And why would that be when Flynn said games could be 4k and have better quality, and Kassen above posted PC benchmarks where 4x the res doesn't mean frame rates drop to 25% of 1080p's frames.
Next-Iteration Gaming: Scorpio, Neo, and NX
- Thread starter Frozpot
- Start date
- Status
Key word there. "Xbox One quality." So Scorpio may or may not be able to run Tomb Raider 2013 at 3840p30p.
I like where this is going FauxK > 4k because "xbox1 quality" is laughable. FauxK ps4 quality > 6+tf
SDF desperate @ this point?
SDF desperate @ this point?
Those CPU's won't add anything worth while in regards to FLOPS numbers anyway, maybe 200-300 GFLOPs.
Wrong.
Scorpio would easily be able to run TR2013 @4K/30fps - with superior textures and performance.
a post was mads on gaf which panello aknoledged as correct.
games like forza 6 1080p/60fps will be 4k/60fps &
rise of tombraider 1080p/30fps will be 4k/30fps on scorpio.
so to me all xb1 games will run at 4k with the set frame rate the game currently has.
games like forza 6 1080p/60fps will be 4k/60fps &
rise of tombraider 1080p/30fps will be 4k/30fps on scorpio.
so to me all xb1 games will run at 4k with the set frame rate the game currently has.
It is accurate.
Taken straight from the slides, " Rendering to a ¼ size (½ width by ½ height) resolution with MSAA 2X."
Matte Black or Gun Metal Gray would be great
I hate white consoles, always have. To me they look too much like toys and they stand out too much in the entertainment center.
I have you on ignore because there really is no way of having a meaningful discussion with you, I did come across your response to me when looking to see who Val responding to so here is my one response to you. I wasn't arguing I was asking questions and also saying what I would rather have these machines focus on and nothing more but your defensive mindset makes you think that's arguing.. As far as last gen I was one of the ones saying that people at Sony who said that killzone demo was really the game etc were lying about how strong the console was so don't try to pretend that I was one of the people who believed them or supported that BS because I did not.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not hypersensitive at all. And no need for childish name calling.
And if you're going to claim I was on ignore but saw my post via Val's post at least don't lie about it. You would have never seen my post because if you look at the posting history, Val never responded to my posts aimed at you. Therefore, you saw my posts and wasn't on ignore to begin with.
You've been gaming long enough to know that anytime a console maker says their system can do XXX or YYY, it simply means that's the system's max spec.
Instead, you try to make it into an MS issue. Flynn and I clearly pointed out what MS already clearly pointed out:
- Scorpio can do native/true 4k
- Scorpio can do 60 fps
- Devs aren't mandated to force native 4k at 60 fps. It's up to them what to do. MS even said so
So why is that hard to understand? And how is that a "mixed message by MS" as you claim it is?
As I said before, if MS simply said "4k" (by itself) would you then claim it is a mixed message because they didn't clarify Scorpio can output native 4k, or it's upscaled 4k?
As for last gen, yeah right. Where were you on TXB debunking Sony's 2005 claims of PS3 could do 1080p and 120 fps and 4D? Nowhere to be found.
Last edited:
This has been the crux of the conversation until certain voices started addind qualifiers to the 4k achievement. We had a convo going about whether or not it would be better to use the extra resources instead of chasing the "p"s.
No one was talking about PC settings at 4k until Val showed up, although, X1's resolution deficiency has been its main contention. "XBox One quality" still has all the assets of other versions, so "just" a bump to 4k and better frames ( solid 30 even) would be substantial on it's own.
It's written poorly, and it's therefore misleading, and your understanding is inaccurate.
They are not rendering 1/4 of the pixels, they're rendering HALF the pixels.
On the same slide - look at what it says below:
http://twvideo01.ubm-us.net/o1/vaul...s/El_Mansouri_Jalal_Rendering_Rainbow_Six.pdf
"We end up with HALF the samples of the full resolution image"
They are rendering HALF the number of pixels of the desired frame buffer, not 1/4.
Flynn you must pay better attention.
He is blocked for a reason.
Actually if you look at the post of mine he was responding to it had NOTHING to do with any of that and there wasn't anything argumentative in it. You and I discussed the mixed messaging thing in previous posts and as far as I was concerned that was over. When it comes to his posts he is always overly sensitive and thinks people are attacking anything xbox if what they say isn't flat out praise, at least that's my experience with him and that's why I have him blocked. He asked "where were you when sony was lying about PS3" or something to that effect implying that I had some constant anti xbox bias. If you remember correctly I was constantly called an xbox fanboy (and in all honesty I probably was) on the teamxbox forums last gen, I was as hard on sony as anyone was and they deserved it at the time.
When I talk about what "these machines" should focus on I'm talking about both consoles not just one, I want both of them to do as much to make the games look as good as they can as possible. I have even said I'd buy a scorpio if the 3rd party games look significantly better than on Neo, I won't buy one for xbox exclusives because nothing they've put out or announced so far appeals to me enough to pay money for another console. That's not a knock on them either or saying their games are bad I'm just saying those games don't appeal to me.
Last edited:
I've been reading a little about HDR this morning. I'm convinced this is a bigger deal, image-wise, than 4K resolution itself. HDR would be the reason I'd buy a 4K TV, rather than for the resolution bump itself. Indeed, it seems like that's why it is there in the first place -- the industry realized they needed more than 4K to stand out. I believe this is what most people are responding to when they see a 4K TV at Best Buy and go "wow."
This is marketing, but:
I was also encouraged to hear (and hope it's true) that it doesn't cost the devs anything to implement, because images are already rendered in HDR.
I wasn't sold on getting a 4K TV based on resolution alone (marginal benefits for most people; see earlier discussion), but having HDR wrapped in is making it much more appealing. I will probably upgrade in a couple of years. I like my current 1080p set just fine, but apparently HDR is a tech that only comes with newer TVs.
This is marketing, but:
I was also encouraged to hear (and hope it's true) that it doesn't cost the devs anything to implement, because images are already rendered in HDR.
I wasn't sold on getting a 4K TV based on resolution alone (marginal benefits for most people; see earlier discussion), but having HDR wrapped in is making it much more appealing. I will probably upgrade in a couple of years. I like my current 1080p set just fine, but apparently HDR is a tech that only comes with newer TVs.
Yeah, I was wrong about it being clear.
If it didn't mention "1/4", then it would be clear. If you read through the other slides and see what they're doing (see the comparison screen shots for example), then it doesn't seem confusing... But read that one line on the deck, and I can see how folks would easily misinterpret.
Exactly.
And if there are any perf dips on X1, they will probably be ironed out on Scorpio. Plus, with the added memory, there will be higher resolution textures and such. With very, very little work - devs can have something that's 4x the resolution, polished performance, and higher resolution texturing on Scorpio. While it would be possible to do more/other improvements, such things probably would not be the norm.
One on hand you said I was on ignore, then you said you saw my posts because Val responded to it. Which he never did. Now you are bringing up me saying you are "argumentative".... something you'd never see if I was on ignore as no other posters replied to that message with quotes.
Even if you did somehow see my post, how would you know it's even aimed at you? I never even stated your user name in it.
So make up your mind. Am I on ignore or not?!?! LOL.
As for the two posts I said to you, you totally ignored the first one about you claiming "MS is sending mixed messages".
I can't see how someone whose supposed to be a long time gamer (like yourself), can misinterpret what MS said. It's like MS or Sony saying their BR discs are 50 gb capacity. Nobody would assume every game that comes out on X1 or PS4 would max out a disc at 50 gb.
X1 and PS4 are touted as 1080p machines. Guess what? Not all games are native 1080p. 360 and PS3 were promoted as HD res systems (which I believe the cut off is 720p). Guess what? Not all games were 720p either.
So if MS said Scorpio can do native 4k and 60 fps, why would you assume every game would be that? Why would you still believe that if MS even said afterwards it's up to devs to utilize the power?
It's like a car. A car might have a top speed of 200 km/hr. It may be factually and lab-tested true. But that doesn't mean everyone will drive 200 km/hr. But the opportunity is there.
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind if devs had two modes.
High res (4k), lower quality/frames
Low res (1080p), higher quality/frames
I know that's an extra nuance. But if PCs can fiddle with a million sliders, surely the devs can get two distinct settings working. And the same two settings on every machine.
I don't have an HDR tv yet, and the only images I've seen are whatever looping promo videos are at Best Buy and Costco.I've been reading a little about HDR this morning. I'm convinced this is a bigger deal, image-wise, than 4K resolution itself. HDR would be the reason I'd buy a 4K TV, rather than for the resolution bump itself. Indeed, it seems like that's why it is there in the first place -- the industry realized they needed more than 4K to stand out. I believe this is what most people are responding to when they see a 4K TV at Best Buy and go "wow."
This is marketing, but:
I was also encouraged to hear (and hope it's true) that it doesn't cost the devs anything to implement, because images are already rendered in HDR.
I wasn't sold on getting a 4K TV based on resolution alone (marginal benefits for most people; see earlier discussion), but having HDR wrapped in is making it much more appealing. I will probably upgrade in a couple of years. I like my current 1080p set just fine, but apparently HDR is a tech that only comes with newer TVs.
Personally, I don't think HDR is a big deal, since the videos I remember seeing have the HDR side having big bold... FAKE.... looking colours. The non-HDR side seems fine, but the HDR side looks like they amped up the colours on purpose to make it look kind of fairy-tale-ish.
That's like playing with the small dials on a CRT and messing with brightness, contrast and tint, and making the TV show go from normal looking to psychodelic, drug-induced colour saturation. Anyone can mess with their colour settings.
That LG picture you have above actually does the opposite. They kept the HDR side looking the same, but made the SDR side purposely darker and foggier. I don't remember any nighttime scene in a movie, tv show or evening sports event that looks that grey and foggy due to SDR colours.
If I had a choice between 4k res and HDR, I'd go with res.
That's because when you sit far back enough, TV viewing is fine. But the second you get close (like 1080p) it becomes fuzzy and you realize how ugly/blurry the pixels are if you aren't 10 ft away.
4k should fix some of that up close fuzziness.
Last edited:
Disagree, based on what I'm reading in multiple places. I understand what you're saying about in-store TV displays being set to maximum effect and being misleading at times. But you should look into HDR more before dismissing it.
For instance, here are a few excerpts:
"I am pretty jaded when it comes to new TV tech, and I'm really excited about HDR. And I'm not the only one."
"Bottom line: Most experts I've spoken to, on both the content side and the TV side, are excited about HDR and WCG. 4K itself didn't have anyone in those camps that excited. The common refrain was "More pixels are cool, but better pixels would be amazing."
"Though breathlessly claimed as the next-generation TV evolution, 4K was anything but. Now, with HDR and WCG, we're looking at the promised evolution, and it should be a brighter and more colorful one."
http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-hdr-for-tvs-and-why-should-you-care/
Here's a more in-depth discussion:
"Unlike the move from standard definition to high definition, where the increase in resolution was quite pronounced, broadcasters and manufacturers felt the increased resolution of 4K Ultra HD wouldn't be enough on its own to convince people to upgrade from HD to 4K. So the decision was made to look at other ways of improving the image, aside from simply increasing the resolution. [...] HDR was seen as an option that could prove popular with consumers because it would have a far greater and more obvious impact on perceived image quality and could thus be an effective way of differentiating 4K Ultra HD from HD."
"Until recently the standard for creating video transfers has largely remained unchanged for decades and it is based upon the capabilities off the old CRT (cathode ray tube) monitors that were used in the mastering studios. As a result of the historical limitations of the display technology, all high definition transfers are created using an 8-bit video depth, the Rec.709 colour space and at a peak brightness of 100 Nits (which is a measure of luminance).
"This has been frustrating for colourists working in the film industry because the actual colour and luminance detail in the original footage captured (be it on film or digitally) is far greater than the current standards are able to convey. In addition display technology has moved on and is now able to handle standards far in excess of what is currently being used. Therefore as part of the move towards 4K Ultra HD, the standards are being changed to reflect the capabilities of modern displays."
"By combining all these elements, film colourists will be able to create transfers that can take full advantage of the luminance and colour detail inherent in the original content. In particular, HDR will allow them to distinguish bright details in highlights that are often compressed in traditional video transfers as well as more perceptible details in shadows. In addition there will be greater separation of colour details in diffuse near-white colours and in strongly saturated parts of the image."
[Disclaimer: this pic is not to be taken at face value; it is just an illustration. Obviously we are viewing both images through SDR, so both images are SDR. It's just an illustration, not meant to be taken literally.]
https://www.avforums.com/article/what-is-hdr.11039
And a simple intro video for good measure, plus a bad pun:
Quote at 1:30: "In fact, people have said that the jump from 1080 resolution to 4K resolution wasn't really that noticeable until HDR technology started to get rolled into it."
- Status