Yes and it wasnt great.Isn't that what Quantum Break does only using 4x 720p images to get to 1080.
Yes and it wasnt great.Isn't that what Quantum Break does only using 4x 720p images to get to 1080.
I'm sure it is a co op work using AMD tech... AMD and Sony confirmed that a lot of times.
They did with PS4.AMD has a set of IP blocks that can go into a chip and sony tells them what features and performance characteristics they want
they're not getting to customize the compute units or anything like that
Yes and it is bad.Isn't that what Quantum Break does only using 4x 720p images to get to 1080.
Sony never used GF and GF itself didn't have production enough to supply AMD... now about the differences:
Samsung 14nm FF = Bit smaller chip
TSMC 16nm FF+ = Bit better performance and higher clocks
Yes and it is bad.
Well, it's what they're using for ps2 emulation, so I think it might be different. It seems to work quite well.
There is nothing like that in PS2 emulation on PS4...Well, it's what they're using for ps2 emulation, so I think it might be different. It seems to work quite well.
Read some reviews on the AMD R480 and not really impressed with it. It's definitely not capable of rendering 4k at reasonable framerates (but neither are the 970/980). I'd rather devs just shoot for more stability in games and focus on VR with downscaled scene complexity.
There is nothing like that in PS2 emulation on PS4...
- 2D artworks gets upscaled (there is no other way unless you recreate the artwork)
- 3D elements are rendered in higher resolution (1080 lines)
Temporal reconstruction is what QB does... it get the last three/four 720p frames and try to use them to guess what needs to complete an actual 1080p image from 720p render... that is why moving generates weird artifacts.
Read some reviews on the AMD R480 and not really impressed with it. It's definitely not capable of rendering 4k at reasonable framerates (but neither are the 970/980). I'd rather devs just shoot for more stability in games and focus on VR with downscaled scene complexity.
Neo is a PS4 & it will be playing PS4 games but now it has over 2X the processing power to make that PS4 game prettier however they do it.
My guess is that it will just be PS4 games but they will use the extra processing power to up-render the games. & it's not going to be something that's going to take up too much of the devs time.
He said it is useful... not that is being used.I'm talking about that patent. Wasn't it pretty much accepted at this point that it's how they're handling higher resolution for ps2 games?
I mean this guy seems to think so, and I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the ps2 and such.
We're not getting 4K native on any console coming in the next few years at the same quality we're getting 1080p on PS4. I'm expecting/hoping for some nice reconstruction techniques or something and 60fps where CPU allows.Read some reviews on the AMD R480 and not really impressed with it. It's definitely not capable of rendering 4k at reasonable framerates (but neither are the 970/980). I'd rather devs just shoot for more stability in games and focus on VR with downscaled scene complexity.
Interesting question could be will Neo run PS2 games in higher resolution then the default PS4. I mean it's not something that would be a selling point for the majority but it could potentially do so
Would that not be obvious? If you have twice the GPU power, they can uprender the games to a much higher fidelity. The problem is still that they are mandated to use 4:3 aspect ratios for games that do not support wide screen as opposed to PC emulation, where you can 16:9 any game you want, even those that don't look right in widescreen
Exactly. To run UC4 or Spider-Man at 4k, you'd need 7.5TF or better, which is 25% faster than what they announced for Scorpio. So yeah, just double the frame rates, then spend the rest on eye candy, as you say.We're not getting 4K native on any console coming in the next few years at the same quality we're getting 1080p on PS4. I'm expecting/hoping for some nice reconstruction techniques or something and 60fps where CPU allows.
He said it is useful... not that is being used.
PS2 emulation do what I explained... native render to 3D objects with upscaled 2D artworks/textures.
Because it is how it works on PS4.How do you know they're not using it? If it's useful why wouldn't they?
Isn't that super troublesome for ps2 emulation? Look at how long it's taken pcsx2 to get where it is doing that. And how many hacks required...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=199410564&postcount=8294
Exactly. To run UC4 or Spider-Man at 4k, you'd need 7.5TF or better, which is 25% faster than what they announced for Scorpio. So yeah, just double the frame rates, then spend the rest on eye candy, as you say.
Because it is how it works on PS4.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-hands-on-with-ps4-playstation2-emulation
BTW Sony has all the technical data from PS2 and PS4... there are not doing reverse engineering emulation like PCSX2... they do emulation with actual technical data.
Emulation knowing how it works will always be faster and better than reverse engineering.
Sure, but the more, the merrier. Make it as powerful as you can for $499, I say. It'll give you that much more eye candy and help with games that currently struggle to reach 30 and it will make Neo that much more future-proof, meaning it won't drag so much on whatever the next PlayStation is. 4.2TF isn't terrible by any means, but 5.5TF would still be a lot better, especially with a 6TF XBox on the horizon.I've said it several times before but even with the rumored 4.2tf GPU in Neo, it can handle 1080/60 with some solid visual enhancements over the base PS4. If the CPU is up to the task, it will make for a pretty substantial visual upgrade.
Nintendo kinda did that - they announced the existence of the 3DS when they knew rumors were about to start flying about it.That may have been a factor but surely there is more to it than that. I don't remember another time where a rumour has been acknowledged like this. It wasn't a simple Neo is real either. Andrew House actually went into quite some detail with the FT about the strategy etc. Even mainstream media ran articles.
Totally agree with the first paragraph. I'm certainly not going to argue against more GPU power.Sure, but the more, the merrier. Make it as powerful as you can for $499, I say. It'll give you that much more eye candy and help with games that currently struggle to reach 30 and it will make Neo that much more future-proof, meaning it won't drag so much on whatever the next PlayStation is. 4.2TF isn't terrible by any means, but 5.5TF would still be a lot better, especially with a 6TF XBox on the horizon.
Speaking of games that struggle to hit 30, I wonder if the mandated support for PS4 will create pressure for devs to improve performance minimum performance on PS4 games. Or perhaps more liberate than pressure. First, if the PS4 version dips below 30 while the Neo version holds a comfortable 60, that may be seen as a "shoddy port," both by gamers and by Sony. Also, I think part of the reason devs are so willing to drop frames is the drive to put extra stuff in the game. So perhaps the tiered hardware will help to establish 1080p30 and 1080p60 as the respective performance expectations, and Neo will be the place to go for enhanced performance and eye candy, whether you're a dev or a gamer. What say you, GAF?
I've said it several times before but even with the rumored 4.2tf GPU in Neo, it can handle 1080/60 with some solid visual enhancements over the base PS4. If the CPU is up to the task, it will make for a pretty substantial visual upgrade.
Did you read?That article doesn't say anything about how they're achieving higher resolutions...
And if you read the post I linked you'd see why knowledge of the hardware or documentation would not really solve those problems.
Upscaling? Probably not what you wanted to hear bearing in mind that older titles haven't aged well visually, and a disappointing result bearing in mind that our initial information said that Sony would be emulating these titles in high definition. Well, there's both good and bad news here. All 2D artwork in every title gets the upscaling treatment - there's nothing that can be done about that, and it can look pretty ropey. However, the 3D elements are substantially improved and do get a resolution increase.
Did you read?
BTW did you play any PS2 emulated game on PS4? I'm playing right now Wild Arms 3 and 3D render is indeed 1080 horizontal lines... 2D textures and artworks are upscaled... I don't know how you can think other way.
And yes technally knows how the game uses a hardware is what do emulation better than reverse engineering... Sony emulation is already better in performance than PCSX2.
And your link was based on assumptions over reverse engineering and not direct emulation.
When emulating devices with UMA (or hybrid UMA, as the case was with PS2), any element in GPU write-address range is a valid computational part of final image, so hacking around by resizing main render target practically guarantees that you will render the game incorrectly. To what degree, depends on a number of other things, but with PS2 it was quite common to directly manipulate render-targets via their address-mapping (ie. eDRam was basically a giant register stack to play with) so the problems can range from visual glitches to unplayable mess...
Former adds considerable complexity to the VM, and if you allow non-even upscales, math gets fuzzy with regards to "correct" outputs.
Believe what you want... the fact PS2 games runs like I said in PS4 won't change.So what? I don't see how that conflicts with anything I said.
Are you serious? If you honestly think that you either did not read the post(again?), or you didn't understand it.
And how is this based on reverse engineering? Faf has worked on actual ps2 games, so that kinda seems like a joke to me.
Like, are you serious dude? Seems like you're just making stuff up.
Anyway..., it was more about how resizing a framebuffer is just inherently incompatible with unified memory systems.
As you can see, it's clear that knowing all the details of the hardware is irrelevant, because you're not respecting those details when using this method anyway, and also because the issues are not even caused by incorrect implementation(or lack of knowledge), but general incompatibility of the technique and the system in general.
Believe what you want... the fact PS2 games runs like I said in PS4 won't change.
Faf working or not in PS2 games didn't change PCSX2 do reverse engineering and for that it has performance issues while Sony emulation is actual emulation done right respecting all the technical aspects of the hardware emulated.
That is why you don't have unplayable mess on PS4 with PS2 emulation... the games are rendered fine in 1080 horizontal lines for 3D and upscaling the 2D parts.
You can actually play games to see that... so your accusation of "I am making stuffs" just proves false when you have over 20 games running on PS4 like I explained... I can take pictures if you wish... Sony doesn't need to complicate when you can change the 3D render just fine via emulation without issues... maybe you need to study a bit of emulation or in this case work with it to understand.
The method used in the patent try to recreate a higher resolution using lower resolution rendering... it is not the same lol... the use of this tech can give the impression of better/sharper IQ than simple upscaling but there is disadvantages too like worst IQ in moving scenes or artifacts... rendering in higher resolution will be always give a better/sharper IQ.Ok, I think you just don't understand then. The method described in the patent would result in higher resolution rendering (it's just another method of doing it), while also avoiding the issues involved with a simple upsize.
And I already know a thing or two about emulation, I'm part of the pcsx2 testing team, and I've worked on a couple of my own (admittedly pretty simple) emulators myself.
Are you talking about the patent Thuway linked a few pages back? Because that doesn't increase rendering resolution at all. It doesn't affect rendering in any way, because it's all applied long after the image was created. If you actually read the patent, it's talking about upscaling "multimedia content," so like, movies and stuff. Sure, you could do the same thing with live, game video, but it still won't have any effect on the rendering itself.The method described in the patent would result in higher resolution rendering (it's just another method of doing it)
The method used in the patent try to recreate a higher resolution using lower resolution rendering... it is not the same lol... the use of this tech can give the impression of better/sharper IQ than simple upscaling but there is disadvantages too like worst IQ in moving scenes or artifacts... rendering in higher resolution will be always give a better/sharper IQ.
What PS4 does to emulate PS2 games is nothing like that.
PS4 runs all the 3D game code in high resolution... there is no upscaling or weird temporal reconstruction tech involved... think like you running a game on PC and changing it resolution... the issue is that 2D artwork/textures are not created to fill higher resolution so they needs to be upscaled... simple image upscaling.
PS2 games render are dynamic like all games and can be set to render at right resolution just fine... the issue are non-rendered objects like 2D texture/artwork that needs to be upscaled.
A better example...
Just think about a PC game... you can change the resolution ingame but if the assets are made in lower resolution they will need to be upscaled... you can actually run old games in PC at 4k with 2D assets upscaled... that is what happens on PS2 emulation.
In terms of IQ you have in better option: render in higher resolution (PS2 emu) > retroconstruction based in lower resolution (patent) > upscaling from lower resolution.
The patent will be most used because it does a better job than upscaling but Neo won't have power enough to render in 4k... that is not the case of PS2 emulation that didn't stress PS4 to do it in higher resolution and better framerate.
Are you talking about the patent Thuway linked a few pages back? Because that doesn't increase rendering resolution at all. It doesn't affect rendering in any way, because it's all applied long after the image was created. If you actually read the patent, it's talking about upscaling "multimedia content," so like, movies and stuff. Sure, you could do the same thing with live, game video, but it still won't have any effect on the rendering itself.
This is just an upscaling technique. Nothing whatsoever to do with rendering; it's all done after the fact.
The last thread where you brought this up turned into a mess please just end it at that.
People not understanding the difference between up-scaling & up-rendering is not my problem.
The new Xbox One will upscale all games to 4K & your 4K TV can upscale all games to 4K but PS4 Neo & Xbox Scorpio will most likely up-render games to 4K..
Some serious pixy dust being snorted here. Now there are 2 neos?
Related info from a meeting we had yesterday was waiting for it to be approved before posting.
Price is currently $399.99 they were discussing a better CPU which would raise the price to $499.99 we were guaranteed the price will be no higher than $499.99 (He mentioned the CPU upgrade quite a bit almost as if they haven't really decided on a final spec could be a pricing issue.)
Exactly. To run UC4 or Spider-Man at 4k, you'd need 7.5TF or better, which is 25% faster than what they announced for Scorpio. So yeah, just double the frame rates, then spend the rest on eye candy, as you say.
Why? Until 4K adoption becomes widespread there's no need to go higher than 1080p.Nope. This simply isn't true. You could easily get there or almost there with dynamic resolutions. Staying at 1080p is a horrible waste. At least go to 1440p.
Why? Until 4K adoption becomes widespread there's no need to go higher than 1080p.
I'm sure some games will use downsampling but that's about it.
1440 on a 4K tv will pull the same results of blurring details as running 720 on a 1080p.Because people buying premium sku consoles probably have premium TVs. It's not a stretch. I own a 75" 4K tv and have had 4k for 3 years now. 1440p minimum. 1080p is really ass once you've had 1440 or 4K. I've been gaming on 1440 on PC for 5-6 years now it's great.
That article doesn't say anything about how they're achieving higher resolutions...
And if you read the post I linked you'd see why knowledge of the hardware or documentation would not really solve those problems.
The method used in the patent try to recreate a higher resolution using lower resolution rendering... it is not the same lol... the use of this tech can give the impression of better/sharper IQ than simple upscaling but there is disadvantages too like worst IQ in moving scenes or artifacts... rendering in higher resolution will be always give a better/sharper IQ.
What PS4 does to emulate PS2 games is nothing like that.
PS4 runs all the 3D game code in high resolution... there is no upscaling or weird temporal reconstruction tech involved... think like you running a game on PC and changing it resolution... the issue is that 2D artwork/textures are not created to fill higher resolution so they needs to be upscaled... simple image upscaling.
PS2 games render are dynamic like all games and can be set to render at right resolution just fine... the issue are non-rendered objects like 2D texture/artwork that needs to be upscaled.
A better example...
Just think about a PC game... you can change the resolution ingame but if the assets are made in lower resolution they will need to be upscaled... you can actually run old games in PC at 4k with 2D assets upscaled... that is what happens on PS2 emulation.
In terms of IQ you have in better option: render in higher resolution (PS2 emu) > retroconstruction based in lower resolution (patent) > upscaling from lower resolution.
The patent will be most used because it does a better job than upscaling but Neo won't have power enough to render in 4k... that is not the case of PS2 emulation that didn't stress PS4 to do it in higher resolution and better framerate.
PS4 runs all the 3D game code in high resolution... there is no upscaling or weird temporal reconstruction tech involved... think like you running a game on PC and changing it resolution... the issue is that 2D artwork/textures are not created to fill higher resolution so they needs to be upscaled... simple image upscaling.
PS2 games render are dynamic like all games and can be set to render at right resolution just fine... the issue are non-rendered objects like 2D texture/artwork that needs to be upscaled.
A better example...
Just think about a PC game... you can change the resolution ingame but if the assets are made in lower resolution they will need to be upscaled... you can actually run old games in PC at 4k with 2D assets upscaled... that is what happens on PS2 emulation.
The way Sony is approaching higher resolution rendering is more accurate without requiring hacks by virtue of how it is rendering: you are essentially rendering the same scene 4+ times only changing the camera projection very slightly each time then accumulating the frames once you collect them. They were kind of doing it in hardware on the GSCube and it like having 4 PS2's rendering and then some component merging the frames they produce.
This way each virtual GS is seeing the same memory size and the same exact layout... it will not know what other people will do with its output .
Nah it'd be much better. 720p simoly wasn't very many pixels to scale up, but 1440p is a much better base to work from. If scaled internally on the console it'll look great.1440 on a 4K tv will pull the same results of blurring details as running 720 on a 1080p.
Nope. This simply isn't true. You could easily get there or almost there with dynamic resolutions. Staying at 1080p is a horrible waste. At least go to 1440p.