120 frames per second is gaming’s future — and something PS5 Pro needs to deliver

Opinion
By
published

Titles are starting to slip back to that 30fps comfort zone

a concept image of the PS5 Pro by Mark Illing
(Image credit: Art Station/Mark Illing)

If you own one of the best 4K TVs, an exciting possibility of both the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 was the promise of games running at 120 frames per second (fps). Via an HDMI 2.1 port, TVs with 120Hz refresh rates can change their image 120 times every second, rather than the 60 that previous TVs tended to be capped at. 

Combined with the latest consoles’ internals, that meant 120fps gameplay was within reach — and that's great news if you've ever had the chance to experience that firsthand. Once you’ve played games at 120fps, it’s hard to go back. Not only is everything gloriously smooth, but there’s evidence to suggest that improved frame rates can improve reaction times, potentially giving you a competitive advantage in those all-important multiplayer sessions.

The trouble is that, a little more than three years into the Series X and PS5’s life, there are relatively few games that support 120fps gameplay. Push Square’s running total currently sits at 98 games, and some of those require reduced visual fidelity to push frame rates that high.

Worse, we’re seeing more games that struggle to even hit 60fps: The Quarry and, infamously, Gotham Knights are stuck at a disappointing 30fps, and A Plague Tale: Requiem required a patch before it hit its 60fps stride.

All of this means that there’s some pressure on the frequently rumored PS5 Pro to deliver on the 120fps dream. Thankfully, there’s some evidence to suggest it’ll make a good go of it.

 How a possible PS5 Pro could deliver 120fps 

While the rumored PS5 Pro specs only show a modest 500Mhz boost to clock speeds, the RNDA-3-based GPU will reportedly offer an extra 24 compute units, with the hardware nearly doubling from 36 to 60. 

That alone might not be enough to help the PS5 Pro live up to its potential — especially with it still reportedly set to use an aging Zen 2 CPU — but Sony apparently has a trick up its sleeve: its own answer to Nvidia DLSS.

According to the report, Sony’s proprietary solution will have the power to increase frame rates by up to 50%. Like DLSS, it will apparently use hardware accelerated machine learning to generate additional frames, making games appear considerably smoother.

Hopefully that means that developers will take the time to make games that run at 60fps go the extra mile to 120fps on PS5 Pro hardware — and more importantly ensure that 30fps relics are confined to the past where they belong.

If the rumors are correct, we may get some early data points before 2024 is out, with a September release raised as a possibility.

More from Tom's Guide

Alan Martin
Alan Martin

Freelance contributor Alan has been writing about tech for over a decade, covering phones, drones and everything in between. Previously Deputy Editor of tech site Alphr, his words are found all over the web and in the occasional magazine too. When not weighing up the pros and cons of the latest smartwatch, you'll probably find him tackling his ever-growing games backlog. Or, more likely, playing Spelunky for the millionth time.

6 Comments Comment from the forums
  • d0x360
    That is a big ask even with frame gen considering the CPU upgrade is minimal and likely not even enough for 60fps and that's with ai upscaling using rdna3 with the rdna4 AI block glued on.

    I'm no engineer but if visuals get a quality boost to even Alan Wake 2's medium/high settings mixed together for maximum efficiency and you render at 1440p then upscale to 4k that would use all extra GPU resources available at 30fps.

    So games would either need to stay visually the same as now but would have better upscaling since they have been using upscaling aggressively for 2023 already and usually at PC low settings at 1440p or below and with dynamic resolution on top of FSR2.

    Frame gen from 60 to 120 is ok for most genres but not all but from 30 to 60 feels awful in basically everything. 40 to 60 might be acceptable (I haven't tried it) since 40hz is the frame time rendering middle point between 30hz and 60hz (no it's not 45, that's the frame rate mid point which is different) so 40 to 60 might feel ok but beyond that there would be too much latency and you can bet you last dollar they will be using ai upscaling and frame gen in basically everything.

    Frame times of a 40hz min frame time rendering rate in a 120hz "container" feels much smoother than 30hz and also meets the minimum requirement for VRR without using low frame rate compensation and also allows you to leave it unlocked and often fps will stay near 60 going by Sony titles made to run at 40hz minimum in a 120h container.

    120 native isn't going to happen though, not even at 1080p. Not unless Sony breaks backwards compatibility with PS5 and uses a core from Phoenix instead of zen 2.
    Reply
  • joetheshmoe
    I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? You're just objectively misinformed. We have always always always had higher frames for games. For years and years and years. We had 60fps on SNES. Do you get that, or?

    Next gen, pro, whatever, has nothing to do with frame rate. "Playable frame rates" have, and WILL ALWAYS be playable. Our eyes have not changed with technology. Our ability to enjoy and understand media at 30 and 60 has not changed. Tears of the kingdom at 30 fps was still a fantastic, game of the year, game. It wasnt ANY less playable than games at 30 fps a decade ago.

    Every generation, when we are making the transition, games are at higher frames. But the SECOND they try to push boundaries, they try to make the next gen unique, to try to make something new, you're going to sacrifice frames. Period. Full stop. And that's good.

    Stiffling innovation, like these uninformed articles and posts demanding higher frames does, is not good. Lol. No, you wouldn't rather have higher frames and utterly stunted game design. That's what would happen.

    Don't be uninformed. Ask before you make these kinds of requests.
    Reply
  • joetheshmoe
    d0x360 said:
    That is a big ask even with frame gen considering the CPU upgrade is minimal and likely not even enough for 60fps and that's with ai upscaling using rdna3 with the rdna4 AI block glued on.

    I'm no engineer but if visuals get a quality boost to even Alan Wake 2's medium/high settings mixed together for maximum efficiency and you render at 1440p then upscale to 4k that would use all extra GPU resources available at 30fps.

    So games would either need to stay visually the same as now but would have better upscaling since they have been using upscaling aggressively for 2023 already and usually at PC low settings at 1440p or below and with dynamic resolution on top of FSR2.

    Frame gen from 60 to 120 is ok for most genres but not all but from 30 to 60 feels awful in basically everything. 40 to 60 might be acceptable (I haven't tried it) since 40hz is the frame time rendering middle point between 30hz and 60hz (no it's not 45, that's the frame rate mid point which is different) so 40 to 60 might feel ok but beyond that there would be too much latency and you can bet you last dollar they will be using ai upscaling and frame gen in basically everything.

    Frame times of a 40hz min frame time rendering rate in a 120hz "container" feels much smoother than 30hz and also meets the minimum requirement for VRR without using low frame rate compensation and also allows you to leave it unlocked and often fps will stay near 60 going by Sony titles made to run at 40hz minimum in a 120h container.

    120 native isn't going to happen though, not even at 1080p. Not unless Sony breaks backwards compatibility with PS5 and uses a core from Phoenix instead of zen 2.
    Yeah, this article is crazy and deeply misunderstands the industry and the nature of development. Playable frame rates, are playable frame rates. Tears of the kingdom, even at 30 fps, is no less playable than 30fps a decade ago. We've had 60 since SNES. 120 for decades as well. Our eye balls haven't changed.

    Mandating 120, and even 60, will stifle creativity and innovation. Full stop. This happens every generation. The games start at a higher frame rate when they are cross gen or using last gen tech. But when they want to push boundaries, when they want to do something innovative, yeah, the frames are going to drop. Significantly.

    That's the price of consoles. Even pro consoles. It's not "high end" hardware. It's for playing the latest games, at a more than acceptable technical level. It's about convenience and comfort and being confident you can play all the top games.

    If you want control over higher frames and obsess over the technical details, if you need more than "good" or "good enough", get a PC.

    I really can't stand the misunderstanding of this issue while people are so demanding over it. And the idea 120 is something most people would care about over bigger maps and better visuals and animations and deeper mechanics, Is just crazy talk frankly.
    Reply
  • miki1991
    Lol I really don't think people care or want 120fps on consoles. If you care about competitive fps stick to playing PC on 1080p monitor, we don't need no God of War in 120fps ;)

    I think the majority of gamers are more than happy with 60fps (aka performance mode) with VRR. What we need is better graphics in that 60fps range.
    Reply
  • miki1991
    joetheshmoe said:
    Yeah, this article is crazy and deeply misunderstands the industry and the nature of development. Playable frame rates, are playable frame rates. Tears of the kingdom, even at 30 fps, is no less playable than 30fps a decade ago. We've had 60 since SNES. 120 for decades as well. Our eye balls haven't changed.

    Mandating 120, and even 60, will stifle creativity and innovation. Full stop. This happens every generation. The games start at a higher frame rate when they are cross gen or using last gen tech. But when they want to push boundaries, when they want to do something innovative, yeah, the frames are going to drop. Significantly.

    That's the price of consoles. Even pro consoles. It's not "high end" hardware. It's for playing the latest games, at a more than acceptable technical level. It's about convenience and comfort and being confident you can play all the top games.

    If you want control over higher frames and obsess over the technical details, if you need more than "good" or "good enough", get a PC.

    I really can't stand the misunderstanding of this issue while people are so demanding over it. And the idea 120 is something most people would care about over bigger maps and better visuals and animations and deeper mechanics, Is just crazy talk frankly.
    I'm no expert but I do believe that 30fps was a lot more bearable on a CRT and/or early day 720p LCDs. 30fps on a 4k screen makes me want to womit in my mouth, and then on the screen. I absolutely agree that we do not need or want 120fps but please please please lets never ever ever go back to 30fps standard as it was during ps3/ps4 era. Never again! Please lol
    Reply
  • Nightseer
    It won't, because it isn't just up to Sony. Because no matter how much more performance you give to developers, if they decide they want to target 60FPS, that is what you will get. Unless Sony makes it requirement. Though this would likely cause too many problems with 120FPS. I still would want them to make 60FPS mode mandatory. Because you got developers like Ubisoft that public ally stated that they don't consider anything above 30FPS as necessary. Like they even wanted to make AC 30FPS on PS5, but Sony stepped in and was kind of like "come on guys" after whole 60/120FPS marketing.

    Plus it is also about knowing their target audience and surprisingly high amount of people on PS5 choose higher quality 30FPS opposed to compromised 60FPS, because they don't want to miss out even when qualiy difference is small. Which in a way makes sense with console audience being casual, used to 30FPS and there because that was good enough, since rest went PC route.

    Nevertheless I think 60FPS being mandatory is reasonable. 120FPS is quite a stretch. And frame generation isn't really good enough to be there, with it needing like true 90FPS for artifacts to blend in. At 60FPS, sure it could try to 120, but it would be artifact fest as fake frames with artifacts spend too much time on screen. And this whole obsession with hIgHeR nUmbEr BeTeR is just silly when it comes with such expense at quality and doesn't make game feel properly responsive.
    Reply