PS3 Capable of 120 FPS?!

FriskyTanuki

FriskyTanuki

CAGiversary!
Feedback
36 (100%)
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136786.html

This doesn't seem like a feature that will be utitlized much for a while since current TVs aren't capable to doing 120 fps and that I'd think that developers would rather have it running smoothly in 60 fps rather than trying to get it running smoothly in 120 fps. What do you think: Is it a useful feature for the future or just another feature that'll flop?
 
How much can the human eye possibly do?

I can barely notice the difference between 30 FPS and 60, 120 doesn't seem to be a big deal. Of course, maybe when I see it in action that'll be a different story.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the human eye can only detect up to 60 FPS.

What's the point otherwise? Sounds like a waste of money to me.
 
When theres a huge ass war seen and its a huge firefight and theres explosions everwhere you will be glad it only goes down to like 90fps and not down to 30fps...



A PC running windows xp has about 200fps. That of course exlcludes running anything :D
 
Um, if you were playing a game at 120 fps and it dropped to 60 you would definitely notice the difference. Sure the eyecan only detectabout 66fps, but going above that can still make a difference.
 
I'm sure all the people who happen to have two TVs that are capable of 1080p (I thought I had read it was capable of this) and have a high enough refresh rate will be very excited...

[quote name='cyrix`']When theres a huge ass war seen and its a huge firefight and theres explosions everwhere you will be glad it only goes down to like 90fps and not down to 30fps...[/QUOTE]

I don't claim to know a lot about this, but it seems to me that it would be at least as easy to get a game running at 60fps without any slowdown as to get a game running at 120fps with some slowdown.
 
Stolen from Slashdot.org's comments:

Ken Katuragi: You and your primitive system with its 60 FPS.

Shigeru Miyamoto: What about it?

Ken Katuragi: Oh, nothing, it's cute. Our system operates at 120...

[pause]

Kaz Hirai: Thousand!

Ken Katuragi: Yes, 120 thousand FPS.

Kaz Hirai: Don't question it!

Shigeru Miyamoto: Oh, yeah? Well, the human eye can only process 60 FPS.

Ken Katuragi: Well, that sounds like a personal problem.
Click to expand...
 
The real question is WHAT will be running at 120fps. A PS2 could probably render a flat shaded polygon with no textures and no other objects at well over 120 frames a second...
 
Technically the human eye can only detect 28 frames per second or so. But because of the way that we actually see, you need twice as many frames for things to appear seamless. It's sort of like how the ear can only detect frequencies up to 22,100 but for things to sound right, you need to sample at a rate of 44,200.
 
[quote name='Amano']Correct me if I'm wrong, but the human eye can only detect up to 60 FPS.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, you're wrong. Eyes don't have an "FPS" they can see. It varies based on the picture and it varies from person to person. And yes, even if you said something like "on average," you'd still be wrong.

Tromack, you're wrong as well.
 
[quote name='GreenMonkey']LOL

This is exactly the mentality that makes Sony so funny.[/QUOTE]
Actually, that is the mentality of the entire game industry EXCEPT Nintendo...
 
[quote name='dandragonrage']Yes, you're wrong. Eyes don't have an "FPS" they can see. It varies based on the picture and it varies from person to person. And yes, even if you said something like "on average," you'd still be wrong.

Tromack, you're wrong as well.[/QUOTE]

Actually, you are wrong. While it is true that the the eye doesn't have an 'FPS', there are levels at which a light flashing at a certain frequency appears to be continuous to the human eye. Yes, it does vary from person to person, but so does every single thing, so it doesn't do much good to say that.

So, while it might not be fully accurate to say that the human eye can see at 30 fps, it is close enough to what is actually happening physiologically to be understandable.
 
Since not all of the rods and cones are synchronous it would be possible to see well over 28 fps, even past 120 fps.

Say they are out of synch in 5 sets, you would percieve about 180 fps.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='GreenMonkey']LOL

This is exactly the mentality that makes Sony so funny.[/quote]Actually, that is the mentality of the entire game industry EXCEPT Nintendo...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you're right. Microsoft's mentality is stupid, too.


This is just such bullshit, it's not even funny. No one can see that, shaddap, shaddap.
 
[quote name='Strell']Stolen from Slashdot.org's comments:
Ken Katuragi: You and your primitive system with its 60 FPS.

Shigeru Miyamoto: What about it?

Ken Katuragi: Oh, nothing, it's cute. Our system operates at 120...

[pause]

Kaz Hirai: Thousand!

Ken Katuragi: Yes, 120 thousand FPS.

Kaz Hirai: Don't question it!

Shigeru Miyamoto: Oh, yeah? Well, the human eye can only process 60 FPS.

Ken Katuragi: Well, that sounds like a personal problem.
[/QUOTE]

mooninites.jpg


Turn it up, Err.
 
who really cares, keep it at avg of 60 even with an as load of rendering and I'll be happy. Sony just likes wave there johnsons around, I say let em, I just want to game.
 
Doesn't matter to me, I guess it's cool though that they're trying to future proof it though. I suppose it'd be like PSOne being HD ready in 95.
 
I don't care what they say about PS3, Last time I belived PS2 was going to have FFVIII CGI graphics in real time because they said that was true,well Im still waiting. If Cell is so good, put one of those clusters to good use and cure cancer and then that will appease me. How many people even have a TV that can do 120FPS? How many people even have a HDTV? Why bring the cost of things even higher (development side) to make a game 120fps?
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']this just reinforces my belief that the PS3 will be at least 450 dollars.[/QUOTE]
Um, the FPS is determined entirely by the game engine.

All Sony is doing is modifying the video card to have 120 fps output, which will cost at most $3 per unit.

Call it forwards-compatability.
 
It sounds good to me, in theory...

Let's say a game... say... Call of Duty 2... runs at 60 FPS just roaming an empty street on XBox 360. Now you get into a huge firefight, and the frame rate drops to a noticable 30 FPS. It's annoying, right?

Now let's say you're playing it on PS3. 120 FPS just roaming an empty street. However, once you get to a huge ass firefight, you won't be able to notice any chopiness!

Again, this is all in theory and above my head and I probably just made myself sound like an ignorant bastard. But, I don't think this is necessarily a matter of how remarkable it will look running at 120 FPS... but rather how remarkably it will conistently run. Even if it looked the same at 120 FPS and 60 FPS, wouldn't a "low" of 60 still be a "high" for everything else?

Erm...
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Um, the FPS is determined entirely by the game engine.

All Sony is doing is modifying the video card to have 120 fps output, which will cost at most $3 per unit.

Call it forwards-compatability.[/QUOTE]

$3 per unit * 50,000,000 = $150,000,000 That is a lot of cash to spend on something that might never be used by even one consumer.
 
It sounds good to me, in theory...

Let's say a game... say... Call of Duty 2... runs at 60 FPS just roaming an empty street on XBox 360. Now you get into a huge firefight, and the frame rate drops to a noticable 30 FPS. It's annoying, right?

Now let's say you're playing it on PS3. 120 FPS just roaming an empty street. However, once you get to a huge ass firefight, you won't be able to notice any chopiness!

Again, this is all in theory and above my head and I probably just made myself sound like an ignorant bastard. But, I don't think this is necessarily a matter of how remarkable it will look running at 120 FPS... but rather how remarkably it will conistently run. Even if it looked the same at 120 FPS and 60 FPS, wouldn't a "low" of 60 still be a "high" for everything else?

Erm...
 
ITs just marketing hype. I doubt we will see any games that actually utilize this. I actually would rather they stay at 60FPS (which is perfectly fine) and use that extra power to keep it at 60FPS constantly while doing other calculations like AI, and such.

If you read the article, Ken Kutaragi doesn't actually say that this will be used at all, he just says that it is possible. So really, he could mean that if PS3 were using most of its power on FPS, it could do 120 FPS. But he spins it in a way that makes some people believe that PS3 games will actually run at 120FPS. This is true of a lot of statements. I know he does exaggerrate a lot of things but there are very few times that he flat out lies. The problem is, he conveniently words things so that everyone on the internet blows them out of proportion and believes it to be true, when things like 120FPS, were never actually promised.

Anyway, I'm 99% that this is nothing but hype and will most likely not be used.
 
[quote name='dpatel']ITs just marketing hype. I doubt we will see any games that actually utilize this. I actually would rather they stay at 60FPS (which is perfectly fine) and use that extra power to keep it at 60FPS constantly while doing other calculations like AI, and such.
[/QUOTE]
You have no understanding how a game/rendering engine works.
 
Hmm...one thread here suggests that the PS3 can do 120fps, another suggests all the tester units died due to overheating. What to believe?
 
This is just stupid. The FPS of a game depends entirely on the software, not the hardware. They can give the hardware speed and memory, but in the end the masterful coding (or lack there of) is what's going to push that hardware to the extreme. Posting hardware specs is more meanigful than statements like this--and has be reinteratted over and over--even that is pure hype.

They ought to put out the fires inside their demo units before boasting on the FPS of games that don't exist yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top