The difference is that The Division 2 on PC at max settings looks a lot better than even the Xbox One X version. The Xbox One X has minor graphical effect bumps over the regular Xbox One version, resolution being the main defining difference.
Old PS5 rumors
- Thread starter TeKPhaN
- Start date
- Status
The difference is that The Division 2 on PC at max settings looks a lot better than even the Xbox One X version. The Xbox One X has minor graphical effect bumps over the regular Xbox One version, resolution being the main defining difference.
Correct. The game is already at 4k. The extra juice gets it the rest of the way. We are finally in a position where we can use the extra power for something other than resolution.
Actually... Division 2 on the lowest settings looks better than the console versions according to the DF video...
We get medium/low/some high @4k 30fps on X right now at 6TF and that s*** CPU, don't be silly.
To you. I've managed to have a great time with it so far even at the paltry, unacceptable 30fps, lol.
The Division 2 is 4k on X as well. I'm not sure what you are smoking...
As for the "lower than low" you are likely referring to- that's not on all settings.
Regardless, new CPUs and at least 9 TF will manifest some great gains...
That's because you've never played the game at 60fps+. Once you do you wouldn't ever go back to 30.
Yes I saw it. Did you? Not all of the settings are lower. I know you have a penchant for seeing what you want to see, so.
Anyway. I'm not sure what you are getting at. The 1080 has 9.5 TF. It's doing these higher settings you are talking about, but you are arguing that 9.5 is not enough for you.
You are saying they will run at PS4 setting at 4k when the X does 4k 30fps with higher settings than PS4. Someone is just a Negative Nancy.
The consoles will never out-perform PCs.
Cool? Stick to PC then? I don't know what your point is. Beyond that, I have absolutely played shooters at 60fps, so I do know what 60fps feels like. I can still enjoy games at 30. Sorry.
Play the SAME game at 60 and then play it at 30. You will not be happy or accepting of that. If you are, you're just lieing to me, and yourself to try and back your idiotic point. Like I said you've never had the option so you don't know the difference in a direct comparison because no one in their right minds would accept 30 when there is a 60fps option on the same game with the same graphics settings at the same resolution.
Last edited:
Except that TF numbers aren't apples to apples between Nvidia and AMD. The 1080 with 9 TF is just as fast and even faster in a lot of cases than AMDs Vega 64 which is a 12.5-13 TF GPU (depending on air cooled vs water cooled versions). And the consoles will be AMD based, obviously.
The details/textures are lower than low.
The 1080 isn't doing higher settings at 4K also 9.2 nVidia TF's is like 11 TF's AMD.
In many cases X isn't doing true 4K and almost never true 4K and higher than PS4 settings.
Negative? yup if those specs are true.
I don't think Sony is that stupid though.
Still irrelevant. The point is I'm fine playing (many) games at 30 fps even after playing one at 60. Is 60 better? Yes. Would I prefer it? Yes, but it's hardly unplayable, which was Vals' argument.
If I never play the game at 60fps then what's there to miss? Most of us aren't bouncing between different versions of the same games. Try understanding my point before flinging insults? Just a thought.
I understand that. The TF thing in this context is just sorta a generic metric for power.
The only thing I'm trying to say is that the jump should yield noticable results over the X, and that I was happy that the resolution chase is hopefully at its end. We should get improvements that don't focus on resolution. Finally.
9+ TF GPUs and new CPUs should make for a nice jump. I also cautioned against thinking a massive jump from the refreshes was coming as those are stop-gaps.
But he didn't say it wasn't playable, he said it was unacceptable. In which I agree. Once you play a game at 60+fps and then try and play it at 30fps it's really is unacceptable. It's okay, different people have different standards.
The issue is the vast majority of console games are 30fps, the ones that aim for 60fps are generally MP focused games and they usually take a hit in other areas because of it.
Unacceptable comes across as unplayable for him in the context it is written. At least in his experience.
I agree. I actually do pick the 30fps setting in some X games over 60fps because I like the clarity and graphic bump. Gears of War, the Witcher 3, and Horizon 4.
Plus several games "target 60fps" but they aren't anywhere near locked so I'd rather just get a constant 30 and better visuals.
Gears 4 multiplayer in fake 4k/60fps is much more impressive than the 4k/30fps mode.
All PlayStation 4 exclusives are that so how convenient that you say this.
The 60fps console games i play are 60fps enough to be a far better experience than the dated 30fps mess.
Whatever you are taking you need to cut back on it or quit lol. Most console games are 30fps, most single player games are just fine at 30fps. You play MP mostly it would seem so 60fps is more important to you and that's fine but your constant exaggeration to try to make a "point" gets tiresome. I like you Val but you need to realize you can discuss something without going overboard or bringing up things that have nothing to do with the conversation just because you can't think of real point to make.
I'm talking campaign, which if I remember correctly, was 1080p/60. I still preferred to play it at 4k/30. The argument being about experiencing both rates and the higher makinging hard to go down.
I agree it makes sense for multiplayer, as immersion is less important, and tight controls are paramount. Made more important in compensating the lag inherent in online play.
- Status