Also. They're recommending a GTX 660 when it comes to the GPU. I recon that a 970 which is so much more powerful will destroy it. It should in all honesty. Considering that the PS4 version runs really stable at 30fps (It does. The drops in the middle of the city are minor and even during heavy explosions it's very stable. That said I'm not saying that it doesn't drop at certain times.) Hands down confident that a 970 and a i5 2500K with some overclocking (if needed at all) will run this at 60fps or more @ 1080p.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
GTA V PC Trailer (60 FPS)
- Thread starter RadioactiveLobster
- Start date
Also. They're recommending a GTX 660 when it comes to the GPU. I recon that a 970 which is so much more powerful will destroy it. It should in all honesty. Considering that the PS4 version runs really stable at 30fps (It does. The drops in the middle of the city are minor and even during heavy explosions it's very stable. That said I'm not saying that it doesn't drop at certain times.) Hands down confident that a 970 and a i5 2500K with some overclocking (if needed at all) will run this at 60fps or more @ 1080p.
Stop arguing.
This isn't a subjective topic.
Our eyes aren't measure in framerates, but if they were, a healthy set of eyes would measure way over 120 FPS. What you and others are saying here is that a 60 FPS games looks more unrealistic than a 30 FPS game, when our eyes see real life in much higher frames than 60 FPS. They're not saying that they subjectively prefer a cinematic feel. But that 60 FPS doesn't mimic real life.
The only way that this is physically possible, is if one has a physical disability.
So, within that contexts, these shit posts bring me to two conclusions:
A. There are people with an ocular disability that literally slows down time for their eyes.
or
B. People are being hypocritical/shit-posting.
I'm leaning towards B...
Completely agreed. I vastly prefer bloodborne's (mostly) locked 30 as opposed to dark souls 2 on ps3, which went anywhere from 30-50 in a single area, it was ridiculous.
Felix Lighter
Member
Cool down? Bit of a stretch.
I'm sorry, have you been reading the rest of the thread? It's hard to figure out who's being serious or not, I mean there are a lot of odd one's around.
(Nice quick edit)
Yes, yes, I edited it because it wasn't an appropriate response. Sorry. It must have been within seconds of posting it.
You have to know at this point he's joking the only people who get fooled are the ones he's trolling out.
He literally gives it away with a few details all the time.
Windom Earle
Member
Honestly, I bought my 970 last year and barely played anything on it... It is time to change that.
EatinOlives
Member
That "argument" only really crops up if it's only the PC that gets to have the framerate cap at 60 or more.
None of the people shouting "unrealistic!!" would be doing so if GTA V was 60 FPS on current-gen consoles.
The problem is that recommended is meaningless without context. We don't know what did they target with the recommended requirements, it's very rarely stipulated.
UnrealEck
Member
You can also try playing a game at your preferred settings and taking a note of the minimum framerate. Say it's 45 FPS. You could then set your refresh rate to around that and cap it as well (or use adaptive vsync). Not sure if there's any downside to this but I didn't notice any from trying it myself at 48Hz/fps.
60 fps at "ultra" is a luxury, for now. Those who can afford it might or might not like it, but we should not forget that it is a choice too. You can limit your framerate to 30 if you so desire. I don't see a problem here unless you live in a bubble and are against freedom of choice. Leave it to people and their choice of hardware and preferences.
30 fps usually does not hinder your enjoyment unless you have been exposed to 60 and are used to it. Yes, you could say people who are used to 60 at Ultra/4K know better, but that does not mean that their overall experience will be.
However, I still believe there are platforms that require more than 60 fps to work properly, like VR.
30 fps usually does not hinder your enjoyment unless you have been exposed to 60 and are used to it. Yes, you could say people who are used to 60 at Ultra/4K know better, but that does not mean that their overall experience will be.
However, I still believe there are platforms that require more than 60 fps to work properly, like VR.
Very few in here are saying otherwise
So there's no more disagreement
Locked 60fps+ (lightboost, gsync 144/120hz) > Locked60fps >Locked 30fps
sadly consoles even in the case of this game can't gaurantee 30fps locked while stable counts some of here do not want to be driving downtown with the dips any of the consoles still have.
Anything locked I don't mind but when performance starts getting moderately to very inconsistent I take offense no matter the fps rate.
No, he is not. He always trolls threads like this to get reactions from people.
To be fair I skipped over the Chris bit, but as another poster said I can't be expected to know every single member's "shtick" and if anything that 20 years on the internet has taught me is that half the time a lot of these people are serious.
I could never intentionally pretend to look like an idiot on a forum, I mean I might actual be one at some point in time but I won't pretend to be
I'll stop here so it doesn't derail too much more.
Permanently A
Junior Member
Honestly the most impressive thing was the 60 fps camera shot from behind Franklin. Playing the game never felt so smooth.
lol @ the film comparisons
24 FPS was used in films because it was the cheapest they could go while keeping acceptable motion. After years and years of this it's been cemented as the standard and any deviation would seem awkward to the audience and not worthwhile to film-makers. There is no way 60 FPS is not objectively better than 30 FPS in video games. Better input feedback and more information on the screen are things that highly benefit games. You can sacrifice it for other things but this mindset that 30 FPS is ever better all other things equal is some funny shit to me and I can only assume comes out of people that hardly play 60 FPS games.
24 FPS was used in films because it was the cheapest they could go while keeping acceptable motion. After years and years of this it's been cemented as the standard and any deviation would seem awkward to the audience and not worthwhile to film-makers. There is no way 60 FPS is not objectively better than 30 FPS in video games. Better input feedback and more information on the screen are things that highly benefit games. You can sacrifice it for other things but this mindset that 30 FPS is ever better all other things equal is some funny shit to me and I can only assume comes out of people that hardly play 60 FPS games.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Personally I'm perfectly happy with 50 to 60, so long as it's mostly at the latter rather than the former. It's ok to drop briefly ino the high 40's during non-criticla times too. But not below that during gameplay ever. This is assuming tripple buffered Vsync.
If you have something like the blessed gift of G-sync, then that playable area stretched a bit. I've tried G-sync and having a variable frame rate between 40 to 60 feels like 50-60 with traditional v-sync to me.
jediyoshi
Member
Adorable.
Did you quote the wrong post, because you seem to have missed the crux of anything resembling what I've saying, especially if you're lumping anything I've been saying to any other post in regards to framerate. I don't give two shits about how people attribute framerate to whatever their 'perception' of something that looks 'realistic' or however they want to quantify what they see. I'm saying that people automatically, internally overlook the visual aesthetic because the precedent for gameplay obviously outweighs it, despite the fact that in any other instance, it's instantly the most dissonance driving aspect of any other medium you take in visually. It's not very complicated, you're trying too hard if you're reading into this under the assumption people think it'd be better if it ran at 30fps.
SebastianM
Member
Looks weird.
Atraveller
Banned
You mean the ignorance hate? And not high enough.
Gamersyde video :
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_gtav_60_fps_pc_trailer-16427_en.html
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_gtav_60_fps_pc_trailer-16427_en.html
Yeah...
ME:
Play FARCRY 4 at 120 frames on my 980 GTX: "This is amazing"
Watch friend play FARCRY 4 on PS4 at 30 frames: "I Literally can't watch this, it's giving me a headache"
The console hate?? It's been nothing but console gamers thread shitting or downplaying 60 FPS or making othewrise rather ignorant comments.
Maybe you just mispelled "PC envy"?
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
nobody is hating on consoles, a couple people just successfully derailed the thread
Solid Samus
Banned
Looks fucking fantastic. The time is almost here.
yo I'm done acting under anything besides the pretense that 'console' dudes bring it upon themselves in these threads. because 99 percent of the time that's just how it is. someone posts something really dumb, and the whole thread becomes a dumpster fire, because people jump in to corroborate and act like their vapid surface observations borne of ignorance and agendas are worth something
I think that's generally what dudes want when they're sharing asinine sentiments like 'wow too smoof', they just want to leave their mark on the thread and boy does it work
yo I'm done acting under anything besides the pretense that 'console' dudes bring it upon themselves in these threads. because 99 percent of the time that's just how it is. someone posts something really dumb, and the whole thread becomes a dumpster fire, because people jump in to corroborate and act like their vapid surface observations borne of ignorance and agendas are worth something
I think that's generally what dudes want when they're sharing asinine sentiments like 'wow too smoof', they just want to leave their mark on the thread and boy does it work
Why isn't this .GIF 60fps?
Not all games let you set a custom refresh rate like that. I'd go mad if I had to use my PC at anything below 60Hz, and changing it every time you launch a game is too much of a hassle.
Unless there's a tool for that. Never really thought about it.
My guess is that assumes it's pretty much maxed out at 1080p, but at stable 30fps.
A 660 is a 660. For an open world like in GTAV I don't think it pushes much more.
So based on that I'm guessing a 970 will do 60fps with the same settings assumption.
I haven't seen many consoles mentioned in this thread. Just framerates.
It just so happens that this has only been on consoles with low framerates. So, it's okay if you attempt to put two and two together, but its not my fault as a PC gamer that the only way to get this at 60 FPS+ is on this platform.
I've been told there were similar arguments on GAF concerning the difference between 720p and 1080p being non-existant back in the 360/ps3 days, and here we are now where even 900p is getting blasted. Things won't change until it is the norm on a console
Kenzodielocke
Banned
I like how they show all the power lines.
People managed to mod 'rape' into the last-gen versions of GTA Online.
So whilst modding shouldn't be impossible I'm sure Rockstar will do whatever they can to suffocate that development environment.
FloorEssence
Neo Member
You mean console gamers coming into a PC thread and shit posting? Then when PC gamers reply explaining how 60fps is better and isn't comparable to film they are bad mouthing consoles?
I can't believe posts like this are necessary, but nice job dude.
That's a bummer. ~10Mbps H.264 is terribad.Which is the same as the one from Rockstar, don't expect any super high quality stuff
- - -
- - -
Because a 60fps GIF is impossible. Maximum is 50fps.
Just a couple years ago, people were claiming they couldn't tell the difference from 720p and 1080p from their couch.
Now there are hundred page threads arguing the difference between 1080 and 900p.
Yes, but won't be maxing out. May have to make some frame rate considerations at 1080p
...Okay. Is anyone else getting a feeling of "eh" from the trailer? I wanted them to expand a bit on the "range of major visual and technical upgrades" that the PC version has. It's just panning over randomly selected scenes. Oh, but it's at 60 FPS, so that makes it special, even though the trailer says fuck-all about the version of the game people have been waiting to play for nearly a year since it's initial announcement.
tycoonheart
Member
I'm loving that track.
I quit this game on the PS3 just because the load times were unbearable.
I'll double dip and get it for the PC. Should've just waited.
I quit this game on the PS3 just because the load times were unbearable.
I'll double dip and get it for the PC. Should've just waited.
It's the usual console warrior arguments. Probably best to just ignore them and continue the discussion - but that never happens either
Here's a Rolling Stones link to the full version of the song featured: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/p...-up-for-deceptively-serene-lock-load-20150402
Well I have nothing remotely objective to contradict you, recommended could literally mean anything. Hell, even "minimum" is not the minimum anymore (cf AssCreed Unity).
My opinion is that "recommended" should aim for a console-like experience.