Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What is the highest internal resolution possible?
#1
I have seen some games at 16x and they look amazing, but someone said that theoretically you can make them even higher if your have the hardware for it.

Basically, I never see anyone posting anything above 4,000 x 4,000 or such on YouTube, etc. I have also never used this emulator, but I am wondering:

1.What is the highest possible resolution games can get to, as limited by the program itself?

2.Is it possible that the resolution can get even better looking (and not broken/glitchy) above 4k, such as in being bounds with Ultra HD/iMAX quality? I have an Ultra HD TV, so just wondering!
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
The highest possible resolution is the highest possible resolution for a single texture on your GPU. In most cases, something like 8192x8192.

I've personally tried 8192 × 4320 (8k UHD) and I got about 2 FPS lol.

But mostly, it will look better with 4x internal and 8xMSAA than increasing the resolution to insane amounts.
[Image: ov4]
Gaming: Intel i7 3770k @ 4.2Ghz | R9 290 | 16GB RAM | 480GB(240GB+240GB RAID0) SSD | 3 TB HDD | 1 TB HDD | 500GB HDD
Server: AMD FX 6300 @ 4.4Ghz | GTX 670 | 16GB RAM | 240GB SSD | 320GB HDD
PCSX2 General Troubleshooting FAQ
Reply
#3
in 8K with MSAA at x16 i have 13 fps XDDDD really amazing is taking mygpu to the next level of temperatures
CPU: Intel Core i7 4790K @ 4 Ghz
CPU Cooler: Corsair H75
MoBo: MSI Z97S SLI KRAIT  
GPU: AMD Radeon R9 290X
RAM: Corsair 16 GB 1600 Mhz

Desktop
[Image: 1086677.png]

Laptop
[Image: 872520.png]
Reply
#4
yeah i got around 10 fps with 8k MSAA and x16
Windows 10
Intel 5930k 4.2ghz/core
32 GBs of 2400MHz DDR4
AMD PoweColor 390X (GPUs are expensive or this would be in crossfire)
Reply
#5
(08-15-2014, 11:04 PM)Blyss Sarania Wrote: The highest possible resolution is the highest possible resolution for a single texture on your GPU. In most cases, something like 8192x8192.

on my gpu dxcapsviewer shows 16k x 16k for dx11. so... yeah... in most cases. try 16k... that's a massive 1GB for a single framebuffer. one could half it by using rgb565. or you'd need atleast 3GB vram for double buffering and some texture mem. enjoy the slideshow. Biggrin

(08-15-2014, 11:04 PM)Blyss Sarania Wrote: I've personally tried 8192 × 4320 (8k UHD) and I got about 2 FPS lol.

if you used MSAA you probably ran over your 2GB vram limit. the memory is swapping then. if you'd do without or a lil less resolution it could work faster. just a theory tho. and you need a game that does it without alot of extra buffers. easier.
Reply
#6
The resolution you can achieve with your machine and brag aloud about how good is your rig even when it does nothing to make gaming a better experience at all.
Imagination is where we are truly real
Reply
#7
right. it doesn't make it better. but it's nice to check the levels of possibility sometimes. i already rendered dmc in 4kx3k (effectively interlaced - half of it) on my cheap rig and compressed it on the fly. i'm proud of it. i'm not willing to try to bump it to 8k tho. it'd possibly work, but... Biggrin
Reply
#8
(08-16-2014, 05:38 AM)dabore Wrote: right. it doesn't make it better. but it's nice to check the levels of possibility sometimes. i already rendered dmc in 4kx3k (effectively interlaced - half of it) on my cheap rig and compressed it on the fly. i'm proud of it. i'm not willing to try to bump it to 8k tho. it'd possibly work, but... Biggrin

Man, in GW2 (Guild Wars), the "nord" race has a "boast hall" in every major city Smile Boasting is good for the soul...
Imagination is where we are truly real
Reply
#9
Blyss MSAA will screw up graphics in certain games that is why I personally don't use it. I do use 4x tho which is prefectly fine for my 1200p screen
Reply
#10
^ Saiki didn't post anything on this thread. Or maybe I'm missing something?
[Insert Witty Sig Here.]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)