Leaked Sony documents show PS5 Pro will have 2-4 times improved ray tracing performance
- Thread starter Cal Jeffrey
- Start date
Good lord...
A) Actually, posting that "It's made so zoomers can jerk off to pretty reflections" was the
needlessly antagonistic statement here.
Last edited:
Burty117
Posts: 5,158 +3,794
First of all, most films are actually at 24 fps. So it would seem your argument is even more valid!
The problem is, movies are simply watched, whereas games are interactive. Higher framerates allow for less input lag.
Last edited:
1080p looks too bad. 1440p should be minimum.
RT and 8K will be pure marketing. The hardware is not capable. 8K in indie games maybe.
erickmendes
Posts: 1,137 +631
Get a RX 7900xt and set it to max fram gen also upscale from 1080p to 4k. Done, 3x RT performance. Also worse image, frametime consistency and lower fps. Tastes like console.
Endymio
Posts: 2,853 +2,845
You're arguing a different point. The argument was that higher framerates made more visually appealing images than raytracing, which is patently absurd.
But to answer your point, yes a higher frame rate *theoretically* means less input lag ... but it takes a neural impulse about 250 ms to travel from your eye to your brain to your hand. That works out to a grand total of FOUR fps. Some competitive gamers have been measured with a reaction rate slightly more than twice as fast ... but needing 100 fps+ to compete is one of those security-blanket beliefs that videogamers cherish.
Burty117
Posts: 5,158 +3,794
Theoretically? You don't normally troll so I assume you're actually serious?
If your argument really is "it takes a neural impulse longer blah blah blah", Then surely if you see it quicker on screen due to the higher framerate, your "neural impulse" will "start" sooner than the person on the lower framerate machine?
Endymio
Posts: 2,853 +2,845
Absolutely correct. But do the math:
Worse-case lag due to frame rate delay
Person @ 60 fps: 250ms + (1/60)(1000) = 266 ms.
Person @ 150 fps: 250ms + (1/150)(1000) = 257 ms.
Net improvement: 3.4%
That's local performance. If you're playing online, there's likely at least 100ms of round-trip network latency, which drops the improvement to 2.5%. And that's worst case -- the mean improvement is half that, or 1.25%.
I won't argue if you call that a competitive edge, as my original point had nothing to do with this: it was merely to point out that graphical realism is far more heavily tied to the physics of raytracing and motion, rather than frame and pixel counts.
Burty117
Posts: 5,158 +3,794
Okay I see what you mean now.
I have to say though, if realism is more tied to the motion, a game at 30fps feels pretty choppy and almost stuttery compared to 60fps. Once you're used to 120fps or more, 60fps feels pretty horrible as well.
Fast moving videos, say a GoPro on someone's head while they ski down a mountain, feel horrible at 24/30fps and only start to be usefully viewable at 60fps or more. Although good stabilisation does help substantially in that example.
The Talking Tech
Posts: 248 +431
Obviously you missed the part on the article that says Series X refresh NOT a "pro/upgrade" in which Phil Spencer has said those were old outdated plans anyways.
You should read the articles you are linking.
The Talking Tech
Posts: 248 +431
Day dreaming much, right?
Zordon
Posts: 20 +11
Firstly, the main article that we are all commenting on is on the PS refresh not the XBox refresh. The only person to mention Phil Spencer is you.
Secondly, the link I shared is a comment for you and not on the article (hence a reply). It opposes your first and third comment and states there is a upgraded / refreshed X/S version coming in 2024 and the true next gen Xbox expected in 2028.
Thirdly, I have read the article, including your comments, and felt you needed correction sir.
Fourthly, you've shared no links of your own to backup your claim. Please do share these links you refer to.
Similar threads
