• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Where are all the features (4K, 120fps, Ray tracing, SSD Revolution) that were promised for Next Gen?

Kacho

Gold Member
Roughly speaking double the resolution, or double the frame rate. In practical terms, being able to play fidelity modes at 60fps, as a minimum.

DLSS is pretty much the only major win I see in the PC space. If it were ubiquitous across games, then I'd agree that a 3060 or something would be a much more attractive proposition. Otherwise all the improvements come at a really high marginal cost.

I know I'm being pedantic here, but acknowledging that consoles are particularly good value and saying that you get what you pay for are contradictory positions. With a PC you get significantly LESS than you pay for.
Well ok lol

Sounds like we can agree to disagree here.
 

abcdrstuv

Banned
I thought 4k/60 with quality graphics would be standard, with slow advances in ray tracing or baked lighting.. that hasn't happened so far. First next-gen SSD "revolution" could be the new Sonic game - if the hard drive streams faster, the character can go faster, too. That was a limit with Maneater, apparently.
 

Kuranghi

Member
There are reasons to want a 4K/120Hz screen....

1. Future proofing
2. Games like Ratchet and Clank that have 40fps mode (only possible on 120Hz screens) at full native 4K (only possible on 4K/120Hz screens). Not only does the game look the same as standard 4K/30 fidelity mode, but it also plays more smoothly and has much lower input lag (thanks to 120Hz) of like 8ms or something.

So yeah, there are reasons to want a display that's capable of handling a lot more than your typical 30/60fps games.

Uhhh... yeah... I agree, because I literally wrote those two things in the post you just replied to. Also a 3rd thing, being 4K60@444 HDR since HDMI 2.0 limits you to 4K60@422 unless you use dithered 8-bit output instead of true 10-bit to save the bandwidth for 444 chroma, but consoles don't appear can't do that, or the manufacturers don't want them to at least.

Then I also spoke about PC users who get a massive benefit from 4K120hz output when using high end GPUs + DLSS/reconstruction to output 4K120 for modern games, or just running older games at native 4K120hz. I definitely wouldn't tell them they don't need a 4K120 supporting TV, as they actually would get a big benefit.

I'm saying, in his position, considering what he played and on what system (SP, PS5), not buying a TV with a much better quality image that doesn't support 4K120 for the same price as what he paid for the much lesser 4K120 supporting TV is a bad purchase, as it is for others in his situation.

Supporting an 120hz mode in a handful of games with the tradeoff of making every game he plays on the system look much worse IQ-wise (from buying an edge-lit 400-nit TV vs. a 1000-nit FALD LCD or freaking OLED) is just silly imo, but each to their own. He could've bought a 4K60 OLED for 900 quid, the max price he wanted to pay, but bought the edge-lit barely mid range model that doesn't really support HDR properly for 800 instead.

He could've got a 4K120 OLED (B1) for freaking 999 as well. He knew what he "needed" but wasn't willing to pay for it, just wasn't a very smart individual. Anyway this is just a rant about an idiot now, not really anything to do with who needs a 4K120 display.

I agree its a good idea to future proof, I just don't think the tech is fully mature yet so don't base your purchase on it: 4K120 is 99% working perfectly across all brands now but VRR still has big issues with not being able to adjust gamma curves on the fly so you get elevated blacks, ie making redundant one of the biggest reasons to buy a high end FALD LCD or OLED.
 
A 3090 is still overkill and your statement is ridiculous. A 3060Ti outperforms these consoles and the GPU is only part of the equation. I see a substantial difference in performance and image quality between my PC and Series X and I'm rocking a 2070.
THIS has been my complaint about these consoles not living up to the hype. If I had a penny for every time I heard that they are on par with a 2070/2080 I'd be a wealthy man. Yet, no games are performing as well as those cards. Is that simply down to the lack of DLSS? I'm not sure, since we have some very strong upscaling tech used for console games

You'd think that games like Control, dying light 2, etc would be able to perform better on console despite being cross gen. Control only uses RT reflections and it performs like ass on ps5.

I def fell for the hype. I listened to Red Gaming Tech too much and NX gamer. Something about those British accents makes them more convincing, I dunno. I also fell for Mark Cerny's whole "ssd spiel".
 
Contex of his post was to build topend rig, not something thats just bit better than ps5/xsx, and current streetprice of mentioned by u 3060ti is north of 1k usd alone :)
He wanted true next gen experience, for that if he goes with 3080ti he gets much better rt capabilities and bit over 2x rasterisation power, for 120fps stable ofc he needs strong cpu too, to feed it all need good psu, 850w goldrated, ofc big case with lots of fans, aio cooling for cpu, it all costs a lot, topend rig is nothing like budget gaming.
Pre build for a 3080ti of that caliber will run you $4500 right now.
 

PeteBull

Member
I thought 4k/60 with quality graphics would be standard, with slow advances in ray tracing or baked lighting.. that hasn't happened so far. First next-gen SSD "revolution" could be the new Sonic game - if the hard drive streams faster, the character can go faster, too. That was a limit with Maneater, apparently.
4k and 60fps are concrete, quality graphics is not concrete statement, some might say ps4 hard quality graphics(order 1886, but very simple game mechanics, basically nothing under the hood, like matrix demo for current gen, and it was 900p30fps with dips on top of black bars on top and bottom of the screen.

About raytracing- its very demanding even for nvidia topend cards like 3080ti/3090, amd cards arent as advanced with rt, and consoles got amd's hardware so ofc to get even bit of RT u gonna have cut res/fps/settings hard on current gen consoles, even first party like insomaniacs had to do it with ratchet, their rt mode is 1080p60, ofc it looks great but u would need exactly 4x more powerful gpu to get that exact game to 4k60fps with rt, so ps5 would have to be not 10,2tf but 40,8tf so about 2x as strong as amd's currently strongest gpu-rx 6900xt. https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6900-xt.c3481
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#c=498&sort=price&page=1 and thats the prices of such gpu, not msrp but actual streetprice at which u can buy it from stores.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
A lot of games are (optionally) 4K or close to it.

A lot of games are (optionally) 120fps, and pretty much all of them have a 60fps mode.

A lot of games have (optional) ray tracing.

A lot of games have incredibly short load times (others are still based on old code and don't take advantage of the new storage APIs etc), and a few are doing things you simply couldn't do with an HDD (more will come).

Seems like it's all happening to me.

Now, if you expected all of this to happen all at once in the same game, your expectations were completely unrealistic. Even the most powerful gaming PCs can't do that.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
THIS has been my complaint about these consoles not living up to the hype. If I had a penny for every time I heard that they are on par with a 2070/2080 I'd be a wealthy man. Yet, no games are performing as well as those cards. Is that simply down to the lack of DLSS? I'm not sure, since we have some very strong upscaling tech used for console games

You'd think that games like Control, dying light 2, etc would be able to perform better on console despite being cross gen. Control only uses RT reflections and it performs like ass on ps5.

I def fell for the hype. I listened to Red Gaming Tech too much and NX gamer. Something about those British accents makes them more convincing, I dunno. I also fell for Mark Cerny's whole "ssd spiel".
When it comes to consoles vs PC, most people (and even game sites) just compare console and PC by picking similar cpus and ram, and whatever PC GPU has a similar TF. And call it a day.
 

A.Romero

Member
There were so many threads leading up to the release of the new consoles where it was told over and over again to keep expectations in check. Now we know PS5 has a similar performance than a 2080 which is not able to offer 4k/RT/60FPS.

It shouldn't be a surprise by now for most except for the people that just wouldn't listen.
 

Kacho

Gold Member
Is that simply down to the lack of DLSS?
It's never that simple but DLSS leads to massive performance gains with a minimal hit to picture quality as far as I can tell. All games aren't equal of course and who knows what platforms receive the most optimization for any given game.

What killed my next gen console buzz was the constant screen tearing in a lot of the newer cross gen games. Especially Ubisoft ones. It ruins my experience.

Edit: Elden Ring in a couple weeks will be interesting btw. The console beta was not very promising and I'm curious to see if those performance issues were resolved. Still, I'm going PC for that one.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
Destiny 2 is gorgeous on XSX and PS5 and also offers a 120 fps crucible mode.
That is one of the these bad decisions from Bungie.
Crucible should be a fair play field... so everybody should play at same framerate.

Others non-PVP activities can have different framerates options because you are in CoOp fighting against AI.

Unless of course Bungie separate 120fps, 60fps and 30fps players but that creates segmentation.
 
Last edited:

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
That is one of the these bad decisions from Bungie.
Crucible should be a fair play field... so everybody should play at same framerate.

Others non-PVP activities can have different framerates options because you are in CoOp fighting against AI.

Unless of course Bungie separate 120fps, 60fps and 30fps players but that creates segmentation.
Not agreeing. It's been like this for years on the PC.
If somebody has the ability to run a game smoother or prettier they should be able to.
 
Kuranghi Kuranghi It really bothers me to think about how many people are playing without 4:4:4 chroma in hdr because it really is a big deal. Maybe some can’t notice but damn it’s not a small difference.

Difference between 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 to me was immediately noticeable and btw I was playing in 4:2:2 for about a year on ps4 pro and x900e in 2018 lol before I read about this.

I switched to outputting 1080p on the ps4 and was like This is how i’ve been living?!? xD
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
Not agreeing. It's been like this for years on the PC.
If somebody has the ability to run a game smoother or prettier they should be able to.
PC doesn't have a fair play field so it normal to be like that there.
It is one of the reasons PC players doesn't play against console players (the exception is a PC Party can invite a console player but not the opposite).

Consoles should have the same framerate to all players... a fair play field... so the 120fps mode was a bad decision from Bungie.

Even Digital Foundry agree with that:

"All told, the addition of a 120Hz rendition of the Crucible is a wonderful extra, but I do worry about last-gen console gamers still locked to 30 frames per second having to take on 120fps and 60fps players on their shiny new consoles. It's definitely an uneven contest when next-gen users get so much more visual feedback along with correspondingly lower input latency, plus the FOV slider for an expanded view of each map."
 
Last edited:

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
PC doesn't have a fair play field so it normal to be like that there.
It is one of the reasons PC players doesn't play against console players (the exception is a PC Party can invite a console player but not the opposite).

Consoles should have the same framerate to all players... a fair play field... so the 120fps mode was a bad decision from Bungie.

Even Digital Foundry agree with that:

"All told, the addition of a 120Hz rendition of the Crucible is a wonderful extra, but I do worry about last-gen console gamers still locked to 30 frames per second having to take on 120fps and 60fps players on their shiny new consoles. It's definitely an uneven contest when next-gen users get so much more visual feedback along with correspondingly lower input latency, plus the FOV slider for an expanded view of each map."
NOPE don't agree.

And I don't care about what DF says 🤷‍♂️

Console players don't want to play with PC mainly because of the cheating.
 

ethomaz

Banned
NOPE don't agree.

And I don't care about what DF says 🤷‍♂️

Console players don't want to play with PC mainly because of the cheating.
So you believe consoles players having advantages over each other is good? Man... gaming is really become a weird thing... so much things wrong with some players supporting it.
 
Last edited:
NOPE don't agree.

And I don't care about what DF says 🤷‍♂️

Console players don't want to play with PC mainly because of the cheating.
The bottom line is anyone who really cares about competitive online will upgrade to a better system. But having segregated matches as an *option* would be good i.e. xbox one s vs. one s.
 

Stamps1646

Member
Those features are there.

Depending on the developer/game/engine that would vary.
Because something is capable of those features, it doesn't mean you will see all of them utilized.

Ray Tracing is a GPU hog, even for people running 3080 to 3090 GPU's.


AMD FSR needs to be on levels of DLSS 2.0, that would allow more options in the Frame Rate and RT.
AMD FSR needs to be included with all PS5 and Series S/X games going forward.
Hardware Ray Tracing needs to be more optimized to not require so much of the GPU RAM.
 

ethomaz

Banned
Yes just like I did when PC was my main platform and when I needed to upgrade I did...
But that is exactly the point... PC doesn't have a fair playfield.
Console should have a fair playfield.
Consoles should not be like PC (including the bad things).

A 120fps players should never play against a 60fps or 30fps players in console space.
 
Last edited:
Roughly speaking double the resolution, or double the frame rate. In practical terms, being able to play fidelity modes at 60fps, as a minimum.

DLSS is pretty much the only major win I see in the PC space. If it were ubiquitous across games, then I'd agree that a 3060 or something would be a much more attractive proposition. Otherwise all the improvements come at a really high marginal cost.

I know I'm being pedantic here, but acknowledging that consoles are particularly good value and saying that you get what you pay for are contradictory positions. With a PC you get significantly LESS than you pay for.
I switched to PC because of the library not graphics. Get to play practically anything made in the last 25 years.
 

rofif

Banned
RC
Fidelity: 1296p up to 4k RT 30fps.
Performance: 1080p up to 1800p 60fps with a lot of settings/effects tuned down.
Performance RT: 1080p up to 1440p RT 60fps with tons of settings/effects tuned down.

BTW Fidelity Mode is the good looking and impressive in RC... the others modes are okish without a next-gen wow factor.

62379693.jpg
The 4k40fps mode is Fidelity with ray tracing at DF "appears to reside in a dynamic resolution window between 1800p and full 4K"
Combines 40fps, ray tracing, almost real 4k, fast loading.
It is very next gen and one of only games where "fidelity" mode combines resoluton and ray tracing. The extra 10fps is just a nice feature
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
But that is exactly the point... PC doesn't have a fair playfield.
Console should have a fair playfield.
Consoles should not be like PC (including the bad things).

A 120fps players should never play against a 60fps or 30fps players in console space.
What's not fair is not having the option to play at a higher fps because someone doesn't buy a better console or display.

What's next.... only people with fiber optic internet shouldn't play with those who don't have it?
 

Kenpachii

Member
Yeah but I'd argue that you don't get what you pay for. To get a really substantial improvement over a console, I'd probably have to get a 3090. I'd have to pay about 6x what my digital PS5 cost me, but I wouldn't get anything remotely like 6x the performance. I don't think it's even 3x, is it?

That's why I just laugh when people say 'if you want 60fps just get a PC!'. It's a bit unhelpful, especially when we still have no idea when PS games become available on the platform. But that's fine, because I can just play the latest Assassin's Creed at REALLY high settings and 200fps. Great.

The moment 3090 gets fully used and its features it walks away really. The entire GPU series are beasts really.

Here's some examples why, when RT gets involved.

4a7cd863bb1c9003e75094eb084c67cd.png


25tflop RDNA2 vs 3090

DLSS > native > FSR/checkboard rendering

Here's another good showcase about RDNA2 vs Ampere
6800xt runs at 21tflops.

63087b0a90176ca0c52aa86ea8ca968a.jpg


3090 is a beast of a card and the same goes for x80 cards as they are like 10% off 3090 performance.
 
Last edited:

RoboFu

One of the green rats
Real 4K isn’t going to happen and shouldn’t as it’s a big waste for little gain.

Gotg got a ray trace update not long ago. 🤷‍♂️
 

ethomaz

Banned
What's not fair is not having the option to play at a higher fps because someone doesn't buy a better console or display.

What's next.... only people with fiber optic internet shouldn't play with those who don't have it?
Console is a fixed hardware you don’t need to buy another lol

PVP should be equal to everybody on console.

If you want different options go PC.
 

GHG

Gold Member
If this happened that would just accelerate my switch from playstation to PC… but I honestly don’t think it will.

I think the worst case scenario will be we still get optional 60fps modes but the devs will optimize more for the 30 fps modes and the 60fps mode will be lower resolution than it should ; but we already see that with dying light 2 and gotg for example.

Both of those games you cited are cross-gen.

We will ultimately know where things stand once the next gen only 3rd party games start arriving.
 
I thought 4k/60 with quality graphics would be standard, with slow advances in ray tracing or baked lighting.. that hasn't happened so far. First next-gen SSD "revolution" could be the new Sonic game - if the hard drive streams faster, the character can go faster, too. That was a limit with Maneater, apparently.
You thought wrong.

4k/60 looking like this? 😂😂😂
At best you're getting 1440p/30 or 1080p checkboard to 4k but NEVER native 4K.

hellblade2_DiuAtBZ.jpg
 
Native 4k with msaa > DLSS > native 4k with sub par TAA > FSR
ftfy
Both of those games you cited are cross-gen.

We will ultimately know where things stand once the next gen only 3rd party games start arriving.
Personally I just think people will not accept 30fps being the only option anymore.

Maybe a 40fps option but no 60fps for the really demanding current gen only game would be an acceptable compromise.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Console is a fixed hardware you don’t need to buy another lol

PVP should be equal to everybody on console.

If you want different options go PC.
No I want the option to better my console experience by getting a better display or a better console.
Thankfully the industry is heading this way.
 
4k and 60fps are concrete, quality graphics is not concrete statement, some might say ps4 hard quality graphics(order 1886, but very simple game mechanics, basically nothing under the hood, like matrix demo for current gen, and it was 900p30fps with dips on top of black bars on top and bottom of the screen.

About raytracing- its very demanding even for nvidia topend cards like 3080ti/3090, amd cards arent as advanced with rt, and consoles got amd's hardware so ofc to get even bit of RT u gonna have cut res/fps/settings hard on current gen consoles, even first party like insomaniacs had to do it with ratchet, their rt mode is 1080p60, ofc it looks great but u would need exactly 4x more powerful gpu to get that exact game to 4k60fps with rt, so ps5 would have to be not 10,2tf but 40,8tf so about 2x as strong as amd's currently strongest gpu-rx 6900xt. https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6900-xt.c3481
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#c=498&sort=price&page=1 and thats the prices of such gpu, not msrp but actual streetprice at which u can buy it from stores.
Everyone always trying to be rounding down the resolutions of Ratchet. It's 1440p with DRS but stays mostly at 1440p in that RT 60 mode.
 

rolandss

Member
We're only 1 and a bit years into this gen and because of chip shortages we're getting a longer cross get hangover than usual, but the PS4 didn't really hit its stride with amazing looking games until years 3 and 4 so just be patient. The first year of a new console is always a desert, and a lot of what's coming this year is cross get shit, so will never look as good as a dedicated PS5 developed game.

I think we'll eventually see games that start blowing us away in 12-18 months.
 
You thought wrong.

4k/60 looking like this? 😂😂😂
At best you're getting 1440p/30 or 1080p checkboard to 4k but NEVER native 4K.

hellblade2_DiuAtBZ.jpg
He was probably referring to the average cross gen game, not the most cutting edge-future-unreal 5 game dude. He's not crazy to think that either. It's easy to say in hindsight but a LOT of people thought 4k/60 would be doable on these consoles.

Don't you remember how hyped everyone was, being "RDNA 2", 10-12 TF (which at the time of this whole hype-cycle was similar to some of the most powerful GPU's), having a CPU that was finally really fast, and of course the infamous "SSD"? I remember because I allowed myself to get caught up in it.

Plenty of gamers, even some reputed YouTube tech channels, thought 4k/60 would be the norm. I actually give DF credit now because John and Alex were warning us not to get our expectations too high. I remember a lot of anger directed at Alex for some comments he made in particular. Red Gaming Tech and NX gamer were speaking VERY highly of the tech as well. I'm not blaming them or anything.

Just don't act like people were stupid to expect a but more is all I'm sayin.
 

Kenpachii

Member
ftfy

Personally I just think people will not accept 30fps being the only option anymore.

Maybe a 40fps option but no 60fps for the really demanding current gen only game would be an acceptable compromise.

MSAA loses detail still so no i would not use it over DLSS, also tanks performance.
 
Last edited:
We're only 1 and a bit years into this gen and because of chip shortages we're getting a longer cross get hangover than usual, but the PS4 didn't really hit its stride with amazing looking games until years 3 and 4 so just be patient. The first year of a new console is always a desert, and a lot of what's coming this year is cross get shit, so will never look as good as a dedicated PS5 developed game.

I think we'll eventually see games that start blowing us away in 12-18 months.
So you believe consoles players having advantages over each other is good? Man... gaming is really become a weird thing... so much things wrong with some players
Same reason why I HATE this trend that cross play is this great thing and is forced into games as the default multiplayer setting. I find cross play ON as a default, disgusting. Developers should know better than anyone the advantages PC mouse and keyboard and 120 fps gives over console. Fucking 343, battlefield, bungie etc Also, MS and Sony shouldn't be allowing it to happen since they should be looking to protect players from unfairness, not fucking promote it!

There are just so many bad trends going on in this industry. I think a lot of it is because of MS and Sony's greed in wanting to expand their market and unify console with PC. I'll throw GAAS in there too. With GaaS it behooves these companies to have as many players playing together at the same time. Better for sales of BattlePasses and Mtx's. Better for player populations and player retention. Bad for console gamers. If Sony and MS won't look out for their own bases then the Publishers and Devs certainly won't.

PC players don't want to admit how shitty cross play is for console because a) they are enjoying the easier matchmaking/populations and b) they don't want to acknowledge why their k/d ratios are better now lol
 

bender

What time is it?
I don’t know about you, but i’m for sure enjoying the instant load times of games this gen, it’s a huge improvement and even more apparent when you try playing older games unoptimized for fast loading.

It's amazing how quickly I've become spoiled. I play Animal Crossing every day and the load times are a chore.
 
He was probably referring to the average cross gen game, not the most cutting edge-future-unreal 5 game dude. He's not crazy to think that either. It's easy to say in hindsight but a LOT of people thought 4k/60 would be doable on these consoles.

Don't you remember how hyped everyone was, being "RDNA 2", 10-12 TF (which at the time of this whole hype-cycle was similar to some of the most powerful GPU's), having a CPU that was finally really fast, and of course the infamous "SSD"? I remember because I allowed myself to get caught up in it.

Plenty of gamers, even some reputed YouTube tech channels, thought 4k/60 would be the norm. I actually give DF credit now because John and Alex were warning us not to get our expectations too high. I remember a lot of anger directed at Alex for some comments he made in particular. Red Gaming Tech and NX gamer were speaking VERY highly of the tech as well. I'm not blaming them or anything.

Just don't act like people were stupid to expect a but more is all I'm sayin.
4k/60 was never possible on a next gen exclusives with new features like ray tracing. I can't remember when but way back when these consoles were just rumors I always maintained that we would get at best 1440p/30fps in the absolute best case scenario since native 4k was always a huge resource hog and for that reason I was always posting about the waste of chasing native 4k and instead using graphics resources for other graphical effects.
I'd be happy with a 1440p image with cutting edge graphical effects (hopefully including some sort of ray tracing) and 30fps.
Console form factor will always be a limit on how powerful these devices can be so sacrifices have to be made for pure graphical grunt.
In fact I'd be very surprised if PS6 and the next Xbox can hit native 4k with ray tracing and 60fps.

The other reason why native 4k was not possible was PS and Xbox's upscaling techniques and them having to integrate it into the PS5 and Series consoles chips. You don't pursue such tech if you can reach native 4k regardless of the buzzwords they're throwing around like 10TF, RDNA and all that other crap.
 
Last edited:
MSAA loses detail still so no i would not use it over DLSS, also tanks performance.
Dlss adds ghosing (however slight as of version 2.3) the reconstruction can still muddle certain elements and is not as crisp as native 4k with no AA, MSAA or smaa 1x even.

Msaa doesn’t “lose” detail it just displays what the pixel count can… dlss can resolve detail higher than native 4k but not as crisp as native. It’s a matter of crispness vs. minimal noise (dlss and temporal upscaling)

Dlss is fantastic and the best reconstruction method don’t get me wrong but native resolution still has its place for certain art styles and also those that prefer a most crisp image.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
No I want the option to better my console experience by getting a better display or a better console.
Thankfully the industry is heading this way.
That makes no sense at all.
You have PC for that.
Consoles is about the same experience to everybody… a fair and competitive play field.

The industry is indeed making huge mistakes these years and after they got surprised why their games are not matching expectations lol
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom