HDMI 2.1 - 120 fps

[CR3 12,658]

Am I right in saying that you would need to get an HDMI 2.1 compatible monitor or TV which are (newer & really expensive) to actually take advantage of the ‘upto’ 120 frames per second the new consoles are hoping to achieve?

Main reason I’m lead to believe the cable bandwidth on current HDMI 2.0 only allows 60Hz?

I’m seeing contrasting info that ‘with the right settings’ HDMI 2.0 can also execute 4k120 sometimes but I’m a bit sceptical. 
 

(Link: https://www.benq.com/en-us/knowledge-center/knowledge/4k-120hz-gaming-monitor.html )

Anyway, this may help folks playing on a TV or thinking of one of these purchases? Cheers!

[MARK92GERS 804]

Yes mate you need a TV which has the new HDMI2.1b ports for it to support 120fps at 4K pretty shite as mostly only top end TVs around the 1,200 bracket upwards support it & it’s still relatively new at the moment I just recently bought a new TV not knowing this and now I’ll have to invest in another at some point 

[CR3 12,658]

On 09/10/2020 at 18:44, MARK92GERS said:

Yes mate you need a TV which has the new HDMI2.1b ports for it to support 120fps at 4K pretty shite as mostly only top end TVs around the 1,200 bracket upwards support it & it’s still relatively new at the moment I just recently bought a new TV not knowing this and now I’ll have to invest in another at some point 

Exactly mate, most TV’s are obviously 60Hz and even for an HDMI 2.0 100Hz Samsung you’re probably £8/900 and that still won’t do 2.1! Thing is I’ve been on 4k60 with the X for 2 years already and since my telly is 60Hz I’ll only be getting 4k60 on a series X too therefore would only be getting the other benefits like SSD and Ray Tracing. Might just go PC and Displayport to get 200+ frames per second tbh Would still use the X for a single player 4K HDR experience.

[CR3 12,658]

around 4.20 here the chap switches the video mode/ display settings to 120Hz and it changes him straight away to 1080p on a series X🤔

[Iakona 2,259]

1 hour ago, CR3 said:

around 4.20 here the chap switches the video mode/ display settings to 120Hz and it changes him straight away to 1080p on a series X🤔

This video maybe explains it better. (around 08:00)

You can do 1080/1440p @ 120hz on HDMI 2.0. If you want 4k @ 120hz you need a HDMI 2.1 Input.

 

[CR3 12,658]

So, the Hz isn’t capped @ 60 through a 2.0 cable if you’re only doing 1080 or 1440p. Fuck that kinda changes it for me after getting a 144 monitor, tbh.@Iakona

[CR3 12,658]

Could trade my X in for a series X, add £250 and just play @ 1080 120fps or fire on the tv for 4k60 HDR single player without the headache and cost that the PC build was starting to be.
 

Would have been nice to see some games at 150-200fps but I’m having second thoughts already. 
@Iakona

[Iakona 2,259]

1 hour ago, CR3 said:

Could trade my X in for a series X, add £250 and just play @ 1080 120fps or fire on the tv for 4k60 HDR single player without the headache and cost that the PC build was starting to be.
 

Would have been nice to see some games at 150-200fps but I’m having second thoughts already. 
@Iakona

It's worth remembering most games will look considerably worse at 120fps. The only time you would ultimately want to play above 60 is first person shooters and competitive racing games, where it may give you an edge.. 

You can see it in that video you posted.. The resolution takes a hit, shadow quality is far lower, the draw distance is significantly cut, there's next to no crowds and even textures look to have taken a hit. That will only be amplified when playing at a higher resolution. Racing games aren't super intensive like some other games, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of games stick to a 60fps lock.

As powerful as the Series X is.. Even an RTX 3080 can't run something like Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 4k/120hz on it's highest settings. (with no raytracing)

[CR3 12,658]

5 minutes ago, Iakona said:

It's worth remembering most games will look considerably worse at 120fps. The only time you would ultimately want to play above 60 is first person shooters and competitive racing games, where it may give you an edge.. 

You can see it in that video you posted.. The resolution takes a hit, shadow quality is far lower, the draw distance is significantly cut, there's next to no crowds and even textures look to have taken a hit. That will only be amplified when playing at a higher resolution. Racing games aren't super intensive like some other games, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of games stick to a 60fps lock.

As powerful as the Series X is.. Even an RTX 3080 can't run something like Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 4k/120hz on it's highest settings. It barely manages 60 fps with Ray tracing on.

I’m going high frames on my monitor for competitive shooters. I’ll switch to play games like shadow of the tomb raider and other single players on 4k60 HDR TV with whatever ray tracing the series X has to offer.

Looks like you can have one or the other to be honest. That’s mad a 3080 can’t do 4k120, I guess when Xbox promotion flings these terms out there you half believe that’s what it’s aiming for.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

On 12/10/2020 at 19:41, CR3 said:

I’m going high frames on my monitor for competitive shooters. I’ll switch to play games like shadow of the tomb raider and other single players on 4k60 HDR TV with whatever ray tracing the series X has to offer.

Looks like you can have one or the other to be honest. That’s mad a 3080 can’t do 4k120, I guess when Xbox promotion flings these terms out there you half believe that’s what it’s aiming for.

I think a 3080 can do 4k120, just not at max settings.

The sweet spot for gaming seems to be 1440p 144hz, but the next complexity is that gaming monitors for the most part are going ultrawide. This means that even 1440p 144hz (max settings) will be hard to achieve on the new 3080 if hooked up to a ultrawide as the extra width means more pixels for the card to drive, putting it somewhere between a standard 1440p and a 4k screen.

[CR3 12,658]

3 hours ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

I think a 3080 can do 4k120, just not at max settings.

A 3090 can only do the game Quantum Break on Ultra at 4k70.

Thats a £1400 graphics card, for the card alone. 
 

 

[CR3 12,658]

 4K and 8k tests on a 3090. Doesn’t exactly blow you away. 

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

3090 is just for that small % willing to pay through the nose for the best FPS they can get.

Even the 3080 is really 'enthusiast' class.

The 3070 and depending on pricing, Big Navi are going to be the mainstream cards until the even more popular 3060 and AMD equivalents come out.

For raw compute power the new 3080/3090 blow the new consoles out the water, but that isnt the whole picture.

Games for consoles are optimised so much better for the systems than PC game developers manage for PC. This means that often the PC with more power playing the same game as a console, wont perform any better.

I prefer PC gaming, but for a casual player, you wont beat the value you get out a console.

[CR3 12,658]

7 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

I prefer PC gaming, but for a casual player, you wont beat the value you get out a console.

I was nearly making the switch and still would like to, for the first time to get 150-200 really high fps but have kinda done a U-turn on the decision if I can get 120 on a console now meaning one single purchase without the hassle of PC part picking and shelling out £1,000 more  

[Jamie0202 12,219]

6 hours ago, CR3 said:

I was nearly making the switch and still would like to, for the first time to get 150-200 really high fps but have kinda done a U-turn on the decision if I can get 120 on a console now meaning one single purchase without the hassle of PC part picking and shelling out £1,000 more  

Mate half the fun from PC gaming comes from the tweaking and the fucking about to get a betterexperience. I've always owned consoles and PCs and still currently play both so I speak from experience of both ends when I advise you to go down the console route. I've read your posts (and replied to you) in this section of the forum for the past couple of months and would definitely advise that.

I think nowadays I spend a lot more time reading about games, watching videos about tweaking games and messing about with in-game settings than actually playing games. It wasn't like this when I was a wee guy and had my Amstrad CPC 464 or my Amiga 1200. Back then when they were switched on their sole purpose was gaming (amost because deluxe paint was class) but I rarely fucked about the way I do nowadays.

Had several beers for the football tonight but if I'm in any way making any sense then console is the way to go if you're purely interested in just gaming (discounting isometric games predominantly controlled by mouse).

[Iakona 2,259]

14 minutes ago, Jamie0202 said:

I think nowadays I spend a lot more time reading about games, watching videos about tweaking games and messing about with in-game settings than actually playing games.

Truer words have never been spoken. 

[The Godfather 71,715]

LG NANOCELL LG 65NANO90UNA is about £800 odd for a 55 with 2.1 which isn't terrible. 

Tbh though is the casual gamer going to notice the difference? 

[CR3 12,658]

26 minutes ago, The Godfather said:

Tbh though is the casual gamer going to notice the difference? 

No. I guess it was just the awareness of it all 

[The Godfather 71,715]

7 hours ago, CR3 said:

No. I guess it was just the awareness of it all 

Yeah just annoying if you've already recently spend a near grand on a TV to know its not optimised. 

I'm trying to hold off till next year on both and see how they look then. 

[Iakona 2,259]

8 hours ago, The Godfather said:

Tbh though is the casual gamer going to notice the difference? 

Most definitely. You feel it just as much as you see it.. everything is buttery smooth and super responsive.

However trading overall visual fidelity will be a big sticking point for most people. Like I said to CR3 earlier, I don't think many games will actually support 120 fps in the end. A constant 60 fps will be the aim for most studios.

[The Godfather 71,715]

56 minutes ago, Iakona said:

Most definitely. You feel it just as much as you see it.. everything is buttery smooth and super responsive.

However trading overall visual fidelity will be a big sticking point for most people. Like I said to CR3 earlier, I don't think many games will actually support 120 fps in the end. A constant 60 fps will be the aim for most studios.

Yeah I'm not a tech guy so really don't delve that deep into it. Just really wondered if buying a 2.O instead of a 2.1 TV would be a waste on these consoles. 

 

[BridgeIsBlue 66,595]

Isn't 2.1 needed for a higher output than 4k?

Not clued up on it myself tbh. 

[Iakona 2,259]

1 hour ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

Isn't 2.1 needed for a higher output than 4k?

Not clued up on it myself tbh. 

It's needed for 4k/120hz or 8k/60hz

HDMI 2.0 will do 4K/60Hz and 8K/30Hz

Long story short.. You are not going to be left behind with a HDMI 2.0 TV. Not on these consoles.