icecold1983
Member
not tessellation.. the avg is 18% but individual games can improve up to 30%
-
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.
DF: [Budget 4k] Destiny 2 vs GTX 970/ GTX 1060: 30fps Is Easy, But What About 60?
- Thread starter Kenzodielocke
- Start date
not tessellation.. the avg is 18% but individual games can improve up to 30%
The PS4 pro is not better than the 970...it's about on par if not worse.
icecold1983
Member
970 will remain a bit better in most multiplatform games but IMO a 970 wont produce something on the level of the ps4 pro version of horizon. i expect the best 1st party efforts to eclipse what games will get out of a 970
I think the pro definitely will pull ahead in the long run with the gcn architecture. I am only using a couple games for example, but RE7 just struggle to hit 60fps before I drop a lot of setting even at 1080p on my pc. Rez need to drop to 1800p to have msaa to achive locked 60fps.
Thats usually the case even back on ps3. My geforce 7900GT is better than ps3 gpu on paper, but I can't get the same performance on the multiplatform games on pc after year 3 of ps3 @ the similar setting.
For RE7, just turn off shadow cache and turn down shadow quality to high. Shit eats Vram or something, the game is known to suffer with 3-4GB cards.
Luckily for you, there's no way to test that.
The Ps3 had the Cell helping it out. The 8800gt stayed ahead for the whole gen.
thelastword
Banned
That's because the PRO's GPU is better..People want to use one game that's an Nvidia title to prove a point, it's disingenuous at best. Too bad most console titles are 30fps capped, so we can't gauge how they do with the cap unlocked...
Your own experience have proven this in a couple of games, 60fps titles like the ones you've specified will give a better indication (not perfect but a better one over a 30fps cap, since the ceiling is higher and more demanding), it's not perfect because there are cases where the better CPU on your PC will hold a 60fps refresh more solidly in CPU bound scenarios....Even then, that says nothing about the capability of the PRO's GPU....but I guess now, Destiny 2 is the most important game......even though it's an NV title which almost always play better on NV GPU's...for a number of reasons, which can even be controversial at times.......
Sad Affleck
Member
Based on what?
Lashley
Why does he wear the mask!?
on nothing, tlw is a sony fanboy
thelastword
Banned
Did you read what Gitaroo wrote...These are not the only games either...In any case, RX 480 beats the 970, that's a fact...In a closed loop with a 20GBps bus linking GPU and CPU with Vega features (ID buffer, RPM, GPGPU) and unique hardware like CBR, it should not have to be explained....
Of course NV sponsored titles will do better on Nvidia, that has always been the case...It's just like when Witcher 3 first came on the scene, hairworks on an AMD GPU and other NV features played rough with AMD cards....This transcends beyond just a PRO vs PC part debate, even on PC you can see AMD GPU's which are more powerful than the 970 lose to it at the highest settings......All that info is there on the internet.
Is that all the retort you have...I'll clue you in on something, anytime someone uses that term, it's because he is that which he describes..... How have you proven that the 970 is better than the Pro GPU? You don't care about that do you, you just want to come here and state I'm a fanboy without adding anything of worth to the conversation...Carry on....looks good on you...
Lashley
Why does he wear the mask!?
That would be relevant if the PS4Pro had a 480, which it doesn't.
thelastword
Banned
So you're just here to have a trolling good time, carry on...I'm pretty sure you know that people throw that term loosely. I've also been called an AMD fanboy recently...So anytime you have someone calling someone a fanboy "of whatever", it's because he is describing himself 99% of the time because he supports something different......
Clearly you are not interested in getting to the bottom of this or proving any claims, you just want to call someone a fanboy and post gifs...enjoy.
What does it have? An RX480 downclocked with unique features of a more advanced GPU (Vega), an ID buffer, GR, rapid packed math and CBR hardware to improve efficiency in the rendering pipeline can no longer be called an RX480? Yeah, it's a hybrid, but there are many features that mitigates the downclock.....So don't try to assume it's a 470, because it's not....You would only be paying attention to the underclock whilst blocking out the improvements and added features on top of that in a closed box....
Eh, comparing a heavily customized console GPU to a PC part is not exactly a 1:1 comparison, you must consider all the variables...It's the same as using 1 game to now declare that the 970 is better than the PRO GPU.......If I downclock my PC RX 480 to 1000MHz, is it no longer an RX480? If I overclock it to 1400Mhz is it no longer an RX 480? At least on PC, if I do that I can't add more features to it like was done for the PRO... So we need to get some perspective here.....
Lashley
Why does he wear the mask!?
I'm a fanboy of myself
These plastic boxes we play games on? I don't really care about either way.
And trolling? I think we both know who's doing that, and it isn't me.
No it's not better. There have been plenty posts detailing why but you choose to ignore them?
Also it's not just one game and it wouldn't be disingenuous to name any title. I'm sure you'd be fine with someone using a PS4 exclusive as an example of its strengths, so how is this any different? Destiny 2 is a PlayStation marketed title for crying out loud. You're off your rocker if you think they did Nvidia specific optimizations but didn't do the same for the PS4 Pro. This is especially true when they have added features like CBR to the Pro version. Also if you ran RE7 at console settings, you could easily get 1080p60 on a 970.
It's only controversial when fanboys think there is some conspiracy theory going on.
Let's set aside Destiny 2. What is your excuse for Darksiders Warmastered edition, Outlast 2, Warframe, Titanfall 2, and more all performing better on the 970? Each has received a Pro patch and can reach up to 60fps.
thelastword
Banned
You don't care, but here you are in a tech thread anyway......,that (from times immemorial) discusses the pros and cons of different game versions across different plastic boxes......Hmmmm...
I don't know how you can swing that one spidey......
Lashley
Why does he wear the mask!?
What's your point? I find tech interesting.
I'm not a platform warrior, whereas the same can certainly not be said for you.
dr_rus
Member
There's nothing but tessellation which can explain gains of 30% between GCN1 and GCN4. Well, that and DCC but DCC wouldn't be as limited to "individual games" here as it should work everywhere.
Considering your unwillingness to learn, it would appear that you don't care about tech either. Yet here you are in another tech thread with your shield and spear.
Sad Affleck
Member
I did read what Gitaroo wrote. Using a couple of games as proof that PS4 Pro's GPU is better than a GTX 970 is as valid as me using Destiny 2 and Alien Isolation to prove that a 750Ti is better than the PS4's GPU. As you say yourself, some games favor specific hardware. This is why PC hardware sites benchmark graphics cards in many games from both the AMD-favored and Nvidia-favored camp. If you want to prove that PS4 Pro's GPU is hands down better than a GTX 970 gather benchmarks from ten or so games and present your case.
The rest of your post, I don't understand at all. Yes, the RX480 does beat the 970 in many games but on paper it is significantly more powerful than a PS4 Pro.
Dinky Dino
Member
It was really always like this save for the typical bad ports that tends to frequent many platforms. Consoles mostly never run on maxed out settings and sometimes use dynamic res or CBR. Those benchmarks you see are trying to push every last setting to the max. Case in point deus ex mankind divided ran pretty good but forcing maxed anti aliasing caused it to tank but if you used console equivalent settings, similar hardware did just as well. Only limiting factor is low vram on some models which is why I always advise to go for the highest you can such as the 2gb and 4gb versions of the gtx 760. There's a huge difference in performance there because you will be dropping tons of frame rates due to memory leaks/stuttering if your vram is insufficient but most comparisons never really go into that. Some games handle it better than others.
thelastword
Banned
Which ones exactly Kage? They better be detailing how the 970 is better across a range of games, primarily 60fps games over the PS4 PRO.....
I guess we can also say the 970 is better than the higher clocked 580 and the 1070 is better than the Vega 56 and can match a Vega 64 on account of Destiny 2 as well....Amirite?
Playstation marketed has nothing to do with the fact that the game plays better on NV GPU's...The PS4 has an AMD GPU coupled with a Jaguar CPU....Sony only has a marketing deal here, whilst this is an NV sponsored title with NV enhancements and effects......It's not like ICE was sent to Bungie or anything, it's not like there's a 60fps mode on PS4 PRO that's not on XBONEX...So yes, features wise I'm pretty sure more work went into NV optimizations and enhancements, they only had to lock the framerate at 30fps on XB1, PS4, PRO and XBONEX. There's no specific love given here to any console platform....The marketing deal thing is only about sales, to push PS4 PRO units and to advance sales on the sony platform, that is it. It's a no-brainer that destiny will sell better on the Sony platform.KageMaru said:
Also, what are you on about console settings in RE7? Don't you know that settings across all versions of RE7 are pretty much like for like, especially the PRO against the PC....Yes, this is Capcom and the PRO mode was not the best in terms of a better resolution (we still have not received a pro patch for SFV..SMH), but it was still better than the 1080p you've specified here. The pro mode runs at the best settings at a higher resotution of (2240x1260) or thereabout...I'm pretty sure it can do better than that, but of course everything is up to the devs unlike PC....
Conspiracy? What are you even talking about? who has mentioned conspiracy here?......If anything, you have people saying things that they can't prove..That's what it is mostly.....Like you...Here you are talking about console settings, when the PRO can run most games at ultra settings 30fps or 60fps depending on non CPU bound scenarios.....So what are the console settings in RE7, are you just saying things you don't know of or don't care to prove...? You cannot make a sweeping statement like that when settings on the PRO are generally improved over PS4 vanilla and XB1 for most third party titles.....Have you looked at the RE7 DF video?KageMaru said:
Darksiders Warmastered Edition? Really? You know how terrible the port was for Darksiders 2 that came before that on Vanilla PS4. There's no good track record here...Soon you'll be telling me that the Prototype remaster, Payday 2, Revelations 2, Xenoverse, Alien Isolation, Re-remakes are all better on a 750ti, so that makes the it better than the PS4's GPU????
I have not seen outlast 2, is it a bad port? The RX 480/580 runs it pretty well on PC, so what's the problem on consoles, never watched the comparison on that one...Then you go warframe...is the pro patch up for that as yet? I asked in a thread recently, I know they had plans, so where is the comparison vid then? Titanfall 2 runs at 1440p 60fps on the PRO, is that bad? Yet, some people were disappointed with that nonetheless. Speaking to the devs recently in one of the XBONEX threads, it seems they may revisit the PRO version to give a dynamic scaler up to 4k-6k just like the XBONEX.. They said they might look into it.......since they're going back into the code just like CDPR and ID for the XBONEX release...
If The 970 runs it at a higher resolution than 1440p at 60fps, why aren't you showing it. You're just saying things and not proving anything......Is the onus on me to prove your point? That being said, since I like to do research and prove things to see how they really stand...
I can link you to these videos.....Look at the numbers well and get back to me...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv8kBXIL9ak
And here is a layman's video, it goes below 60fps quite a few times at 1440p.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Eng9VKau-I
So yes, I don't see how you are proving anything, you're just throwing random title names out there, yet PC's are always decked with better CPU's for these titles. so how are you proving the GPU is worse on PRO...As a matter of fact, Respawn does not even recommend the FX series for Titanfall 2 on PC and that is better than the Jaguar CPU's....
Yet, you have not made one point that talks about tech...You're not a platform warrior, but all you talk about is platform warrioring in a tech thread. Could have fooled me Spider...At least you're funny in Homecoming and Captain America...I'll give you that at least...
Bruh you are the least transparent fanboy of everyone on this forum. Don't try to act coy or play victim when you get called out on your bullshit regularly.
fucking lol
Lashley
Why does he wear the mask!?
Exactly ^
There's a reason you're juniored
ooooo sick burn im so hurt
pn 03 sucks
There's a reason you're juniored
Yet, you have not made one point that talks about tech...You're not a platform warrior, but all you talk about is platform warrioring in a tech thread. Could have fooled me Spider...At least you're funny in Homecoming and Captain America...I'll give you that at least...
ooooo sick burn im so hurt
pn 03 sucks
thelastword
Banned
Oh so now, it has gone from a 970 beats a PS4 PRO to "even without an OC territory" it handily beats a Pro which it does not? in that video......
First of all, I saw that video before I made my post, but I figured there's no way someone would post this, because that would be disingenuous at best....Why is this guy changing settings in a config file? Why does it say 720p? Not that I believe it was running 720p, but that whole video is very fishy....He wants to make a point, but records at 1080p, he removes adaptive vsync around the 4 minute mark and enables TSAA, at first he has no AA on where the game looks very jaggy on the gun model. It's crazy too because when I first saw that vid it was on 50 views, but now it's on 62......so it seems people are scourging the recesses of the internet for some evidence...any at all..
FYI, the PRO version is perfectly vsynced, in essence, there's enough headroom on the system where it never drops frames from 60fps and it stays at 1440p...IQ is much better on the PRO over this, despite all his excuses of recording at 1080p and 720p on the menu....4x AF? really? Shadow details on low? How did he arrive at that?...AO's off that's fine, but yet, the PRO looks much better than what was seen in that video....and it does not drop frames like in that video, even with vsync disengaged and with a better CPU......The video here drops to the mid 50's quite a bit towards the end, at the firefight in the cave....and has lows of 53 fps.....
Btw if no-one watched the hardware unboxed video I linked..The 480 not only beats the 970 in TF2, it easily beats the 1060 as well and the same applies to the 470 as it beats the 1060, farless for the 970. A 470 is about on par with a 1060 6Gb at 1440p in this game and beats the 3Gb version, so 970 is not even in the picture here....Of course, it must be noted that this is a DX11 title as well, which normally favor Nvidia.....So of course the 970 is not even in the picture here against those cards.....
Yet, you guys are comparing a downclocked 480 with 36 CU's, an ID buffer, GPGPU, RPM and a fast 20GBPS bus to GPU/CPU to MEM...
I must say though, the name on that youtube account was quite funny...
Hey, if you think PN.O3 sucked, that's fair and good, not everybody will like every game I can respect that opinion......, yet, it's only an opinion.....The stats I'm giving above are not opinion though...but Eh!....Carry on...
First of all, I saw that video before I made my post, but I figured there's no way someone would post this, because that would be disingenuous at best....Why is this guy changing settings in a config file? Why does it say 720p? Not that I believe it was running 720p, but that whole video is very fishy....He wants to make a point, but records at 1080p, he removes adaptive vsync around the 4 minute mark and enables TSAA, at first he has no AA on where the game looks very jaggy on the gun model. It's crazy too because when I first saw that vid it was on 50 views, but now it's on 62......so it seems people are scourging the recesses of the internet for some evidence...any at all..
FYI, the PRO version is perfectly vsynced, in essence, there's enough headroom on the system where it never drops frames from 60fps and it stays at 1440p...IQ is much better on the PRO over this, despite all his excuses of recording at 1080p and 720p on the menu....4x AF? really? Shadow details on low? How did he arrive at that?...AO's off that's fine, but yet, the PRO looks much better than what was seen in that video....and it does not drop frames like in that video, even with vsync disengaged and with a better CPU......The video here drops to the mid 50's quite a bit towards the end, at the firefight in the cave....and has lows of 53 fps.....
Btw if no-one watched the hardware unboxed video I linked..The 480 not only beats the 970 in TF2, it easily beats the 1060 as well and the same applies to the 470 as it beats the 1060, farless for the 970. A 470 is about on par with a 1060 6Gb at 1440p in this game and beats the 3Gb version, so 970 is not even in the picture here....Of course, it must be noted that this is a DX11 title as well, which normally favor Nvidia.....So of course the 970 is not even in the picture here against those cards.....
Yet, you guys are comparing a downclocked 480 with 36 CU's, an ID buffer, GPGPU, RPM and a fast 20GBPS bus to GPU/CPU to MEM...
I must say though, the name on that youtube account was quite funny...
Why did you change your avatar Lashley? Hmmmmm...
Hey, if you think PN.O3 sucked, that's fair and good, not everybody will like every game
I can respect that opinion......, yet, it's only an opinion.....The stats I'm giving above are not opinion though...but Eh!....Carry on...icecold1983
Member
the games with the largest gains arent tessellation titles. sebbi has also stated that as a whole, the jump from gcn 1 to whats in the ps4 pro is quite a nice improvement
Yet a 970 beats the PS4 pro in 95% of all multiplats. Why focus on those 5%? If there was more performance headroom they'd increase the resolution.
Who cares if there's one game out of 20 where a 970 loses to the PS4 pro. It's like you said even a 1060 loses to a 470 in TF2. How many games are there like this? 2 or 3? It's the exception not the rule.
Why are games where a 970 beats the Pro Nvidia titles even though most games are like this? Wouldn't it be more correct to call those few titles where a Pro easily beats a 970 AMD titles?
I'm not going to comb over this thread presenting you with posts that you should have read and comprehended in the first place. I do know dr_rus and dictator93 have made great posts that you've completely dismissed. The amount of mental gymnastics you are performing to valid points is pretty amusing.
It's equally amusing that you're trying to dictate specific terms where you would finally accept reality.
I guess we can also say the 970 is better than the higher clocked 580 and the 1070 is better than the Vega 56 and can match a Vega 64 on account of Destiny 2 as well....Amirite?
Don't be silly. It's clear you don't know or don't care but you have to look at every measurement in context. There are clear signs of DX11 driver issues with AMD cards. Their DX11 drivers have never been stellar and we're seeing a perfect example of that here.
It's impressive how much this paragraph makes no sense. You don't need ICE to pull off great results on consoles, there are plenty of talented developers out there. There are also clear signs that specific optimization has been done for every platform. The PS4 is a locked 1080p, XBO is 1080p with dynamic scaling, and the Pro is 4K CBR. CBR isn't something you just easily throw into an engine and the fact that they reached up to 4K shows they put real effort into the platform.
I don't understand what lacking a 60fps mode or how great it'll sell on the PlayStation really has to do with the topic. If anything, studios tend to put the most effort into the version that will sell the best. So that doesn't really go along with your "no specific love" theory. I also think it's pretty disgusting that you'd be so willing to dismiss the hard work of a studio to push your misguided agenda.
I only mentioned 1080p because Gitaroo claimed he can't run RE7 at 1080p60. Either he's mistaken or something is wrong with his rig. Here's a video showing it running way above 60fps at 1080p and also holding 60fps most of the time at 1440p, a resolution higher than 1260p. Plus the console versions is missing motion blur, so the Pro isn't really running at the best settings when one of them is disabled.
https://youtu.be/w2AaIKxSuLI
I'm talking about this supposed controversy of yours when Nvidia games run better on Nvidia hardware. There's nothing controversial about that. Both Nvidia and AMD assist in games and sometimes we see benefits in PC GPUs. That doesn't really translate to consoles though where specific optimizations usually takes place.
Also RE7 on the Pro doesn't have improved settings over OG consoles outside of resolution. So that's a poor example on your part.
The game runs at 1620p60 on the Pro. I haven't seen any indication that it was a bad port. Even if it were, the PC would have received no more attention than the consoles, so any issues would apply to the PC as well. With a 970, you can hit 50-60fps at 4K at max settings. So there's no doubt it would easily hold a solid 60fps at a resolution like 1800p.
https://youtu.be/SKoPihb_Q5w
There's nothing wrong Outlast 2 on consoles, it's a great port. Still the Pro doesn't run it at max settings while the 970 can run it at 60fps 1440p60.
https://youtu.be/z9HXPWHBHgM
Warframe did receive a Pro patch but is still capped at 1080p60. It still provides a performance boost over the OG PS4 though.
Last Respawn never said they plan to get Titanfall 2 up to 4K-6K like the 1X. They said they may revisit the port to enable the scaling technology but they have not in any way indicated that it would reach the same resolutions we see on the 1X. If you're to the point of seeing things that were never there, you're going to have a tough time dealing with future face off articles.
Again context is key. Titanfall 2 can run in max settings at 1440p and still come close to holding 60fps on the 970. You know the Pro version is not running at max settings, so again this type of comparison is misleading and pointless.
I specifically picked out 60fps titles on the Pro to eliminate CPU bound games. When a game runs at same or higher resolutions with usual better settings on the 970, none of that has to do with the CPU.
Now I'm curious to see how far you'll move the goalpost.
Lashley
Why does he wear the mask!?
It's my 3rd avatar this week tbfWhy did you change your avatar Lashley? Hmmmmm...
Hey, if you think PN.O3 sucked, that's fair and good, not everybody will like every game
Sad Affleck
Member
Wow. I admire your determination and your patience but I'm sure you know you'll never get through to him. The data is right in front of his face yet he refuses to acknowledge it.
chromatic9
Member
PS4 Pro GPU is considered on paper to be a little above the 280x marker. This is comparing like for like AMD hardware specs. If this was up there with a 480 or 470 it wouldn't be announced as a 4.2tflops part.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2876/playstation-4-pro-gpu
The RX 470 on the new chart slots in between the 780 and 290, which again tally with the known specs and performance.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10663/analyzing-sonys-playstation-4-pro-announcement
970 is in and around the 290 and 290x bracket as a performer.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2876/playstation-4-pro-gpu
The RX 470 on the new chart slots in between the 780 and 290, which again tally with the known specs and performance.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10663/analyzing-sonys-playstation-4-pro-announcement
970 is in and around the 290 and 290x bracket as a performer.
Yeah I know but wasting time addressing people on the internet is nothing new. =p The important thing is we don't have more people buy into his BS.
PS4 Pro GPU is considered on paper to be a little above the 280x marker. This is comparing like for like AMD hardware specs. If this was up there with a 480 or 470 it wouldn't be announced as a 4.2tflops part.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2876/playstation-4-pro-gpu
The RX 470 on the new chart slots in between the 780 and 290, which again tally with the known specs and performance.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10663/analyzing-sonys-playstation-4-pro-announcement
970 is in and around the 290 and 290x bracket as a performer.
BigEmil
Junior Member
Yeah, even the previous GTX 750 ti + i3 4th gen combo which was the main equivalent PC hardware to og PS4/XB1 back in 2013 nowadays games are struggling on 750ti (Overclocked even which only few people do) likely optimisation and drivers etc taking it's toll and maybe Nvidia prioritising their newer cards they are currently selling
Maintenance
Member
Lister
Banned
The 750ti is NOT equivalent the ps4 gpu, that's precisely why it was brought up on gaff a lot. It's less powerful than a ps4 and yet it was matching and in some cases beating the base ps4 performance.
thelastword
Banned
This is the problem with you guys, how are you proving this...The 970 is hardly benched anymore, but it beats the PRO in 95% of titles. So I guess you want me to be the one to prove your claim false, when you have done nothing to prove it right...I really can't believe this....
It's because there is none, so I guess now I have to find these posts that prove what you're saying when you can't even bring them up yourselves...You can't bother to comb this thread?...This is a 4 page thread....SMH...Besides, I've read all posts in this thread and I have not seen any conclusive evidence that the 970 is stronger, how can you even prove that, when so many titles on pro are locked at 30fps...and yet again the title we're talking about here (Destiny 2) is a 30fps title that works better on NV GPU's..... So I guess that's the conclusive evidence. I guess I'll pass on this overwhelming evidence...
I don't even see how this answers the quote you highlighted......I guess this is the conclusive evidence I should be learning from and taking as fact right. How could you take this guesswork answer and try to impress it's veritability.. How are you proving this is DX 11 related? The Vega 56 is beating the 1070 in the majority of DX11 titles, but the Vega 64 can only match the 1070 in this title and you call this a DX11 issue....? It's just coincidence that that an NV sponsored title runs better on NVidia right......?KageMaru said:
And if you need to know, my DX11 statement was not even in that quote and I spoke of DX11 just to show how much better NV hardware would perform in this title... An NV sponsored title + DX11 title + not optimized for AMD GPU's and even CPU's is not a title you use to show that the 970 is better than the PRO GPU.....When the PRO game is capped at 30fps and when the NV favored title is pegged with a top of the line intel CPU...
Did you forget what you wrote or what I'm responding to? or is that you won't bother to comb your own posts?.....KageMaru said:
I'll comb for you, here it is...You said....
You're insinuating that Destiny on PRO has specific optimizations because it's a PS marketed title...That response explains to you what the marketing deal is about, it has nothing to do with specific optimizations on PRO, but rather ads, bundles et al to push PS sales, both hardware and software.. There is nothing out of the ordinary in destiny 2 on PRO as opposed to other platforms in terms of optimization....And something tells me you understood perfectly what I told you there...
So he's mistaken because it's not inline with your angle? So who says his system is OC'd ? So now, we have gone from a 970 is more powerful than PRO to you linking a heavily OC'd GTX 970 in this video paired with a i7 6700k, good work and I'm suppose to be learning from you amirite?KageMaru said:
Still, I'm a fair man and very patient, so I actually watched this video and this game has no vsync which saves a few frames, whilst the PRO is locked 60fps and vsynced...He also went from SMAA to FXAA at 1440p to save more frame drops in the video, and yet, the game drops below 60fps often, stays mid 50's for stretches and has lows of 51fps, yet he is also running the DX11 Api which favors NV GPU's.. If this is the evidence that shows the 970 is better than the PRO GPU, then you're clearly are not good at this...
Again I know MB is missing, but lots of Capcom games are missing MB on consoles, it has nothing to do with PRO but primarily XB1 which happens to drop frames in this game, they disabled it on one and all consoles. If you think Capcom cares much for optimization and optimized this for PRO, you are sadly mistaken. Vanilla PS4 has no MB in SFV, no pro patch for SFV, a console exclusive....The RE-0 remasters run at 30fps with missing effects, RE-R2 drops frames on PS4 whilst the XB1 is 60fps at the same resolution......
Having said that, at least the PRO version of RE7 is locked 60fps with perfect vsync which means it has a high ceiling or headroom....Unlike PC, console players are at the mercy of the devs with settings and whatever efforts they put in.. To be able to tinker however you can on PC, match any GPU with the best processors and say this GPU is better than PRO, is as silly as it gets....and in the cases presented here, both RE7 and Titanfall, do not prove that.....Even when the titanfall video lowers settings to Console quality as he claims, he can't hold 60fps and even worse in that RE7 video, OC'ing a 970 and it still can't hold 60fps in tandem with a 6700k...Yet the original argument was that a 970 stock was better than a PRO....
I will not linger on the first paragraph, but NV titles do implement features that are known to cause issues on AMD hardware....Gameworks and it's suite of effects, hairworks et al...have caused many issues with the competition and it's the reason why NV has stayed dominant over the years. There's a more detailed argument here, but I'm sure it has been discussed and it deserves it's own thread frankly...KageMaru said:
On the flip, you watch any AMD sponsored title, there's no intentional gimping on the competition's hardware...Prey, Hitman, Quake Champions, Sniper Elite 4 all play great at the highest settings on NV hardware...There's nothing like AO, DOF or MSAA causing 20fps hits at the highest settings in Destiny 2...Intel CPU's also work better with NV, but here we have SMT disabled on Ryzen CPU's for Destiny 2, so this game is clearly not as ready to run on AMD hardware of all sorts...This hardly happens on AMD sponsored titles, due to the open-source nature of their profiles....
KageMaru said:
At first they said it was 4k native, then we found out later it was 1620p......perhaps that was done to get to a more solid 60fps, so that's a good compromise imo...You never cease to amaze me though,,,,here you go again with an MSI OC's GTX 970, with an SSD and a i5 processor, so yes, another OC'd processor....Truth be told, this game can get a nice uptick in framerate on account of a good CPU...This game has some very large maps, open world, lots of geometry and there can be many enemies on screen and lots of physics, huge vistas, the better CPU helps the framerate a good tick, that's for sure.....
Having said that, this is not a stock 970, it's OC'd heavily, yet the 480 on the PRO is downclocked, but that's ok because there are other features that make up for that...However, here you are with a 4k video on Darksiders WE which is constantly in the 40's and has drops to 36fps in the first level......Well geee... perhaps that's why they lowered the rez on PRO Kage. With that type of performance, they would have locked this to 30fps on PRO at 4k anyway, but they wanted 60fps. It makes sense, because I guarantee you that this game has heavier sections than this first level and it will continue to drop to the 30's and even below, as you progress in this game at these settings.....I don't know if you remember playing DS1, but there are lots of enemies later in the game, lots of effects and enemy artillery from all angles and some bossfights that are quite taxing on the GPU......
Still, these guys are hardly the best when it comes to optimization work on consoles, but at least you get the picture...
Dude, what is there to run at max settings? This is a UE3 game pretty much all the consoles have the best settings here...There's nothing PRO has to improve, except maybe improved AF and AA and even then DF said the PS4 and XB1 versions are pretty much up there IQ wise....KageMaru said:
Of course the biggest takeaway is that PRO is a solid 60fps at 1440p.....But yet again, you present another video with a heavily OCd' Asus Strix 970, but at 1440p, paired with an i5 intel processor and Dx11 renderer...Yet, it can't hold 60fps like the PRO, a heavily OC'd strix at that, against a downclocked RX 480, farless for a stock 970....Btw, do you even watch the videos you link? Lots of walking, but towards the end when there's some action, this game just stays at mid to low 50's for a good stretch with a low of 50fps.....This is only the beginning of the game though, so I imagine things can get pretty hectic......under all that film grain and effects, MB, DOF, CA, which appears to be intact on all versions. I guess you must have the eye of a tiger to see better detail on PC through all of that.....
In any case, you have yet to bring a valid case here..I'm still waiting for the napata to show that 95% of multi's that are better on the stock 970 over pro when even OC'd 970's are not showing that divide paired with better CPU's...
Btw, earlier, Dictator linked a Titanfall 2 video which couldn't keep a locked 60fps at consoles settings from our new tech guru Analog Foundry....Tee Hee..
He also said that 970 was stock, I just want to clarify that AF's 970 is an Asus Strtix OC'd card.... Confirm that for me please, Warframe was always 1080 60fps on a vanilla PS4...Some effects were slightly dialed down on PS4 to keep framerate more consistent...Boost mode has stabilized Warframe's framerate on PRO, but I will not consider that a PRO patch. Where are the patch notes or improvements...for 2.28 times the GPU and a higher clocked CPU on the PRO? This is like saying SFV got a pro patch because they improved shadow dithering on the characters in one of their updates, when on the Warframe forums, the devs declared they had a proper pro patch in the works to maximize the PRO...KageMaru said:
On the flip, pro patches like Overwatch's are just as bad as no pro patches at all...but I'll still like to see those patch notes for warframe....perhaps I'll install it right now?
You know that 6K scaling talk made no sense...I'm sure the PS4.PRO can reach there as well looking at a wall or in menus, but practically in-game I don't think this is something that is going to make any impact on image quality. ..Imagine TF2 scales to 6k at 1% of the time in the campaign mode, how great would that be?KageMaru said:
The devs want to sell their game, I won't hate on this..I also believe everybody knew the PRO could push a bit harder on TF2, even DF had similar sentiments in their faceoff. Since they're back in the code it makes sense to revisit this and improve things on PRO as well, perhaps heighten some of the graphical settings and implement some of their perf improvements etc..on the engine/game....I'm pretty sure this will give their game another boost for the holidays on the two mid-gen consoles for the holidays....
Well I suggested 60fps titles, because I believe it's a better comparison, though not a perfect one...since people normally run PC games non-vsynced in benchmarks.KageMaru said:
Persons must understand, that perfectly vsynced games usually have a markup of at least 3fps on the GPU, so when you see a game is Vsynced on pro and never drops a frame, but you have non-vsynced games bordering on 60-61-62 fps on PC, it means it most likely will fall below 60fps if the frames were vsynced...What's worse is that in every game you guys linked with an OC'd 970, it fell below 60fps many times with vsync off, far less with it on...So you had Titanfall, Outlast2, RE7 falling to low 50's, whilst Darksiders fell to 36fps....
Also, not all "60fps games" are GPU bound, that is not a correct statement.....As a matter of fact, many games on consoles are not hitting 60fps locked because of the CPU, since not all devs will delve into GPGPU......Look at TF2, which this thread is about, it's only 30fps, the devs said it's because of the CPU. I'm sure it can get close to 60fps as it is, as not all 60fps titles are locked, but for a solid 60fps they would require some GPGPU work, which I believe would be worth it,..... but then, a better CPU would make it an instant locked 60 for them. For an actual 60fps title, Project cars is a more apt example on consoles..
I wasn't looking at the frame counter the entire time I was playing, but I enjoyed a mostly 4K60 experience with my 980 Ti. I know, it's not a 970, but still... quite good when most modern games struggle and I have to dial things back to 1440p or 1080p. Very happy with what VV has achieved here, and makes the wait until late October a little easier to deal with. Kinda.
thelastword
Banned
The thing about console GPU's is that they can't just be compared like that. There's a lot more to that console GPU than just 4.2TF......There's a lot of features that a similar PC Polaris card does not have, and in a closed box with a fast pipeline to CPU-GPU to MEM, such a hybrid setup will be much more efficient and faster at render time......All this time, I've been comparing the hybrid GPU, so real world results is the better gauge. As we have seen, a stock 970 is not able to hold 60fps locked like the PRO can in many titles at high resolutions, even over an OC'd 970 as well with a better CPU.....If anything is holding the pro back, it's certainly not the GPU, but the CPU on a bevy of titles...predominantly 30fps titles and unlocked framerate titles...PS4 Pro GPU is considered on paper to be a little above the 280x marker. This is comparing like for like AMD hardware specs. If this was up there with a 480 or 470 it wouldn't be announced as a 4.2tflops part.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2876/playstation-4-pro-gpu
The RX 470 on the new chart slots in between the 780 and 290, which again tally with the known specs and performance.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10663/analyzing-sonys-playstation-4-pro-announcement
970 is in and around the 290 and 290x bracket as a performer.
Further to that, if we have to go on TFLOP count alone, the GTX 970 is 3.9 Tflops, whilst the PRO GPU without all the hybrid improvements, features and hardware that helps with rendering is a 4.2TF part....so it's not exactly apples to apples....Theoretically, the arch of the PRO and with features like RPM, it is able to do much more than a 970, but usually multiplatform devs will not show such a divide....However, Farcry 5 and Wolfenstein 2 will be interesting examples to follow in the future outside of first parties...for a bigger divide.
You have yet to prove any thing...95% of multis are better on 970 said Napata and all you have is destiny, an NV title that's locked at 30fps on consoles and not fully optimized for AMD parts...I'll also advise you to watch your videos before you post them, because none of claims of 60fps is true...also Darksiders at 50-60fps, come now man......
I wasn't looking at the frame counter the entire time I was playing, but I enjoyed a mostly 4K60 experience with my 980 Ti. I know, it's not a 970, but still... quite good when most modern games struggle and I have to dial things back to 1440p or 1080p. Very happy with what VV has achieved here, and makes the wait until late October a little easier to deal with. Kinda.
This card is more than enough to run this game, with a good enough CPU, which I'm thinking you have and an NV card......You should be more than good at 1440p...
I also watched the 4K 60fps trailer and interview on the PC version, the Bungie dev said they are launching this on PC in October because they want a good PC launch....I hope this NV sponsorship does not prevent them from making this a reality on AMD hardware as well.. They still have lots of time till October, and looking at all the feedback and analysis they've received from excellent sites like Gamersnexus, I hope they sort things out on the AMD side.....
Sad Affleck
Member
Have you proven anything? Because you have dismissed every piece of data that has been thrown your way using different excuses every time. You don't want 30 fps titles. You ignore quality settings in games that show performance differences. You ignore stuff like dynamic resolution on console games (Titanfall 2). You want people to find benchmarks of 970s paired to jaguar-tier CPUs which no-one uses. You ignore every game that doesn't support your argument as Nvidia shenanigans. And you ignore hard benchmark data because "you can't measure PS4 Pro in flops."
This is getting tiresome. Either do the legwork and find some data that supports your argument yourself or give it a rest and let's move on. So far you have presented exactly zero evidence to your claims, you're just commenting on and dismissing other people's findings.
This is the problem...
Yeah I knew it was pointless to try and engage you in a conversation.
The crazy thing is he wants videos showing proof but fails to realize no one will post a real benchmark video with vsync enabled. The whole point of benchmarking games is to have an unlocked frame rate showing how high it can go. So he's creating a scenario that fits his agenda.
I was under the impression that it was considered to be a bad thing that the CPU and GPU are sharing the same pool of memory on the PS4/Pro, since it results in disproportionately reduced bandwidth available for the GPU.
Isn't that one of the reasons why so many PS4 games lack anisotropic filtering or only use small amounts of it, despite it being almost free on PC?
Also note that despite the theoretical bandwidth of the PS4 being 176GB/s, Sony list it as <140GB/s here, dropping below 120GB/s total when the CPU is actually doing work.
I guess there are probably some advantages to the APU setup but it really seems to hurt memory bandwidth, while PCs have significantly more memory bandwidth available with the CPU and GPU having their own dedicated pools of memory.
Dictator93
Member
One there is reduced total RAM consumption as instead of copying textures from system RAM into VRAM when you need em, you just reference the textures in the shared RAM poool. They would be essentially "cloned" on PC meaning greater total system RAM usage (not necessarily more VRAM usage in total though, hence why Psy4amateur and pro will not use the large 4096X4096 textures some pc games have like The Surge, Fallout 4, etc.).
Yes, I'd expect lower total memory usage.
I should have been more specific, and meant to say that there are probably some performance advantages to the APU setup due to not having to communicate over the PCIe bus for example. But then again, most GPUs don't see any performance change at all if you drop the PCIe link speed in half or even 1/4, so perhaps not.
What? In pretty much all benchmarks a 970 is still present and beats a 470. And if a 970 beats a 470 then there is no way the Pro GPU is better than a 970. After all the PS4 Pro GPU is just a downclocked 470. It's really simple honestly.
And in practice most devs can't even get the Pro to match a downclocked 470. Most likely they're limited in bandwith. Even Naughy Dog only offers a jump from 1080p to 1440p in their recent games. That's only a 70% jump over a regular PS4 despite the GPU being much more powerful.
Lashley
Why does he wear the mask!?
Waste of time arguing with him mate
grandwizard
Member
Why would someone even expect the 970 to be bested by the base PS4 at all, ever? When it came out the card cost 3/4 the price of a PS4 on it's own. I know people get crazy with the secret sauce and magic optimizations but that is just absurd.
I love my 970 and it has done the job I expected of playing this generation's AAA multiplats at 60fps at 1080p and high settings. I also have G-Sync so the odd game that drops a bit below that isn't a big deal.
Destiny 2 beta ran great on it. It's a beast of a card and I probably won't upgrade until next year.
I love my 970 and it has done the job I expected of playing this generation's AAA multiplats at 60fps at 1080p and high settings. I also have G-Sync so the odd game that drops a bit below that isn't a big deal.
Destiny 2 beta ran great on it. It's a beast of a card and I probably won't upgrade until next year.