@nabinator: OMG. Just OMG. If you are really not trolling, then just like omg. This happens a couple times in your life I guess.
Let me break it down for you.
"The PlayStation 5… how much faster can it be?
1) It will surely support 4K.
2) Will it support 240 frames per second? Great.
3) Will it play games that were made for the PS4 Pro? That's the question. I think it will. So I think they will build a console that will backwards compatible with the PS4 Pro. "
Now, I really need to get into your mind bro......
Let's consider this:
Does this RGB led I just bought support the following colors?
1) It supports the color yellow
2) It supports the color red
Now where does it state that at exactly the same point in time the led can display both yellow AND red?
I hope you now realised something about yourself man...
@randomoaf: Where does he EXPLICITLY state he thinks the PS5 will be able to do 4k at 240 fps?? All I read in the GameSpot article is talk about supporting new things like 4K and 240 fps.
Think about different modes. On a 4K TV you can choose for the next racing game between 4K at 60 fps or 1080p at 120 fps. On a 1080p TV you can choose between downscaling or a higher framerate.
Maybe he thinks some games with a very light visual style will be able to run at 720p or 1080p at 240 fps. Think about games where the entire world is white and untextured, and only a couple of characters are rendered, for example.
Learn to read, PLEASE.
PS. Even a GTX 950 can do 4K/60 if a game has a very light visual style.
@apos1914: Oh, but you sir are twisting facts yourself!! The Nintendo Switch can only reach 1 teraFLOP when using FP16, which isn't used in image rendering thanks to its lower range, lower precision and lower number of representable values.
So, when it comes to gaming performance, the Switch isn't a one teraFLOP system at all!!! In docked mode it's only a little bit more powerful than a Wii U, and in handheld mode it's actually quite a bit weaker.
Here are the CORRECT numbers:
- almost 400 gigaFLOPS of power in docked mode
- about 200 gigaFLOPS of power in handheld mode.
Believe me when I say that I've done far more research into this than the guy who wrote the article for GameSpot. But I hope he can stil correct his error.
@ebv2406: The problem isn't his reading skills at all. The problem is the GameSpot article contains a factual error. The Nintendo Switch can only reach 1 teraFLOP when using FP16, which isn't used in image rendering thanks to its lower range, lower precision and lower number of representable values.
So the 1 teraFLOP at FP16 is completely irrelevant!!
@jimmythang GameSpot is so wrong about the Nintendo Switch. It isn't nearly as powerful as they state it is (1 teraFLOP) and they don't differentiate between docked mode and handheld mode.
The Nintendo Switch was rumoured/hyped before launch to have 1 TeraFLOP of power. This is false however. It has almost 400 gigaFLOPS of power in docked mode. And about 200 gigaFLOPS of power in handheld mode. The Nintendo Switch can only reach 1 teraFLOP when using FP16, which isn't used in image rendering thanks to its lower range, lower precision and lower number of representable values.
In docked mode, the Nintendo Switch is more powerful than the Nintendo Wii U, by a small margin. Since the Wii U only has 352 gigaFLOPS of performance. In handheld mode however, the Nintendo Switch is quite a bit weaker than the Wii U.
I hope GameSpot can do a little research and correct this error. This error doesn't affect the ranking of the consoles, they are still in the right order (provided you assume the Nintendo Switch is in docked mode). But the Nintendo Switch simply isn't as powerful as GameSpot suggests, therefore this error misleads consumers. The power of the Nintendo Switch is closer to that of the Xbox 360 and PS3 than it is to the power of the PS4 or Xbox One.
@tonyleo01: It's actually a pretty nice game man. I enjoy it. Graphics are really nice, and there are sooo many different and cool planets. Combat is fine to me.
@soulfulDAGGER: The pro only runs this game at 30 fps you very silly person. With your pc you can very easily cap the framerate to 30 using the in-game menu andget it running exactly the same.
But I would recommend trying a 40 fps or 50 fps cap for a waaaay smoother experience than on the pro.
@spartanx169x: If all you want is 1080p 30 fps with no stuttering or tearing, medium settings, a 1070 might last up to 6 years. And for a large part of that 6 year period it could easily do 1080p 60 fps at at least high settings. So see the cost of that card in that light, it's really expensive but with your performance target it will last very very long.
A 1060 6GB can do 1080p 30 fps easily with no tearing or stuttering. If that is what you want it's a good buy as well. It will even run most games at a variable framerate of at least 60 fps average, with a little tearing. So it's a good buy as well, but with this card you would probably want to upgrade 1-2 years earlier.
Also, I recommend trying out some multiplayer shooters on the PC. Those play freaking awesome with keyboard and mouse. Try out star wars battlefront or battlefield 4 on sale. You won't regret it. Regarding new titles, then I would recommend Battlefield 1, as long as you have like an i5 processor no more than 5-6 years old. The production values of Battlefield 1 are insane. Best looking game I've ever seen.
@lonewolf1044: Yeah, I saw that. But it's simply wrong advise. I quote:
"Performance difference is negligible (5% iirc) between the 1060 3GB and a 1050 TI."
This is simply complete BS. In gaming, the 1060 3GB is at the very very least 30% faster. Heck, if you look at the Effective 3D Gaming GPU Speed from gpu.userbenchmark you can see that this measure is 71% stronger for the 1060 3GB. So, the performance difference between the two cards is ENORMOUS.
The 1050 TI is not really a gaming card. It's just for MOBAs and other light gaming.
Look it up yourself on YouTube. With the 1060 3GB you get double the framerate in Project Cars compared to the 1050 TI. And like a 60% higher framerate in The Witcher 3 and Far Cry Primal. And an 80% difference in Rise of the Tomb Raider.
Wiro_'s comments