Electret
Member
Thought I read Pro supports 1080/60 capture? No idea about bitrate, though.
-
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.
Inside Playstation 4 Pro: How sony made the first 4k games console
- Thread starter PackAPunchedMick
- Start date
Thought I read Pro supports 1080/60 capture? No idea about bitrate, though.
BF1's framerate drops are mostly on the CPU end. The higher clock speed should help there but a steady 60 probably won't happen in 64 player matches.
I think DICE will opt to stick with 1080p for BF1 due to how much variance there is in the resolution on current systems.
UserDoesNotExist
Member
Trolling does not mean "things I don't like." It is not native 4K, and the second there is a Sony machine capable of native 4K, Sony's marketing will be telling you exactly how much "fake 4K" (hell, probably in those exact words) sucks and how you really need native 4K. Right now.
And the tech press will dutifully record "Wow, it looks so much better! We can't show you, but trust us, it's amazing! How did we ever live in the dark ages of the PS Pro?"
Days Gone in particular seems to have really good AF so hopefully that becomes more common on the Pro. It'll be more obvious at higher resolutions.
There are native 4K games on the PS4. There are something like a dozen announced so far.
Edit: Beaten by a minute
We're not just talking about any old design practice, we're talking about what you called "sane"; as such why should the onus fall on Sony more than the developer to just actually engage in the practice in the first place? Of course Sony was going to offer a platform with an improved GPU and CPU, they made that clear about the post-PS3 roadmap for PS consoles. That was the whole point about ditching Cell and more esoteric parallel computing architectures.
Besides, anyone engaging in the sane approach you prefer probably has about the simplest upgrade to Pro possible - just release a patch that basically flicks the "OK for Pro" switch and they're good. There isn't a massive obstacle preventing older games from activating Pro mode if they were designed "sanely".
vpance
Member
Yeah I see it that way too. MS will probably want to incentivize devs to add even more added effects and better textures to make that 1.8TF difference more evident. Of course, having 40% more power grants marketing advantages in and of itself.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
What do you mean by "nice try MS"? Wouldn't this be the same situation for them, using the same latest AMD tech (if not beyond?) and all.
PLASTICA-MAN
Member
16 so far in 14 days. The list is growing with an average of one game per day.
Im pretty sure they said any games after September/October or somewhere around there must have a PS4 pro mode.
Edit: ok I see you Stated for 1080p. I guess that would be up to the developer?
Always-honest
Banned
Sure. But i think they should have focussed on enhanced 1080p more in the presentation. Important point of course is sales of Sony 4K screens.
CyberPunked
Member
The thing is, games aren't being developed for this, but rather for the PS4/XBOX. The most they would be able to enhance it would be by including some effects on PC versions of those games, so it's easier to just up the resolution.
Always-honest
Banned
For what?
CyberPunked
Member
The pro.
BleedOrange
Banned
Every console has been capable of rendering games in 4k...
Always-honest
Banned
Devs will want to take advantage of the Pro though. Some more than others.
I was saying that MS need to give us more information then just the flop number because 6TF could be 6TF FP32 or 6TF FP16 because this is the way AMD & NVIDIA was going even for bigger GPUs in the future.
I'm not saying that this is what MS is doing but they wouldn't be lying if they called 6TF FP16 6TF.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Gotcha, I just read the full context of the speculation about a second ago.
There is no fucking way it's not FP32.
6TF*
What? Why would they lower what they're doing with the Scorpio?
why would they do that? especially considering how people keep moaning about how "weak" the ps4p specs are
Releasing a new machine a year late with the same flops as the Pro would be a hideous mistake.
We don't know how much power the Pro will use at full tilt. All we know is what the PSU is rated to, which the consoles never get close to.
BONKERS
Member
And that I was right about them aiming for 1800p.
There's a reason. Better upscaling. 1800p gets you the same ratio of scaling as 900p to 1080p does. Then add in CBR to fill in the gaps, and the upscaling will be slightly better. But with the extra artifacts that add on top of the existing aliasing.
Look at Infamous
https://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/6/3/6/2/4/FirstLight_01.png
https://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/6/3/6/2/4/FirstLight_02.png
https://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/6/3/6/2/4/FirstLight_04.png
3200x1800, It's blurry and ridiculously aliased (Did they have to ditch the SMAAT2x they used or is it just falling apart here?) and FFS the texture filtering is still a total joke!
Fixed resolution display with SSAA > Fixed resolution display with sub native rendering and tricks to fill the gaps which add additional artifacts.
1080pTVs will potentially get near CG movie levels of image quality if developers are smart about they get down to 1920x1080 in that specific mode.. Meanwhile 4k TVs will be stuck with the same stuff we've had for years, upscaled images with aliasing left over from low end PPAA solutions and then artifacts from CBR/interpolation techniques and upscaling on top of it.
Even if the PS4P could render 4k native. Aliasing doesn't not become an issue any more.
Who knew? It's like, if you tried playing a game at 900p with CBR to 1080p. Then obviously THAT would look better than 540p upscaled (With or without CBR)too right?
Come on Richard, try harder.
Exactly. PS4p is the kind of console for 1080p that it should've been from the beginning.
Giving users the choice for better image quality at 30FPS.
Or the chance to finally hit 1080p60 if games are designed to hit that first.
The TV industry could've made 1080p HDR TVs instead of trying to shove 4k +HDR down everyone's throats when the real benefit here is HDR. Not the resolution jump.
CG level image quality for 3D rendered games is possible today at 1080p. It's going to be a very long time before that's ever possible for 4k. Not to mention Sony throwing the only real source of actual real high quality 4k video content under the bus. UHD Blu-ray.
There's a reason. Better upscaling. 1800p gets you the same ratio of scaling as 900p to 1080p does. Then add in CBR to fill in the gaps, and the upscaling will be slightly better. But with the extra artifacts that add on top of the existing aliasing.
Look at Infamous
https://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/6/3/6/2/4/FirstLight_01.png
https://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/6/3/6/2/4/FirstLight_02.png
https://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/6/3/6/2/4/FirstLight_04.png
3200x1800, It's blurry and ridiculously aliased (Did they have to ditch the SMAAT2x they used or is it just falling apart here?) and FFS the texture filtering is still a total joke!
No. Clearly it doesn't. If you could get a HDR 1080p TV. Then there'd be zero reason to use a 4k TV over a 1080p.
Fixed resolution display with SSAA > Fixed resolution display with sub native rendering and tricks to fill the gaps which add additional artifacts.
1080pTVs will potentially get near CG movie levels of image quality if developers are smart about they get down to 1920x1080 in that specific mode.. Meanwhile 4k TVs will be stuck with the same stuff we've had for years, upscaled images with aliasing left over from low end PPAA solutions and then artifacts from CBR/interpolation techniques and upscaling on top of it.
Even if the PS4P could render 4k native. Aliasing doesn't not become an issue any more.
What?Higher resolution rendering upscaled to 4k looks better than 1080p upscaled to 4k? But not as good as native 4k?
Who knew? It's like, if you tried playing a game at 900p with CBR to 1080p. Then obviously THAT would look better than 540p upscaled (With or without CBR)too right?
Come on Richard, try harder.
Exactly. PS4p is the kind of console for 1080p that it should've been from the beginning.
Giving users the choice for better image quality at 30FPS.
Or the chance to finally hit 1080p60 if games are designed to hit that first.
The TV industry could've made 1080p HDR TVs instead of trying to shove 4k +HDR down everyone's throats when the real benefit here is HDR. Not the resolution jump.
CG level image quality for 3D rendered games is possible today at 1080p. It's going to be a very long time before that's ever possible for 4k. Not to mention Sony throwing the only real source of actual real high quality 4k video content under the bus. UHD Blu-ray.
Wat?
Maybe but MS need to say more than 6TF because if they are using a Vega GPU 6TF could mean 3TF FP32 / 6TF FP16 or it could mean 6TF FP32 / 12TF FP32.
It's a year away, there's plenty of time for them to answer that.
But we know that every iteration of the PS4 actually used 55-60% of what the PSU is rated at full tilt. I fully expect the same for the Pro. That would mean 170-180W power consumption.
Aceofspades
Banned
I think he meant the inner details of PRO architecture, not the flops number.
Seems reasonable.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Or 12* I guess.
I kinda wish they'd splurge on the info tbh. I mean, why come out half-limp with vague specs without being specific enough.
I missed this shit post.
Checkerboard Render
Banned
Hell no. That would require a complete re-architecture of the machine, and would look ridiculous after the hype they've already done. Why launch a year later for similar specs?
DagnastyEp
Member
They've already said it will be the most powerful console ever when it launches. While we don't have specifics on the hardware, I don't think anything more needs to be said in this regard. Scorpio is not 6TF FP16.
I think it's about time to retire this speculation. The Scorpio is not going to be less powerful than the PS4 Pro.
Humdinger
Member
I'm not a tech guy, so I only understood about 10% of that, but with the comments in the thread, I think I understand about 25% now. Sounds like Cerny may not be the most effective presenter, but he's done a great job at engineering the Pro. "Punching above its weight" is probably a good way to describe it.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Spencer already said hardware is moving along nicely for their new console; I'd take it to mean it's a lock for most parts at this point.
PLASTICA-MAN
Member
Isn't FP32 needed for high levels of anisotropic filtering ?
he's fine as a presenter. that playstation meeting stream probably would have been underwhelming regardless of who presented it if the approach stayed the same.
Tarkus
Member
Nice cross-post from eurogamer comments. I think I'll take Richard fucking Leadbetter's opinion over yours.
At the time that they said it was the most powerful console Pro wasn't even revealed & even after it was revealed it wasn't known that it was going to be 8.4TF FP16 so MS still could have said that 6TF FP16 is more powerful than 4.2TF.
Well it's just now becoming official that PS4 Pro is 8.4TF & all you know about Scorpio is that it is 6TF.
Andodalf
Banned
6tf fp64 12tf fp32 you mean?
Has a console maker ever specificed the floating point precision of their console?
BONKERS
Member
What? Nvidia GPU's from 10 years ago had FP32 performance at ~1/4th of FP16 (and likely far less than the PS4 is capable of)and could manage 16xAF just fine.
Heck, even AMD 5XXX cards could handle AF without any significant performance hit.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5570,2552-11.html
I don't see at all, how somehow they've designed this hardware in a way that it gimps AF performance back to the stone age of almost 15 years ago
http://www.anandtech.com/show/970/15