And as I explained, whether its 'Native' 4k or not, you will need HDMI2.1 to output at 4k. The console can and will upscale to 4k so you are STILL sending a 4k image that STILL needs HDMI2.1 to send to your TV. 4k reconstruction can ALSO be used (like 4K Chequerboard) which is STILL a 4k image and STILL needs HDMI2.1. Games could also have 1800p or even target 100fps and you will still NEED HDMI 2.1.
Regardless - without HDMI2.1, you are using Limited colour at 4k/60 HDR, cannot do ANY frame rate at 4k above 60fps and with VRR, they don't have to lock to 120fps, they can lock to 90fps, lock to 100fps - VRR will sync the TV to the refresh rate so you get the 'benefits' of higher frame rates without Screen Tear or Judder because your TV is out of sync with the games Frame Rate. VRR is really a HDMI 2.1 feature and works for games running at 45fps up to 120fps.
Devs may well be hitting 1440/120 now - but with more understanding of the hardware, better and more streamlined engines etc, they could hit 1800p, maybe even 4k - especially with VRS. Using CB rendering, they could offer 4k/120 too so you will still need HDMI.2.1. With CB rendering, they are only rendering half the frame size every frame and using old frames to construct a 4k image - a little more costly than 1440p but 'cheaper' than native 4k but STILL NEED a HDMI2.1 enabled TV.
Point is, it doesn't matter what the console actually renders 'per' frame, its what the console sends to the TV that 'matters' and the Console will send a 4k/120 image BUT only if you have HDMI2.1 and that's NOT the only benefit of HDMI2.1 the TV offers either...
EDIT: and you also need to find a TV with 120hz panel to get 120fps regardless and the vast majority are built with 60hz as that is what the most they will be used for. Very few (if any) TV's will accept 120hz at all - even if in theory, HDMI 2.0 is enough for 1080 or even 1440 at 120fps. The TV is not built or able to accept more than 60fps and have to look to PC monitors instead.
I’m not a tech person so I have no clue what that long post was going on about, but I guess the gist of it is if you want the best of the best connection and display, get one with hdmi2.1 as it’s the only option if you want to utilise every supported resolution and feature of the new machines.
I’m happy to pay less money and I’ll still have a fantastic experience gaming with the new machines, I’m currently playing on a budget 46” 1080p set with the Xbox even though there’s a 58” 4K hdr tele in the lounge that I could use for games, I’m well used to being behind the curve with tech. I’d be quite happy to buy a second hand OLED or whatever, some tv from a couple of years ago that got rave reviews that I could pick up for a stupendous price.
Not really but if you don't, you won't get every feature or even get some of the benefits that gaming on next gen consoles offer. Few 1080p or 4k TV's will allow for 120fps even if the bandwidth of HDMI 2.0 would allow it at the resolution because most TV's are fixed at 60hz because that's more than adequate for everything (bar PC gaming) so even if you aren't bothered about having the 'best of the best' visuals, you could still miss out on the higher frame rates and any game that isn't locked to 60fps, can still tear or judder if the game drops frames.
HDMI 2.1 is going to offer every feature and frame rate the games were designed for. Some 4k TV's will offer resolution, HDR and even Variable Refresh Rates without offering the high frame rate. High frame rate isn't 'just' about having smoother looking image, its about having the lowest input lag and therefore the most responsive gaming experience.
If you happy just to have access to the game, then of course that doesn't matter but some of that is what separates 'current' gen gaming from next gen. With the Xbox One S, you can probably play the vast majority of games and maybe MS will allow streaming via xCloud for some of the games you can't play on current gen so why bother getting a 'new' console if a lot of what it offers is not accessible on your HD TV?
Not really but if you don't, you won't get every feature or even get some of the benefits that gaming on next gen consoles offer. Few 1080p or 4k TV's will allow for 120fps even if the bandwidth of HDMI 2.0 would allow it at the resolution because most TV's are fixed at 60hz because that's more than adequate for everything (bar PC gaming) so even if you aren't bothered about having the 'best of the best' visuals, you could still miss out on the higher frame rates and any game that isn't locked to 60fps, can stillIf you happy just to have access to the game, then of course that doesn't matter but some of that is what separates 'current' gen gaming from next gen. With the Xbox One S, you can probably play the vast majority of games and maybe MS will allow streaming via xCloud for some of the games you can't play on current gen so why bother getting a 'new' console if a lot of what it offers is not accessible on your HD TV?
I just find it amusing that the goal for years and years for console gamers has been getting 60fps a second gaming, the SECOND we get there in the majority of games and everyone is banging on about 120fps. If I had the option on my set and the game itself I would stick we 60, and ramp up the settings to Ultra with ray tracing and all the pretty stuff.
I’m assuming the next step now we can game at 4K is for the 8K hype train to leave the station, typical sillyness.
60fps was the goal when TVs refreshed at 60hz because that's a perfect sync and the 'best' you can hope for in terms of input lag and responsiveness. Its not just about 'smooth' visuals but because the game is updating at 60 or 120 fps, its picking up and acting on your controller input that much sooner and makes games feel much more responsive.
The point isn't about expecting all games to sacrifice 'visual' quality because it only has 8.33ms to get a frame out instead of going for a better visual presentation but having to settle for 60fps - its about player choice and games are still offering 'choice' - Dirt 5 1440/120, 4k/60 with more of a focus on visuals (more frame drops) or more of a focus on frame rate (lower visual settings) - Choice.
If you have a TV with VRR, it maybe better to go the Visual mode because those frame drops will not cause screen tear or judder because the frame rates out of sync with the TV. If you have a TV without VRR, maybe better to sacrifice a bit of Visual quality for a more stable gameplay experience. Got a TV That has 120hz capability, maybe sacrifice a bit of Visual quality for the most responsive feeling and smoothest gameplay
Xbox One X offers choice in numerous games - some of which will be a big benefit now on Series X - 60fps modes that now run consistently at 60fps, Dynamic Resolution that is now static - doesn't drop the quality of the visuals when things get a bit hectic. However there is choice to suit whatever the gamer prefers.
PC gamers have the same choice - push the graphic settings and resolution as high as their display can cope with and make do with the 'lowest' frame rate or compromise a bit on the visuals to be able to cap the frame rate for a very consistent experience, or drop the Graphics down as low as you have to to push the highest frame rate your display can do for the most responsive game play.
Its all about choice instead just giving you one option and maybe that option isn't the 'best; for you, fluctuating frame rates because the graphic settings are a bit too 'high' to run smoothly, maybe the choice to target 60 has left the game not looking as 'good' as it could and you prefer they go for visuals over frame rates. Maybe you want RT and don't care if the game is 30fps and someone may feel 60fps is better than adding some 'extra' sheen yo the visuals and a mire responsive feeling game
Its about choice.
And just because you may prefer visuals in one case, frame rate may well help in another - that's why FPS/racing games tend to go for 60fps and 3rd person adventure stories are often 30fps now - although AC: Valhalla will be 60fps.
If you only have a HD TV, 60hz you have 'little' choice. Gears 5, Ori etc will offer 120fps options for the most responsive versions of those games and you would seriously notice the difference if they offered the ultimate visual option at 30fps - feel like treacle is in your controller that your controller is so slow because its taking much longer for that button press to do something
Of course you don't 'need' a HDMI 2.1 TV to get a picture on your TV but if you are looking to buy a TV for Series X, why bother buying anything without? Why even ask if the features the console offers are not important - why not just buy any TV or make do with what you have? You will still get a picture and still be able to play games....
I personally couldn't give a hoot about 120fps, with my eye health issues I don't notice it anyway so I'm going get the best TV I can with my limited budget. I'm not wrong in doing that and neither is anyone else who wants to buy the best TV they can for their budget.
Last time I looked 120fps capable TVs started at about £1200 (although I could be wrong) and as I don't even earn that in a month there's no way I can afford to spend that kind of money on a TV. Especially when there's only 16 games out of the near 500 I will have available to play, that's too few in my opinion.
So please don't be so patronising and blinkered. People have their own reasons for choosing what they're buying and they don't need to be criticised for that. I'm sure you didn't mean for you post to come across like that, but it did.
I couldn't recommend people to buy a TV where you are throttling the options and capability of the console by not having sufficient bandwidth into the TV to use ALL the modes a game will offer...
There is 16 games confirmed to support 120fps - not all arriving at Launch but 16 games already isn't few and far between.
snip... as is VRR, ALLM etc .....snip..... - but you won't get those options without HDMI2.1.
I'm looking for a new TV to replace my ageing Samsung 48" UE48J5500AKXXU. Main use will be for Xbox One (OG model currently) and eventually the Series X, hence asking here and not in the TV forum.
My employer offer a salary deduction/benefits scheme where we can get various tech items through a specific provider, so from their selection I've narrowed it down to these two models which are within my price range for the size I'm after:
Samsung UE55TU7000KXXU - 55"
LG UN73006LAC - 55"
Can anyone advise what would be the better TV with a future upgrade to the Series X in mind?
Looking at the specs it's all just buzzwords to me, although I know from reading through a few pages of this thread that not all bells and whistles will be available due to no HDMI 2.1 on these sets.
At the moment I'm leaning towards the LG due to my current Samsung showing hazy purple patches on the screen soon after the warranty expired.
I said in my post 4K 120FPS. 120FPS modes are not all going to be 4K especially if the developers want to introduce some of the newer GPU features such as Ray Tracing.
The Samsung Q70R that I have does 120FPS but at 1440p so it's still possible if I so choose to do so.
Again, these features are NOT exclusive to HDMI 2.1. Samsung introduced features into HDMI 2.0 sets such as the 2019 QLEDs. The big kicker for HDMI 2.1 is greater bandwidth for 120FPS at 4K or above.
As there are a lot of people out there on a budget, they can't always afford the latest and greatest of everything. £1.2k tv on top of £450 XSX and then sound systems etc. etc. add up. Some people will be compromising on some parts and if they know the pitfalls of going to a lower set BUT know they can still get some of the benefits of VRR and ALLM then there is nothing wrong in advising people of this.
Same can be said for HDR, you'll find lots of TVs advertised as HDR but the implementation (regardless of HDMI 2.x) is woeful. Sometimes a little help on what is within somebody's budget and what to expect is all that can be offered other than "buy the 65" OLED latest super HDMI TV or you're wasting your time".
I'll end my post by stating that the vast majority will still be gaming on tv's that are 1080p and you'll not find them here on the forums worrying about the lack of 120FPS.
I am not going to get into an argument about this - if people want or for whatever reason, aren't able to purchase a TV that doesn't offer the full range of features, game modes etc, then so be it. I still think its important to let them know what they can expect or not by opting for a TV with a lower spec, lower bandwidth HDMI port.