Originally Posted by Antarius
It looks fine, loosing HDR sucks though. Playing GTA4 right now [email protected]
, amazing stuff. Last time I touched this game was during xbox360 times.
If you drop the refresh rate to 100Hz but retain the 3840x2160 resolution, are you able to then increase the chroma resolution to 4:2:2, or more realistically increase the bitdepth to 10bit?
In particular, I'm wondering if it'd let you enable HDR10...
Also I don't suppose the TV is natively capable of inputs running at 3840x1600 and 2880x2160 without the use of GPU scaling as alternative "cheaty" ways to decrease bandwidth and therefore possibly allowing you to increase the chroma and/or bitdepth?
Originally Posted by JD23
I would be happy if the consoles can run a stable 4k/60fps, but I think that may even be in doubt, based on previous history.
Do keep in mind that the XB1/PS4 have single-threaded CPU performance comparable to a 17 year old high-end CPU or 14 year-old mid-range CPU (~2GHz Athlon 64) and multi-threaded performance comparable to a 12-year old high-end CPU (~3GHz 4c/8t Nehalem).
The XBSX/PS5 by comparison have CPU that's almost identical to the Ryzen 3700X which is relatively high-end ~$300 CPU that launched only 9 months ago and easily has 4x the single-threaded performance before any manual optimization due to the combination of having 2x the clockrate and 2x the IPC, and multithreaded-wise these are 8core/16thread CPUs rather than the plain-old 8core/8thread CPUs in the XB1/PS4.
One key point to consider is IPC aka "performance per clock". At the time when the XB1/PS4 launched, the then-fastest CPU architecture (Haswell) had IPC that was around 1.75x faster than the CPU architecture found in the XB1/PS4 (Jaguar). But as of this moment, the CPU architecture found in both the Ryzen 3700X and the XBSX/PS5 (Zen2) has the
greatest IPC of any desktop CPU to date (though by the time the consoles launch, Zen3 will likely be available on the PC which is going to farther improve IPC by some currently unknown amount, and that's without considering Intel's mobile-only Ice Lake CPUs).
The only CPUs on PC that are faster than the 3700X are because they either have higher clocks, more cores, or a combination of both - and neither are really options at the time for consoles since they'd eat too much into the power budget or would require having twice as many CPU cores which would blow up the die size and make things overly expensive (the Zen2 architecture requires that cores come in sets of 8, so if you wanted 12 cores you have to physically include 16 and then disable 4 of them).
Originally Posted by Pastuch
I doubt PS5 or Xbox games will output at 120hz.
They're both confirmed to support VRR up to 120Hz which is important as, the higher your maximum display refresh is, the better chance of support for LFC you have, and on AMD GPUs LFC is done on the GPU side rather than the display side - all you need is a refresh rate range where the maximum is greater than 2x that of the minimum (and since the minimum is typically somewhere between 30 and 48Hz, a 60Hz max simply doesn't cut it).
Also this means that a game is allowed to go over 60Hz without being capped to 60Hz - even if it means it only makes it to like 65Hz. And remember that the alternatives to VRR are tearing (ugly) or vsync (hurts input lag), so if your display can do VRR up to 120Hz then you might as well support it even if your game can only hit something like 65fps.
Alternatively the availability of LFC means that you're not forced to choose between capped solid 30fps and uncapped 60fps target for more demanding games - you can now run at something like 45fps without it being an absolute juddery mess even if the display's VVR minimum is 48Hz just as long as the VRR maximum is greater than 96Hz.