Gaming Trend Editor Ron Burke writes an in-depth piece on resolutions, their differences, the math behind them, and how all of it comes together to mean almost nothing.
all you need to know 1080p> 720p 120 hz > 60hz ps4 > one
Correction. Wii u > ps4 > xbone
Unless you're talking personal game experience, the technology in a WiiU is NOT greater than the PS4.
Even the X1 has more appealing next-gen titles than the WiiU! And yes resolution, specs all matter if it didn't devs wouldn't pass up on Nintendo. ;)
@Fanboyssuck27 Oh boy, you will be at one bubble in no time if you keep that up.
More Correction. Life.
"Wii u > ps4..." http://25.media.tumblr.com/... nice try, but that's beyond delusional.
Your f@#king high.
Mariokart8,X,ProjectCARS,and titanfall have the best nextgen textures ive seen so far...
Sir, you get a bubble for being so truthful. Everybody knows this fact yet they keep denying it. The facts look them straight in the face! Why do these fanboys keep denying it. Why, we can already play games on it, while they can only compare spec sheets. SO by definition it is better ;). In 2 weeks that might change a bit though ;).
@Fanboyssuck27 You're a brave one. Here's you Mario kitty VS COD Dog. http://www.youtube.com/watc...
you need to check your head, mate
LOL at all the morons who just got trolled. You figure the name would give it away. But, if you can't beat'em - PC Specs trump all.
it doesnt matter because once youre focused on gameplay graphics tend of become an afterthough however it does matter because before you play the game you want to know you're buying the best possible experience. so it def matters for sales. why pay $100 more for a technologically inferior product that outputs inferior resolution. on paper it doesn't make sense
I really doubt 120hz is going to matter for a PS4 other than maybe smoothing it out a little bit. 60fps seems to be the sweet spot for the system so you really don't need anything over 60hz. Also FYI pretty much every TV that is "120hz" or "240hz" is actually not true. For all intensive purposes it is basically "upscaled" so to speak. None of those TVs actually allow for more than a 60fps input. You need a computer monitor with a display port or DVI-D input to actually get anything over 60fps.
This is true, as I was tv shopping I was really considering getting a tv with like 240hz for gaming mainly. I spoke with a best buy TV sales person and told him why I was searching for a 240hz tv and he kindly said are you going to be gaming from a pc rig or a console? and when I told him a console he said well I don't think any console games are rendering over 60fps so you really don't need a insane amount of hz at the moment 60hz is enough. I am now waiting for 4k TVs before I upgrade.
I guess it's his job but if you would have said PC gaming I know for a fact he would have tried to sell you one of those 120hz/240hz TVs (otherwise he wouldn't have even asked that question). Kind of messed up because as I already stated those TVs don't actually support higher FPS inputs. HDMI just doesn't have enough throughput to support it.
@Outlawed... The latest versions of the HDMI standard does not allow through put for more than 60fps? You have proof of this? Could you support that with some links?
@ 0ut1awed according to Wikipedia, hdmi can output 1080p @ 120hz after version 1.4b which was released back in October 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... However, I'm not sure if the PS4 or Xbox1 can support it. I assume they can but don't see any evidence on the web.
You guys are confusing TV refresh rate (hz) with fps. If you read the article it explains the difference.
It really is basically that simple. I'm tired of how the articles about how "resolutiongate" being "overblown" have become more exhausting than the relevant genre that are articles about "resolutiongate" (those that compare price/performance) If you don't like price/performance articles, take your ignorant opinions and go find a hobby that caters to morons.
With a name like that you need to get over yourself and get out more. Do you work for Sony? No? Then those figures are certainly not "all you need to know." Simple mind....
You didn't really provide any evidence. You basically personally attacked him, then trailed off. I think what he says is correct, and many other reputable forums also agree. I don't see why would would get so upset.
No one needs to work for Sony or Microsoft to know the facts...PS4 is a more technically capable console compared to Xbox One and Wii U. Try again.
Ur right goddamit!!!
xbox one has dedicated servers a better online experience and better games, ps4 has killzone & losers who count pixels all day
* better launch games. * PS4 has Killzone, better graphics, better hardware, and losers who count pixels all day because they are actually there.
"720p? 1080p? ESRAM? Why it matters and why it doesn’t" It matters now. But when everything gets fixed, we'll move on to the next thing and forget about it.
Fixed? Do you mean the next generation of consoles?
If you know anything about tech you will know the xbone is only going to get worse as much needs to be put on the ESram in the future to keep up with the PS4, the lower gpu and the ESram will make it impossible in a couple years, gpgpu will be the xbone downfall.
@Magoo Yeah that's not even close to being right.
720p @60fps > 1080p @30fps, though
I agree. I'll take 60fps and lower resolution over the opposite. Hell, in competitive PC gaming, it's pretty common (or at least was) for players to disable a lot of visual features, to obtain the best framerates possible. When I played competitively, that is what is what I did. It was also used to gain advantages, like disabling lightning do eliminate dark spots/shadows for players to hide in.
@linkenski: Not a fair assessment. You cut the FPS in half with your illustration but don't double the resolution. Fairer would be 720p @60fps vs 1080p @45fps.