Michael Pachter confirms he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about, claims PS5 will be capable of 4K @ 240FPS

[Master Disaster]

2 hours ago, Spotty said:

Looking at that and his wording he definitely does appear to be suggesting the next gen xbox will do 4K [at] 240 FPS. Whether intended to or not, he ties the framerate to the resolution and reinforces that connection by comparing it to 1080p 60FPS, and refers to it as the "next generation" of 4K implying that it is different & improved from current generation 4k (30/60FPS).

His comments from the discussion with Gamingbolt last week didn't tie the framerate to the resolution, merely lists features that it would have which would imply 4K or 240FPS features, however these comments from the youtube video link the FPS and resolution together and using this as context you could assume that when he was discussing the PS5 with Gamingbolt he did indeed mean to describe it as 4K at 240FPS.

I've messaged him on twitter asking him to clarify what he meant, so I'll be interested to see if he responds.

I believe that question has already been answered. It was recently announced that the new DP protocol supports 4K at upto 240FPS. It seems as though he's seen that and assumed it means thats what the consoles are capable of.

[JoostinOnline]

15 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I believe that question has already been answered. It was recently announced that the new DP protocol supports 4K at upto 240FPS. It seems as though he's seen that and assumed it means thats what the consoles are capable of.

No. What he said is accurate. You've just assumed he meant 4k @ 240fps, and misquoted him. You're spreading false information.

[kilgore_T]

but will it have a disc drive?

[Syntaxvgm]

30 minutes ago, kilgore_T said:

but will it have a disc drive?

It'll use these 

 

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, JoostinOnline said:

No. What he said is accurate. You've just assumed he meant 4k @ 240fps, and misquoted him. You're spreading false information.

Or what the guy said was deliberately misleading to make sure the comment got noticed. That's still entirely possible.

[Master Disaster]

4 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

No. What he said is accurate. You've just assumed he meant 4k @ 240fps, and misquoted him. You're spreading false information.

Or he did mean exactly what I thought and you're the one that is wrong. Either scenario is just as likely.

[JoostinOnline]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Or he did mean exactly what I thought and you're the one that is wrong. Either scenario is just as likely.

No, that's incredibly unlikely. Even if he does thing that, the thread title is false. He didn't say "at".

[vanished]

lol they'll be lucky to get 4K@60 FPS, and even then it won't hit that res and/or that framerate in all games.  To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be surprised to see them target 8K30 instead.  Game devs for console seem obsessed with higher resolution that the device can't even actually achieve (see checkerboard and other tech like it) that no one even notices anyway rather than devoting the performance toward frame rate that actually makes a huge difference in the experience.  If they do, expect it to actually be 4K30 upscaled.

[Brooksie359]

On 12/30/2018 at 10:05 AM, Master Disaster said:

You're preaching to the choir, I fully understand this concept. Unfortunately the non technical people reading about this probably won't understand the difference as is proven by the fact the article I quoted from literally states the PS5 can do 4K @ 240fps.

 

If you're so sure he didn't mean 4K @ 240 then care to explain why he separated the terms with a space when talking about Xbox but used the word and when talking about Sony? I mean he obviously felt the need to separate the terms for one console which proves he understands the difference between the terms. Why separate for Microsoft but not for Sony?

 

If someone said to you "my PC can do 4K and 240fps" how exactly would you interpret that sentence? I know what it would mean to me.

Yep everyone does an in depth analysis of what they are going to say before they say it. I mean sometimes people even vary the way they say things because it sounds less reptive. There are many reason why they would change the way they said it even though they meant the same thing. I mean do you really think they meant 4k 240 fps? There isn't a display that I know of that can do 4k 240hz. Last I checked the best you can get is 4k 144hz and that is with color compression. 

[Brooksie359]

12 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

lol they'll be lucky to get 4K@60 FPS, and even then it won't hit that res and/or that framerate in all games.  To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be surprised to see them target 8K30 instead.  Game devs for console seem obsessed with higher resolution that the device can't even actually achieve (see checkerboard and other tech like it) that no one even notices anyway rather than devoting the performance toward frame rate that actually makes a huge difference in the experience.  If they do, expect it to actually be 4K30 upscaled.

The cpus in consoles aren't very good for reaching high fps. I believe that is the reason why they decided to focus on high res because it can leverage the gpu power they do have. When they start making consoles based on Zen it will change that and I expect they will shoot for high refresh rate gaming. 

[vanished]

7 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

The cpus in consoles aren't very good for reaching high fps. I believe that is the reason why they decided to focus on high res because it can leverage the gpu power they do have. When they start making consoles based on Zen it will change that and I expect they will shoot for high refresh rate gaming. 

I feel like if that was a priority they would have made sure to get hardware that can do it rather than just taking what they got, as if they had no control over it, and saying "well I guess we have to design to fit this now".  I think there just isn't a desire for it.  Slowly, I think that is improving but it's been like this for so long, I don't expect any appreciable change for a while yet still.  Who knows, maybe VR will change that as it will force them to hit 90+ fps, but I'm not sure there's much demand for that either.

[GoldenLag]

5 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

When they start making consoles based on Zen it will change that and I expect they will shoot for high refresh rate gaming. 

Doubt it. TV displays are likely to max at 90-100-120hz as going above makes little sence. They will most likely target 60hz maximum for now. 

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I feel like if that was a priority they would have made sure to get hardware that can do it rather than just taking what they got, as if they had no control over it, and saying "well I guess we have to design to fit this now".  I think there just isn't a desire for it.  Slowly, I think that is improving but it's been like this for so long, I don't expect any appreciable change for a while yet still.  Who knows, maybe VR will change that as it will force them to hit 90+ fps, but I'm not sure there's much demand for that either.

They are console makers. They are absolutely limited on what they can put into their console mostly due to cost concerns. If they weren't then they could just build an Intel machine with an nvidia gpu and go for high refresh rate gaming. 

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

Doubt it. TV displays are likely to max at 90-100-120hz as going above makes little sence. They will most likely target 60hz maximum for now. 

They are competing against each other so if one doesn't do it and the other one does than it will make a significant impact. There is a pretty good chance that they will have a highrefreshrate mode and a normal 60fps mode. 

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

They are console makers. They are absolutely limited on what they can put into their console mostly due to cost concerns. If they weren't then they could just build an Intel machine with an nvidia gpu and go for high refresh rate gaming. 

The game's changing a bit now with both Intel and AMD making massive changes to their lineups, but for a long while it was Intel basically standing alone.  The alternative was FX, which was delivering only a fraction of the single-threaded performance for the same money, and in a time when games never used more than 4 cores, thus made no sense for gaming and yet afaik all the consoles used either those chips, or something else like it (not like it in terms of arch but in terms of not being Intel when it could have been).

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

The game's changing a bit now with both Intel and AMD making massive changes to their lineups, but for a long while it was Intel basically standing alone.  The alternative was FX, which was delivering only a fraction of the single-threaded performance for the same money, and in a time when games never used more than 4 cores, thus made no sense for gaming and yet afaik all the consoles used either those chips, or something else like it (not like it in terms of arch but in terms of not being Intel when it could have been).

Again if an Intel and nvidia solution was the same price they would have gone for it but that wasn't the case. 

[GoldenLag]

5 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

They are competing against each other so if one doesn't do it and the other one does than it will make a significant impact. There is a pretty good chance that they will have a highrefreshrate mode and a normal 60fps mode. 

They will both use very similar hardware since AMD is their supplier. They might go higher, but graphical limitations say that will be for very specific titles, or VR as previusly mentioned in this thread.

 

These consoles will last for a few years and if they can get more graphical fidelity without dropping fps over time, they will do so

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Again if an Intel and nvidia solution was the same price they would have gone for it but that wasn't the case. 

Well that's the thing, it would have been, at least looking at the normal consumer prices.  Perhaps behind the scenes AMD likes to cut these companies a much larger discount than Intel would have offered.  That or they just made a bad choice.  Remember that's always possible Never assume everyone behaves logically, because they don't.

[GoldenLag]

 

13 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

They are console makers. They are absolutely limited on what they can put into their console mostly due to cost concerns. If they weren't then they could just build an Intel machine with an nvidia gpu and go for high refresh rate gaming. 

Its not nice to relly on 2 suppliers for parts. Also AMD Locked themselves as console supplier for at least another 3 years, meaning they have had the time to prove they are good supplier of such hardware while asking low margins themselves

[Brooksie359]

20 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well that's the thing, it would have been, at least looking at the normal consumer prices.  Perhaps behind the scenes AMD likes to cut these companies a much larger discount than Intel would have offered.  That or they just made a bad choice.  Remember that's always possible Never assume everyone behaves logically, because they don't.

Oh there is no doubt that AMD made the better price offer. 

[Spotty]

17 hours ago, Spotty said:

I've messaged him on twitter asking him to clarify what he meant, so I'll be interested to see if he responds. 

Shoutout to @michaelpachter for taking the time to respond to my twitter message.

 

Quote

240 fps at 1080p and 60 fps at 4k. I don't think I was very clear in the interview. No need to beef it up so fast for 4k, nobody would pay for the GPU.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Spotty
Added quote box

[ZacoAttaco]

10 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Shoutout to @michaelpachter for taking the time to respond to my twitter message.

Well, that makes more sense. Much more sense. I think he should have been more clear originally though. It'd be pretty easy to confuse what he was saying.

[Dylanc1500]

Man, people jump to conclusions so quickly. If your conclusion doesn't make sense, then you should probably take a step back and think of the other possibilities.

[Syntaxvgm]

49 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

Man, people jump to conclusions so quickly. If your conclusion doesn't make sense, then you should probably take a step back and think of the other possibilities.

I thought so too, but keep this in mind statements like this are what people are used to, was my wallpaper for a time. 

[ZacoAttaco]

52 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

I thought so too, but keep this in mind statements like this are what people are used to, was my wallpaper for a time.

Makes me cringe