More Games WORSE on PlayStation 4 Pro

[othertomperson]

5 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Ok low level access is great indeed, but console is still semi-custom hardware with unified memory which is not same like a regular PC you know. Thus when game made for console gets just ported on PC and not made for PC from start it produces problems, not only performance wise but memory like VRAM usage and such that is abnormal.

Low level access will help for sure when utilized and it can be done without console no doubt. For now porting only hurt PC side. 
Would be great if devs just make games how it should be, make it for PC independent from console, but they will say that would take time, money and potentially look too different between PC and console and console makes don't want to allow it. It's not coincidence that games that are made only for PC run great.

I just hope that soon we will get past this shit with terrible ports.

We pretty much are over it? Like don't you remember the sort of 2008-2012 era that was fucking terrible? These days it's really rare for a game not to support a range of resolutions, it's rare for a game to not support SLI, it's rare for a game to require something ridiculous like a 1070 to just run at reasonable FPS at 1080p. Dx12/Vulkan may well produce issues in themselves because things that were previously handled by the Dx11 driver now need to be manually handled by devs, but considering what PC gaming used to be like a few years ago I don't really understand tirades like this.

[Citadelen]

12 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

-snip-

 

 

Low-level access is the future, the sooner devs get used to it, and using it on PC the better, I guess you could say we're in the rough patch while they're still working it out. At AMD's Capsaicin, they said we need 1,000,000 times the current GPU power we have now to achieve full presence VR. What with Moore's law being dead, the only ways you can achieve that are multi-GPU and low-level access.

[Arri]

Another key bit of evidence that consoles are already optimized and when you introduce variance in hardware like the PC market, you also get much more bugs and incompatibility like you do in the PC market.

 

[Doobeedoo]

16 hours ago, othertomperson said:

We pretty much are over it? Like don't you remember the sort of 2008-2012 era that was fucking terrible? These days it's really rare for a game not to support a range of resolutions, it's rare for a game to not support SLI, it's rare for a game to require something ridiculous like a 1070 to just run at reasonable FPS at 1080p. Dx12/Vulkan may well produce issues in themselves because things that were previously handled by the Dx11 driver now need to be manually handled by devs, but considering what PC gaming used to be like a few years ago I don't really understand tirades like this.

What? It's worse! It's even a joke when some add "it will support higher resolution", that's expected. Also some games don't support multi GPU in start, some take time. And saying reasonable FPS like what 30fps with top tier? Cause there are many games out lately that can't maintain 60fps at 1080p maxed out with top tier hardware. That's some heavy game issue there, be it port or whatever. DX12/Vulkan will definitely help a lot though games needs to be made from start with it to take the advantage better.

[Doobeedoo]

8 hours ago, Citadelen said:

Low-level access is the future, the sooner devs get used to it, and using it on PC the better, I guess you could say we're in the rough patch while they're still working it out. At AMD's Capsaicin, they said we need 1,000,000 times the current GPU power we have now to achieve full presence VR. What with Moore's law being dead, the only ways you can achieve that are multi-GPU and low-level access.

Yes I know, low-level access is much needed approach. As far as working it out, it's different when it's in early stage compared to when companies just do a lazy port and stamp it "for PC" on it and runs like shit. That needs to stop.

[othertomperson]

2 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

What? It's worse! It's even a joke when some add "it will support higher resolution", that's expected. Also some games don't support multi GPU in start, some take time. And saying reasonable FPS like what 30fps with top tier? Cause there are many games out lately that can't maintain 60fps at 1080p maxed out with top tier hardware. That's some heavy game issue there, be it port or whatever. DX12/Vulkan will definitely help a lot though games needs to be made from start with it to take the advantage better.

No, "reasonable fps" is like 60fps at 4K being pretty easy to attain almost unanimously at this point. It's just a flat out lie that PC Gaming is worse than it was 5-6 years ago.

 

Dx12/Vulkan is going to make PC gaming worse before it makes it better, at least for Nvidia. Traditionally Nvidia's day 1 drivers have been pretty damned good. It's not up to Nvidia to do that now -- it's up to devs to control hardware directly. Some are going to do this well. However the odd bad port like Arkham Knight is going to be much worse. The reason I single out Nvidia is because AMD's day 1 drivers have traditionally been terrible and have needed much more time to mature so I can't see it making that much difference initially.

[Doobeedoo]

38 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

No, "reasonable fps" is like 60fps at 4K being pretty easy to attain almost unanimously at this point. It's just a flat out lie that PC Gaming is worse than it was 5-6 years ago.

 

Dx12/Vulkan is going to make PC gaming worse before it makes it better, at least for Nvidia. Traditionally Nvidia's day 1 drivers have been pretty damned good. It's not up to Nvidia to do that now -- it's up to devs to control hardware directly. Some are going to do this well. However the odd bad port like Arkham Knight is going to be much worse. The reason I single out Nvidia is because AMD's day 1 drivers have traditionally been terrible and have needed much more time to mature so I can't see it making that much difference initially.

We're far of from 4K@60fps stable maxed settings in AAA games with 1 GPU though.

Drivers for sure, though it's up to devs to utilize DX12/Vulakn well from start of making a game. Games with those APIs will get way better in time. Currently it's early.

[-BirdiE-]

On 11/12/2016 at 4:08 AM, Prysin said:

which your 970 doesnt have.

Wat? DSR was introduced to the Nvidia lineup with Maxwell. The 970 very much has the ability to do that.

[Syntaxvgm]

On 11/12/2016 at 5:37 AM, Prysin said:

 

As for hardware, the specs of the PS4 Pro is higher then that of a GTX 980.

haha what? you're fucking kidding, right? It doesn't even match in raw compute performance, which AMD usually has more when comparing two similarly performing cards anyway. Oh, and it's basically xfire, which yes, in a console it's gonna be used properly. Doesn't scale near twice though. 

On 11/12/2016 at 5:37 AM, Prysin said:

as for the 60FPS "forced" mode. its overrated. 30 vs 60. i used to play BF3 and BF4 on PS3/4. I now play BF1 at PC (60Hz monitor, 100+ FPS at 3440x1440p). I know there is a difference, i CAN see it. BUT!!!!
It does NOTHING for my gameplay, it does NOTHING for my experience ingame, it does NOTHING to hinder me at playing the game at my best. Why? why does it not matter?

 

I do better on my 144Hz monitor regardless of server tick rate. Sure, with controller, that's not as important, but ps3 battlefield was cancer, I played it all the time and it was still cancer to me. Part of that was the input latency they had for some reason, part of it was the drops below 20, yea, but if you're gonna make an argument that 30 vs 60 doesn't matter, for the love of god don't use shooting games as an example. Most other games yea 60 is better and tall, but they experience isn't affected nearly as much. 

On 11/12/2016 at 5:37 AM, Prysin said:

People talk about ghosting, oh the ghosting. It's not ghosting that causes you to miss, its the inability to lead the reticule according to the target. Iv'e seen ghosting myself, iv'e seen ghosting in videos, each and every time, the "ghost" is so weak, that if you aim for that ghost, you're a moron, you should always aim ahead of the target. And if you still miss, you STILL DIDNT AIM CORRECTLY.

It's called "skill". Either you have it, or you improve it, or you fuck off and play something else. And i am so sick and tired of people, especially on PC side, spending so much time, and effort and energy in creating bullshit excuses for why they get their ass handed to em. They simply suck, and no amount og hardware is going to fix that.

Play @60Hz on my 144Hz panel and @60Hz on one of my workstation's IPS panels. The input latency isn't really a problem at all on them. The ghosting is, believe me, despite the much better colors, you'd want to throw them away in favor of no ghosting. It's a big issue with m&k because in introduces a large amount of motion blur when moving. You literally can see clearer when turning on faster GTG response panels WITH in game motion blur on. So yea, if you are not using a controller, it matters. 

I haven't more than skimmed through this video, but this should show it 

 

On 11/12/2016 at 5:37 AM, Prysin said:

 

Horizon Zero Dawn has since day one been a Playstation EXCLUSIVE. Dunno which part of that you thought would change.

 

Some games, i dare say a lot of games, have ZERO benefit of 60FPS. Why? because the animations is so shit and sluggish in the first place that no matter the FPS, it's still rubbish. Skyrim is THE best example. Actually, Bethesda games collectively is the best example. Iv'e modded the shit outta skyrim, we are talking 250+ graphical, technical and animation mods. I played skyrim at 40-60FPS with 2k, 4k and 8k textures mixed together to create the best experience for me. And still, still the animations, despite having gotten new skeletons, new animations, havoc physics and all that yadda yadda to work, it still didnt look any better then the videos on youtube showing console vs PC.

Oh god I once played the first bioshock at 144Hz . I wanted to kill myself with the 144fps turning and 30fps animations. Yah yah there's mod to unlock the engine frame rate but this is exactly what you're talking about here. 

On 11/12/2016 at 5:37 AM, Prysin said:

You know what is causing the bottleneck? The horrid engine that bethesda keeps regurgitating every other game. They have their old ancient dust-pile of a engine, they tweak it and reuse it. Rinse and repeat for a decade. That shit is unfit for modern games. It was made for consoles and give you no better experience at PC.

I'm no fallout fan but I thought 4 looked kinda similar to new vegas quality wise. 

On 11/12/2016 at 5:37 AM, Prysin said:

The whole argument against consoles is retarded, and this comes from a guy who owns a gaming PC that is far faster then what most people on this forum has, and certainly a magnitude of order faster then what the majority of PC gamers has. Hell, my PC is over 6 times faster then the average PC based on steam surveys.... that is sad, because my experience on my PC isnt 6 times better then my PS4.

you know the steam survey includes everyone laptops and shit right? I have 3 desktops and 2 laptops right now that use steam. Shit if someone wants to play BOI or something on their laptop, they install it. 

Most people I see have like a 970 or better. I don't consider myself much above the curve with a 1080, that's pretty common. Shit according to the steam hardware survey the most common GPU is the 970 by FAR. (you'll also see 3 intel HD GPU in the top 5. Laptops.) My workstation has one and it seems to do just great when friends come over and game. 

6x raw power != 6x performance. (Also, PC ports are shit in favor of consoles, you know this. This is half of what makes the PC experience so often frustrating )

Finally, your PC is a great build. Your GPU, however, a 295x2, while probably the best dual GPU ever made experience wise in comparison to two separate cards, is just that. I mean you can't turn off cfire, as far as I'm aware? I used to spend many hours getting the most out of cfire with my 6xxx series cards. When it works, it's great. But your actual experience and performance out of the box on many new titles is sub par compared to the average when both GPUs are not properly utilized and without stuttering, especially on such a high resolution monitor. (Seriously, nice 1440p ultrawide). It's a little hard to use such an odd card to judge PC performance experience for average PC gamers overall, doncha think? 

No, it's not 6 times better than the ps4. But here I am with my dumbass 1080 (seriously only 2 displayports what's wrong with you ASUS?) and I'm mad because I max BF1 out at 1080p 144Hz and there's no better anit-alaising to apply and my only hope is to run at 1440p or 4k and downscale? And I'm pretty certain the 970 (most common card) was running it at 60 ultra just fine, and like med or high on 3 screens. 

And meanwhile ps4 can't maintain 60 fps in conquest. 

So yea not 6x but the comparison is a little ridiculous. 

[Prysin]

4 hours ago, -BirdiE- said:

Wat? DSR was introduced to the Nvidia lineup with Maxwell. The 970 very much has the ability to do that.

please read things in context before even bothering to reply.

[Prysin]

2 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

haha what? you're fucking kidding, right? It doesn't even match in raw compute performance, which AMD usually has more when comparing two similarly performing cards anyway. Oh, and it's basically xfire, which yes, in a console it's gonna be used properly. Doesn't scale near twice though. 

I do better on my 144Hz monitor regardless of server tick rate. Sure, with controller, that's not as important, but ps3 battlefield was cancer, I played it all the time and it was still cancer to me. Part of that was the input latency they had for some reason, part of it was the drops below 20, yea, but if you're gonna make an argument that 30 vs 60 doesn't matter, for the love of god don't use shooting games as an example. Most other games yea 60 is better and tall, but they experience isn't affected nearly as much. 

Play @60Hz on my 144Hz panel and @60Hz on one of my workstation's IPS panels. The input latency isn't really a problem at all on them. The ghosting is, believe me, despite the much better colors, you'd want to throw them away in favor of no ghosting. It's a big issue with m&k because in introduces a large amount of motion blur when moving. You literally can see clearer when turning on faster GTG response panels WITH in game motion blur on. So yea, if you are not using a controller, it matters. 

I haven't more than skimmed through this video, but this should show it 

 

Oh god I once played the first bioshock at 144Hz . I wanted to kill myself with the 144fps turning and 30fps animations. Yah yah there's mod to unlock the engine frame rate but this is exactly what you're talking about here. 

I'm no fallout fan but I thought 4 looked kinda similar to new vegas quality wise. 

you know the steam survey includes everyone laptops and shit right? I have 3 desktops and 2 laptops right now that use steam. Shit if someone wants to play BOI or something on their laptop, they install it. 

Most people I see have like a 970 or better. I don't consider myself much above the curve with a 1080, that's pretty common. Shit according to the steam hardware survey the most common GPU is the 970 by FAR. (you'll also see 3 intel HD GPU in the top 5. Laptops.) My workstation has one and it seems to do just great when friends come over and game. 

6x raw power != 6x performance. (Also, PC ports are shit in favor of consoles, you know this. This is half of what makes the PC experience so often frustrating )

Finally, your PC is a great build. Your GPU, however, a 295x2, while probably the best dual GPU ever made experience wise in comparison to two separate cards, is just that. I mean you can't turn off cfire, as far as I'm aware? I used to spend many hours getting the most out of cfire with my 6xxx series cards. When it works, it's great. But your actual experience and performance out of the box on many new titles is sub par compared to the average when both GPUs are not properly utilized and without stuttering, especially on such a high resolution monitor. (Seriously, nice 1440p ultrawide). It's a little hard to use such an odd card to judge PC performance experience for average PC gamers overall, doncha think? 

No, it's not 6 times better than the ps4. But here I am with my dumbass 1080 (seriously only 2 displayports what's wrong with you ASUS?) and I'm mad because I max BF1 out at 1080p 144Hz and there's no better anit-alaising to apply and my only hope is to run at 1440p or 4k and downscale? And I'm pretty certain the 970 (most common card) was running it at 60 ultra just fine, and like med or high on 3 screens. 

And meanwhile ps4 can't maintain 60 fps in conquest. 

So yea not 6x but the comparison is a little ridiculous. 

yes i can turn off Crossfire. Either through using Borderless Window/Window mode (for the love of god AMD why doesnt CF work outside Exclusive Fullscreen?. SLI does) OR through disabling it in the Crimson drivers.

 

You have ALWAYS been able to disable crossfire. Although you are right, dual GPUs have been a hassle that way, the 5990, 6990 and 7990 did NOT turn off properly even when disabled in the driver. They sorta went into a 1.5x mode, where one GPU was just going fuck all and screwing over the framerate, while the other tried to do everything on its own.

 

i totally agree on the PS3 part. BF3 had issues in buckets on the technical side. That being said, as tragic as it may seem, once you got used to it, it was playable.

 

My note of the 970 is that it will NOT run 4k in any form in a AAA game the same way a console will. Reason is the lack of checkerboarding, advanced temporal AA (lets face it, the TAA on PC is inferior to console optimization wise).

The 970 can run 1080p Ultra, hell even a single 290X can run it at 1440pUW at medium-High and still get 50-80 FPS which is fine by me. Crossfire is borked in BF1 atm, flickering happens randomly, so i had to disable it. Absolutely unplayable, sadly, it's the only game i have played in a while with THIS bad crossfire behaviour. Even gameworks titles with gameworks effects enabled hasnt given me this bad flicker. Most likely caused by the AA solution, as AMD seem to struggle with certain combinations of post-processing bloom and AA (skyrim taught me that the hard way. Had to reinstall 239 mods in order to fix it).

 

PS4 cannot maintain 60 FPS in conquest, because the CPU is shit. Absolute SHIT.

it is 2x 5350 "ULV" mobile CPUs based on Jaguar CPU (aka modded Phenom II) glued together. And they are atrocious. AMD should have convinced SONY to use full fledged piledriver or steamroller cores. But they didnt

 

as for motion blur. i always turn it off. i fucking hate it. No game does it in a good looking way. it is either so little it makes no sense to have it there, or so bad it completely wrecks the immersion (things get so blurry it looks like you're running at 100mph, rather then at "superhuman" speeds)

[alexyy]

On 12/11/2016 at 9:08 AM, Prysin said:

which your 970 doesnt have. If you had a 1070, you could do that. Which is the difference between PS4 and Pro version.

 

you're also missing the point of the Pro. 4k TVs are getting really popular, due to relatively low cost and agressive marketing. Many people have one, and thus for a console (which 99% of the time is connected to a TV) being unable to deliver any 4K content, well, that isnt OK. Thus, the Pro adresses that issue. Thus makes sense.

 

It does however surprise me how much it struggles to keep stable framerate, i mean Sony is pretty adamant on their games having to be a smooth experience

Shame it doesn't have a 4k bluray player which would make it semi useful.

[Prysin]

Just now, alexyy said:

Shame it doesn't have a 4k bluray player which would make it semi useful.

i dont think 4k BluRay is going to be that popular. Not with the rapid influx of 4k streaming content. Especially considering it cost about the same to buy a month or two worth of streaming subscription for the same price as a single 4k BluRay.

 

Mind you, i totally agree it is a shame it doesnt have it. But i honestly don't consider it a big deal.

[alexyy]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

i dont think 4k BluRay is going to be that popular. Not with the rapid influx of 4k streaming content. Especially considering it cost about the same to buy a month or two worth of streaming subscription for the same price as a single 4k BluRay.

 

Mind you, i totally agree it is a shame it doesnt have it. But i honestly don't consider it a big deal.

Only real reason I'd ever have to buy a console, shame really, no online subscription service offers 4k bluray quality content anyway assuming anyone's internet could actually handle it. 

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, alexyy said:

Only real reason I'd ever have to buy a console, shame really, no online subscription service offers 4k bluray quality content anyway assuming anyone's internet could actually handle it. 

Netflix is rolling it out, several series/movies have it already where i live.

HBONordic and Viaplay is supposedly going to do it, eventually, if there is enough interest. Which means -> it'll happen in a year or two.

[Sauron]

That's what happens when you forget what a console is and start releasing castrated pcs. Now they have all the same downsides and none of the benefits of pcs. Well done.

[alexyy]

Just now, Prysin said:

Netflix is rolling it out, several series/movies have it already where i live.

HBONordic and Viaplay is supposedly going to do it, eventually, if there is enough interest. Which means -> it'll happen in a year or two.

Netflix 4k is a joke the bit rate is so low it's pointless.

Sony's 4k service which is extremely hard to be a part off is the only thing close at the moment but yeah we can hope.

[Prysin]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's what happens when you forget what a console is and start releasing castrated pcs. Now they have all the same downsides and none of the benefits of pcs. Well done.

dude.

unless a miracle has happened lately, it is more pain in the ass to run a bluray on PC then any other device ive ever touched. DRM updates are a pain. Getting legal software that has up to date HDCP keys are even more of a pain and cost a fortune.

I bought a bluray drive to watch movies on my PC, rather then on my PS3. It took 3 hours before i said fuck it and gave up all hope. I aint paying a fortune every 2 years for some shit software when my PS3 and PS4 has free fucking DRM updates and does the same thing.

 

And no, i aint bothering with cracked software anymore. Ive had too many viruses and trojans thanks to that. I also make enough money to buy software if i think it is worth it

[alexyy]

3 minutes ago, Prysin said:

dude.

unless a miracle has happened lately, it is more pain in the ass to run a bluray on PC then any other device ive ever touched. DRM updates are a pain. Getting legal software that has up to date HDCP keys are even more of a pain and cost a fortune.

I bought a bluray drive to watch movies on my PC, rather then on my PS3. It took 3 hours before i said fuck it and gave up all hope. I aint paying a fortune every 2 years for some shit software when my PS3 and PS4 has free fucking DRM updates and does the same thing.

 

And no, i aint bothering with cracked software anymore. Ive had too many viruses and trojans thanks to that. I also make enough money to buy software if i think it is worth it

I do find it quite concerning that it's easier to download and watch a bluray then actually go buy one. 

[Prysin]

Just now, alexyy said:

I do find it quite concerning that it's easier to download and watch a bluray then actually go buy one. 

yeah, especially on PC.

consoles you just pop the disc (unless 4k BluRay ofc), and you're gold....

 

i had same DRM issues with the last gen of DVDs too, right before BluRay. DRM codes changed every 3-6 months and caused massive headaches trying to find the correct "less legal" DRM key.

[Sauron]

22 minutes ago, Prysin said:

dude.

unless a miracle has happened lately, it is more pain in the ass to run a bluray on PC then any other device ive ever touched. DRM updates are a pain. Getting legal software that has up to date HDCP keys are even more of a pain and cost a fortune.

I bought a bluray drive to watch movies on my PC, rather then on my PS3. It took 3 hours before i said fuck it and gave up all hope. I aint paying a fortune every 2 years for some shit software when my PS3 and PS4 has free fucking DRM updates and does the same thing.

 

And no, i aint bothering with cracked software anymore. Ive had too many viruses and trojans thanks to that. I also make enough money to buy software if i think it is worth it

I was referring to games. Last time I checked this was supposed to be a games console, not a blu ray player.

 

Blu ray and DRM are a completely separate can of worms that I don't want to open right now.

[alexyy]

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I was referring to games. Last time I checked this was supposed to be a games console, not a blu ray player.

 

Blu ray and DRM are a completely separate can of worms that I don't want to open right now.

thought we were all in agreement that consoles stopped being used for gaming since the release of the xbone & ps4? /s

[Miguel Batista]

On 12/11/2016 at 4:33 PM, AshleyAshes said:

I get that you guys want to go on and on about 60hz and how it it's not 'true 4K' there's no point but that argument simply doesn't jive with reality.  Some console games running below 60fps has been a thing literally since the original PlayStation and Nintendo 64 (Goldeneye 64 got like 30fps -tops-).  The existing eighth generation of game consoles has had no problem selling units and titles while many games did not offer full 1080p and/or 60fps, the hardware refreshes are often just upping the resolution and maybe some details, to better accommodate the 4K TVs who's adoption is greatly outpacing HDTV adoption ten years ago.

 

As much as you want to argue against it, you clearly life in a world where the console's price point and hardware is giving the majority of consumers what they want.  This is a world where GTA5 ran like a potato on Xbox 360 and PS3 yet it sold more than a million units in the first day.  The PC port has yet to sell that many units in it's entire lifetime.  Big FPS games, big sports titles, big open world games, they are all massive money makers and their console ports vastly outsell their PC ports and they wouldn't sell better on consoles if consumers were not getting what they want.  This is where the money is and as much as you want to argue that somehow this magically shouldn't be the money is, that idea doesn't fit with the reality you actually live in.  Simply put, what isn't 'good enough' for you, is clearly 'good enough' for the vast majority you can argue until you are blue in the face, but you won't change that reality.

 

Instead of trying to argue with how the majority of consumers are wrong, it may be better to try and understand that the majority of consumers have different motivations than yourself and that the universe doesn't revolve around your individual expectations.

First of all, GTA V on PC sold more than 5 million units and is by far the best GTA version around.

 

Second of all, I find it interesting that since this mid gen update for consoles is clearly aiming to make up for the shift of gamers to the pc market, you try to make it seem like consoles are what people want. Which is simply not true.

 

There is a reason why Sony sticks to its exclusives like a drawning man to a rescue boat. There is a reason that they released the pS4 pro in the middle of the console's life cycle. They need to keep people in their platform and stop losing more players to the pc market. The PC market is huge and it is growing. Games like Dota 2 and League of Legends have more players than there are consoles in the world, the most played FPS in the World by far is CS GO which has more people playing it than Cod and BF1 combined. The PC market last year generated more revenue than the mobile market. PC is where people are and will continue to grow.

 

Next step is couch gaming.

Machines like the steam ones are intended to take on casual gaming from consoles and it is a matter of time before they suceed. You may laugh now but remember, not 20 years ago people thought laptops were a waste compared to a typewriter and they would never replace the typewriter in the office. Who uses typewritters nowadays?

 

We are still years away from a PS5 (if it ever comes) and PCs keep getting better and better while consoles remain static. If someone wants to invest on a new game system what are they going to buy? 

 

This PS4 pro also breaks console cost. Whereas before you would spend about 500 dollars every 5 or 6 years, now you need to spend 400 every three years to play the latest and the greatest. for that value, I would rather spend that on a gpu every three years. It will provide better quality and last longer.

 

All in all, the PS4 pro provides amazing image quality for the cost but, it is not without faults and it is a stopgap measure to try and slow the bleeding of console players into the  PC.

 

And this is all so that they can continue with their anti consumer practices which is the biggest fault of consoles IMHO. 

[Miguel Batista]

15 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

We're far of from 4K@60fps stable maxed settings in AAA games with 1 GPU though.

Drivers for sure, though it's up to devs to utilize DX12/Vulakn well from start of making a game. Games with those APIs will get way better in time. Currently it's early.

I can lay doom, BF1, Mechwarrior Online at 4k 60 FPS maxed out on my 980 ti. With some rtweaks that make no difference visually i can play Witcher 3 and GTA 5 at 4K 60 fps.People with a Titan Xp can play pretty much anything in true 4k 60 FPS ultra. I suspect when Vegas comes out we will have more options to play at 4K 60 FPS and I would bet money that for sure the 1080ti will crush 4k 60 FPS. What are you on about? next gen GPUs will have an even easier time running these resolutions. What far away future is that? 2017?

[Doobeedoo]

24 minutes ago, Miguel Batista said:

I can lay doom, BF1, Mechwarrior Online at 4k 60 FPS maxed out on my 980 ti. With some rtweaks that make no difference visually i can play Witcher 3 and GTA 5 at 4K 60 fps.People with a Titan Xp can play pretty much anything in true 4k 60 FPS ultra. I suspect when Vegas comes out we will have more options to play at 4K 60 FPS and I would bet money that for sure the 1080ti will crush 4k 60 FPS. What are you on about? next gen GPUs will have an even easier time running these resolutions. What far away future is that? 2017?

I've see numerous games on top tier hardware not able to get to 60fps on 1080p even on ultra. Due to optimizations, some for sure cause of pixel count. DOOM runs very great specially on Vulkan and that game must be optimized for high frame rate. BF1 is not demanding and Mechwarrior Online way off. And no you don't have 60fps with that card on Witcher 3 GTA 5 at 4K not even two of those can maintain 60fps at 4K so yeah. GTX 1080 runs like 45-50fps on it and tow in SLI OC with top i7 can just maintain 60fps and somewhat above. There are games that no matter what today hardware you throw it just won't get 60fps at 4K and to be mainstream a single card needs to be able to drive it easily.