4K tv for Xbox X

The Fuggler

Well-known Member
Cheers @iwb100 - picked up my new Sony from my local retailer yesterday and set it up last night. It’s awesome. Even the Entertainment Prevention Officer didn’t mind it being slightly bigger than its predecessor!
 

Cloysterpeteuk

Distinguished Member
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.
 

BAMozzy

Distinguished Member
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?
 

Cloysterpeteuk

Distinguished Member
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?
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.
 

Cloysterpeteuk

Distinguished Member
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?
Why wouldn’t I want the new machine?.

I want smooth performance my One X struggles on a few games now. I’m sure the games that struggle (most recently tried Darksiders Genesis and Subnautica that annoyed me) will be great on the new machine. I’m hugely looking forward fast loading, resume and I’ll still get nicer visuals and performance :).

Series X is such great value I never even considered sticking with One X or going with Series S.
 

BAMozzy

Distinguished Member
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
 

Cloysterpeteuk

Distinguished Member
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
I don’t only have a 60hz HD tele, I’ve got a 4K 60hz panel and a 144hz monitor. When I game on my pc something smooth like Hades (I don’t actually know what fps it’s running in though) and then move back to a 30fps console game I can notice it but I never feel like the controller is slow or the game is treacle.

Hopefully all games let us choose from two or three presets on the new machines, I just want the option to increase fov and remove annoyances like screen shake and motion blur.
 

BAMozzy

Distinguished Member
Maybe Treacle is wrong, its just not as slick....
 

The latest video from AVForums

Panasonic HZ2000 4K OLED TV Review | The best OLED for movie viewing in 2020
Top Bottom