More Games WORSE on PlayStation 4 Pro

[LucidMew]

49 minutes ago, Prysin said:

unfortunatly, your argument is based on PC performance. Consoles are far too optimized and has faaaaar more tricks in order to perform.

i dare say 2/3rds of the tricks consoles use to boost performance WONT work on PC, because there is too many variations of hardware to guarantee that it works.

Then there is the checkerboarding method that Sony has patented. This is FAAAAR better then any supersampling we have on PC atm. I mean FAR better. It uses way less power and delivers way better result.

 

As for hardware, the specs of the PS4 Pro is higher then that of a GTX 980. We all know that a GTX 980 can run 4k content if you drop settings to medium. Now imagine a GTX 980 with extremely optimized drivers and game settings. That is what the PS4 Pro is. And damn that is a lot of "juice" for a console, you are basically getting a gaming system for the price of a high end used 980/Fury too. That is impressive. Credits where credits due.

 

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?

Because the servers and your ping is always the bigger obstacle in online FPS games.

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.

/endrant

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

What, the checkerboard rendering pattern was not patented by Sony, it was first developed by Steam and was shown at GDC (page 22 to 24 in http://alex.vlachos.com/graphics/Alex_Vlachos_Advanced_VR_Rendering_Performance_GDC2016.pdf and video at https://youtu.be/eIlb688pUu4?t=16m42s) it's a fancy way to scale UP resloution, super sampling is going to opposite way. Yeah, 1800p checkerboard upscaled to 4k is going to look a lot better than 1800p upscaled with like a dumb gaussian upscale or something. but compared to native 4k, it's by definition less "quality pixels" because there's less information there to begin with.

 

where do you get that the PS4 Pro GPU is about equal to a 980? yeah sure it has 4.2 TFlops of compute power, but you sure as fuck can't compare flops across GPU generation/micro architecture, let alone cross vendors. Which is why the GTX 980 at about 4.6TFlops of power competes with R9 390X with nearly 6TFlops. Which is why a 750ti at 1.3TFlops is able to beat the PS4/XBone, with 1.84 and 1.31TFlops at comparable settings a lot of the time.

 

 

I like 60fps because it feels better, as cliched and over used as it is, 60fps is more responsive. I don't like having to wait twice as long for my character to jump when I press a button. Yeah sure it's 16.7ms vs 33.3ms, but it's still a difference that different people handle it differently, why not give them the option, like TLoU did, with higher quality graphics and 30fps, or lower graphics and 60fps. They're already going to be making multiple versions of the game anyways for 4k/1080/Pro/base, why not do that?

 

Yeah, I know H:ZD is a Sony exclusive, I mean that it could be a PS4 Pro console seller. Having that shown with 1600p (or whatever resolution) checkerboard upscaled 4k will be amazing. But the developers are saying that the engine was built with 30 fps in mind, so there's no hope of a 60 fps patch down the road.

 

Well duh, but that's bethesda's problem and what you get when hack along a 15 year old engine. But games using non-shit engines, like DOOM, TW3, Borderlands, GoW4 and most every other damn competent game that's been released in the past decade look better at 60, imo.

 

I'm saying, if I plug in my PS4 Pro to my 1080p TV (because a $400 console is a better pill to swallow than $1000+ on a 4k tv, especially if you don't already have a PS4), then I want the double-ish horsepower to double the framerate, instead of having "really damn good AA" like it currently does.

 

Sony and Microsoft jumped the gun by several years to make a cheap 4k gaming console. They succeeded in creating a damn good 4k playback device (moreso Microsoft with the One S and UHD blueray player), but it's too early for native 4k games, and they should have gone with 1080p60, or like 1440p30/60. But, I'm not an executive at either one of those places, so that means nothing.

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

4 hours ago, 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

What are you talking about? The PS4 Pro has a downclocked RX 480, so it's probably significantly less powerful than a 970. How could you ever compare to Pro to the 1070? It surprises you that a gpu worse than the 970 struggles to keep up when rendering at 1800p?

[patrickjp93]

12 hours ago, Energycore said:

Hmm. Lower clockspeeds because of the two SoCs? That could easily be fixed in software.

Performance tuning is never easy beyond a certain level, and retaking a system as large as a complete game is dicey.

[SteveGrabowski0]

10 hours ago, Darth Revan said:

Are people really that stupid that they can't understand this has nothing to do with Sony, but with crappy game developers that did a shit port.

With a patch all will be fixed.

How does this have nothing to do with Sony? Sony explicitly said that no game would be allowed to perform worse on PS4 Pro than PS4 and every game that comes out has to be certified by Sony's QA team before it can be licensed.

[PlayStation 2]

12 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

It's ridiculous seeing games rendered at fucking 1800p when you play them at 1080p. 4k is stupid for couch gaming, it only makes sense for pc gaming since you sit so close to the screen then. But sitting 7-8 feet away from the screen on a couch that fucker has to be huge for 4k to be worth much. I mean it looks nicer getting rid of some of the ant crawl artifacts you get at native 1080p, but that's a small thing to sacrifice a consistent framerate for. I'd never use DSR on my 970 to eliminate those temporal aliasing artifacts since they're pretty minor and require a ton of gpu horsepower.

Agreed. Don't get me wrong, 3200x1800 is clean as fuck, especially when using a form of anti aliasing. But it's completely unnecessary.

[SteveGrabowski0]

8 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Agreed. Don't get me wrong, 3200x1800 is clean as fuck, especially when using a form of anti aliasing. But it's completely unnecessary.

I just wonder if this is going to become the standard, all the devs get lazy and render at 1800p or 1440p and sacrifice 1080p performance. I really want to buy a Playstation 4 for the exclusives but I don't know what version to get for 1080p gaming. For the games out now that I want to play the PS4 Slim seems like a no-brainer since it's effectively $160 cheaper (it's $100 cheaper and comes with Uncharted 4, a game which is one of the main reasons I want a PS4). And none of the games currently out that I want to play seem any better on PS4 Pro. E.g., Uncharted 4, The Last of Us, Uncharted Nathan Drake Collection, God of War 3, Bloodborne. But then I'll be pissed if I bought the Slim and RDR2, Days Gone, or God of War run at 60 fps like that fast framerate mode of Rise of the Tomb Raider on the Pro. I'll probably suck it up and spend the extra $160 on the Pro, but its struggles at 1080p right now really make me second guess that.

[SteveGrabowski0]

I can't remember, did they ever say whether they were going to target 60 fps at 1080p during the E3 reveal of God of War? That really looked amazing at E3. It looked so good I figured it was coming out this year and not next since they were showing actual gameplay and not the typical bunch of cutscenes you often see at E3.

[RagnarokDel]

13 hours ago, Dionyz said:

Basically the older PS4 console runs better than the PS4 Pro by 1-5 FPS at 1080p *In some games*. (Certain scenes can drop by 10 FPS) 

 

Sources: 

 

 

They're rendered at 1800p.

11 hours ago, Dash Lambda said:

No, that would be too sensible. They have to pretend their silly little machine has a friggin' Titan XP in it so that people will buy it.

It's a shame, though. They might've been able to deliver a reasonable product that did its job well.

Consoles dont use ultra settings. They use a mix of low and medium settings most of the time. the RX 480 can play games like Battlefield 1 at 40k~60 with medium and low settings.

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 hour ago, RagnarokDel said:

Consoles dont use ultra settings. They use a mix of low and medium settings most of the time. the RX 480 can play games like Battlefield 1 at 40k~60 with medium and low settings.

When Digital Foundry does PC vs console comparisons it usually finds console quality settings to be a mixture of high and medium pc settings, usually more skewed towards high.

[AshleyAshes]

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.

[matrix07012]

[othertomperson]

15 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

4k is stupid for couch gaming, it only makes sense for pc gaming since you sit so close to the screen then. But sitting 7-8 feet away from the screen on a couch that fucker has to be huge for 4k to be worth much. I mean it looks nicer getting rid of some of the ant crawl artifacts you get at native 1080p, but that's a small thing to sacrifice a consistent framerate for.

I mean you've just given two scenarios in which 4K is absolutely worth it for couch gaming. Firstly is that aliasing is definitely noticeable on a 40" 1080p TV at that distance even with AA on so the increase in resolution is nice, and the second point is that a lot of 4K TVs are between 60 and 100 inches. 1080p is going to be horrendous at those sizes unless your room is absolutely huge. I don't really see why you're talking about sacrificing consistent framerate. It's a console, it's going to do this at any resolution. If you want a good 4K couch gaming experience you have to go living room PC (streaming at 4K is a monstrous undertaking), and then there's nothing stopping you from putting a couple of 1070s or Fury Xs in there and getting both.

 

Speaking of console 4K gaming though, the rumour (is it a rumour, or have Microsoft basically stated this at this point?) that Scorpio is being delayed so that it can have a Vega GPU rather than an underclocked RX 480 could make it quite an interesting 4K experience.

 

44 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

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.

Well yeah. It was a major release and at that time it was a console exclusive. In the one year and seven months that they took to release that game to PC most people who were interested in playing that game already had done. Even GTA will struggle to stay that relevant for over a year and a half. They actively sabotaged that game's PC sales by delaying for so long.

[AshleyAshes]

24 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

Well yeah. It was a major release and at that time it was a console exclusive. In the one year and seven months that they took to release that game to PC most people who were interested in playing that game already had done. Even GTA will struggle to stay that relevant for over a year and a half. They actively sabotaged that game's PC sales by delaying for so long.

Find me ONE GAME that was released on both consoles and PC in the same week where PC copies outsold the console copies.

[SteveGrabowski0]

55 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

I mean you've just given two scenarios in which 4K is absolutely worth it for couch gaming. Firstly is that aliasing is definitely noticeable on a 40" 1080p TV at that distance even with AA on so the increase in resolution is nice, and the second point is that a lot of 4K TVs are between 60 and 100 inches. 1080p is going to be horrendous at those sizes unless your room is absolutely huge. I don't really see why you're talking about sacrificing consistent framerate. It's a console, it's going to do this at any resolution. If you want a good 4K couch gaming experience you have to go living room PC (streaming at 4K is a monstrous undertaking), and then there's nothing stopping you from putting a couple of 1070s or Fury Xs in there and getting both.

 

Speaking of console 4K gaming though, the rumour (is it a rumour, or have Microsoft basically stated this at this point?) that Scorpio is being delayed so that it can have a Vega GPU rather than an underclocked RX 480 could make it quite an interesting 4K experience.

 

Well yeah. It was a major release and at that time it was a console exclusive. In the one year and seven months that they took to release that game to PC most people who were interested in playing that game already had done. Even GTA will struggle to stay that relevant for over a year and a half. They actively sabotaged that game's PC sales by delaying for so long.

How many people have 60-100 inch 4k TVs? And you don't have to do 4k supersampling to get good antialiasing, I'd much rather they did something much less intensive like 2xMSAA, SMAA, or temporal antialiasing if you're running 1080p.

[Zodiark1593]

10 hours ago, 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

The PS Pro is also lacking the power needed to deal with 4K resolution without heavy compromises. 4K is a heavy load, and developers would have to decide between utilizing the resolution, or using the additional power for more advanced shaders and effects, depending on their vision of the game. Even as far back as the PS2, it was not at all uncommon to use resolutions that are below SD (640 x 480) to ensure enough memory in VRAM. 

 

Somewhat off topic, but I would definitely like for Nintendo to push for 4K resolution themselves. The art styling in most of Nintendo's games would greatly appreciate the extra pixels, and to maintain similarly advanced effects probably wouldn't require much more than Ps4 levels of performance. (WII U shader quality with 4K res).

 

Nintendo could have had a major jump on the 4K bandwagon I feel. As most gamers do not expect for Nintendo consoles to push advanced effects, ushering in 4K gaming would not have been an insurmountable task. Unfortunately, Nintendo strikes me as the very old person whose reflexes have greatly slowed. 

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

How many people have 60-100 inch 4k TVs? And you don't have to do 4k supersampling to get good antialiasing, I'd much rather they did something much less intensive like 2xMSAA, SMAA, or temporal antialiasing if you're running 1080p.

actually, quite a lot.

Where i live, the sales of 4k TVs are overtaking 1080p these days, because they don't cost that much more, but the image quality is definetively worth it.

That being said, TVs are retardedly cheap here (compared to other things)... if you look at % cost vs income, TVs are far cheaper then they "should" be....

[othertomperson]

7 minutes ago, Prysin said:

actually, quite a lot.

Where i live, the sales of 4k TVs are overtaking 1080p these days, because they don't cost that much more, but the image quality is definetively worth it.

That being said, TVs are retardedly cheap here (compared to other things)... if you look at % cost vs income, TVs are far cheaper then they "should" be....

I agree. A little while ago I was shopping for a 40" TV and an extremely good low latency 4K TV set me back £400. If you spend less than that for a 1080p TV quality will suffer, not just resolution. 4K just isn't that expensive anymore. The differentiating factors that put up price are things like HDR or OLED now.

 

44 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

The PS Pro is also lacking the power needed to deal with 4K resolution without heavy compromises. 4K is a heavy load, and developers would have to decide between utilizing the resolution, or using the additional power for more advanced shaders and effects, depending on their vision of the game. Even as far back as the PS2, it was not at all uncommon to use resolutions that are below SD (640 x 480) to ensure enough memory in VRAM. 

I don't agree with this. If you had the expectation that every console game would run at 60 fps you'd be right, but very few console games have targeted 60 fps this generation. Most have struggled with 720-900p 30 fps. Given that the PS4 Pro has an RX 480 in it, and that the RX 480 is about on par with a 290, and the 290 is still capable of running 4K 30 fps at respectable settings even without the low level programming that consoles offer I think that it's perfectly reasonable to expect 4K 30fps from this console.

 

[Citadelen]

8 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

-snip-

It's actually better the other way around, in theory, the low level access AMD provides with the consoles will eventually make their way through to PC, especially since AMD has released GPUOpen, as well as created several new tool kits to provide the same level of access on PC.

[Dash Lambda]

6 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

-snip-

You say it has an RX480, where's that from?

I've only been able to find stuff saying it's "Based on Polaris, maybe with a couple features from Vega." I haven't been able to find detailed specs about the SCEI CXD90044G SoC at all, and the performance doesn't seem to match up.

 

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just trying to piece together a complete picture here. I have no idea what's in it.

[othertomperson]

10 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

You say it has an RX480, where's that from?

I've only been able to find stuff saying it's "Based on Polaris, maybe with a couple features from Vega." I haven't been able to find detailed specs about the SCEI CXD90044G SoC at all, and the performance doesn't seem to match up.

 

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just trying to piece together a complete picture here. I have no idea what's in it.

What is known about it is that it is an AMD GPU with 36 Compute Units and 2304 Stream Processors, clocked at 911 MHz. These specs point to it being an underclocked RX 480.

[Dash Lambda]

5 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

What is known about it is that it is an AMD GPU with 36 Compute Units and 2304 Stream Processors, clocked at 911 MHz. These specs point to it being an underclocked RX 480.

Yes, but where is that information? I've seen rumors saying that, but rumors are rumors and something doesn't seem right.

Also, from what I've found, the SoC used in the PS4 Pro uses 16nm, where the RX480 is 14nm. It doesn't even look like the die is big enough for that, but then again I don't have proper measurements to judge...

 

I wish companies would just say what damn chip is in their machines, it would make this so much easier.

[othertomperson]

13 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

Yes, but where is that information? I've seen rumors saying that, but rumors are rumors and something doesn't seem right.

Also, from what I've found, the SoC used in the PS4 Pro uses 16nm, where the RX480 is 14nm. It doesn't even look like the die is big enough for that, but then again I don't have proper measurements to judge...

 

I wish companies would just say what damn chip is in their machines, it would make this so much easier.

Yeah, but do remember this is part of an SoC (or APU, whatever) with 8 Jaguar CPU cores, too, and it's a different manufacturing process.

 

This is where Anandtech say what the specs are http://www.anandtech.com/show/10663/analyzing-sonys-playstation-4-pro-announcement, the fact that this has been linked to the RX 480 is an inference. I'm open to new evidence that contradicts that, but so far that's what it seems this is.

[Dash Lambda]

2 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

Yeah, but do remember this is part of an SoC (or APU, whatever) with 8 Jaguar CPU cores, too, and it's a different manufacturing process.

 

This is where Anandtech say what the specs are http://www.anandtech.com/show/10663/analyzing-sonys-playstation-4-pro-announcement, the fact that this has been linked to the RX 480 is an inference. I'm open to new evidence that contradicts that, but so far that's what it seems this is.

I'll have to read through the whole thing later, but that's one of the places I checked and it seems like they're not entirely sure about the specifics themselves.

What I really want to know at the moment is the die size for the SoC, because if it's too small then the RX480 doesn't really make sense.

[Doobeedoo]

55 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

It's actually better the other way around, in theory, the low level access AMD provides with the consoles will eventually make their way through to PC, especially since AMD has released GPUOpen, as well as created several new tool kits to provide the same level of access on PC.

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.

[Syntaxvgm]

21 hours ago, Dionyz said:

Happens during 1080p gaming. Most titles are fine, but some it's painful to look at.

 

Now the playstation users can now feel PC gamer's pain

from what I remember affected titles either get a visual upgrade or may be downsampled at 1080p, but it really can't handle that?