Next Gen consoles may have Ultrawide support

[holtert]

Philips has just teased a new 34" Ultrawide monitor specifically designed for consoles, quoting

Quote

'Take Your Console Gaming Experience to the next level'

 

 

The Monitor boasts a 1440p resolution @ 144hz with 4ms (1ms  /w motion blur) response time.

 

Although no official confirmation has been released, earlier in the year, Samsung contacted PC GamesN 

Quote

'pushing Microsoft for Ultrawide support'

 

 

With no current ultrawide support (nor 144hz support) for current consoles, we can assume this monitor is for the upcoming PS5 or Series X. It seems Microsoft listened to Samsung.

 

From

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/72071/philips-teases-new-ultrawide-monitors-ready-for-next-gen-consoles/index.html

[AndreiArgeanu]

I mean I guess that's great but let's be honest, 99% of people will be playing on a flat screen since I've never heard anyone complain regarding the xbox one or ps4 lacking ultra wide support. Though I am curious how it will be implemented in games, it may lead to the developer having to do extra work for games to scale properly to ultra wide.

[The_russian]

13 minutes ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

I've never heard anyone complain regarding the xbox one or ps4 lacking ultra wide support

I have, but only because I'm one of those people and was looking into it. There are people that would like it, but it is a very small number of people. I think if the consoles do end up supporting 144Hz that would be more important for people than the UltraWide support. 

[holtert]

56 minutes ago, The_russian said:

I have, but only because I'm one of those people and was looking into it. There are people that would like it, but it is a very small number of people. I think if the consoles do end up supporting 144Hz that would be more important for people than the UltraWide support. 

Anything over 120hz is overkill for consoles.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

Philips is delusional if they think consoles can run 1440p 144Hz

The next gen ones might be in certain games. 

[IAcKI]

6 minutes ago, comander said:

The PS5 and XBSX have 2080Ti class GPUs and 3700x class CPUs. 

 

There's enough horsepower there to run many titles at that level. Remember the XB1 and PS4 have variants that target 4K30 and the next gen of consoles is roughly 5x as powerful. 

Where have you heard that? More like equivalent to 1080ti/2070.

 

https://world-today-news.com/in-the-unreal-engine-5-editor-on-a-mobile-geforce-rtx-2080-the-demo-produces-up-to-40-fps-in-1440p-gambling/

 

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/unreal_engine_5_s_tech_demo_can_run_on_an_rtx_2070_super_with_nvme_storage/1

Edited May 20, 2020 by IAcKI
Added another source

[3rrant]

1 minute ago, huilun02 said:

Seems Philips is not the only one that is delusional...

With just dynamic resolution you can easily achieve pretty much any performance target you want, fact is it's up to the developer what target that is and people just plain don't care about FPS anyway.

[holtert]

36 minutes ago, IAcKI said:

Where have you heard that? More like equivalent to 1080ti/2070.

 

https://world-today-news.com/in-the-unreal-engine-5-editor-on-a-mobile-geforce-rtx-2080-the-demo-produces-up-to-40-fps-in-1440p-gambling/

 

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/unreal_engine_5_s_tech_demo_can_run_on_an_rtx_2070_super_with_nvme_storage/1

Are you saying a 1080ti/1070 cannot run 1440p @ 144hz? Also, the 10 series does not have raytracing, so you can't compare.

[IAcKI]

Just now, holtert said:

That can still run 1440p @ 120 fps

I'm not disputing that. Just disputing the claim that the new consoles will be equivalent to 2080Ti's

[holtert]

1 minute ago, IAcKI said:

I'm not disputing that. Just disputing the claim that the new consoles will be equivalent to 2080Ti's

I agree. not 2080ti level - but not 1080ti either.

[dizmo]

Really nice monitor, hopefully they price it competitively. Between the stand and plethora of inputs, it'd make a great next monitor, though I wish they'd pushed it a little further to 35".

 

3 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Philips is delusional if they think consoles can run 1440p 144Hz

So many things wrong with that statement. Games on a console don't run at "Ultra", so it's not hard to hit higher frame rates. It's also a new generation of consoles, so performance will be significantly higher than what we have now. On top of that, you don't have to max out the frame rate to see an improvement over 60hz.

 

It's not just for consoles. Why wouldn't they put the best refresh in it they can?

[holtert]

20 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Really nice monitor, hopefully they price it competitively. Between the stand and plethora of inputs, it'd make a great next monitor, though I wish they'd pushed it a little further to 35".

 

So many things wrong with that statement. Games on a console don't run at "Ultra", so it's not hard to hit higher frame rates. It's also a new generation of consoles, so performance will be significantly higher than what we have now. On top of that, you don't have to max out the frame rate to see an improvement over 60hz.

 

It's not just for consoles. Why wouldn't they put the best refresh in it they can?

exactly. you can't market a gaming monitor very well if it is say, 120hz or 100hz. At best, it's a marketing move.

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, holtert said:

Are you saying a 1080ti/1070 cannot run 1440p @ 144hz?

Are you saying they can?

[suicidalfranco]

55 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Are you saying they can?

of curse they can, just have to tune down some useless stuff from max

[Master Disaster]

31 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

of curse they can, just have to tune down some useless stuff from max

1080ti sure, 1070 not so much. 1070 is a 1440p 60FPS card and as time goes on even achieving that gets harder and harder as game complexity increases. To make a 1070 run something like RDR 2 at 1440p 144FPS you'd need to turn EVERYTHING off/down and even then I still don't think it would manage it.

 

My guess for the PS5 is something around 5600XT levels of performance but with the new SSD tech to help it out. As for the Xbox, honestly have no idea.

 

Realistically 1440p 144FPS will probably do doable (at least on PS5) but at the sacrifice of a lot of visual fidelity. Lets be honest though, why would you even want 144FPS on your console anyway? If you're playing twitch shooters on gamepad you're doing it wrong so the only time I can think of where it might be useful is in racing games. For third person games, RTS games, sports games and MOBAs having 144FPS will have no benefit to the player at all.

[LAwLz]

35 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

of curse they can, just have to tune down some useless stuff from max

Way too many people just crank the settings up to max in a game. I am sure the PS5 or XBSX will be able to do 1440p at 144Hz in modern games. It's just that it won't be at max settings.

Here are the PC equivalent settings Red Dead Redemption 2 runs at on the Xbox One X.

 

 

 

You can get like 40% higher performance at 10% loss in visual fidelity when you tweak the settings. That's what consoles do really well, and it will keep happening with the new generation of consoles.

[suicidalfranco]

56 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

1080ti sure, 1070 not so much. 1070 is a 1440p 60FPS card and as time goes on even achieving that gets harder and harder as game complexity increases. To make a 1070 run something like RDR 2 at 1440p 144FPS you'd need to turn EVERYTHING off/down and even then I still don't think it would manage it.

 

My guess for the PS5 is something around 5600XT levels of performance but with the new SSD tech to help it out. As for the Xbox, honestly have no idea.

 

Realistically 1440p 144FPS will probably do doable (at least on PS5) but at the sacrifice of a lot of visual fidelity. Lets be honest though, why would you even want 144FPS on your console anyway? If you're playing twitch shooters on gamepad you're doing it wrong so the only time I can think of where it might be useful is in racing games. For third person games, RTS games, sports games and MOBAs having 144FPS will have no benefit to the player at all.

Because as shown by Linus multiple times now higher framerates makes a bigger difference to the experience than the resolution when you start going higher than fhd.

I'd for one would like to see console push 1080p@(higher than)60fps than target 4k.

But alas, we still have to deal with the likes Ubisoft keeping the 30fps base alive. So yeah, another gen i might skip if it becomes a standard again

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

Because as shown by Linus multiple times now higher framerates makes a bigger difference to the experience than the resolution when you start going higher than fhd.

I'd for one would like to see console push 1080p@(higher than)60fps than target 4k.

But alas, we still have to deal with the likes Ubisoft keeping the 30fps base alive. So yeah, another gen i might skip if it becomes a standard again

The game they tested was CSGO and as I said, nobody plays competitive FPS games on a console. High FPS is the domain of competitive twitch shooters and you don't play shooters on a console using a pad in a competition. Heck having high FPS when all you have to control movement is an analogue stick is pointless even in shooters, the reason its so good on PC is because of the mouse.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having more choices but honestly, 144FPS on a Playstation seems pointless.

[suicidalfranco]

6 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

The game they tested was CSGO and as I said, nobody plays competitive FPS games on a console. High FPS is the domain of competitive twitch shooters and you don't play shooters on a console using a pad in a competition. Heck having high FPS when all you have to control movement is an analogue stick is pointless even in shooters, the reason its so good on PC is because of the mouse.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having more choices but honestly, 144FPS on a Playstation seems pointless.

no, higher fps make every genre of gaming flat out better. It can be used in far more scenarios than just twitch shooters or competitive games

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

no, higher fps make every genre of gaming flat out better. It can be used in far more scenarios than just twitch shooters or competitive games

How does having a high FPS help out when playing Fifa? Uncharted? TLOU? Civilisation? There's a difference between something feeling nice for the user and something being beneficial in the game.

[suicidalfranco]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

How does having a high FPS help out when playing Fifa? Uncharted? TLOU? Civilisation? There's a difference between something feeling nice for the user and something being beneficial in the game.

makes the game more fluid, more pleasing to look at and follow, and feels more natural when interacting with elements in the game.

It is beneficial to the game. Or should all games that aren't played with a mouse and aren't a shooter be capped at 30 fps because they are not competitive and that way they'll feel "more cinematic" as ubisoft likes to state

[Doobeedoo]

Hm interesting. Never been into ultrawides. Though what was always odd to me is that TVs didn't start having 21:9 offerings before monitors, especially them being more for movies. 

[Master Disaster]

5 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

makes the game more fluid, more pleasing to look at and follow, and feels more natural when interacting with elements in the game.

It is beneficial to the game. Or should all games that aren't played with a mouse and aren't a shooter be capped at 30 fps because they are not competitive and that way they'll feel "more cinematic" as ubisoft likes to state

No but there is obviously a point of diminishing return, especially when the player is holding a pad with sticks and not a mouse. Also I didn't say beneficial to the game, I said beneficial to the player in the game. There is no gameplay benefit to running anything beyond 60FPS on you're Playstation in the vast majority of cases.

 

If you're sacrificing the look of the game in order to get more FPS simply because you can and with no benefit then , as I said, it's pointless. It's a nice option to have but it still has no benefit.

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

I said beneficial to the player in the game.

 

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

makes the game more fluid, more pleasing to look at and follow, and feels more natural when interacting with elements in the game

these sound like big enough benefits to me

[Master Disaster]

6 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

these sound like big enough benefits to me

Player enjoyment of the experience =/= In game benefit.

 

Twitch shooters need high FPS because it allows them to hit targets quicker than players without it. Everyone else just wants it because they see the pros all using it and think its required. IT ISN'T.

 

Again, in the vast majority of cases having 144FPS over 60FPS will give the player no IN GAME benefit.

 

If people enjoy running high FPS then that's fine, at no point have a said they shouldn't have that choice.