons of games at 30 frames and it never really bothered me

I just hope the games will have good anti-aliasing, tired of all those jagged lines

1982d ago
Muffins12231982d ago

But battlefield 4 dose not look like watch dogs or final fantasy or metal gear solid....Now those are next gen looking games.

liorishot1982d ago

As a pc gamer I play at 1440p at the highest graphical preset on most games at 60fps, will these consoles be able to play 60fps at 1080p with the best graphic preset or lower quality?

1982d ago Replies(3)
LackTrue4K1982d ago

I don't get it, did they run a drunk bet in Microsoft's offices, to see who could manage to screw up more?

Doctor_Freeman1982d ago

Would be nice, the irony is a lot of people have been playing 1080p+ 60frames+ for awhile. Just not on consoles.

dontbhatin1982d ago

yeah marcus they deffinitely stated that the consoles will be 64 player multiplayer at [email protected]

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 1981d ago
komp1982d ago

With 4K TV on the door step... it is very likely to happen.

hellvaguy1982d ago (Edited 1982d ago )

4k something is like 2500x1900 resolution, what does that have to with 1080p consoles? Consoles wont even remotely come close to that (for video games no way, movies yes).

kwyjibo1982d ago

"4k something is like 2500x1900"

No it isn't, the clue is in the name.

liorishot1982d ago

only pcs can do games in 4k if you have a 680 4gb card edition in sli, 690 or the new gtx 700 models as well as the titan. You will need to have them in SLI config (2 cards in the same machine) at least to get playable framerates at around 30fps depending what game it is.

AndrewLB1981d ago

@ kwyjibo

4K Ultra HD resolution is 3840x2160 and has double the horizontal and vertical lines of resolution compared to 1080p. The increase in pixels is 4x that of full HD. Many PC gamers have been running resolutions that high for years, whether it be from multi-display setups or rendering a game at super high resolution and downsampling it.

It's going to take at least 5 years before 4k makes any sizable impact on the population. Right now the displays are so incredibly expensive, much like 1080p was early on. I remember a buddy spending $8000 for a 55" HD rear projection TV

kwyjibo1982d ago

I really doubt that 4k is on the door step. Maybe at the tail end of next-gen, certainly not now.

Software_Lover1982d ago

Some will, some will not. I was disappointed that Knack will/is running at 30, but it still looks good non the less. They added a sense of realism with the color scheme, the colors aren't too vibrant and cartoony. I like that.

ThyMagicSword1982d ago

But 4k only for Videos, right? Not for the games, the games 1080p, right? Is my question to you...

Y_51501982d ago

People at Sony have stated that right now only videos can do 4k.

ThyMagicSword1982d ago

30fps or 60fps... doesn't matter, Witcher 3 on 30fps on Ps4 will look better than the PC Version.

hellvaguy1982d ago (Edited 1982d ago )

That's because you had on the fanboy googles, lol. In all seriousness, you can run Witcher 3 on a pc in 4k resolution if your hardware is good enough. Or some super leet mods to put graphics thru the roof if you really wanna tinker that much.

ThyMagicSword1982d ago

It's a shame that "super leet mods" slow down the fps, I prefer constant 30 over 10fps, sorry. Like People installing 100 mods+ on Skyrim only to Show their games on YouTube, what's this logic, man? You should be fucking serious, because I am! Making Fotos of the real life like graphics makes no sense to me, if I want to see real forests, then I go there for real and collect some mushrooms for the User "theDivine".

hellvaguy1982d ago (Edited 1982d ago )

At 1080p im running at about 120fps most games, nvidia 680. So to even drop below 60fps i have have about 2 dozen to slow it that much. Idk where the heck u came up with the 30 and 10 fps figures. That sure wouldnt be for any recent gpu card.

Pekka1981d ago

Then again, going past 100 fps in any game is really just waste of resources. Most PC monitors only do 60 fps so you actually can't see more frames. I have heard some PC enthusiast talk about how their PC can do 200 fps and actually think they can see difference between 60 fps and 200 fps. In reality, they can't because monitor only has 60 fps maximum. I don't think anyone can actually see difference between 60 and 120 fps when few people even see difference between 30 and 60 fps.

Tiqila1982d ago

try running the witcher 3 on a 400$ pc and see which one looks better

IcyEyes1982d ago

I totally agree with you and this is an important point.

It's pretty funny read some article that say :
"Build your PC with <500$"
I always hope that pc will no start to melt and burn because the crappy components.

I mean, my rig (because my work) it's pretty powerful and I spent a lot of time to find the better components to assemble it and, no surprise, that cost a lot of money.

Software_Lover1982d ago

Or........... how about using the pc that you built 5 years ago and just upgrade the GPU. Im sure you could find a $400 dollar gpu that can do it.

You dont build a new pc everytime you want to game.

specialguest1982d ago

That's irrelevant to the argument that ps4's Witcher 3 will look better than PC. TheMagicSword didn't say a PC At $400. Typically when PC is being compared to, it's compared to the latest PC hardware specs and capabilities.

Your statement is a whole different debate.

TOSgamer1982d ago

With $400 you could upgrade you cpu + mb + video card and ram.

cpu+mobo = $180. Something like a i3
video card = $180. Gtx 660 or 7850.
Ram = $40

These estimates are really on the high side. If you get in on some good sales you probably could rebuild most of a pc with $400. A whole new pc for $500.

Corpser1982d ago

And add the $50 a year you need to play online on ps4, over 8 years that's a good $400 more

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1982d ago
Firan1982d ago

You must be an oracle.