$1500+ needed for a next gen console

  • Thread starter ctdc67
  • 46 comments
  • 2,885 views
615
United States
United States
You need to buy a higher end TV if you want to get the basic performance out of the next gen...
I am sure most people know this but not all.. Some of the options needed in a TV are 4k of course but also HDMI 2.1 and a higher level HDR.
 
I agree, I'm going to get a new monitor for my future PS5 pretty soon.
 
Last edited:
You need to buy a higher end TV if you want to get the basic performance out of the next gen...
I am sure most people know this but not all.. Some of the options needed in a TV are 4k of course but also HDMI 2.1 and a higher level HDR.
Those things aren't really needed but they are preferable. I don't have a 4k TV but I still get a lot of advantages out of owning a PS5 over my previous base PS4, like faster loading times and better frame rates for instance.
 
You need to buy a higher end TV if you want to get the basic performance out of the next gen...
I am sure most people know this but not all.. Some of the options needed in a TV are 4k of course but also HDMI 2.1 and a higher level HDR.

While I don't disagree that all those things are nice I don't feel they are essential at all. I have a 27in PC monitor with a low level of HDR & it looks great. Granted it doesn't have VRR but so far all good with my new XBSX, where there is unlocked framerates things are running at 60fps plus & I certainly appreciate it, and just like @FPV MIC mentioned the loading times are greatly reduced, in some cases almost eliminated. Also about the monitor, its only 1080P but because it is a VA type it has extremely good contrast & it almost covers the entire DCI-P3 colour space so it certainly looks very pretty. For example my friend has an all singing 55in LG OLED & when he saw my monitor he remarked that it almost looked as good, (the reduction in screen size helps this massively). Not only do I not want anything larger, I simply don't have room either, but this hasn't put me off, Im just as happy with the result with my new XBSX as I was with my XB1X. I guess all I'm trying to say is, it's certainly not a show stopper at all.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be alright 4K TVs for under $300 so the minimum cost with Series S and cheap 4K TV would be about $600, but I've had the same 1080p TV for about 14 years and it does fine to me so I will probably wait until 8K is the norm before I upgrade.
 
Last edited:
You need to buy a higher end TV if you want to get the basic performance out of the next gen...
I am sure most people know this but not all.. Some of the options needed in a TV are 4k of course but also HDMI 2.1 and a higher level HDR.

Not always true. My £500/$700 TV has HDR10, Dolby Vision, Dolby Atmos capability, 4k etc. And has Hue ambilight being a Philips.

I think the one thing for next gen that IS hard to get on a budget is 120hz or VRR. But give it a year and there'll be stuff under $1000/£800.
 
Not always true. My £500/$700 TV has HDR10, Dolby Vision, Dolby Atmos capability, 4k etc. And has Hue ambilight being a Philips.

I think the one thing for next gen that IS hard to get on a budget is 120hz or VRR. But give it a year and there'll be stuff under $1000/£800.

You made my point. Your TV may only be $700 but you are missing 120hz and that is a lot more expensive. I don't recommend anybody buying a TV without 120hz or you will regret it.
 
You made my point. Your TV may only be $700 but you are missing 120hz
So? My TV cost $600 and has everything of importance (meaning HDR and 4K) and I'm not feeling I'm missing much of anything and I use it for PC gaming.

I don't recommend anybody buying a TV without 120hz or you will regret it.
You're dramatically overstating the ability of these game consoles.
 
Last edited:
1080p is already more than enough for me (way overkill for some genres), my console gaming space is a computer desk, not a TV stand and couch, and I don't watch TV. No, I really don't need any TV. Especially any that cannot help but exhibit more latency than my monitor. Minimum latency is far more important than image quality.

HDR would be lovely (maybe when my monitor dies), but 4K is just marketing. Unless I was playing a game where I need a large screen with crystal clarity to spot or aim for something very far away, I don't need better than 1080p.
 
So? My TV cost $600 and has everything of importance (meaning HDR and 4K) and I'm not feeling I'm missing much of anything and I use it for PC gaming.


You're dramatically overstating the ability of these game consoles.
Likewise, my TV doesn't do 120hz, but it is 4k and has HDR. I see no reason nor have a desire to replace it with a newer more expensive TV at the moment and like you I sometimes use it for PC gaming as well.
 
Last edited:
Well I have a Philips 935 and it doesn't have vrr, nor hdmi 2.1. I have a PS5 since launch and have not seen an occasion where these have been an issue. To enjoy it you need a competent enough tv, from there on just have fun and don't focus on minor details that seem to be more marketing bullets.
 
You need to buy a higher end TV if you want to get the basic performance out of the next gen...
No you don't. You need to buy a higher-end TV (or monitor) if you want to get the enhanced performance out of them.
I don't recommend anybody buying a TV without 120hz or you will regret it.
Hahahahahaha no.
 
Also I think these 120fps/120hz modes will be a short term thing, we are at a cross gen time at the moment, once dedicated games start coming out for XBSX & PS5 we will be lucky to keep 4k 60 as graphics once again will be king.
 
4k60 I'm more than thrilled with for this new generation if that can be hit consistently.

Yep, I doubt the new generation consoles will be able to run a native 4k with HDR and ray tracing etc at 120 fps anyway.

About a year ago I purchased a new tv purely on picture quality and 120hz wasn't even a consideration for me.
 
Everyone can tell me that they are more than happy with their TV'S. But statistically speaking your TV performance doesn't match the Xsx performance and the Xss would of been adequate for that TV. Bottom line is that the next gen consoles have a hidden cost of a high end TV. I have a Vizio M series(middle level) with the xbox x and when I get the Xsx I will eventually get the Samsung Q70 or Q80.
 
Last edited:
Is there actually any game atm that runs at 4k hdr 120hz baring arcade titles or fps?

Being only interested in racing titles the only 2 games I can see pushing for these specs will be Forza 8 & GT7.

I'm only interested in the next gen versions of ACC, AMS2 & possibly PC4, I can't see them being anything more than 4k hdr 60hz with all the cpu calculations going on underneath, and if they run solid enough then there's no need for vrr either, which makes my mid spec 2017 samsung adequate for what I need.

Until they release any form of sim that can actually manage a solid 4k hdr 120hz then there's no need for a new tv, and even if eventually they do it'll still be cheaper than buying a decent enough PC setup to get the same effect.

Out of curiosity, can anybody here please state how much you payed for a PC setup to be able to run ACC at the above specs, I'm guessing it's a little over £1500 yes?

PC2 & AMS2 run quite well so I presume people are able to hit them targets with cheaper hardware?
 
Last edited:
Everyone can tell me that they are more than happy with their TV'S. But statistically speaking your TV performance doesn't match the Xsx performance and the Xss would of been adequate for that TV. Bottom line is that the next gen consoles have a hidden cost of a high end TV. I have a Vizio M series(middle level) with the xbox x and when I get the Xsx I will eventually get the Samsung Q70 or Q80.
It's not a hidden cost at all, technology is always advancing and you're either a person that constantly wants the best and shells out a small fortune, or you get what you are satisfied with within your budget and upgade every once in a while when you can/want to.

When Blu-Ray disks came out there was no hidden cost of upgrading your TV, that was just an option to get the best experience possible. You can make the same argument with anything in life, for example when you go on holiday is upgrading to first class on the plane a hidden cost because only by going first class will you get the best flight experience? No, that's a nonsense point of view.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, can anybody here please state how much you payed for a PC setup to be able to run ACC at the above specs, I'm guessing it's a little over £1500 yes?

PC2 & AMS2 run quite well so I presume people are able to hit them targets with cheaper hardware?

My 2060 super really surprised me with 4K performance in ACC. It held 50fps with medium settings although did get quite HOT around 74c so I would not recommend it for anything over 1440.

Anything on the Madness engine runs well for me, original AC runs the best especially in VR.

That aside, this thread attracted me as I’m seriously considering moving back to console this generation as real life racing with my bikes is consuming a lot of time and resources.
I’ve barely touched my sim rig in recent months. Mildly losing interest but would like a clean console setup in the background as the sim racing urge will never go away completely.
Just purchased a Reverb G2 hoping it would re-ignite the fire and while it’s incredible, I’m at an age and point in my life where simplicity is becoming king.

Now if I can just find a series x or ps5 at a reasonable price, I’m not so sure anyone needs to spend $1500 to have a great time with a console/tv setup.
 
You need to buy a higher end TV if you want to get the basic performance out of the next gen...
I am sure most people know this but not all.. Some of the options needed in a TV are 4k of course but also HDMI 2.1 and a higher level HDR.
You don't need a higher end TV for the "basic" performance of next gen. You need a higher end TV for the premium experience of next gen (8k, VRR, 120Hz etc).

For the vast vast majority of gamers a fairly ordinary 4K HDR TV will still provide a stellar gaming experience.
 
Last edited:
Everyone can tell me that they are more than happy with their TV'S.
Which destroys your point that you need an expensive TV (or monitor) to get "basic performance" from the PS5/XSX consoles. If you couldn't get "basic performance", nobody would be happy with their TVs (or monitors).
But statistically speaking your TV performance doesn't match the Xsx performance and the Xss would of been adequate for that TV.
"Statistically speaking"? What statistics?

If the TV (or monitor) performance "doesn't match the Xsx performance", people wouldn't be able to use those TVs (or monitors). But they can, because it does. Statistically speaking, 100% of what you've typed in this thread so far is nonsense.

Bottom line is that the next gen consoles have a hidden cost of a high end TV.
No, they don't. You can use any TV (or monitor) that will display the signal, and that includes anything with an HDMI port (absent other equipment). You don't need to buy an expensive TV to display the signal.

It's a "hidden cost" if you need to buy something to get the thing to work adequately. You don't need to buy a new TV (or monitor) - anything that worked with PS4 (or PS3, if you used a screen with HDMI) will still work with PS5.

You're confusing needs and desires. You desire 120fps, so you want a screen that will display is (and has HDMI 2.1). It's not necessary for basic console functionality.
 
Everyone can tell me that they are more than happy with their TV'S. But statistically speaking your TV performance doesn't match the Xsx performance and the Xss would of been adequate for that TV.
Most of the people in this thread probably remember how the PS3 was going to be so powerful that you'd be tripping over 1080p games that ran at 60 FPS, so you better go out and buy the best Bravia you can to take advantage and don't be like The Poors playing their 360 on 720p sets. There were maybe half a dozen when the console went out of production that even ran at something you could technically call 1080p; nevermind ones that ran at that with an even remotely acceptable framerate.



Statistically speaking, even the SeX (nevermind the PS5) having 4K60 titles after the first year that all of the games aren't just ports of PS4/XBone games is most certainly going to turn into a bit of a meme (just like the PS3 example, or when developers released games on the PS4/XBone with garbage framerates with motion blur cranked up to compensate and called it "cinematic"), nevermind "you gotta have a 4K 120FPS display to really be next gen." Again: You're dramatically overstating the ability of these game consoles.


Bottom line is that the next gen consoles have a hidden cost of a high end TV.
My PC is about as powerful as these consoles, I built it nearly a year before anyone had access to one, and I regularly play games where I can push a couple hundred FPS even at 4K when unlocked (just like those enhanced XBone titles can on the SeX). I do so on the top-spec TCL 4K television (which is mid-range), which has all of the fancy features that the PS5/SeX support for video (audio is irrelevant for televisions) except 120FPS and VRR.


When does the hidden cost come into play?
 
Last edited:
I've recently bought a new TV that has all those next-gen compatible features, but don't have a next-gen console. I won't buy one until there are at least a couple of must-buy games for it, so that probably won't be for at least another year. I see it as future-proofing as i'll expect the TV to last me another maybe 8 years, just as my previous one did. Sure, the overall cost may add up to that $1500 and more, but spread it over that time period and it isn't that much. 4K@120hz, HDR10 along with HFR, ALLM and VRR are no doubt great, but they're enhancements, not requirements, to enjoy next-gen gaming.
 
$1500+ is nothing. Approximately $200,000+ was needed for GT6, because if you wanted to enjoy all of its features you had to buy a Nissan GT-R with NissanConnect NISMO Plus.

But perhaps it's also possible to buy a product without feeling the need to use all of its features.
 
Last edited:
I play on an old epson power lite home cinema which I think is like 1080p at best and that is good enough for me. It will be getting replaced by a TV in the future though.
 
Everyone can tell me that they are more than happy with their TV'S. But statistically speaking your TV performance doesn't match the Xsx performance and the Xss would of been adequate for that TV. Bottom line is that the next gen consoles have a hidden cost of a high end TV. I have a Vizio M series(middle level) with the xbox x and when I get the Xsx I will eventually get the Samsung Q70 or Q80.

As far as I can tell the Q70s don't have 120Hz panels, the cheapest Samsung that does is the QE55Q80T.

My opinion is you'll definitely get some benefits out of a new TV but nowhere near enough for those features to be worth upgrading for specifically. If you're used to 30fps as many of us are 60fps on your existing TV will be a huge step up, 120fps is good too but not nearly as noticeable as the jump from 30 to 60. I'm pretty sure, though, that come the end of this generation we'll be bored of the memes about there being no 120Hz games once games stopped spanning this generation and the last.

Also no, the XSS is not going to adequately make use of a 2160p60 panel, they marketed it as targeting 1440p and it barely does that. Watch some Digital Foundry comparison videos.
 
Back