PS3 could run at 120 fps, claims Kutaragi

[Jared Moya]

Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi has claimed that the PlayStation 3 will be capable of running games at an unprecedented 120 frames per second - and suggested that future television technologies will support these refresh rates. According to Japanese news service Nikkei BP, Kutaragi's comments were made as part of a speech about the PS3 and the Cell processor delivered at the Tokyo International Digital Conference last week. Kutaragi acknowledged that while there aren't currently any televisions capable of refreshing the screen at a rate of 120 times per second, he wanted the PS3 to be ready to make the best of the new technology when it arrives.

Read the complete article (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/5885/PS3+could+run+at+120+fps%2C+claims+Kutaragi/)

[wonderboy2005]

Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi has claimed that the PlayStation 3 will be capable of running games at an unprecedented 120 frames per second - and suggested that future television technologies will support these refresh rates. According to Japanese news service Nikkei BP, Kutaragi's comments were made as part of a speech about the PS3 and the Cell processor delivered at the Tokyo International Digital Conference last week. Kutaragi acknowledged that while there aren't currently any televisions capable of refreshing the screen at a rate of 120 times per second, he wanted the PS3 to be ready to make the best of the new technology when it arrives.

Read the complete article (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/5885/PS3+could+run+at+120+fps%2C+claims+Kutaragi/)

that doesn't really mean a whole lot... the PS3 may display an image 120 times a second, but if the processor can't actually produce 120 frames every second, which will almost certainly be the case with most games, then you just have the same image being displayed multiple times in a row. Besides, 120FPS is overkill. TVs do 60FPS right now, and movie theaters usually do 25 or 30. I can't say I've heard too many people complain about TV or movies being 'choppy.'

[Dingo Xavier]

and yet human eyes cant tell the difference so why even bother?

[jacem913]

Like said above the human eyes cant distinguish it so why bother!

[TwoLoud]

i dont have human eyes..

huh? lol

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

It's all about the numbers. It will still be a rockin' system.

[Auggie2k]

Sounds like it's more for benchmark preferences. If we can't see a difference, why bother?

[wonderboy2005]

and yet human eyes cant tell the difference so why even bother?

Even though its not possible for the human eye to detect 120 frames per second or even 60 seperately, there is a noticable difference on some types of monitors. With CRTs, which almost all older TVs and still many new ones are based on, the difference is noticable. CRT screens do not retain the image they display during refreshes, meaning that there is a short period of time when the pixels on the screen are not lit up. With 120 frames per second, this period of time is effectively cut in half, making it less noticable to the human eye. However, most newer display types don't suffer from this problem. LCDs for example are always on. there is no 'off' period. As a result, the only change your eye can possibly detect would be the refresh in the image itself. Once the refresh rate goes over somthing like 4 frames a second, the changes begin to blur together from the perspective of the human eye.

So really the only type of display that will noticably benefit from an increase in frame rate would be CRTs, which incidently are the type of TV that are going out of the mainstream. The type of displays that will likely support this feature are exactly the types of displays that don't need this advance. Not really all that useful.

[crestfallen]

Firstly, it's marketing. Get that through your head. Since the amount of polygons a system can push doesn't hold marketers attention like it used to, they need to get people to latch onto another number. WIth the prevalence of First Person Shooter games and video card jargon, FPS is a good number to throw about.

Second. Even if the PS3 can display 120 FPS, the display has to support the output. No TV can display a signal at 120 FPS.

Third. 120 FPS of what?

[mountain_rage]

Ps3 is gonna be overpriced anyway. Sony's president thinks im gonna get a 2nd job to buy one he is clearly mistaken. I already have a pc I dont need another one that locked down.

[Matt]

ya it's all about hype and marketing....it's been said a hundred times, remember when the PS2 was being talked about and the hype that it may be blocked by the U.S. government because it can process nuclear warheads or whatever? We've seen this time and time again with sony and it's getting boring. Notice how close it is to November 22nd....and last time I checked they still don't have a REAL system, it's still a prototype. I'm not a microsoft fan, but at least they have a new WORKING system.

"But matt, didn't you see the digg article about the artifacts?" Yup, and it's been explained that the ventalation in those walmart boxes and the fact they'r eon the majority of the time (24 hours because it's a walmart) it's not a true test. Additionally, the software is to blame because they used BETA software instead of certified gold software.

Anything else sony fanboys want to pounce on?

[mojo-ris-in]

Didn't I read somewhere that the PS3 might not even make it on US shelves till almost 2007 or was that just BS? Anyways I'll probably pass on this one. Hell I have the PS2 and I hardly play that one now so I sure as hell can't see me shelling out for the new one.

[Signa]

ill laugh when sony gets their asses kicked for this one. as great as the system seems, i still havnt heard a good argument for *why* it needs all this shit.

with the enevitably high costs to make games for a system this strong, sony will not be able to make up for the loss in profits on the system with the games.... at least not with out raising the price of the games. then they still will look retarded when the games cost $70 when everyone elses costs $50.

sony is going to have to break some promises here, because they just bit off more than they can chew.

[ABC123666]

I could probably run cd at over 300fps, so acording to sony's statement my single cpu core system shits all over thoughs 8 xeons on the ps3.

[Lehk]

120 frames per second
...unrendered
...in the dark


just like the PS2 can do 16 million poly's per second ... untextured ... in the dark

[meyou123]

What I don't get is why can't console companies make consoles with video cards that will hook up to LCD screens? Is it just too expensive to include that or what?