PlayStation 3 will do 120 fps?
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Oct 28th 2005 at 5:45PM }
Speaking at the Tokyo International Digital Conference yesterday, Ken Kutaragi boasted that the PS3 should be capable of running games at 120 fps. Of course, even newer TV displays aren't capable of refreshing 120 times per second, but when the technology gets there, Kutaragi hopes that the PS3 will be ready and willing to comply. If the PS3 ever manages to take advantage of this purported capability, then it will certainly put those 30 fps "next-gen" games to shame…
[Thanks, Justin]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
_thumbnail.jpg "Dynasty Warriors Strikeforce (Ryu)")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Kenny! Oh how I missed you.
I have a feeling just because it may be capable of doing 120 fps, does not mean it will. The option may just be open. Sort of like a system setting.
hanih @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Of course it will do 120fps. Just like how the PS2 was able to render Toy Story like graphics in real time.
kutaragi is a living hyperbole.
Brian @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Sure, vaporware can do lots of things.
b @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Stop the hype and show us some games already.
DJ @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Anyone can boast about something and say it SHOULD be able to do what you say. But in reality - we want to know WILL it do that? And based on some things sony has said they would have on the PS3 (backwards compatability) that are now supposively not goin to be in the system.... I wouldn't be surprised if this is also untrue.
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Let the M$ and Nintendork fanboys rejoice! Yet another topic about the PS3's abilities.
Arm the fan-cannons!!!!
Rabiddog @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Sniff..Sniff......
"Turds"
Sloopydrew @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Even though I liked the Xbox better than the PS2, I have a feeling everything about the PS3 will put the 360 "to shame." Games, graphics, gameplay, exclusive titles, etc. etc. 120 FPS would be incredible, and it's always smart to think ahead (the PS2 was a 6 year console -- 7 years from now, many TVs will have a refresh rate of 120 FPS). Remember all the skeptics that shrugged off DVDs that included "progressive scan." Or claimed that sound systems with DTS ES 6.1 would never be used (3 movies in the past week were released on DVD with ES soundtracks). Sony is taking its time with the PS3 and is making sure they're getting things right (at least that's the impression I'm getting).
Microsoft screwed the pooch (pooch = gamers) by rushing the 360 out long before its time. I don't usually buy into spin, but it really does look like the Xbox "1.5."
ZeroCorpse @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
. . .And all without ANY kind of ventilation in the casing! What geniuses they have there at Sorny!
The PS3 is sounding more and more like the Phantom every day.
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
NO BACKWARDS COMPATABILITY?!!?!?!
Oh no!! No really old Spyro or Crash Bandicoot games for me!
Honestly, quit worrying about backwards compatability.
Aww damn. Now you made me quote G4.
"Who really cares about playing old games on a new system full of new games?"
LMAO @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
120 fps? Cool. Is he benchmarking the system using Quake 1 or something? I'm curious what program he uses or what special effects is turned on or off when achieving this frame rate, even at what resolution. I mean, I can run Quake 1 or Half-life 1 at 150+ fps using just a Geforce 4MX. Frame rate performance is relative to resolution, Anti-aliasing, Anisotropic filtering, color depth, etc.
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
ZeroCorpse. Do not quote Peter Moore. That guy is a douche.
Sienar @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
My PC can run super mario world in excess of 200fps, altough my screen can't actually display it.
Does anyone really expect a game like MGS4 or anyother top teir title to ever reach 120fps. Or, more importantly, will there be enough of a noticible difference that TV makers will support it, and gamers will demand it.
Michael @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
can the human eye actually see 120fps?
Chris @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Why does it matter? We, AS HUMANS, can't even see 120fps. A fanboy wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 80fps and 120fps ... seriously, our eyes can't do it.
I don't even understand the arguement of fps ... basically anything over 30fps is just compensating for your lack of penis size.
ZOMGWTF!! MY QUAKE IZ 60FPS!! I'm awesome!
Jason Cross @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
This is a bad marketing move.
Certainly developers aren't going to make games to run at 120fps. Rather than go at high frame rates that TVs can't even use, they'll push texture resolution, anti-aliasing, and shader effects to make the game look better at run at "only" 60fps.
But certainly there will be PS3 games that run at 30fps, especially early ones. And when this happens, everyone is going to turn around and call Sony a bunch of liars and hypemongers for not having 120fps games. Gamers are vindictive like that.
Maybe Kutaragi is talking less about framerate than about display output frequency ability (supporting 120Hz refresh rates).
By the way, the Xbox 360 is certainly capable of 120 fps in games, just like the PS3 is. Remember that swimming dolphin thing from the original Xbox dev kit? That runs at like 600fps on an Xbox 360.
Frame rate isn't a matter of just hardware muscle, it's a matter of how hard the game developers make your hardware sweat. A regular Xbox could easily run simple 3D games with low-res textures and low polygon counts at 120fps or more. They don't do that - they lock it at 60fps - because displays can't go up to 120Hz.
I can't believe there are gamers falling for this nonsense. You would really rather have a 120fps game than a game that looks far better because they allow themselves twice as long to render each frame and get "only" 60fps? Geez.
logikil @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
So people do realize that the human eye really isn't capable of processing more then 60 fps? You gotta love Ken Kutaragi. Sometime here in the future he's gonna tell people that the PS3 can deliver babies, cook, and manage your stock portfolio. TELL ME WHAT THIS "GAME SYSTEM" WILL DO!!!
Rabiddog @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Sniff.. Sniff.........
Still smells like turds.
Sienar @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
My PC can run super mario world in excess of 200fps, altough my screen can't actually display it.
Does anyone really expect a game like MGS4 or anyother top teir title to ever reach 120fps. Or, more importantly, will there be enough of a noticible difference that TV makers will support it, and gamers will demand it.
KM @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I don't know whether to believe that the PS3 will regularly do 120 fps, but honestly I don't care. I find anything over 30 to be acceptable, and over 60, I'm not even sure if I'd notice.
As for backwards compatibility, if Sony actually did ditch that feature, I'd be a lot less sure that I'm getting a PS3. Maybe people who play action oriented games see it differently, but I'd hate not being able to play my old RPGs just because I can't find a PlayStation that holds up more than a few years.
OTAM @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Oh boy...
I'm just going to leave it at that.
ZeroCorpse @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Is it just me, or is Ken Kutaragi starting to seem a lot like Yamauchi?
I mean... Crazy is as crazy does.
Cdaghostie @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
It might be able to do 120 on maybe mario but not any game. Thats like saying you can run halo on the gba.
Also since the cost is going to be up there in the 400-500 range and the games 60 atleast its possible but I think sony just say lets try to leap off the empire state building. Not going to make it most likely.
btw I played the 360 today. High quality graphics. I played King Kong which felt awfully like I was sliding around but then again ive never played xbox except for halo
Robert @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
People... I think we all can figure out that 120 fps isn't going to change the world. I wish console makers would shut up about what the consoles can do and start talking about what the GAMES can do.
The sad thing is that many original xbox games will be more fun to play than most (if not all) of the xbox 360 games available at launch. Console power is great... but a game that I really enjoy playing is way better than a game that can display amazing graphics.
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Yet another reason why Mr. Kuturagi is full of shit. I swear...
Alkaiser @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Great. Someone should ask him if it's going to do 128-bit color next, and if it'll be capable of transmitting audio frequencies we can't hear.
Drive your pets insane!
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"Also since the cost is going to be up there in the 400-500 range and the games 60 atleast its possible but I think sony just say lets try to leap off the empire state building."
You do know what a "rumor" is right...and just something is one price in one country doesn't mean you can just convert it to your native currency in order get the price at which it will be at.
For the record too X360 games $50-60 as well so that argument is pretty much a wash.
"The sad thing is that many original xbox games will be more fun to play than most (if not all) of the xbox 360 games available at launch. Console power is great... but a game that I really enjoy playing is way better than a game that can display amazing graphics."
100% true my friend...
Bloo (formerly Glenn) @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"Even though I liked the Xbox better than the PS2, I have a feeling everything about the PS3 will put the 360 "to shame."
You have such deep feelings. Are you very emotional?
"Games, graphics, gameplay, exclusive titles, etc. etc."
Gameplay? Exclusive titles? Do you think before you type?
"120 FPS would be incredible, and it's always smart to think ahead"
Why would it be incredible if it can't be detected by the human eye?
"(the PS2 was a 6 year console -- 7 years from now, many TVs will have a refresh rate of 120 FPS)."
TV standards aren't going to change anytime in the forseeable future, sorry. They're still having trouble nailing down HDTV standards at 60Hz through 2009. Please stop talking out of your @$$.
"Remember all the skeptics that shrugged off DVDs that included "progressive scan."
LOL. Skeptics? Shrugged off? Progressive scan was welcomed with open arms. Do I smell gas or is that your breath? (BTW - I owned the FIRST progressive scan DVD player - SONY DVP-S9000ES - $1500)
"Or claimed that sound systems with DTS ES 6.1 would never be used (3 movies in the past week were released on DVD with ES soundtracks)."
Who claimed that? Why do you keep making stuff up? I also own the FIRST DENON receiver that supported DTS ES (Gladiator...WOW) that I actually bought to play Rogue Squadron in PLII LOL. You mentioned 3 in the past week were released in DTS ES but that really means nothing. VERY few movies are released as such and believe me I wish every moive was.
"Sony is taking its time with the PS3 and is making sure they're getting things right (at least that's the impression I'm getting)."
They're taking they're time because they have to. The Cell chip is not really viable yet. Blu Ray, while on the market in Japan for 3 years now, has not been finalized as a format. As far as getting things right, I hope so.
"Microsoft screwed the pooch (pooch = gamers) by rushing the 360 out long before its time. I don't usually buy into spin, but it really does look like the Xbox "1.5.""
I don't feel it's rushed at all. I'm sick of playing low res jaggie games on my HDTV. It really looks like the 1.5 my @$$. I have watched the 720p movies of gameplay on my 55" 720p TV and it is easily a quantum leap in graphics. Sure my buddies are blown away - but even my non-gamer wife is impressed! I have also played HL2 and Quake 4 on that same TV. To call it 1.5 would be sheer ignorance.
Kamalot @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Damn! Adding more frames per second is going to make my games more fun per second, right?
Seriously, its been said by others above, it depends on what you run. You could probably run PS2-like games on the PS3 at 120 frames per second if the PS3 is 2-3 times as fast as the PS2 is now.
Should anyone be shocked?
Gowans007 @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Im sure the ps1 could do 120 frames per sec if someone wanted to do, theres no metion of the quality of graphics that would do 120fps.
Its simple and the same with any system.
More Basic Graphics = Higher FPS
soco @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
my old pentium 233 was capable of doing 120fps too and it could even do 1080p-like resolutions on two monitors. too bad it was totally useless for anything other than a pretty version of pong.
i bet the dreamcast also was capable of 120fps versions of chu chu rocket on the VGA out.
a shame there's no HDTV spec on the horizon that will support 120fps.
b @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Movies are filmed at a 24 fps, so who cares?
Bloo, I'm getting all three systems, but I do think that 360 graphics are Xbox 1.5, not because they aren't next gen (let alone the lack of higher resolution support), but because the Xbox 1 was incredible at delivering awesome graphics, so the difference between Xbox 1 and Xbox 360 is much less than the difference between PS2 and PS3, even if they can compare to PS3 graphics.
"I have watched the 720p movies of gameplay on my 55" 720p TV and it is easily a quantum leap in graphics."
That's so subjective dude.
AbleJames @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
To Chris, and others who talk about the limits of human visual perception:
Humans are not computers. They do not see 'digitally' as a whole. Even individual neurons, which fire and thus appear binary, actually direct information based on the *rate* of firing, and the varying rate of every neuron in the visual cortex perceiving light *combined* doesn't simplify so easily into that "humans can only see at 23/24/30 frames per second" soundbite.
If you'd like to see a similar principle in action, play a fast-paced game on your PC (I recommend Quake 3). Turn off Vsync, Limit the FPS to as low as possible, then 60, then 120, then take off the limit (try to get to 300 fps?). You will notice the difference every time.
Better yet, wave your hand in front of your PC screen right now (don't think this works for LCDs--use CRT monitors, or try your tube TV set). You will see your hand broken up into discrete afterimages as you wave it across. I can tell you my monitor is running at 85 hz right now (85 fps, essentially, as a refresh rate), and I can see many silhouettes of my hand quite easily when I do this.
No, I'm not some sort of superhuman, and neither are you--Your eye may only, in total, take in full scene information 24-30 times per second (60 fields, including both eyes), but you do not see in 24-30 *slideshow* frames per second. You aren't a digital robot--your brain is still made up of some 100 billion neurons, each firing at its own rate. A large number of neurons will be firing when a frame changes at much higher rates than 30 fps, which is why you can percieve higher refresh rates as smoother.
Babu @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"Sure my buddies are blown away - but even my non-gamer wife is impressed! I have also played HL2 and Quake 4 on that same TV. To call it 1.5 would be sheer ignorance."
Basing a next-gen console on graphics alone is ignorance i think. In every generation there was been a leap in gameplay - Snes/Genesis went to more expansive worlds bigger games - and attempted 3d. Playstation Dreamcast N64 went to full 3d environments analog stick. Ps2 xbox gamecub went to online multiplayer and high dual analog stick resolutions. But really I cant see what xbox 360 is bringing to the table besides graphics that hasnt been done before. Someone help me out here.
I realized i missed some innovations and placed some in the wrong category but im not in the mood to look up these facts ill just let someone else do it
Babu @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
correction (high resolutions and dual analog stick) im tired cant wait to get off work
mike @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
can the human eye actually see 120fps?
--
Nope. Kinda fitting for the PS3. Technically so amazing, we humans aren't qualified to enjoy it.
So.. um, it's never coming out.
Bob @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Ken Kutaragi is such an Asshat.
Isurus @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I don't know about everyone else, but if any game runs at 120 fps I will be PISSED because that means only one thing: they have jipped us out of a better gaming experience. If a game is running that well, then they should definitely add more and more to the game until it comes down to 60 fps (I'm speaking of next gen games, not retro or mini games).
Sienar @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"Movies are filmed at a 24 fps, so who cares?
Bloo, I'm getting all three systems, but I do think that 360 graphics are Xbox 1.5, not because they aren't next gen (let alone the lack of higher resolution support), but because the Xbox 1 was incredible at delivering awesome graphics, so the difference between Xbox 1 and Xbox 360 is much less than the difference between PS2 and PS3, even if they can compare to PS3 graphics.
"I have watched the 720p movies of gameplay on my 55" 720p TV and it is easily a quantum leap in graphics."
That's so subjective dude."
So the difference between PS3 and PS2 is going to be greater then the difference between 360 and Xbox. So what? The difference between 360 and PS3 won't be much. Why don't we compare PS3 vs PSX while we're at it?
Lack of higher resolution support?
720p is supported, and I beleive required on every game. Also it's about the highest any HD tv currently supports, unless your willing to shell out near $4000+
And last I knew, 360 supported 1080i as well.
And do you really think 360 graphics are going to be killzone prerendered lave right off the bat? Do you realize that these systems are very complex and will take time till they show what there really capable of. Don't beleive me, then look at shots of RRV on the PS2 and tell me that it looks significantly better then Le Mans on the Dreamcast. Or better yet, look at the jump from RRV to God of War, or GT4.
But then again, graphics are a subjective opinion.
Bloo (formerly Glenn) @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"Basing a next-gen console on graphics alone is ignorance i think"
When people call it 1.5 they are generally referring to the fact that it doesn't look much better than the current XBOX. That was what I was countering. You really need to brush up on your comprehension skills.
"That's so subjective dude."
Please come to my house and I 100% guarantee you, that when you see the 720p NBA2K6 video in 720p on a 55" HDTV, that you will be amazed at the graphics. 100%. Guaranteed.
darryl @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Ugh...
"can the human eye actually see 120fps?"
"Why does it matter? We, AS HUMANS, can't even see 120fps."
"So people do realize that the human eye really isn't capable of processing more then 60 fps? "
"Why would it be incredible if it can't be detected by the human eye?"
"Movies are filmed at a 24 fps, so who cares?"
Why don't you run your monitor with a 24Hz vertical refresh then?
--
Persistence of vision should be compared with the related phenomena of beta movement and phi movement. A critical part of understanding these visual perception phenomena is that the eye is not a video camera: there is no "frame rate" or "scan rate" in the eye: instead, the eye/brain system has a combination of motion detectors, detail detectors and pattern detectors, the outputs of all of which are combined to create the visual experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision
Ian Gibson @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
no way will the ps3 be able to put out 120 fps with MGS4 graphics - just not technically possible, end of disscussion
b @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Bloo, what I mean is that, taking the design aside, the graphics do look like Xbox 1.5. At least from what I've seen. The Gears of War gameplay shots don't look so next-gen, specially with the poor frame rate they've shown. That doesn't mean I won't get it because frankly, graphics are the least important thing in a game. We also have to wait and see on an HDTV these games to truly make a judgement, but my prediction is still that it looks like Xbox 1.5 (because you could say that Xbox had PS2.3 graphics, so it pretty much could compare with PS3).
Digitalforce @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I don't understand what people want in next-gen, ESPECIALLY at launch.
Remember at the PS2 launch we had things like Fantavision and Kessen. Whoopee!
Games in High def is a huge place but the only thing that will innovate games is new genres. FPSs, racing, etc etc have all been done. I think that is what makes Condemned and Kameo so attractive.. especially as launch titles. Originality will be key in next gen.
How many freaking Maddens, Burnouts and recycled EA crap can you play!? We need original content.
PickyPants @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Dimitri wtf man?
I thought you played games on multiple systems.
You only like Sony's now?
/not sarcasm, really curious
Chris @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
To AbleJames
I'm not saying we SEE 30fps ... but anything faster than that doesn't register. There is no way you'd see the difference between 80 and 120fps.
85hz does not = 85fps ... a refresh rate is something different.
30fps is approximately 60hz ... so 120fps could possibly be by that logic, 240hz ....
When video cameras tape CRT monitors, the CRT is dropped down to 55-60hz ... not 30hz ...
figure it out. our brain and eye percieve fliud motion, but that motion won't be any more fluid at 60fps or 120fps.
Babu @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"When people call it 1.5 they are generally referring to the fact that it doesn't look much better than the current XBOX"
Errr. Comprehend this my friend - The fact that it looks better on hdtv than the original xbox does not make it a vast improvement over the original xbox. That is why some will call it 1.5 because other than the graphics - it has not made much improvement(if any).
Bloo (formerly Glenn) @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"We also have to wait and see on an HDTV these games to truly make a judgement"
MY point was I HAVE seen this on MY 55" HDTV. That is why I have rendered my judgement now. You do know Quake 4 is out for PC now right? Well, for example, I am playing that NOW on my 55" in 720 x 1280.
Digitalforce @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Oh my... Xbox 1.5, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Try to run Kameo, PGR3 and Condemned on the Xbox... especially in HD!!
And remember, these freaking launch games!! Kessen? Fantavision? That ringing anyone's bell?
Nodnetni @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
INFO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frames_per_second
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision
"High frame rates are also for creating performance "reserves" as certain elements of a game may be more GPU intensive than others. While a game may achieve a fairly consistent 60-70 fps, it may drop below that at times, and a higher frame rate can ensure that this is not noticeable."
Basically using a high frame rate is going to help when the system gets boged down. your eye isnt going to notice anything over 24 like every one else has said.