Support NeoGAF

[Momentary]

For the people complaining about compairing a highend graphics card with a high end console... Then why compare a XB1/PS4 to PS4 Pro then? Clearly you know who's going to when that fight 10 out of 10 times.

I see this more as a showcase as to what companies will do when they are provided with extra overhead with graphics. How do extra graphical settings compare to what's available on Lower end GPUs and/or Consoles. Is there really a change? Is it just better to turn off a graphical setting to raise performance if it really doesn't provide a better visual experience from lower end hardware?

They more than often use low end enthusiast to mid range enthusiast hardware most of the time anyways. It's nice for them to do something like this once and a while. It's also gives people a look at what the next series of low/midrange GPUs will be able to push.

 

[mileS]

Minus the framerate difference
Looks like te PRO fares quite well against such a high end machine .

Pretty impressive.

It is. The draw distance in Watch Dogs 2 is a technical achievement. I can't think of anything that comes close atm.

 

[adamsapple]

It is. The draw distance in Watch Dogs 2 is a technical achievement. I can't think of anything that comes close atm.

Yep, probably not the best shots, but these are straight from my Pro. Down scaled to 1080p.

 

[Paragon]

I've tried a variety of graphics settings with and without temporal filtering (checkerboard rendering) on my 1070, and the game looks SIGNIFICANTLY better at just native 1080p with temporal filtering off. TF is way too blurry and adds a considerable about of blur in motion.

I agree. I was very surprised to hear that Richard preferred to use temporal filtering in his setup with a 43" 4K display as a monitor.

4K is so demanding that I really wish there were high-end TVs which offered a native 1440p resolution.
I'd prefer a 1440p240 G/Free-Sync OLED TV to a 2160p120 TV.

It's so hard to hold 60fps especially in city areas,even with GPU usage well below 100%. This game has all 4 of the cores on my 6600k @ 4.2 GHz at 100% a lot of the time. That's just sort of nuts.

The game requires a lot of CPU power - you need an 8-core CPU to stay above 60 FPS at all times.



It's not the first game like that this year either.
People really underestimate CPU requirements for games.
An i5 is going to bottleneck any fast GPU now.
You need an i7 at the very least in most new games.

Even with only a GTX 1070 I need a much faster CPU than my current i5 2500K. Near-term I'm thinking i7 7700K, longer-term I'm thinking 7900K or equivalent when the next Titan launches.

 

[low-G]

A much more worthwhile comparison might have been if they compared the cheapest PC that can run at PS4 Pro equivalent settings. Titan X comparison? Actually worthless.

 

[low-G]

The game requires a lot of CPU power - you need an 8-core CPU to stay above 60 FPS at all times.



It's not the first game like that this year either.
People really underestimate CPU requirements for games.
An i5 is going to bottleneck any fast GPU now.
You need an i7 at the very least in most new games.

Even with only a GTX 1070 I need a much faster CPU than my current i5 2500K. Near-term I'm thinking i7 7700K, longer-term I'm thinking 7900K or equivalent when the next Titan launches.

If a game is getting bottlenecked on a high speed i5 yet flying on a lower end i7 they are royally fucking up something. i7 doesn't actually have more cores. (not the case here but in general)

 

[Schnozberry]

If a game is getting bottlenecked on a high speed i5 yet flying on a lower end i7 they are royally fucking up something. i7 doesn't actually have more cores. (not the case here but in general)

i7 has more threads. An i7 is pretty much the same core as an i5 with hyperthreading.

 

[chrislowe]

What is so cpu demanding in this game? It cant be the cars physics

 

[Evo X]

Doesn't look like they were using the optional Ultra textures for the PC version. They make a substantial difference, especially at 4K.

 

[adamsapple]

What is so cpu demanding in this game? It cant be the cars physics

Aren't open world games always more CPU intensive due to managing the world AI and subroutines and whatnot ? (not a programmer, making an educated guess).

 

[chrislowe]

Aren't open world games always more CPU intensive due to managing the world AI and subroutines and whatnot ? (not a programmer, making an educated guess).

Well maybe, but
If it plays the same on the PS4 pro as the titan-pc it seems very strange if the game needs a super fast cpu.

Or is the cpu in the ps4 pro faster than a i5 6600k? Find it hard to believe.

 

[low-G]

i7 has more threads. An i7 is pretty much the same core as an i5 with hyperthreading.

Yeah, but the threads link to the same cores on an i5. If you've done any low level programming with parallelism you can really see what kind of gains to expect. Just, sometimes developers have very poor fallback on less than x cores. If a game is very reliant on splitting work up into 8 discrete cores and 4 cores is an afterthought, that will cripple performance on an i5.

 

[Paragon]

If a game is getting bottlenecked on a high speed i5 yet flying on a lower end i7 they are royally fucking up something. i7 doesn't actually have more cores. (not the case here but in general)

No but it has more threads which can make all the difference.
Most people agree that Gears of War 4 is a very well-optimized port and it benefits greatly from having an i7 with 8-threads or an 8-core CPU:

Doesn't look like they were using the optional Ultra textures for the PC version. They make a substantial difference, especially at 4K.

Some of the textures were noticeably higher resolution in the comparison, like the green wall in the background here.
Fabric textures on the characters also seemed a bit more detailed but that could be YouTube's compression.

 

[DirgeExtinction]

While I appreciate these comparisons, wouldn't a comparison between the PS4P and PCs with comparable specs be better? With the PS4 v XB1, it's understandable since they're both close in power and in price. With the PS4P v PS4, it's useful to show what differences there are if you choose to spend a bit more money. When it comes to monster cards like these, a video dedicated solely to it might be better.

 

[low-G]

No but it has more threads which can make all the difference.
Most people agree that Gears of War 4 is a very well-optimized port and it benefits greatly from having an i7 with 8-threads or an 8-core CPU:



Some of the textures were noticeably higher resolution in the comparison, like the green wall in the background here.
Fabric textures on the characters also seemed a bit more detailed but that could be YouTube's compression.

As someone who has done low level programming dealing with parallelism, if that's the legit results, that is straight up broken. The threads aren't making up _that_ difference. Might be a DirectX12 driver support bug.

Gears 4 has fantastic GPU optimization though.

 

[LelouchZero]

I really want to test CPU scaling in this game, I haven't seen many benchmarks that showcase the performance of the i5 vs a 4 core i7, or a 4 core i7 vs 6-8 core i7s.

I could only do the former as I have a i7 4790K but I have seen the CPU usage of a 6 core 12 thread i7 go over 70% in this game.
Like here: Watch Dogs 2 | Titan X Pascal SLI | 1080p | Nvidia HB SLI Bridge Performance Test | 60FPS

it would be very interesting to see the performance improvements on CPUs that have over 4 cores/threads!

I agree. I was very surprised to hear that Richard preferred to use temporal filtering in his setup with a 43" 4K display as a monitor.

4K is so demanding that I really wish there were high-end TVs which offered a native 1440p resolution.
I'd prefer a 1440p240 G/Free-Sync OLED TV to a 2160p120 TV.

The game requires a lot of CPU power - you need an 8-core CPU to stay above 60 FPS at all times.



It's not the first game like that this year either.
People really underestimate CPU requirements for games.
An i5 is going to bottleneck any fast GPU now.
You need an i7 at the very least in most new games.

Even with only a GTX 1070 I need a much faster CPU than my current i5 2500K. Near-term I'm thinking i7 7700K, longer-term I'm thinking 7900K or equivalent when the next Titan launches.

Hmm, a 5820K or another recent i7 6 core should perform as good as the 5960X does, seeing as that's a performance improvement of around 40% on the minimum frame-rate.

The extra details setting appears to be incredibly demanding, I think that's what might be hitting the frame-rate so hard on those CPUs seeing as they have it set to 100%

 

[chromatic9]

Problem with these comparisons is it's 30fps vs 60fps which requires double the GPU power, its running over the top higher settings that aren't really necessary and are usually extremely demanding requiring even more GPU power on top, all at a higher resolution which requires further GPU power again on top. What would be more interesting is a more genuine comparison of an RX480/960 running at medium or whatever is console equivalent targeting 30fps with a FX4100. A build like that should replicate what the Pro is doing for around £450-550.

 

[mrklaw]

I like the comparisons to high end of setups to get an understanding of how close you can get with a relatively modest set, and the potentially diminishing returns for some effects

Like that the PC version has checkerboard - hope to see more of that to get higher perceived quality on lower end hardware. Assuming it's an option and not forced though

 

[Kaleinc]

For PC gamers playing on their HDTV is there really the need to strain the hardware with native 4k when a checker board system is providing something extremely similar with much weaker hardware

No. If it worked like that you'd be able to use avatar sized image as a desktop wallpaper on 4k display via the magic of checkerboarding.

 

[BigEmil]

What's your CPU and RAM? In particular, RAM speed makes a big difference in this game. Believe it or not, you can gain 20+ FPS from upgrading from 1600 Mhz to 2200 Mhz RAM. Of course, CPU also plays a huge factor in performance.

Intel i5 4th gen forgot the exact numbers but starts with 4 and 8gb gddr 3 RAM. I think my ram as far as I remember is the 1600 MHz. Hm guess I have to look into these further thanks, strange a faster RAM can help that much

 

[Polygonal_Sprite]

No. If it worked like that you'd be able to use avatar sized image as a desktop wallpaper on 4k display via the magic of checkerboarding.

But an 1800p native image checker boarded up to 2160p would be fine

 

[Lister]

But an 1800p native image checker boarded up to 2160p would be fine

I don't think it works that way.

You checkerboard to a particular frame size, and then upscale up from there if you have to (ie if you can't checkerboard to 4K because your hardware isn't strong enough).

It appears that's what most games on the PS4 Pro with "4K" support do. Checkerboard to 1800p (by the way what is the size of the other dimensions? Is it 3840x1800?) then upscale up form there using traditional upscale methods.

I assume that games labeled as "native 4K" are true native 4K and not being checkerboard/reconstructed, but I could be wrong. 4K for per pixel effects/shaders is harsh on the GPU.

 

[Jakartalado]

Without it game looks bland or not?

It uses cube maps instead like Watch Dogs 1.

Not bad, but there are some pretty low cube maps on big reflections.

 

[Jumpman]

Doesn't look like they were using the optional Ultra textures for the PC version. They make a substantial difference, especially at 4K.

Yeah, for sure. I was surprised they said textures are identical to the PS4 Pro because I've spent a lot of time with both versions and the texture difference is substantial and obvious.

They just rushed this video a bit and messed up that observation as a result. Personally, even with youtube compression I can pick out instances of better texture detail on the PC version.

Still a solid video though and the Pro version acquits itself quite well IMO.

 

[Patrick S.]

An i5 is going to bottleneck any fast GPU now.
You need an i7 at the very least in most new games.

Even with only a GTX 1070 I need a much faster CPU than my current i5 2500K. Near-term I'm thinking i7 7700K, longer-term I'm thinking 7900K or equivalent when the next Titan launches.

I play Titanfall 2, Battlefield 1, CoD Infinite Warfare and The Division, which are the newest games I have, at max settings in 1080p on an i5 4690k @4.2 ghz and a 1070. I don't need an i7 right now, all those game are butter on my i5.

Also, what do you mean with "an i7 at the very least", is there an i11 I don't know about?

 

[leng jai]

Curious to see how this looks on my 1070 but I've been really happy with the PS4 Pro version. One of the better open world console games for sure performance wise.

 

[Justinh]

Hmm, a 5820K or another recent i7 6 core should perform as good as the 5960X does, seeing as that's a performance improvement of around 40% on the minimum frame-rate.

I was just wondering how a 6800K would do when I saw that chart, since that's the CPU I'm planning to get to upgrade from my 2500K. I'm starting to get that feeling that it's finally time to retire it.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

An i5 is going to bottleneck any fast GPU now.
You need an i7 at the very least in most new games.

Even with only a GTX 1070 I need a much faster CPU than my current i5 2500K. Near-term I'm thinking i7 7700K, longer-term I'm thinking 7900K or equivalent when the next Titan launches.

I am sure RyZEN will fulfill your needs...hopefully

 

[thelastword]

Problem with these comparisons is it's 30fps vs 60fps which requires double the GPU power, its running over the top higher settings that aren't really necessary and are usually extremely demanding requiring even more GPU power on top, all at a higher resolution which requires further GPU power again on top. What would be more interesting is a more genuine comparison of an RX480/960 running at medium or whatever is console equivalent targeting 30fps with a FX4100. A build like that should replicate what the Pro is doing for around £450-550.

The console is not running Watchdogs 2 at medium settings.


I remember people saying so much on draw distance and how it requires such a great CPU in openworld games. Watchdogs is a marvel relative to drawdistance and detail. Graphical settings on consoles are ace, textures are ace, shadows are ace, resolution and AA... (DD.A.I and Physics) all with some shitty jaguar CPU's eh?

I see Richard puts an I7 behemoth with a $1000+ Kraken of a GPU (cheapest Titan X I'm seeing on Amazon is 1503.13) and they have to scale settings down from ultra and it's not even 4k native. Imagine if the PRO cost that much, perhaps 8k 60fps would be possible and that's minus the cost of the CPU, PSU etc...

Heh, I see Richard tries to make a point on draw distance, but I don't see it, maybe some anomalies, they trade blows with resolved detail in the distance. One thing is sure, Watchdogs proves that nice foliage is possible in an open world game, impressive draw distance, ground detail and graphical settings should never be below low on consoles. Great performance, huge openworld game, other third party devs should take note.

To compare so close to a TitanX Pascal in IQ and graphical settings, even trading blows is pretty impressive.

On the context of price the comparison is still very silly though, since no one who has the money to buy a titan X is going to think, hey, I wonder if the Titan beats the PS4.Pro, it's just not happening.............

 

[Paragon]

I am sure RyZEN will fulfill your needs...hopefully

The problem is that I'm overdue for upgrading the CPU and I don't really want to wait another 3 months. Some places are shipping 7700Ks now.
I'm not convinced that Ryzen will do well in games that only use up to four threads effectively, though it may perform better in games which benefit from >4 threads.
Some games just like raw clockspeed/IPC which is where Intel excels.

I play Titanfall 2, Battlefield 1, CoD Infinite Warfare and The Division, which are the newest games I have, at max settings in 1080p on an i5 4690k @4.2 ghz and a 1070. I don't need an i7 right now, all those game are butter on my i5.

Also, what do you mean with "an i7 at the very least", is there an i11 I don't know about?

Well not all games are CPU-bound, but many of the big new releases this year have been.
What I probably should have said is "at least a quad-core i7" because moving beyond that means moving from the mainstream to HEDT platform.

 

[Tagyhag]

The console is not running Watchdogs 2 at medium settings.


I remember people saying so much on draw distance and how it requires such a great CPU in openworld games. Watchdogs is a marvel relative to drawdistance and detail. Graphical settings on consoles are ace, textures are ace, shadows are ace, resolution and AA... (DD.A.I and Physics) all with some shitty jaguar CPU's eh?

I see Richard puts an I7 behemoth with a $1000+ Kraken of a GPU (cheapest Titan X I'm seeing on Amazon is 1503.13) and they have to scale settings down from ultra and it's not even 4k native. Imagine if the PRO cost that much, perhaps 8k 60fps would be possible and that's minus the cost of the CPU, PSU etc...

Heh, I see Richard tries to make a point on draw distance, but I don't see it, maybe some anomalies, they trade blows with resolved detail in the distance. One thing is sure, Watchdogs proves that nice foliage is possible in an open world game, impressive draw distance, ground detail and graphical settings should never be below low on consoles. Great performance, huge openworld game, other third party devs should take note.

To compare so close to a TitanX Pascal in IQ and graphical settings, even trading blows is pretty impressive.

On the context of price the comparison is still very silly though, since no one who has the money to buy a titan X is going to think, hey, I wonder if the Titan beats the PS4.Pro, it's just not happening.............

I really think you're underestimating how hard the game is on CPU's to maintain locked 60fps, even at 1080p.

 

[Renekton]

The game requires a lot of CPU power - you need an 8-core CPU to stay above 60 FPS at all times.



It's not the first game like that this year either.
People really underestimate CPU requirements for games.
An i5 is going to bottleneck any fast GPU now.
You need an i7 at the very least in most new games.

Even with only a GTX 1070 I need a much faster CPU than my current i5 2500K. Near-term I'm thinking i7 7700K, longer-term I'm thinking 7900K or equivalent when the next Titan launches.

I'm gonna link this image to every single person who posts "my 2500k is still a beast"

 

[leng jai]

60fps really is the biggest performance hog especially in open world games. When you cap games to 30 on PC you can make them look absolutely crazy if the game settings allow it. The problem is that 30fps on PC never seems quite as smooth as it does in console implementations so it's not really an option for me in most games.

 

[Lister]

60fps really is the biggest performance hog especially in open world games. When you cap games to 30 on PC you can make them look absolutely crazy if the game settings allow it. The problem is that 30fps on PC never seems quite as smooth as it does in console implementations so it's not really an option for me in most games.

This is just not right, assuming you're using a gamepad. Because yes, 30 FPS with mouse and keyboard will feel sluggish (well so does 30 FPs with a gamepad, 60 FPs is noticeably better, but the mouse reeeaaaally makes you feel it). There is no different "implementation". They are the same thing. Frame pacing might be an issue that comes up with particular games though (on both consoles and PC). On PC RTSS might save you though.

 

[Lister]

The console is not running Watchdogs 2 at medium settings.

Some of the settings are definitely the medium equivalent on PC.

 

[LelouchZero]

The console is not running Watchdogs 2 at medium settings.


I remember people saying so much on draw distance and how it requires such a great CPU in openworld games. Watchdogs is a marvel relative to drawdistance and detail. Graphical settings on consoles are ace, textures are ace, shadows are ace, resolution and AA... (DD.A.I and Physics) all with some shitty jaguar CPU's eh?

I see Richard puts an I7 behemoth with a $1000+ Kraken of a GPU (cheapest Titan X I'm seeing on Amazon is 1503.13) and they have to scale settings down from ultra and it's not even 4k native. Imagine if the PRO cost that much, perhaps 8k 60fps would be possible and that's minus the cost of the CPU, PSU etc...

Heh, I see Richard tries to make a point on draw distance, but I don't see it, maybe some anomalies, they trade blows with resolved detail in the distance. One thing is sure, Watchdogs proves that nice foliage is possible in an open world game, impressive draw distance, ground detail and graphical settings should never be below low on consoles. Great performance, huge openworld game, other third party devs should take note.

To compare so close to a TitanX Pascal in IQ and graphical settings, even trading blows is pretty impressive.

On the context of price the comparison is still very silly though, since no one who has the money to buy a titan X is going to think, hey, I wonder if the Titan beats the PS4.Pro, it's just not happening.............

Wow...

 

[belvedere]

Every. Single. Time.

Unless I've been fooled, these PC/Console analysis aren't to shit on the console versions. It's literally the only other platform at the moment where they can draw comparisons at 4k and PC also represents the high watermark. They mention time and again the high-end nature of the PC they're using in the tests.

 

[Vipu]

If high end pc and ps pro is that close to eachother then it tells that game is not well optimized I think.
Why would that mobile cpu with about gtx970 tier gpu be on same level with those monster pc parts.
And its made by ubisoft so yeah... I would not be surprised.

 

[curlycare]

I really think you're underestimating how hard the game is on CPU's to maintain locked 60fps, even at 1080p.

That`s thelastposter you should be taking seriously.

 

[Coolbgdog12]

Wow PS4 Pro is a monster since it's trading blows with that behemoth of a GPU.

 

[IcyRhythms]

I'm gonna link this image to every single person who posts "my 2500k is still a beast"

Ubisoft game

 

[Renekton]

Ubisoft game

Or BF1 MP.

 

[Poimandres]

Bodes well for the Pro. Impressive.

I like seeing absolute top of the line vs consoles. It gives interesting insight into what devs put focus on when making necessary compromises.

 

[Smokey]

I really want to test CPU scaling in this game, I haven't seen many benchmarks that showcase the performance of the i5 vs a 4 core i7, or a 4 core i7 vs 6-8 core i7s.

I could only do the former as I have a i7 4790K but I have seen the CPU usage of a 6 core 12 thread i7 go over 70% in this game.
Like here: Watch Dogs 2 | Titan X Pascal SLI | 1080p | Nvidia HB SLI Bridge Performance Test | 60FPS

it would be very interesting to see the performance improvements on CPUs that have over 4 cores/threads!

The stuttering in this video is awful, and looks to be unplayable.

 

[Momentary]

The stuttering in this video is awful, and looks to be unplayable.

I will NEVER SLI. That looked like nightmare fuel.

I kind of half way want to buy this game to see what I can push on my Titan Pascal set up.

 

[lowhighkang_LHK]

I assume that games labeled as "native 4K" are true native 4K and not being checkerboard/reconstructed, but I could be wrong. 4K for per pixel effects/shaders is harsh on the GPU.

Yeah. Games that are native 4k on PS4 Pro are native 2160p. Sony doesn't classify games as native 4k even if it's 2160p checkerboard.

I talked to a Crash Bandicoot dev about this while at PSX. The Crash remake is native 4k, because...it's native 4k. No rendering solutions or upscaling. Because obviously then, it's not native 2160p.

 

[Sad Affleck]

The console is not running Watchdogs 2 at medium settings.


I remember people saying so much on draw distance and how it requires such a great CPU in openworld games. Watchdogs is a marvel relative to drawdistance and detail. Graphical settings on consoles are ace, textures are ace, shadows are ace, resolution and AA... (DD.A.I and Physics) all with some shitty jaguar CPU's eh?

I see Richard puts an I7 behemoth with a $1000+ Kraken of a GPU (cheapest Titan X I'm seeing on Amazon is 1503.13) and they have to scale settings down from ultra and it's not even 4k native. Imagine if the PRO cost that much, perhaps 8k 60fps would be possible and that's minus the cost of the CPU, PSU etc...

Heh, I see Richard tries to make a point on draw distance, but I don't see it, maybe some anomalies, they trade blows with resolved detail in the distance. One thing is sure, Watchdogs proves that nice foliage is possible in an open world game, impressive draw distance, ground detail and graphical settings should never be below low on consoles. Great performance, huge openworld game, other third party devs should take note.

To compare so close to a TitanX Pascal in IQ and graphical settings, even trading blows is pretty impressive.

On the context of price the comparison is still very silly though, since no one who has the money to buy a titan X is going to think, hey, I wonder if the Titan beats the PS4.Pro, it's just not happening.............

Your posts are long and detailed but most of the time I don't know what they are about. Take the quoted post for example. Why did you write it? What is the point you are trying to make? That the Jaguar is a good CPU? That the TitanX is bad value for money? That the comparison is pointless?

 

[LelouchZero]

The stuttering in this video is awful, and looks to be unplayable.

I will NEVER SLI. That looked like nightmare fuel.

I kind of half way want to buy this game to see what I can push on my Titan Pascal set up.

I think the video turned out odd from encoding or something, I've seen other videos where it looked much better, here's another at 3440x1440 with Titan X Pascal SLI.

 

[dr_rus]

Wow PS4 Pro is a monster since it's trading blows with that behemoth of a GPU.

It really doesn't. Titan XP gives a much higher image quality and at 60 fps at that. Nothing really surprising here mind you.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

Your posts are long and detailed but most of the time I don't know what they are about. Take the quoted post for example. Why did you write it? What is the point you are trying to make? That the Jaguar is a good CPU? That the TitanX is bad value for money? That the comparison is pointless?

I genuinely wouldn't bother.