Thats the rumor....the xb1 ver was 1080p but lowered it to 900p to avoid parity debate
GTA V Remastered runs 1080p on PS4
- Thread starter DriedMangoes
- Start date
- Status
900p to 1080p is, conveniently, just over 40% more pixels on screen.
How do you quantify a 40% subjective improvement in the real world?
Nicki Minaj's ass is 40% better than that of Jennifer Lopez?
Dominoes is 40% tastier than Pizza Hut?
U2's latest free iTunes album is 40% better than getting punched in the balls?
I'm actually not sure on that last one.
Last edited:
It's as real as it can get. ~40% more pixels being rendered. Now whether you can discern the difference is up to the individual, how far you sit and how big your screen is. Mine's 60" so I can tell.
More pixels (whatever). Unless the difference is universally accepted or at least (half accept or even a quarter accepted) its not a big deal. 900p to 1080p falls under the "not a big deal" category. Visually the two arent discernible enough to give a hoot about.
Your set up does not equate to the world. Sorry. Im not getting on this ride. We can agree to disagree or whatever....
You are right Mcmaster, dropping 1080 to 900p do not gain you 40% performance in real life, its slightly less. WHich means on top of dropping the Res, you need to optimize some other parameters to be able to run comparable fps as a machine that is 40% faster.
I simplified the calculation in favor of X1.
I simplified the calculation in favor of X1.
That's fine if gamers can accept it.
Most can accept this, but the funny thing is, a small % of people who keep claiming there is no real difference, or care, are the one that get the most worked out over resolution disparity.
How do you know I do not care about NFL?
Ans: I never post anything in a thread about NFL.
How do you know I do pretend to not care about NFL but actually do?
Ans: I post regularly in the NFL thread, & telling people how I do not care about NFL., & why you should't.
Most can accept this, but the funny thing is, a small % of people who keep claiming there is no real difference, or care, are the one that get the most worked out over resolution disparity.
How do you know I do not care about NFL?
Ans: I never post anything in a thread about NFL.
How do you know I do pretend to not care about NFL but actually do?
Ans: I post regularly in the NFL thread, & telling people how I do not care about NFL., & why you should't.
900p vs 1080p sounds huge, but the difference is not easy to notice at all, i assume this is thanks to X1's upscaling?
It's more to do with diminishing returns as resolutions get higher. 480p to 720p is very noticeable, 720p to 900p is quite noticeable but 900p to 1080p is less noticeable compared to the lower jumps.
Your mileage will vary with differing factors of TV quality, size, type, distance from screen, visual acuity etc
I don't have a whopping great 60 inch TV like Dried Mangoes.
Last edited:
Yes, diminishing return does apply, & the other factor you mentioned.
The 1080p format exist not because it matters to all TV, but they wanted a format that that work with various TV sizes.
I honestly haven"t since any media on 900p on my TV (Only on my PC), but 720p & 1080p is certainly noticeable on my 40inch.
As TV gets cheaper, I expect more people will get bigger TV, & a higher resolution may be apparent. On my 40", I think 900p maybe too close to 1080 to tell the differences, but if you have a 50inch, or higher or intend to get TV of these size, than higher res may be a more meaningful for you.
Same.
I think a person's own expectations are the only thing that can determine whether something was over-rated or not, and then thats specific to them, not some blanket statement that they should throw around. If someone is disappointed with a game thats because the user expected it to be more than it was. If someone is under the impression that a games' reviews are higher than they should it just means they don't share the majority opinion of the game. It seems arrogant to me to think a game is "over rated" just because you don't happen to agree with the scores it got. All that being said, I also had my fair share of disappointments with GTA V but I'm not about to say everyone who gave it a really high score is wrong.
I'll say they were.
It's hard fact and the truth. Now if it doesn't equate to your view of the world then that's just your perception. It is factually correct that it is rendering ~40% more pixels. Just because you can't discern the difference, it doesn't make it not true.
40% more pixels does not equate to 40% more power. If you want to continue this crusade over pixels, be my guest. But frankly its petty, and its being made to look like something major when its not. Not one bit.
And your opinion is no more than just your perception. To state it as hard facts, just shows your trying too hard.
Wouldn't it benefit mankind if they harnessed all that extra powah to cure Ebola and Isis like they did last gen with the 3?
This is entirely dependent on the engine, the game and the hardware it's running on, as well as the bottlenecks that the rendering pipeline the game uses has. There is no reliable or truthful way to state that x% more pixels requires y% more power for any real world scenario without being privy to numbers of which no one on this forum has. It could be higher then the number of pixels extra, it could be lower, it could be completely indepdent from it, who knows.
We don't know exactly how more powerful it is in %, but we do know the PS4 on many of these games push 40% more pixels WHILE maintaining the same performance level of the XB1, meaning, that now the PS4 is pushing more pixels AND maintaining performance.
Is it 40% more powerful? Who knows? It's certainly pushing more pixels more often than not while maintaining good performance.
You say who knows but some of you still equate 40% in more pixels equates to 40% more power. Its not hard to tell one has a slight edge on power then the other but its not drastic its not by a landslide and it certainly doesnt look like 40% more. Its not even noticeable unless you're putting forth effort to see it. That in itself should tell you how petty the argument is. (I know that line pissed some on this forum off...)
And with some games sure, theres a slight edge in performance but not ALL games. A lot of you guys like to pretend that every game suffers from the slight performance edge but in reality it isnt the case. Plus there is one game in particular that makes this whole argument just..... relative. Again, its petty fanboy banter that's all the rage. Nothing remarkable about it in the slightest. Yet you guys still push the issue like its the second coming.
I dont think so. Convince someone else.
And with some games sure, theres a slight edge in performance but not ALL games. A lot of you guys like to pretend that every game suffers from the slight performance edge but in reality it isnt the case. Plus there is one game in particular that makes this whole argument just..... relative. Again, its petty fanboy banter that's all the rage. Nothing remarkable about it in the slightest. Yet you guys still push the issue like its the second coming.
I dont think so. Convince someone else.
Last edited:
The reason people equate the difference is because it's a easy difference to see and relate to each other even if the relation is a bit tenious. We know the ps4 has 40% more CUs and people are seeing 40% more pixels on screen. If a game is limited by the pixel shaders then it's likely that a game is going to probably linearly or super linearly increases with the number of CUs but that's making a generalization.
It's not a crusade, merely stating the truth. It's only as major as you make it out to be and evidently, it seems to matter to you a lot since you consistently bring up this topic. Kind of ironic how that works, doesn't it? If it doesn't matter to you, stop bringing it up.
It is not my opinion that there is 40% more pixels being rendered, factually 1080p is indeed rendering ~40% more pixels than 900p. No ifs, buts around this. Sure you can downplay but it's still the truth no matter if you like it or not.
Personally i use a 50 inch tv, but i sit like 2 to 3 meters away from it. I honestly cannot say if i truly see a big difference, cause so far i only got the Xbox One, but i did see videos of games that were 1080p on PS4 and 900p on X1 and i barely saw a difference. I think people with projectors are gonna be the ones that will really notice it.
The 40% thing was projected (on paper) before the consoles even officially launched and was pretty spot on.
I've played various versions of multiplayer games and the differences aren't substantial (to me). But they're there.
Until I see missing geometry of some kind of textures or effects, I won't be bothered.
Performance is a bigger issue than resolution. And I don't mean one or two frames, but 60 to 30.
I don't think it's an Xbox vs PS2 type situation. Maybe Xbox vs. Gamecube.
I've played various versions of multiplayer games and the differences aren't substantial (to me). But they're there.
Until I see missing geometry of some kind of textures or effects, I won't be bothered.
Performance is a bigger issue than resolution. And I don't mean one or two frames, but 60 to 30.
I don't think it's an Xbox vs PS2 type situation. Maybe Xbox vs. Gamecube.
I really wish you people had this mentality last generation. 
God I wish I had archived TXB like I was going to do. Pulling quotes from those PS3/360 comparison threads would have been so awesome.
I'll keep saying, this generation is the mirror image of the last generation right down to the arguments.
God I wish I had archived TXB like I was going to do. Pulling quotes from those PS3/360 comparison threads would have been so awesome.
I'll keep saying, this generation is the mirror image of the last generation right down to the arguments.
- Status