Resolution and Frame rate relationship

  • Page

    of 1

    Previous Next
  • ratso 31 Mar 2012 17:11:56 1,008 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Quick question on something thats been puzzling me for a while:

    With everyone demanding 1080p as standard for next generation, I'm wondering how this will be possible?

    In general, will an increase in resolution draw on gpu processing or just vram?

    Could devs still cut back to 720p to gain fidelity or performance(assuming next-gen machines are equipped with enough vram to handle 1080p)?

    Similarly, I suppose the lack of an fps gain when switching to SD on current consoles suggests that once sufficient vram is in place resolution wont really effect performance.

    I'm just guessing here, hopefully someone more technically minded will have some insight..
  • Dirtbox 31 Mar 2012 17:18:51 77,649 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    It'll be possible because they wouldn't have 6 year old bottom rung obsolete shit in the box.

    They'll have current bottom rung shit in the box instead that will be able to do a lot more.

    1080p is an arbitrary number held back by memory and the gpu's processor. More ram and/or a faster processor = more texture resolution + resolution + steady framerate.

    Edited by Dirtbox at 17:25:31 31-03-2012

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 31 Mar 2012 17:44:03 6,654 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Yep imo, fps amounts to the cumulative cost of rendering. Resolution is one of the expenses, and the devs have to decide wether it is worth it for the payoff in terms of increased fidelity.

    I think the size of the cost of going up to 1080p has come down, or seems to have; my laptop can shit on dx9 tech at Full HD.
  • Dirtbox 31 Mar 2012 17:47:16 77,649 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Well, PC's have been doing twice 1080p for over a decade, but then there isn't so much of a skimp on the video memory.

    Either way, to think a new generation of consoles should have to use some shitty postage stamp resolution is laughable.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Mr-Brett 31 Mar 2012 18:04:49 12,746 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    If they can't handle 1080p with ease then they'll be a complete joke, see Nintendo for details.

    Portable view - Never forget.

  • Dirtbox 31 Mar 2012 18:10:35 77,649 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    They're both important. Also if the textures look anything like the smears of shit that they've been up till now on consoles, it's also worthless.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Dirtbox 31 Mar 2012 18:15:24 77,649 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I'm impressed at what they've managed to squeeze out of the console hardware, but put against what it should be, it's a joke.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • mal 31 Mar 2012 18:15:43 22,414 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    A lot of the cost of HD in the past has been the change to tools and processes and simple manpower needed to produce assets in high resolution but most companies have adapted by now. As DB says, while higher resolutions do cost more in terms of hardware but anything reasonably new should be able to cope.

    That said, the 360 etc. should have been able to handle high resolution assets at HD resolutions with a rock steady framerate and no tearing, if only dev's hadn't felt the need to piss around with too many polygons and too much bloody filtering.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • Page

    of 1

    Previous Next
Log in or register to reply