Is the power of the Xbox One X being wasted on 4k?

Well the title poses the question and I have to say, I think the power of the X.B.O.X is being wasted on the chase for 4k.

Rather than 4k and 30 frames per second as the standard, outside those handful of Microsoft first party games that will manage 4k 60fps of course, wouldn't developers be better of aiming for a rock solid 60 frames per second at 1440p or 1080p.

Perhaps I am alone here but I think that 60 frames per second would provide a better gameplay experience and bumping up to 1440p would also provide a visual improvement.

So what do you guys think? Should I be hungry for the 4k revolution or are frames per second what I should be using to sate myself.

:)

 

Unable yo updrage My new Xbox one x

What do you mean by the service being unavailable? Are you in the initial setup stage when you first power on the Xbox One X?

Is your Xbox One X successfully connected to the internet? The
Xbox Live server status appears to be fine (at the time of this posting).

 

Is the Xbox One worth buying in 2018/2019?

Is the Xbox One worth buying? Yes it is, whichever version you decide to go for. At the minimum I admit I would go for the Xbox One S, which has the 4k media capabilities of its younger X sibling though not its gaming prowess.

However I feel the need to warn against paying the extra for the Xbox One X. Games aren't made for it, they are made for the first Xbox One and 'enhanced' for the X. This essentially means that so much of the X's power is wasted on graphical frippery, those
things that you really aren't going to notice when you are playing.

My suggestion would be to get the Xbox One S. It's future proof for media consumption and every game the X gets will also be available, though at 30fps and 1080p.

 

Putting 60 frames per second on every game is a bit of a waste. I mean 60 fps on a multiplayer shooter is definitely needed, as well as racing games, but on a game like Tombraider or Halo Wars, you really don't need 60 fps.

How about we let the developers decide what they want the game to run at.

 

There isn't any "chase".

Once you play a game in native 4K you won't want to go back. FPS be damned. IMO.

 

I don't see how 60 frames per second in every game would be a waste at all. You mention Tomb Raider, so I'll go with that. 60fps can make a world of difference in the game, it feels more responsive just moving Lara and aiming is a easier.

Sure you don't need 60fps in Tomb Raider but it sure makes it a smoother experience.

In a world (said in my best movie announcer voice) where gameplay is king, I just find it odd that visual fidelity is the priority over something that aids gameplay far more.

Then we would have nothing to discuss here if that was the line of thinking everyone employed, it is after all a comment intended to stop discussion instead of facilite it. An odd line of thinking to have on a discussion forum I think.

 

Yes, but by the same token, playing Tomb Raider @30fps is just as smooth (at least on Xbox One, as we don't have the supercharged option). Saying that, I'm a Lara fan from waaay back... her first game was actually designed for the "underpowered" (by 3D conventions)
Sega Saturn circa 1996. It only got a speed bump when crossing lanes to the PlayStation family, and that trend continues today (witness both Tomb Raider games @60fps on PS4).

If 4k gaming really *was* the be all and end all of this generation, then I wouldn't have hesitated to preorder both the One X and a new 4k panel. But that's a hefty chunk of change purely for the benefit of 'moar' pixels! I don't necessarily want or need
better resolution when I could have, say, a 60fps optimized speed boost if I'm prepared to forego a fancy new flatscreen. I was sitting on the fence until E3, when I hoped and prayed there'd be a reason to replace my beautiful One S. There wasn't. If, for
example, there was a spiffy new TOMB RAIDER game to showcase all of them pixels, I *wouldn't* have hesitated. Day one!

Instead, I've continued to sit on the fence until one of the platform holders dazzled me with something I could get my head and heart around. And yep, that's a speed boost by default, running on superior hardware, with *my* choice of color for that platform.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, Sony just announced a new Glacier White 1TB Pro yesterday... and today I preordered it! Does 4k matter to me when I'm more than happy with 2k on my current screen? The answer is: nope. I'd sooner have a clutch of brand new platform
exclusives than bragging rights for pixels. #SadButTrue

 

Well playing Tomb Raider at 30 frames per second can certainly be a great experience. I certainly thought so when playing it on the 360. Then I had the opportunity to play the game on a friend's PC and the difference in control was night and day (and I was
using a wired 360 controller to play it.) It's the same game but just feels better to play.

I have started playing the Definitive Edition on my Xbox One and yes it is still the same great game that it was, going back to that 30 frames per second though is noticeable. It just doesn't feel as good.

I have the Saturn version of Tomb Raider, the receipt still taped inside from when I bought it all those years ago.

So the big push for 4k seems odd for me when the BIG complaint about the Xbox One wasn't on how the games looked but the frame rate at which the games ran.

4k is the new 3D that TV manufacturers are pushing in order to sell new units.

 

Not so sure I'd agree the tipping point between platforms has been framerate, as the majority of complaints have been leveled at the 900/1080p divide (Xbox vs PS). What's worth remembering is that a good number of Xbox "exclusives" already have that optimal
60fps locked in - be it *every* Forza game, Gears of War Ultimate, Halo MC Collection, Halo 5 Guardians. Pretty sure Gears 4 was 30 in singleplayer and 60 multi, but for the most part you're looking at respectable numbers across the board.

The whole 'resolutiongate' drama continues apace whenever there's a new multiplat, and not even the mighty Destiny 2 running on *both* iterations of next-gen (Pro and One X respectively) will offer any performance improvements from the base version running
@30fps. But you're absolutely bang on the money about 4k being the hot new ticket. Considered I've been sat on a wodge of savings for the past few months, 4k hasn't influenced my adoption of [Pro] in any way, shape or form.

 

Ever heard of the console wars? Microsoft sure gave it to the Sony fans who have been going on for years! that resolution.... RESOLUTION, is king.

Xbox One X is a big come back for Xbox members and fans, as now we get to dish it all back to those who have been criticising us as the weaker console.

With Xbox One X's hardware potential, you will see

- Faster boot times

- Higher visual fidelity, even if you don't have a 4k TV, you will see higher visual fidelity with 1080p

Older people wouldn't give a hoot about hardware specs and graphics. But for younger peeps and our future generations, specs will matter, quality of graphics will matter, user performance will matter. That's where Xbox One X comes in.

The design of Xbox One X is also cute too. Smaller than the Xbox One S. There's no external power brick. And Microsoft has innovative a first design of cooling, a first in consoles, with vapour cooling thingy. With all this power you'll think it will be
big, something which my generation and future generations, don't really like. Take a look at when Xbox One came out, a lot of peeps called it fat, behemoth, this thing called a V-C-R.

Lets quote those specs again....

12GB GDDR5 @ 326GB/s bandwidth, with 9GB of that reserved for gaming. Not only is that more than the competition, but it's faster bandwidth of 326GB/s.

40 compute core 6 Teraflop @ 1172Mhz GPU (this is mid-high end PC GPU specs). Again, better than the competition console

2.3Ghz 8 physical core processor (faster than the competition, I could mention stats, but that's what fan boys/girls do)

4K Blu-ray disc player. Sony owns Blu-ray, yet they don't have it on their latest console, lol. Xbox One is more of a multi media device than the competition.

It will be down to the individual game developers. I'm definitely getting X day one.

There is medical evidence that the human eye and human brain can decipher the difference between 4k and 1080p. And unless you're a biologist, optometrist or legally qualified doctor, people shouldn't say there is no difference between 1080p and 4k. Especially
since we use an HD display including TV's. I have a 40' TV others have bigger. With 4k, you'll see less pixilation with 4k than 1080p and definitely 720p and 480p. Google what is the resolution of the human eye. It will be higher than 1080p I can guarantee
you that. Our eyes send visual stuff to our brain. Though 1080p is still respectable and will be for a while. I mean look at the opening of Microsofts Xbox E3 2017 video, it shows smaller resolutions from 2001 gradually improving to what is used today.

If specs didn't matter, Phil Spencer boss of Xbox, wouldn't be going on about it. Yet they did. They're trying to attract the younger generation to make a product which will appeal to them. And if you ask me, Xbox and these forums could use some younger
blood. Plus we have something to shove right up Sony fans, Xbox One X specs! You wanted the specs wars, we got it. And lots of Youtubers who play Xbox are shoving specs right back at Sony. It gives us happiness and satisfaction that hey, we are not the weakest.
We can be proud to be with Xbox!

 

With Xbox One X, you will see

1. Higher visual fidelity, even at 1080p

2. Faster boot times and shutdown times, with the better processing power

3. With better processing power, apps will open faster.

People say GDDR5 has higher latency. But Xbox 360 has GDDR3.... GDDR!..............................................., yet Xbox 360's UI is very fluid and fast. So the latency with GDDR5 will NOT be astronomically unbearably terrible! As GDDR5 is based of
DDR3! It has a greater bandwidth than DDR3. Another thing Xbox One got a lot of hate about when it launched November 2013. After all, you play Xbox for games, not to steer at a UI, right?!......... if you love games, use GDDR5. Who cares if it has higher latency,
we don't steer at the dash, right?...................

Since I got my first custom PC last year, I have noticed apps on the desktop open faster, and faster boot times. This is what you get with innovation and better hardware. In order to progress, we need to move forward.............. and those are the steps
Xbox One X has succeeded in. Microsoft knows in a continually developing world, there are changes. Our expectations in school or work are high......... so it is right for us to expect higher expectations with the stuff we use. Not stuck on 2 minute console
booting times. Not stuck with DDR3 memory with considerably lower bandwidth gaming power than GDDR5. NOT HAVING TO REGULARLY HARD RESET OUR CONSOLES OFTEN. Yes! <----------- this is what a lot of peeps complained about when Xbox One launched 2013.

 

And another thing about latency. Even though X will have GDDR5, take a look at Xbox One's history since November 2013! It uses DDR3. But many have complained Xbox One's UI is slow and clunky. Talk about latency. And I have had Xbox One since it launched,
so speak from experience! I even have that Day One Achievement too. However, this is an err or Microsoft's part.

Xbox One's UI has improved since it launched! But the "latency" and slowness of what the UI was like back then. And Xbox 360's memory runs of GDDR memory too. GDDR3.

Just because GDDR5 is more suited to gaming and DDR is more suited to system performance, doesn't mean that GDDR5 is going to do a detrimentally horrible job with system performance outside gaming. I can't imagine Xbox One X having the kind of bad UI performance
that Xbox One had........... with DDR3!!! in November 2013!

 

Nobody is saying there *isn't* a difference in pixel count, so I'm not sure why the resolution of the human eye is important if what we're seeing concurs comfortably with the MIND'S EYE (now there's a concept!). Some people just prefer more bang for their
buck - plain and simple. Also, I think you're confusing X(-ray) specs with VR. Not that I'm an advocate of 'zombifying' my gaming experiences while under Sony's spell. I don't need any kind of X specs to remain dignified. I just need a white console!

 

I wonder if any devs are going for 2160p native - more likely 1440p and do checkerboarding scaling up to 4k, which is said to be very, very good.

Did further calculations on 4k from this site:

RED Digital Cinema | Red 101

Did some hard calculations on my 47" 16:9 watching 1080p at 2.2m distance, and if to get an 60" 4k later.

My viewing angle is 27 degrees and looking in table this require better than 20/20 vision to even resolve 1920x1080, about 0.8 arc minutes.

If putting 60" in same spot I would get 33 degrees watching angle 16:9 screen and to resolve 4k fully I would need optimal vision as they stated on site - in this case about 0.55 arc minutes. Babies are said to have measured 0.4 arc minutes, but general
rule is 1 arc minute full vision.

So 70% of people have better than 20/20 vision and they mark this area. But very little percentage have optimal vision.

Our brains are amazing and you probably can see improvement of an image over full hd having vision for like 3k or so, but if viewing moving images will that matter at all is what I wonder.

Games probably can make it look 4k look better than video which is heavily compressed in itself using H264 or H265 or similar. So bitrate of video is what matters the most - if you stream video. Some say even lower resolution higher bitrate is better looking.

So what this means for 4k, I am not sure.

I bought a couple of series and films on bluray just recently - and yes, it looks a bit better than dvd - but difference is so small I don't bother buying anything but dvd in future. Best quality productions look stunning on dvd even.

And rember chart for me is 27 degress viewing angle to my 47" - my eyes need at least 0.8 arc minutes, better than 20/20 vision of about 1 arc minute - to resolve that fully.

If viewing slideshows from my own pictures I might see a difference going 4k, since sensors are 6000x4000 pixels. But this really is what I would do at the store to look at 4k monitors one day - bring an thumb drive with my own pics on and see if any difference.

For interested to calculate your viewing ange do like this.





Take ArcTang for half width of monitor divided by distance to monitor and you get half viewing angle.

So double that and get full viewing angle.

My 47" is 104 cm wide surface and ahving 1920 dots.





My case 52/220 cm=0.236363636, arc tan on that is 13.2985 degress and that doubled 26.597 degrees viewing angle. Divide angle by number of pixels width - 1920 in my case=0.0138526 angle between each pixel. Multiply by 60
and get arc minutes=0.8 is what I need to resolve each pixel.





So make calculation for your situation and see where you are.

 

There are many reasons why the Xbox One's UI can be a bit slow and clunky, I believe the main reason is that Microsoft decided that they would have the ability for a person to sign into a friends console and have their UI. This requires the UI to be stored
in the cloud (not a lot of people know that)

Perhaps the better idea would be to have the UI stored purely on your console, and not have the ability to sign into other console and have your UI, but that was Microsofts dream, as was the ability to not need game discs when we buy hard copies.