PS5 - a patent dive into what might be the tech behind Sony's SSD customisations

[Remij 4,687]

Just now, lynux3 said:

That was quick. 

Guy got questioned by someone in the know and couldn't answer anything.. tried to play it off as if he wasn't a programmer and wouldn't know.  Then he promptly deleted his account after  

[JonDnD 2,644]

6 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

There is a point.  The point is not to own a bunch of fucking stupid consoles  

No point to pay 2000 dollars to have slightly more detailed textures . PC gaming is only better because 60fps .

If consoles do 60 for most games PC is an expensive waste 

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

3 minutes ago, JONBpc said:

No point to pay 2000 dollars to have slightly more detailed textures . PC gaming is only better because 60fps .

If consoles do 60 for most games PC is an expensive waste 

In before the goalpost shift to 144 FPS. 

[Remij 4,687]

1 minute ago, JONBpc said:

No point to pay 2000 dollars to have slightly more detailed textures . PC gaming is only better because 60fps .

If consoles do 60 for most games PC is an expensive waste 

For the average person, I don't disagree.

[Remij 4,687]

1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

In before the goalpost shift to 144 FPS. 

Unfortunately for you, that's a completely valid goalpost.  60fps gaming doesn't even compare anywhere close to 100+ fps.

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

Just now, Remij_ said:

Unfortunately for you, that's a completely valid goalpost.  60fps gaming doesn't even compare anywhere close to 100+ fps.

Which is why you're so up your own ass with RTX gloating about how you've hit the 60 FPS threshold. It's a convenient thing for you to shift when you feel necessary. 

[lynux3 2,107]

Personally for me, 60fps is more than sufficient for 99% of the games that come out these days. Let's be real though, console games are going to continue to be 30fps or 60fps, mostly the former. I'm okay with that. 

[Remij 4,687]

11 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Which is why you're so up your own ass with RTX gloating about how you've hit the 60 FPS threshold. It's a convenient thing for you to shift when you feel necessary. 

Uh, what?  ROFL.  You think I don't think 60fps is acceptable?  Stop being a fucking idiot dude.  The simple fact is this.  At one time 1080p was acceptable and amazing, wasn't it?  Now 1080p seems ugly and low res.  With fpsl, it's the same thing.  As GPUs get better, that 60fps RTX will eventually turn into 100fps.  PC doesn't stand still.  The better the hardware you buy, the better the experience in all games.  If I have a 144hz monitor.. of course games that run 100+fps are better than the same fucking game running at 60fps... duh...  If a new game comes out and runs at 60fps with the absolute best and most demanding gfx... then that's great too... but that same game WOULD be better at 100+ fps..

 

Just because I CAN run games at 100fps doesn't mean that I always want to.  Sometimes visuals are worth sacrificing framerate for.  Other times they are not.  But there's absolutely NO denying 100+ fps gaming is better than 60fps gaming.

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

1 minute ago, Remij_ said:

Uh, what?  ROFL.  You think I don't think 60fps is acceptable?  Stop being a fucking idiot dude.  The simple fact is this.  As GPUs get better, that 60fps RTX will eventually turn into 100fps.  PC doesn't stand still.  The better the hardware you buy, the better the experience in all games.  If I have a 144hz monitor.. of course games that run 100+fps are better than the same fucking game running at 60fps... duh...  If a new game comes out and runs at 60fps with the absolute best and most demanding gfx... then that's great too... but that same game WOULD be better at 100+ fps..

 

Just because I CAN run games at 100fps doesn't mean that I always want to.  Sometimes visuals are worth sacrificing framerate for.  Other times they are not.  But there's absolutely NO denying 100+ fps gaming is better than 60fps gaming.

To be completely honest unless you're playing an online shooter with netcode reliant on an exceedingly high framerate for outbound network traffic everything beyond 60 FPS is basically irrelevant. 

[Remij 4,687]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

To be completely honest unless you're playing an online shooter with netcode reliant on an exceedingly high framerate for outbound network traffic everything beyond 60 FPS is basically irrelevant. 

People used to say we didn't need more that 1080p too... 

 

Cmon dude, your argument has holes everywhere.  

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

1 minute ago, Remij_ said:

People used to say we didn't need more that 1080p too... 

 

Cmon dude, your argument has holes everywhere.  

What people? There's not holes, it's wholly unnecessary unless required for networking reasons or for competitive purposes.

 

You don't need 100+ FPS in Dark Souls, you don't need 100+ FPS in Forza Horizon, you don't need 100+ FPS in Battlefield. 

 

It's a largely irrelevant metric that has limited real viability. 

[lynux3 2,107]

4 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

People used to say we didn't need more that 1080p too... 

 

Cmon dude, your argument has holes everywhere.  

You did say something similar about 4K.

Edited May 26, 2019 by lynux3

[Remij 4,687]

1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

What people? There's not holes, it's wholly unnecessary unless required for networking reasons or for competitive purposes.

 

You don't need 100+ FPS in Dark Souls, you don't need 100+ FPS in Forza Horizon, you don't need 100+ FPS in Battlefield. 

 

It's a largely irrelevant metric that has limited real viability. 

You don't need 60 either...

 

 

[Remij 4,687]

3 minutes ago, lynux3 said:

You did say something similar about 4K.

Yea, with regards to the visual quality vs performance payoff.  The human eye can only see so much detail and persistence in motion.  4K is very noticeable improvement over 1080p.

 

After 4K with high quality TAA, you're wasting visual improvement at the expense of performance.  Performance is always paramount.

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

1 minute ago, Remij_ said:

You don't need 60 either...

 

 

You actually do because input and response at 30 FPS is arguably unacceptable although tolerable, the same cannot be said at 60. 

[Remij 4,687]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

You actually do because input and response at 30 FPS is arguably unacceptable although tolerable, the same cannot be said at 60. 

Yes it can  

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

1 minute ago, Remij_ said:

Yes it can  

No it absolutely cannot you filthy casual. 

[Remij 4,687]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

No it absolutely cannot you filthy casual. 

rofl.. dude.. yes. it. can!

 

If consoles consistently output games at 60fps for years, and then some game comes and was 30fps only... people would TRASH it.  It wouldn't be acceptable.  Once 60 becomes the norm... then anything less is BAD.  On PC.. playing pretty much ANY game... I can feel the difference between 60 and 100+ fps.  It's easily noticeable in both responsiveness and smoothness.  After playing lots of games at 90-100+ fps, 60 feels worse.  That's just a fact.  But when games are visually raising the bar... it's a valid trade off as 60fps still feels responsive and smooth, considering the visuals...

 

Do I think 60 is acceptable, of course.  Is it ideal for consoles, absolutely.  I don't see the need for over 60fps on consoles.  The input response improvement would be lost on a shitty inaccurate control type (controllers) as well as TV latencies.  60fps is fine for consoles.. but on PC 100+ fps feels incredible.  Much better.

 

 

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

If it goes below 60FPS I just toss it out a window and start over

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

7 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

rofl.. dude.. yes. it. can!

 

If consoles consistently output games at 60fps for years, and then some game comes and was 30fps only... people would TRASH it.  It wouldn't be acceptable.  Once 60 becomes the norm... then anything less is BAD.  On PC.. playing pretty much ANY game... I can feel the difference between 60 and 100+ fps.  It's easily noticeable in both responsiveness and smoothness.  After playing lots of games at 90-100+ fps, 60 feels worse.  That's just a fact.  But when games are visually raising the bar... it's a valid trade off as 60fps still feels responsive and smooth, considering the visuals...

 

Do I think 60 is acceptable, of course.  Is it ideal for consoles, absolutely.  I don't see the need for over 60fps on consoles.  The input response improvement would be lost on a shitty inaccurate control type (controllers) as well as TV latencies.  60fps is fine for consoles.. but on PC 100+ fps feels incredible.  Much better.

 

 

You contradicted your own logic because you're trying to associate perceptible latency with higher framerate and then go on to say 60 FPS is fine on consoles because of response time on TV's yet that would intrinsically work against them because you would be compounding more latency at 60 FPS vs. say 100 FPS with the latency of the television. This logic would necessitate a higher framerate would be better suited on a console as to not further bolster the accompanied latency from the TV.

 

Above 60 you gain better optics, the fidelity of motion is increased, you get more visual information but you don't gain perceptibly better control, from 30 to 60 you do. 

Edited May 26, 2019 by DynamiteCop!