Jimquisition: Children of the Resolution

[NezumiiroKitsune]

snip

Unfortunately, I don't believe you. You (and I) can definitely tell the difference between 30 and 60, but anything above 70, assuming you aren't using 3D technology, is purely academic (or e-peening); which is to say, only useful in discussion of hardware, in relation to software. Few, if anyone, can tell the different between 70FPS and 80FPS (on a 120Hz monitor) when the image is 2D. 120FPS is 50FPS of security, to demand more of the hardware, for example, improving texture resolution, or modding in higher poly models.

Definitely my opinion, from experience of, like you, side by side comparisons of 144Hz monitors, but also the consensus of the majority of the PC building enthusiast community. Any difference you're perceiving is, unless you're a mantis shrimp, psychological.

I say anything now, because people chasing 500FPS, at the expense of texture quality, post-processing and just an improved experience (modding etc...), shouldn't do. Willfully deluding yourself, is always bad. If you're monitor isn't capable of 3D, 120FPS is again, just of academic interest.

3D is a totally different discussion. There is improved movement clarity well up to 144Hz/FPS here.

Hopefully my disbelief doesn't come across aggressively. If you maintain you can see a different between 120FPS and 144FPS, then that's fine.

 

[Saulkar]

Hopefully my disbelief doesn't come across aggressively. If you maintain you can see a different between 120FPS and 144FPS, then that's fine.

I am open to the possibility that there were other variables at play that allowed me to see the difference outside of purely FPS but I have two screens in front of me right now. One 120HZ and the 60. Each running a copy of 3DS Max 2014 and playing back a small looping animation at 120 frames per second and I can tell without a single ounce of doubt that there is a very, very clear difference. It is purely cosmetic however as the ghosting you see when waving your cursor around the screen is reduced to a continuous blur instead of a trail of individual cursors and everything just feels... silky.

 

[Saulkar]

SNIP!!!!!!!!!!!

The monitor just arrived half an hour ago. I indeed cannot tell the difference between the two refresh rates but there is still a notable difference. I am guessing it may have something to do with having one fifth the response time.

The two monitors are the ViewSonic VX2268WM and ASUS VG248QE.

 

[Scorpid]

The 360 and Xbox one made me decide to build an expensive rig instead of continuing to use consoles since I had when I was kid... and I can't really say I regret it. I can still play PC games with controllers after all I can use Multiplayer for free and mods exist, period. And not to mention the 1080p issue is irrelevant to me. I don't watch TV so I don't have to spend 300-500 for a decent TV, and consoles also require a LAN connection just like a PC. There is really nothing that would bring me back to the console market on offer by the PS4 or Xbone.
I really don't want to sound like a PC asshole but there is nothing there that makes it even a debate in my mind over which to get.

 

[Shuu]

I'm reminded of the Fanboy Panel at the first Escapist Expo. This is a prime example. People have temporaril cast aside their understanding of how numbers work in the interest of defending Xbox One. Now that's fanboyism!
It's kind of cute;D like "Hey, Xbox! How about that 1080 huh? Pretty cool!" then Xbox One responds "Nah, I'm sticking with 720" and the fanboy says "Oh, eheheheh. Yeah, totally man, 1080 sucks! 720 forever man!"
And Xbox says "well, no forever, I'll go 1080 One say" and the fanboy flips yet again to "yeah! that would be sweet! 720 us for losers! uh... Except you man! Can I... Can I carry your bags or something?"

 

[Doclector]

Normally PC bragging makes me rage, but in this, it's appropriate. It seems the console market has forgotten, once again, why they HAVE a market in the first place, convenience, cost, consistent gamepads, etc, not worth going into here. Point is, resolution is NOT what wins console buys, simply because the PC outclasses it by far in that field, and likely, consoles could never catch up because PCs don't have to wait a generation to upgrade, they are constantly upgrading. No point in even trying to beat PC in that field, and yet, the two main consoles are arguing over the very point that possibly means the least in the console market. Very silly. Extremely silly.

 

[The Lunatic]

It must be very frustrating to spend so much money on a console, only to find there's something better.

So, the angst against the PC community is quite understandable.

 

[Stabby Joe]

The one argument i never understood against PCs is that they are "too expensive". Now while it is always argued that you can get it much cheaper if you buy one in parts, I always enjoyed the long term investment with games being on average cheaper even at launch, not the mention the fraction of the price sales that comes up every week on certain sites.

I'm not knocking consoles, just that the price of games always alluded the debate in most of my experiences.

 

[FireAza]

60 frames per second? My PC regularly goes higher than that and since I have a 120htz monitor, I can see up to 120 frames of them

But yes, only supporting 720p is really silly in this day and age, considering that the Xbox 360 ran at that resolution and especially considering that the ORIGINAL Xbox could do 1080i.

 

[Barbas]

I think it was Bison who said something along the lines of "YES! YES! This is delicious!"

I prefer tinkering around with PCs, to be honest. Their inner workings have always been a source of fascination and I just can't get the same sort of joy out of consoles (without voiding several warranties and annoying the FBI).

 

[FireAza]

Your brain does not have a serialized connection to your retina, or through any major sensory chord for that matter. There's not much "sample aliasing" in the time domain. Though light may take (a lot) more than 1/60th of a second to fade from a few cone cells, that does not mean you are unable to detect changes that take less than 1/300th of a second in neighboring or distant cones.

Ever hear of an optic nerve? All I'm hearing from you is conjecture. Do you have any links showing that people can't detect the difference between 30 and 60 fps? Because I certainly can tell the difference.

Seriously, the only people spouting this "you can't see more than 30 fps" nonsense are ultra-loyalist console gamers who probably have never seen a game run at 60 fps in real life.

I personally can tell the difference between 60 and 120 frames per second very easily (I have two monitors, one at 60 and one at 120). Not only that but when testing out a new monitor with an HDMI cable so that I can play the PS4 next to my computer while it is hung up rendering animations I discovered I could tell the difference between 120 and 144 frames per second. Unfortunately I appear to be in the minority as the sales rep who dealed with these things on a daily basis could not however.

Hell, I can tell the difference between 60FPS and 120FPS. And not in a "change refresh rate to 60htz, change refresh rate to 120htz" way either. More of a "run MediaPortal on PC monitor instead of plasma TV. Exit MediaPortal. Wonder why the mouse cursor feels jerky. Remember that MediaPortal changes monitor refresh rate to 60htz" way.

 

[Sanunes]

I agree with you on the value front. To take your argument further the consoles also have their own dissadvantagers in terms of value for even just the hardware. The price comparisons to consoles are always unfair because their price points go down as they age. The PS3 was £425 in 2007. If you are buying a PC the chances are their parts are of the latest generation, latest specifications and therefore carry a price premium of being brand spanking new 2013 parts.

The price of a PC and (it's parts) that would have been great in 2007 would be pretty dammed low even in 2010 never-mind now. The same will be true for this next, probably once again very lengthy console generation.

Yes the price point for a PC is higher but that's because the parts are newer. Right now you could build a PC that could comfortably run almost any game at about 1360x768 (the resolution of a modest sized monitor/ bedroom TV) for £450 from scratch. As time goes on that £450 will buy you more and better parts. The Xbone is £450 right now. If you bought a £450 PC in 2018 it shouldn't really have to be compared to a device that may have gone down in price but is essentially old tech.

I also don't understand the "its outdated in one to two years" or "you have to upgrade every six months to a year" arguments either, for most PCs unless you are into rendering or CAD applications the PC will last the entire generation of a console as well. I will say there will be new features released that might make the game look more interesting, the latest one I can think of is TressFX from ATI, but I just turn that feature off.

From my perspective I bought an i7 system in 2008 for $800, but it looks like I am going to be fine to run all of this upcoming generation of console games. The only difference between my PC and a console, is that why my TV died it damaged anything connected to it and took out my video card so that is newer then 2008, but I never bothered to replace my 360 that died as well.