-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tomb Raider PS4 Pro version vs PC Maxed out 4k screenshot comparison
- Thread starter Wishmaster92
- Start date
Unknown Soldier
Member
On Tomb Raider it can. A 1080 already comes close, like 50+ fps.
ViolentP
Member
I think it's a deal for anyone who doesn't own a PS4. My only gripe is how they are pushing the term 4K when really it isn't, ultimately miseducating consumers.
There's not much of a subjective visual difference between up-scaled 4k vs. native 4k as opposed to the relative power required but your argument about value falls apart the moment any game developer/Nvidia/AMD implements the option to use the same type of up-scaling in PC games. At that point you'll be getting cheap PC's pushing the same "4k". Personally, this brings to the forefront my main gripe with the pro of not supporting 4k blu ray.
LostDonkey
Member
I'm looking on my 1440p monitor and I can see a pretty big difference in clarity in favour of the pc shot.
ArchedThunder
Banned
You're also looking at it sitting in front of a computer screen. Try stepping away from the screen and the differences become harder to notice. When playing the game on a 4K TV because of the distance most will sit from the TV the IQ difference is rather small.
Sell your Original PS4 for $200 and buy the Pro for $400, you are only spending $200 bucks for better graphics, Not Worth it??
The Pro does Native 4K gaming too, it's not just upscaling.
It can. I'm running this game and others no problem at 4K/60 on my overclocked Pascal Titan X.
But then again, the GPU alone costs more than 3 PS4 Pros, so I'm not exactly surprised.
Pro isn't bad for a $399 box, but anyone who doubts there is still a massive gulf between it and a high end PC is welcome to come play on mine to see for themselves.
platina
Member
The effect might be more refined in the 30frames per second mode actually. Who knows, they did say they're throwing everything and the kitchen sink when it comes to rendering in that mode
Rotch Crot
Banned
That's a pretty drastic difference.
Forever Changes
Banned
You aren't Horse Armour.
Risk Breaker
Member
Gemüsepizza;216295002 said:
How much is it for a GPU that can run this maxed at 4k and stable 60 FPS?
Rotch Crot
Banned
God damn that's an expensive GPU. For what reason?
Forever Changes
Banned
It's extremely powerful and Nvidia always overprice their Titans.
A lot.
You get what you pay for I guess.
jim2point0
Banned
Because they can and people will buy it.
Rotch Crot
Banned
I mean, for what reason would anyone actually buy one?
LelouchZero
Member
Rainbow Six Siege has an implementation of checkerboard rendering, it works quite well although I have noticed some artifacts.
When I tried the game during a free weekend I set it to 1440p and it ran and looked really well on my OC'd GTX 970.
Really? With no dips below 60?
Forever Changes
Banned
Because some people always want the cutting edge.
I'd rather wait and get the 1080 TI myself.
Rotch Crot
Banned
There's no way the cutting edge is worth that price.
Calculating diminishing returns vs sky rocketing prices = it's impossible to justify in my book.
Risk Breaker
Member
Obviously.
It's up to the buyer to decide whether it is worth it paying 3+ times as much for the difference in the OP.
Personally I play both consoles and PC so I'm really happy about the PS4P, means a higher baseline for my gaming and much better IQ.
Forever Changes
Banned
Some people have a lot of money..I don't so I bought a 1060 GTX lol.
It's more than the difference in the OP though, the framerate will obviously be much higher too.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
4K gaming, 1080p/1440p gaming at 120hz, VR gaming, needing all that compute power for work or personal projects, there's definite use cases.
Rotch Crot
Banned
I'd use the shit out of it if I had one.
But I'd never honestly be able to say it paid for itself or was a worthwhile investment.
At 1911Mhz it absolutely cannot. I tested it just last night. Very High preset, maybe, but definitely not maxed shadows, sun shadows, VXAO, etc. And to be clear, I'm talking about never dropping below 60fps under any (non CPU-bound) circumstances. Now, if by 4K60 you mean average 60fps throughout an entire playthrough, then sure I suppose it's doable.
Forever Changes
Banned
Yea that's you.
I personally think this whole PS4 pro thing is a joke for 4k gaming. Real deal or go home!
Garrett Hawke
Member
wasn't this a bug?
Off topic but Mankind Divided screenshot was released and it's not pretty:
Similar from PC for comparison:
Both of those screenshots look fucking amazing to me. Yeah sure the lighting etc is reduced on the top one but if they weren't side by side I certainly wouldn't be disappointed with either.
ViolentP
Member
The upgrade for $200 I'm sure is enticing to many and rightfully so. For me, I would have paid $200 if I could get my current library performing better. This middle of the road visual update simply isn't something that interests me on the PS4. In fairness, I have a capable PC if that says anything about my lack of interest in this.
bargeparty
Member
Off topic but Mankind Divided screenshot was released and it's not pretty:
Similar from PC for comparison:
What exactly is being compared?
Forever Changes
Banned
The top one looks smudged.
Beerman462
Member
Not bad for a $400 box. Although I think some are over estimating how much an equivilent PC would cost or even the cost of upgrading to a similiar PC.
Hint: it's less than $1000
Hint: it's less than $1000
I agree they both look great. And yeah, the lighting looks reduced, but the player is also further away from the light source in the PS4 shot. It's possible it can get more intense as he gets closer to it. Either way, it looks really good.
I pre-ordered a PS4 Pro, but I'm still not 100% sold on it. We'll see. I have plenty of time to change my mind and cancel my pre-order.
ViolentP
Member
If you can justify videogames as a worthwhile investment, then you should be able to do the same with those spending thousands on computer hardware. It is the same exact concept, just a different cost scale.
NeoRaider
Member
Well, everything. And especially lighting, reflections and overall IQ.
Just open them in new tab and zoom to 100%. PS4 Pro screenshot look like it's 1080p upscaled.
Off topic but Mankind Divided screenshot was released and it's not pretty:
Similar from PC for comparison:
Looks great! I'm really glad I haven't played this game yet, definitely will pick it up for Pro.
Sanctuary
Member
What?
Again, what?
Off topic but Mankind Divided screenshot was released and it's not pretty:
Similar from PC for comparison:
I don't know if it's just compression with these shots, or if the PC screenshot isn't using ultra textures, but mine looks better than that. I wouldn't be surprised if they were using a GTX 780 or 970 either with that frame rate.
This isn't wrong at all in most cases. Sitting at six feet away from my 55 inch 4K, it's much harder to tell the difference between 4K native and 1080p. It's even difficult to spot most of the differences between 1080p and 1440p at that distance too.
LostDonkey
Member
Er, why would I do that? And no it doesn't.
I've had a look on my 4k TV as well and it's very noticeably blurred on the PS4P shot.
Not that it's supposed to look as good, it's not native anyway.
mercenar1e
Member
the lighting and the textures are obviously worse compared to the PC version.
Off topic but Mankind Divided screenshot was released and it's not pretty:
Similar from PC for comparison:
This comparison might not be entirely fair since the PC one is from the benchmark version of that area, not the actual in-game one.
It's the best you can buy. There will always be a high price to pay for that.
I'm playing on a GSYNC monitor with an Xbox 360 controller. Any dips to the high 50s would be imperceptible.
Mine is running at 1950/11,000mhz. Playing on everything max including VXAO.
It allows me to enjoy 4K Ultra gaming and smooth VR with super sampling on the HTC Vive.
It's worth it for me. Tech is one of my two big hobbies so I don't mind splurging a bit. A Titan X, which will provide me well over a year of use, is equal to about 2 weeks of running costs on one of my cars.
Sanctuary
Member
So? It still displays IQ differences.
1. Gysnc isn't the standard monitor most people use, and it's certainly not on any TVs that people use with a PC.
2. While you might not be able to tell the difference between 60 - 55, you can definitely tell when it goes from 60 - 50 or lower.
I honestly don't care what a card can max out on at 4K at all. The minimum frame rate is the most important.
bargeparty
Member
I mean 4K or what? So if it's 4K we know the PS4Pro will have paired down effects, so I'm not so stunned by that.
It's also not running so great judging by that FPS counter in the PC shot.
I'd rather see 1080p pro mode or whatever, imo.
Wow, really? You posted that like it was a still from the PC version. I wouldn't have known it was the benchmark test if it wasn't mentioned.
dr_rus
Member
That's because you're likely looking at the first one downscaled in your browser.
A 1:1 crop would be a better illustration here:
It seems to be better than straight framebuffer upscaling but it's nowhere near a native 4K rendering.
1) I don't care what most people use. I am obviously well entrenched in the enthusiast camp. Besides, even without GSYNC on a tv, this PC would provide a better gaming experience than the Pro ever could.
2) If you look at benchmarks, you will see the Titan X is very consistent when it comes to minimum fps. At my overclock settings, it will never once dip below 50fps in the entire game.