1080p60fps in 3D

#1 Posted by mikey87144 (1775 posts) -

So according to sources that is Sony's goal for their next console. My question is how do those ambitions compare to current high end PCs? As I don't care for 3D I'm not sure if 3D games run that well on PC.

#2 Edited by Jrinswand (1709 posts) -

That requires at least half a grand in video cards alone at this point. There's no way they're going to hit that goal unless they wait another 5-6 years to release the new Playstation.

#3 Posted by Cincaid (2956 posts) -

@mikey87144: Surprised if Sony will continue to focus on 3D with the Orbis, considering how little interest there is today. But maybe they think a 3D TV will be the norm in a few years, who knows.

#4 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

Just give me a goddamn consistent framerate at any resolution and I'll be happy.

#5 Posted by ShaggE (6457 posts) -

In 2D, sure, that's likely. I just can't see that kind of performance in 3D, though. Not if they want to have an even slightly competitive price.

Maybe they have a card up their sleeve, though.

#6 Posted by AuthenticM (3732 posts) -

This is the bare minimum they need to achieve. Anything less and I'll be disappointed. It'll have been eight long years since this generation started, if next-gen consoles are released next year. We need a massive jump in graphical power.

#7 Posted by believer258 (11914 posts) -

It depends entirely on whether or not that's also Microsoft's goal for the next Xbox. If not, MS will be able to have a similar level of detail in their graphics at a much cheaper price, and average Joe would rather spend $300 on a console that runs pretty games at 30 FPS than $600 on a console that runs pretty games at 60FPS. A fair number of people either won't see or won't much care about the difference, especially when a big difference in price is necessary to keep up that 60 FPS at 1080P.

#8 Edited by FluxWaveZ (19345 posts) -

@AuthenticM said:

This is the bare minimum they need to achieve. Anything less and I'll be disappointed. It'll have been eight long years since this generation started, if next-gen consoles are released next year. We need a massive jump in graphical power.

...in 3D? Can normal gaming PCs even do that?

#9 Posted by DetectiveSpecial (466 posts) -

Sony really has to lose their 3D boner. They continuously tried to make it a selling point for the PS3, and years later it has yet to catch on. They even released a (slightly) affordable 3D monitor using the Playstation brand name, and it ended up getting marked down for liquidation at most retailers. I don't understand - how many hints will Sony ignore before they realize that 3D isn't going to distinguish them in the market?

I also think that the next generation of consoles will have minimal graphical improvements, but much more processing power. If the next generation of consoles have something equivalent to an i5, but dedicated to gaming, then I'll start to get excited.

#10 Posted by Ares42 (2674 posts) -

I believe they will go for 1080p 60 fps and 3D. They can't abandon 3D completely as it's still out there and more and more TVs will just have it inately, meaning in a few years it might just be a standard feature and not supporting it would be bad. However they will probably do the same thing they did this generation and take the resolution hit when going 3D.

#11 Edited by ProfessorEss (7378 posts) -

@McGhee said:

Just give me a goddamn consistent framerate at any resolution and I'll be happy.

Amen yo.

I'm sure Sony will be doing a lot of talking about the power of their next console but I'll be taking that pre-lease hype with grains and grains salt.

#12 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

@FluxWaveZ: With a fuckload of hardware. But no single GPU solution can handle it at the moment.

#13 Posted by AlexW00d (6275 posts) -

@FluxWaveZ said:

@AuthenticM said:

This is the bare minimum they need to achieve. Anything less and I'll be disappointed. It'll have been eight long years since this generation started, if next-gen consoles are released next year. We need a massive jump in graphical power.

...in 3D? Can normal gaming PCs even do that?

Of course they can. All you need for 3D is double the frames, so in this case 120.

#14 Posted by Captain_Felafel (1573 posts) -

Give me 1080p@60FPS and I'll be happy.

#15 Posted by GS_Dan (1403 posts) -

PS3 can do WipEout HD in 3D, 30FPS at 720p.

It's not crazy to hope that after half a decade we could get twice the frames at twice the res.

#16 Posted by mnzy (2914 posts) -

@AlexW00d said:

@FluxWaveZ said:

@AuthenticM said:

This is the bare minimum they need to achieve. Anything less and I'll be disappointed. It'll have been eight long years since this generation started, if next-gen consoles are released next year. We need a massive jump in graphical power.

...in 3D? Can normal gaming PCs even do that?

Of course they can. All you need for 3D is double the frames, so in this case 120.

And you only need slightly better hardware, since both viewing points are nearly identical.

#17 Posted by Rapid (1367 posts) -

Likely not. From the hardware, I can't see Sony using a high end video card without the price of the console to be $799 like the original PS3 release.

Developers will also have to get used to developing for the new generation of consoles, It also depends on how well game engine and how well it will support it. How much modifications to engine is required in order to be able to render it. Possibly some games later in this new console's life will have as you say, 60 FPS and 3D.

#18 Posted by Th3_James (2578 posts) -

I'll stick with my pc 2560x1600 @60 fps. I don't need and or want 3D

#19 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1605 posts) -

Anyone with a basic knowledge of how game development works (hell, how computers work) must have been left scratching their head at this line:

The dev kits are apparently based on the AMD’s A10 APU series and come with either 8GB or 16GB of RAM, as well as the Blu-ray drive already mentioned and a 256GB hard drive as standard. This is to ensure that the console will be able to run 1080p60 games in 3D.

Hardware doesn't ensure stuff runs at 1080p -- software does. The PS3 can already run 3D games at 1080p and 60 frames a second. This is not a hardware limitation that adding more RAM, a bigger CPU, or a hard drive(?) fixes. Sure, faster hardware will make it easier to hit that target without giving up too much graphically, but that's not what that sentence says. Also, where's the GPU (arguably the most important part of the equation) in that list?

Running stuff at 1080p60 is all about trade-offs -- putting out more frames more often means less CPU and GPU power to put towards effects, polygons, etc. Unless Sony's planning on making some big changes to the way they handle game certification, third parties can do whatever they want, and that could mean putting out games that barely hit 30 and run at 720p or lower.

The larger issue here is that we're discussing a regurgitated rumour from a site whose prime directive seems to be to post as much stuff as possible. That it's a half-assed rumour (or at least half-assedly reported) makes it even worse.

Also, what?

This is apparently the second iteration of the dev kit; the first, which appeared earlier this year, was in essence just a graphics card, while this version is now a "modified PC".
#20 Posted by mikey87144 (1775 posts) -

I thought that sounded too pie in the sky.

@GrantHeaslip: IGN had more concrete statements but I've been seeing stuff about the next playstation the last couple of days.

#21 Posted by Tru3_Blu3 (3205 posts) -

When will people understand that games later on are going to have to lower that resolution and frame-rate just to get better looking to run?

#22 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (2775 posts) -

Rather then get dragged into a "this is what this site said" discussion we can actually just theorize that the answer is, yes. If PS3 can do 3D at a lower res at 30 fps, then the Orbis should be able to do achieve 1080p @ 60 fps in 3D. It might even achieve that so easily that the system will do quite a bit more. Asking for 1080p fast 3D is not really a huge step, so both MS and Sony will probably achieve 1080p @ 60 fps in 3D and might even pipe higher fidelity to screens that can display 2,560 x 1,440 resolution. We won't know real world numbers for a year, but ist seems very likely.

#23 Edited by WilltheMagicAsian (1545 posts) -

Are you sure the 60 FPS is pertaining to 3D? 1080p60 to me, is exactly that, 1920x1080 at 60 FPS. The 3D will probably be dropped to 30 FPS.

This is to ensure that the console will be able to run 1080p60 games in 3D.

This line sounds like they just want the games they already have running at 60 FPS on 1920x1080 to be playable in 3D.

#24 Posted by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

@mikey87144: It is possible. I think what most people fail to understand is that a current generation console can run a game in 1080p60fps in 3D they just choose to focus on improving graphical fidelity in other ways. You can run Sly 3 HD at those settings right now. The question developers face is whether it is more important to run at a higher resolution and framerate or push more graphical bells and whistles. In the end 1080p won't make much of a difference in a living room setting. As long as they hit 720p for all games they will be fine in most cases. Other aspects of the graphics are much more important than resolution when you are talking about a distance of more than a couple yards. Superior lighting, texture work, alpha effects, animation, and anti-aliasing all are more important to making a good looking game than a 1080p resolution. Running Battlefield 3 on a PC in a living room you will barely notice the difference between 720p and 1080p, but you will sure notice the difference between the Low(console) settings and the Ultra settings. Barely any PC in the world can run a complex DX11 game at highest settings. Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, even Batman Arkham City, require a huge amount of power to run in DX11. Put those settings on a next gen console and running in 1080p will likely be out of the question, at least for a while until developers have really mastered the hardware. Basically, my point is, compare Sly 3 HD to Uncharted 3. One runs at your settings, one runs at 720p at 30 fps. I'd rather a game look as good as Uncharted and run in 720p than have a game look like Sly 3 and run in 1080p.

#25 Posted by Jams (2961 posts) -

@WilltheMagicAsian said:

Are you sure the 60 FPS is pertaining to 3D? 1080p60 to me, is exactly that, 1920x1080 at 60 FPS. The 3D will probably be dropped to 30 FPS.

This is to ensure that the console will be able to run 1080p60 games in 3D.

This line sounds like they just want the games they already have running at 60 FPS on 1920x1080 to be playable in 3D.

If the rumors are true, then that is exactly it. It's either 1080p @ 60FPS or 3D @ 30FPS. That makes sense since you have to render the image twice for 3D so the FPS would drop by half right?

#26 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

Is it weird that I think it's weird that Sony still apparently cares about 3D?

#27 Posted by wafflestomp (249 posts) -

Of course they care about 3D, they are trying to push televisions as well. I picked up the Monitor for $100 and it is now my computer monitor as well. It's really nice.

Moderator

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.