When can we play forza horizon 4 and future 5 edition, in 4k 120 fps? I can give up some frames really, for 120 fps experience. I’ve bought series x+qled65q90t+soundbar q900t+rear speakers swa-9000s+hdmi 2.1 cable viggio desing x2 so Im already ready for the next gen
They really need to add a 120hz mode for the Series X. 4k120hz on my 3080 hooked up to my LG CX is a magical experience that should be available to more people.
Xbox Series X GPU can’t handle 4k 120fps (for FH4, at least). It’s not even certain its CPU can handle 1080p 120fps.
With a 1660 Super, 4k High quality, I was getting 72fps for the FH4 benchmark. Ultra quality 58fps. The Series X GPU is better than a 1660 Super, but not a huge amount better.
With a 3080, I get 132fps for the FH4 benchmark 4k Ultra, 150fps 4k High quality. Series X is a long way short of the 3080’s performance (the entire console costs a lot less than just a 3080 graphics card).
Right now… buy a powerful PC. Sounds like you can afford it. On Xbox, probably never unless they run it at low settings.
FullHD with low settings would be the best. 120 is necessary for every fast game like Horizon.
I really do feel many people would be better off with a PC nowadays. Xbox One launched in Nov 2013, so lets call it a 7 year lifespan. Xbox Live Gold is £50 per year. Xbox Series X is £450. So £800 total price for 7 years of gaming. For around that money you could get a PC that would match the console, or you could spend a bit more and outperform the console, and it would give you full choice over the options so you can run at 120fps with lower settings if you want.
There’s a caveat that right now, graphics cards are silly money, and you just can’t get hold of them, but the same is true of the consoles. So I’m talking about PC prices in more sane times, as I feel that’s a fair comparison with the £450 price for the console.
None of this was the case when games were exclusive to Xbox, but now that everything is coming out on PC, and you don’t have to pay for Xbox Live Gold on PC, I think the case for getting a PC rather than a console is very strong. While there is nothing exclusive to Xbox, there are games that you can play on PC but not on Xbox, so it’s now PC that gives you access to more games.
2 Likes
Exactly. I like both worlds so it’s much better to have everything.
face palm.
1 Like
With effects heavily optimized (SSAO Off, Low Reflections, Medium Shadows, 2X MSAA, Dynamic Geometry on Medium, but you can leave Static Geometry and Textures on High, and I usually keep Lighting on High just for Subsurface Scattering in the leaves) my Vega 64 could do about 4K100fps.
So if we’re stuck in “Next Gen Aware” mode you’d get about the same with Series X, maybe slightly less because my GPU was overclocked, if we just tune Horizon 4 as-is it should hit about 4K90fps with what I would consider “heavily optimized” but still decent graphics.
As soon as we can update the engine for full RDNA2 support (especially with Variable Rate Shading) we should be able to get 4K100-120fps and generally “Medium” settings, which I would take in a heartbeat over all other graphical balance variations.
I think the important thing for developers to remember now is with high framerate gaming we’re really best off not locking the framerate, we don’t need the frame counter pegged at 120fps 100% of the time, so a 120fps mode is not inherently twice as demanding as your 60fps mode.
Of course in a perfect world your GPU would be fully saturated at exactly 120fps all the time, but that’s not realistic, aiming for 110fps “Average” should be a good practical goal.
At this point just about anyone running 120fps really should have Freesync or HDMI2.1 Variable Refresh Rate (and even without VRR I’d argue just leaving the game with an uncapped framerate is the best option).
That’s exactly what Halo does. Target is 120 but you don’t need it all the time because of VRR.
And I agree H4 is easily possible with 120 on XSX. Current build looks prepared for it (low settings).
In a competitive racing game I want perfect locked frames with perfectly consistent frame times.
We’ve barely got to the point where consoles can deliver locked 60fps and people are talking about 120, it is in my opinion absolutely ridiculous. If you want that, get a PC. 99.9% of players don’t care about 120fps gimmicks.
1 Like
LOL, consistent frame doesn’t exist. It’s much better on consoles than on PC. On PC you can have target around 200 and it’s consistent enough but still with occasional stuttering.
Forza is locked 60 since 2005? Horizon since 2018 but it’s about HW. No problem with delivery.
120 must be standard in 2021. It’s not much but better than nothing. Many launch game has it so it’s not impossible even now.
Reading comprehension is hard.
You say consistent framerates don’t exist, but Forza is locked at 60 since 2005. Pick one.
FH4 on PC is perfect 60 unless someone wants to stupidly split hairs again and claim it drops to 58 for 0.01 seconds just before a race starts. Frame times perfectly consistent = perfectly consistent response.
Luckily most people in the industry will ignore such demands as ‘120 must be standard’. And thank god, or games will never improve graphically. In 5 years you’ll be demanding it be 240.
2 Likes
That’s true. Consoles are much more stable so PC is not an easy option. I meant higher frame was problematic in past but should be possible on current gen.
I saw H3 on PC and it wasn’t too consistent so I am not sure but maybe H4 is.
120 is reality on consoles. 240 is reality on PC.
I’ve just bought a 1440p 240hz monitor. Really nice improvement over 1080p 165hz. I’m looking forward to 960hz some day, which I think is around what will be needed to get the same motion smoothness as we have in the real world.
Same here. I have 240 Hz for current gen and for PC testing. 120 is not bad but it’s not 240 at all 
Hard to say what will be enough.
I read that it’s possible to create videos that allow people to differentiate up to around 1000fps, so that’s why I went for 960. And just subjectively, if I move my hand back and forth really fast in front of my eyes, I don’t see any steps in its position, whereas even at 240hz if you move the mouse pointer left and right really fast, you can clearly see the position changing in definite steps, they’re just smaller steps as the refresh rate increases. So it seems to me like it will need a lot more than 240hz to truly match how continuously we see the real world.
Sounds real. 240 Hz is good “compromise” for now. I still can play games in 60 but it’s not smooth for fast movements at all. 120 is much better, sill too slow for fast movement but great enough for normal racing sims. 240 feels very good and for more arcade stuff it’s petty good.
120 Hz for consoles is good enough for me but still PC is probably necessary addition to it.
I don’t care about graphics at all so FullHD is all I need. It’s good we have choices like with Horizon 4.
I think that the mouse pointer multi-tasking slows it down, so that probably isn’t a real test. Games can take over from multi-tasking.
I just tried recording the desktop at the same fps as the refresh rate, and stepping through the video frame by frame. There’s one pointer position per frame, spaced out just like you see when moving the pointer.