So, changing the rendering technique isn't a magic bullet for high frame rates at 8K.
This time, we got average frame rates of 31.8FPS, which is better (though the minimum frame rates were a shocking 7FPS), and again the graphical hit brought in by the Interlaced rendering was annoyingly noticeable. We also tried playing at the highest settings again, but with Interlaced rendering selected. Not bad, but not great either, and the boost in graphical settings didn't make up for the weird graphical artefacts brought in by using the Interlaced rendering. Setting the graphical effects to 'medium' (and in some cases 'high') while keeping the Interlace rendering technique, we saw frame rates averaging 31FPS. With the Interlaced rendering technique making such a big difference, we looked to see if we could boost the other graphical settings elsewhere in a bid to make the game look good again. While we were technically able to play Resident Evil 3 at 8K at these settings, we wouldn't want to. The already ropy visuals looked even worse now, with a weird shimmering effect around fast-moving characters, no doubt caused by the Interlace rendering mode. Still, that is definitely very playable, and the game instantly felt smoother and more responsive. Playing through the same section again, we now got average frame rates of an impressive 71FPS, with a minimum of 49.1FPS and a maximum of 162.1 FPS – though that was probably when we stood still in a dark spot for a moment. This appeared to make the biggest impact, with the graphics memory demand dropping to a rather reasonable 2.66GB. We turned off anti-aliasing completely (one could argue you don't need it when playing at 8K, anyway), and changed the 'Rendering Mode' from 'Normal' to 'Interlaced'. However, there were still a few tweaks to try. Because of this, and the lowering of graphical settings, we'd recommend going for a lower resolution before dropping the graphical settings. While there were moments where the game looked very good, it certainly lacked the wow factor that comes with the higher graphical settings.Ĭrucially, it also fell well short of that magic 60FPS average frame rate. Of course, the trade-off here is drastically reduced image quality. In a few quiet spots, we also saw the FPS rise to 61.2FPS.
Playing over the same section again with the lower settings, we managed an average frame rate of 51FPS. By dropping the preset so that it prioritizes performance over graphics (essentially setting most graphical settings to 'low'), we saw a big uptick in performance. So, is Resident Evil 3 completely unplayable at 8K? Not quite. This gave us a thrilling glimpse of what kind of graphical quality we could expect from 8K games in the future – once our hardware catches up with the demands.
Take a look at the screenshot below for an example.Ĭlick to view this in full 8K glory (Image credit: Capcom)
That bump in resolution resulted in an incredibly detailed image. However, we have to say, Resident Evil 3 looked absolutely stunning in 8K.
While that's not quite approaching slide-show levels of poor frame rates, it wasn't a terribly fun way to play, with the game stuttering and lagging, especially in sections where there was a lot of action.
Once we got into the game proper, and started exploring a zombie-infested Racoon City, framerates hung around the 24FPS mark, with the MSI Afterburner software recording an average frame rate of 21.9FPS. An early corridor chase scene didn't fare much better, hovering around 21FPS. In the opening first-person section, framerates dropped to a particularly choppy 17FPS. As even though our gaming rig could technically play Resident Evil 3 at max settings at 8K, the results were far from playable. So, only the mighty RTX Titan with its 24GB of GDDR6 memory is going to be able to handle it.Īnd we use the term 'handle' loosely. Even the Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti, the flagship GPU from Nvidia, won't be able to manage this, as it features a (still huge) 11GB of GDDR6 memory.