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
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.
The assessment is completely fair, since it's using standard measurements for comparison. Resolution has known increments - 360, 480, 720, 1080, etc. Framerates also follow a similar philosophy. 24fps for film, 30 or 60fps for games, and then you can unlock the framerate (like PC) and obtain whatever your system can handle. Although devs can aim for virtual any framerate they desire, 30 and/or 60 tends to be the "sweet spot." So it isn't about actually halving everything equally, but rather comparing the different increments. That being said, I would still prefer 720p/60fps over 1080p/45fps.
Killzone runs at [email protected] So does Knack? I forgot. Resogun does. New'n'Tasty does. Your statement is invalid. [email protected][email protected]
@ linkenski I agree that frame rate is more important than resolution. It helps with response times when playing competitive games while making the animation run smooth. However, this is relative to what type of game you're playing. 30fps is acceptable and suitable for games that don't have fast moving images and don't require fast response times. Also, less frame rates gives more graphical power to render other visuals like textures and lighting effects. When I play Bioshock on my PC, I always favored more fps. When I played Civilization 5, I put the graphic setting on high and don't mind sacrificing frame rates.
shame xbone isnt getting 720p @60fps tho huh , its barely getting 720 @30fps and even then that dips on DR3, and even on COD ghosts its 720p with frame drops.
how did i know the first comment would mention a ps4 and at the same time slam xbox one.
This is psn4g.com
Yeah unless you have a blind pro-Sony comment, don't bother.
Hahah no thanks I'll take that x1
Your own preference > Anyone else's opinion
forgot pc > all ;)
PC > PS4 > Xbone
Such a poor article.
Wow. more spin. It does matter, it does matter. I wonder if the spinners think that if they said that it doesn't matter enough time that people will start believing it?
It matters if you want to choose the right platform that meets your setup, but it matters little in terms of overall image quality. It's not spin. There is plenty of math and knowledge in the article to back it up.
Apparently, a lot of people disagree with math and knowledge. :)
Spin? Did you read the article?
Of course it does. Unless your gaming on a tiny screen smaller than an Ipad.
It matters. A new generation, you want a new standard. You pay 500 bucks for a new machine, you would want it to run contemporary settings. Why is this just not understood by some?
I'm getting the x1 but I agree. We should expect a lot better graphics and all that stuff for our money. I'm willing to let them work out the kinks. In a year you won't be able to tell the difference between x1 and ps4 visually. look at oblivion vs skyrim. and the ps3 had some major issues at launch. not to mention the 'far more powerful ps3 will give you much better graphics' that didn't come true. both systems are going to be awesome. but just like the issue with frame rate drop on the ps4 at 1080p...those issues will be done rather quickly as game developers get more used to the hardware. But I do agree that when I spend that $500 i am expecting better looking stuff moving faster and offering more.
@Hokie I am getting an XB1 on launch day as well, and I've decided to reserve judgement until these games actually come out. Everyone has their opinion of what looks good. A number is just a number to me. If it looks as good as it plays, its a winner.
I wouldn't bet on XBox One ever catching up, but you do - good luck to you! A. PS3 had a more difficult architecture B. worse GPU C. better CPU+SPU. The difficult architecture made initial games worse. The SPU let it catch up. But XBox 360s better GPU kept the playing field equal. A. XBox One has a more difficult architecture B. worse GPU C. most likely worse CPU+GPGPU than PS4. The architecture should not be that cumbersome as it resembles XBox 360s a lot - how to utilize that is known. But the eSRAM is only slightly faster than the PS4 RDRAM. Even with perfect (100%) utilization of it XBox ones memory bandwidth will only be slightly better than PS4, the likeliness of perfect utilization will decrease with bigger graphical environments... XBox One has a cool camera, if game developers really find ways to use that it could sell systems, like the Wii motes sold Wiis.
"not to mention the 'far more powerful ps3 will give you much better graphics' that didn't come true"
This statement is only true for multiplatform games. Ps3 exclusives had WAY better graphics than anything on the 360. Killzone, God of War, and The Last of Us say hi!
The cell was completely different than anything any developer had ever worked on, so I understand the learning curve with that. But the XB1 and PS4 both use x86 which has been used for decades. You wouldn't think that would have the same steep learning curve.
@Hokie: "I'm willing to let them work out the kinks. In a year you won't be able to tell the difference between x1 and ps4 visually." /@ Look, you used oblivion vs skyrim, and I'm laughing because bethesda never figured out the ps3. I'm not defending the ps3, but I think that was a lot different than ESRam is to Cell. However, I'm going to quote the article in mention to help explain my skepticism (I cut out a lot so it's not a lengthy read as I assume you already read it or can find it). "Sony put 8GB of GDDR5... 176GB/s of memory bandwidth ... Microsoft went a different direction, putting 8GB of DDR3 memory that hits a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, but also features a memory subsystem of 32 MB of ESRAM... at a theoretical speed of 192 GB/s. " The way I see it is that the GDDR5 @ 176 is easy to use. The DDR3 RAM @ 68 is easy to use. That being said, Devs have find a way to CRAM 124 GB/s (the difference) throughput through a TINY 32mb of ESRam. OK, so, I'm just disagreeing that we'll see the differences that soon - ESPECIALLY IN MULTIPLAT which are usually the same. I'm highly skeptical of if we will see that by the time the next next gen comes out (PS5 vs XBOXall(?))...
PS3 ran some early games sub-HD as well...look how it turned out for them. Resolution, in the end, is one aspect. There is a lot more that this next gen is expected to (and will) do that the current/last cannot achieve. Yeas, PS4 will always have the edge in raw computational power but people are seriously taking this as Xbox One cannot produce 1080p (which, beyond being proven wrong by launch titles, is ludicrous considering that last gen machines can do it and these are exponentially more powerful) Argue that one machine is more powerful than the other, that's fine, but to assume that one is last gen (when they share so much of the same DNA to boot) is being ignorant.
did you think only early PS3 games are sub-HD? all COD games on PS3 are sub-HD (960x540, 880x720), Saints Row 4 is sub-HD (960x720), Splinter Cell Blacklist is sub-HD (1152x648), both games came out just couple of months ago.
What is sub-HD to you? A good guide is 720p, but some might argue that 480p was the start of HD. If it's 720p, then a lot of ps3 AND 360 games were sub-HD. If it's 480p then a lot of 360 AND PS3 games were sub-HD. Do you see what I did there? Current (soon to be last gen) games had a very similar native resolution than the new Gen. Here's a quick find of early launch games: http://www.rage3d.com/board... Keep in mind that as resolutions get higher and higher (See also: 4k tvs are out) the more we'll notice the difference. The fact that we're entering this generation with such differences (104 million is and will always be better than 46 million) as this article quotes, makes me wonder if that ESRam can really boost it to 2.26x of what the XBone is now...
@SpinalRemains138 It is understood by more than you think, it just isn't emphasized because it isn't as big a deal as many claim. So many people are focusing on resolution, that even something as substantial as framerates seems to take a backseat. The new consoles are offering a enough new features, that without even getting into resolution, they justify their price tag. Battlefield will have 564 player support, and be running at 60fps. Many if not all MP games will utilizing dedicated servers, many games will be able to interact with other devices, such as phones, tablets and PC's. Cloud computing is being utilized for things such as AI processing and real-time stats, to a degree never achieved on consoles, with more potential to come. DVR features are being implemented, other PC-centric features, such as being able to play a game while it's downloading, are being introduced. Real-time snapping between multiple apps, TV integration, an HDMI-input that can be used with virtually any device witha HDMI-out port, including a 360 and even a PS4. A completely redesigned Kinect, built from the ground up to act as an extension to the X1, rather than an optional peripheral released years after the launch of the console, which was the case with Kinect 1.0. With all these new features and ideas taking place, my $500 spent on an X1, is more than justified, even if every game I ever play is only 720p.
Good read. Best part, "Your conclusion should be this – buy the games you want to play and stop worrying so much about the platform. The debate will rage on, but in the end it is and will always be about gameplay. Both systems will have their ups and downs, Microsoft and Sony fans will lash out at one another, Nintendo will do their own thing, and the PC crowd will lord their 4K resolution over the top of all of them."
Yep. In time I'm sure we'll see more and more games hitting that magical 1080p/60fps mark, and this will all be a moot point anyway.
Except when one system hits that "magical mark" and one doesn't, will it still be a moot point?
ahhh, not more of this nonsense. It matters to some and doesn't to others, 1080p does look better than 720p. Just choose your platform and play your games.
"Just choose your platform and play your games." That's essentially the message of the article. It goes into technical explanation, sure, but it's not arguing for any particular console.
It is the need for the article in the first place that I am having a pop at not the articles outcome.
@RVanner_ Still, it seems to me the intent is actually to quell the fanboy fanfare, not encourage it.