AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited November 2016
I'm hearing some HDR televisions, particularly OLED sets, have terrible input lag when HDR is enabled. That's another thing putting me off making an upgrade right now.
From what I understand, the hardware choices Sony made for the Pro essentially mean it's going to bad at delivering improvements for the 1080p crowd. The CPU is too much of a bottleneck to get the frame rate for the majority of games close to a steady 60. On the other hand the substantial upgrade to the GPU makes it so devs can take a game running at a steady 30 and with a little work get it running at a steady 30 at a higher resolution.
So the Venn diagram for people the PS4 Pro is for is the overlap of people
Who own a 4K TV
Who care about higher resolution gaming
Who don't care about higher resolution blu-rays
Seems like a weird choice.
SMH, I get that it's easier to read negative information and the improvements aren't as noticeable as a full generational leap but it sure would be nice if people stopped spreading misinformation.
The Pro is the equivalent of a GPU upgrade and an overclock. What developers chose to do with that is entirely up to them and how their game works. Coming up with a blanket statement like "the Pro's going to be bad at delivering improvements at 1080p" is complete nonsense, as anyone who has upgraded their PC GPU should be able to attest. It also means you haven't been paying attention. We already HAVE games that have significantly better framerates on the Pro (like Battlefield 1, Hitman, Rise of the Tomb Raider and Deus Ex MD), we already HAVE games with better graphics on the Pro (like Battlefield 1, Hitman and Rise of the Tomb Raider) and we already HAVE a lot of games that have enormously improved anti-aliasing. These are all noticeable at 1080p and that's only the launch window, like with any launch, it's going to take time for developers to get used to the new hardware.
And the idea that Scorpio's going to be this big new gen hardware is laughable. Both companies are using the exact same tech, one's just coming out a year before the other. And they're both reliant on developers not fucking up their support.
I mean, it sounds like we are getting our information from the same place, Digital Foundry, and they have been consistently saying the CPU is a major problem for the Pro. Sure some games have higher framerates, but hitting that magical steady 60 seems out of reach for the hardware for most games.
There are going to be developers who can get it to work on the Pro. Games like Doom proved that some devs are just ahead of the pack in terms of optimizing to the hardware. The Pro is going to be no different. That being said I think the average dev is not going to offer 1080p at 60. Ultimately, that's what I care about, I think 60fps is going to make a bigger difference then 1440p or whatever bump in res they are going for. Sadly Nintendo is the only console company dedicated to frame rate over resolution.
The reason Scorpio could be better is by optimizing design decisions. Hypothetically, lets say the PS4 Pro cost $100 more and had a better CPU. If the CPU unbottlenecked most games and cleared the way for 60fps, doesn't that make it a much more attractive system, despite being $100 more? Let's say they added UHD to the package, isn't that totally worth $25 more?
The slim should have given Sony wiggle room to go with a $500 price point and differentiate the systems more. Instead they played it very conservatively. I also think them choosing to not have unpatch games take advantage of the new hardware is also a mistake. Especially given that I know some people who upgraded to the Xbox One S for very minor framerate boosts.
Releasing an upgraded Pro after this launch would just leave a bad taste in people's mouths. I don't think anyone buying a Pro this or next month wants to hear a better version is inbound. I think they really could have waited until next year and dropped a beefier box and done much better, right now Sony has PS4, Pro, and VR all kinda competing with each other, and I think 75% of buyers will just go for the PS4 and not bother with Pro/VR, especially parents buying for kids this holiday. What's better, dropping 400 and then some for games, or buying a 250 bundle and getting 3-4 s games to go with it?
I dunno, Sony went into this with a huge lead and I think tried to have that momentum carry the brand up, but I think it was slightly too much too soon. I don't even know anyone with a 4k TV right now, and I was still interested in the Pro. Seeing the early reactions and how little the machine actually does... definitely turned me off buying one.
+6
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
The good news is that I think Sony could change the decision not to allow unpatched games to take advantage of the new power with a firmware patch. Even make it a system settings option people could toggle if they are willing to accept some level of risk of jank if a game wasn't coded well.
I hope they both completely fucking tank and Sony and Microsoft realize what a dumb idea this is. Consoles are not smart phones and treating them the same is just a bad idea.
The thing that would kill me is buying the Pro, and a fully backwards compatible PS5 coming out in say, Fall 2018.
The good news is that I think Sony could change the decision not to allow unpatched games to take advantage of the new power with a firmware patch. Even make it a system settings option people could toggle if they are willing to accept some level of risk of jank if a game wasn't coded well.
On a technical level, is that even possible? I know PC games are built to allow for zillions of hardware configurations, but console games are built with just one in mind. (Or they were until now.)
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
The good news is that I think Sony could change the decision not to allow unpatched games to take advantage of the new power with a firmware patch. Even make it a system settings option people could toggle if they are willing to accept some level of risk of jank if a game wasn't coded well.
On a technical level, is that even possible? I know PC games are built to allow for zillions of hardware configurations, but console games are built with just one in mind. (Or they were until now.)
It depends on the coding of the game. If a game is capped at 30 FPS, for instance, than unlocking the extra hardware for that game should only have the effect of stabilizing it at 30 FPS. No more frame dips, etc. If a game is coded to allow the speed of the system to regulate it's frames and physics calculations (aka bad coding) then unlocking the extra power could cause that game to get very janky, very quick. From the games point of view the configuration IS the same. it's the same GPU, the same CPU, just more of it. It's not like Pro games need to be coded to a new API or anything, they just have to broadcast they have a Pro mode so the system knows to unlock the extra hardware. In theory nothing is stopping the firmware from doing that itself for any game whether it broadcasts it has a Pro mode or not. To make it a "clean" experience Sony would likely need to offer a way to suppress the behavior, either at a system or game by game level, so if a game IS janky with the extra hardware turned on, the user has a recourse.
On a different note, I can report that FF15 does take wonderful advantage of the Pro. I've played it in both 1080p/60 and 4K (super sampled)/30, and it looks and runs great in both. I still prefer the smooth 60 over the extra visuals, but at least the option is there.
It's possible that the new Xbox could run into the same thing, since they're also relying on third parties to do heavy lifting they may or may not want to do.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
+2
Options
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
Well they also publicly announced the potential existence of its console (and specs) about a year and a half in advance, which I suppose any developer looking to release within that time window would be able to appreciate
I've been playing Final Fantasy XV and I can't tell a difference between the High and Light modes other than the fact the latter runs a lot smoother. I had to squint to see any visual improvements with the former, but the constant frame skips were obvious and annoying.
The Last of Us: Remastered was a much better showing. I popped that game into the Pro the other day and the resolution bump presents an incredibly sharp, clean image, even on my 1080p display.
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
From what I understand, the hardware choices Sony made for the Pro essentially mean it's going to bad at delivering improvements for the 1080p crowd. The CPU is too much of a bottleneck to get the frame rate for the majority of games close to a steady 60. On the other hand the substantial upgrade to the GPU makes it so devs can take a game running at a steady 30 and with a little work get it running at a steady 30 at a higher resolution.
So the Venn diagram for people the PS4 Pro is for is the overlap of people
Who own a 4K TV
Who care about higher resolution gaming
Who don't care about higher resolution blu-rays
Seems like a weird choice.
SMH, I get that it's easier to read negative information and the improvements aren't as noticeable as a full generational leap but it sure would be nice if people stopped spreading misinformation.
The Pro is the equivalent of a GPU upgrade and an overclock. What developers chose to do with that is entirely up to them and how their game works. Coming up with a blanket statement like "the Pro's going to be bad at delivering improvements at 1080p" is complete nonsense, as anyone who has upgraded their PC GPU should be able to attest. It also means you haven't been paying attention. We already HAVE games that have significantly better framerates on the Pro (like Battlefield 1, Hitman, Rise of the Tomb Raider and Deus Ex MD), we already HAVE games with better graphics on the Pro (like Battlefield 1, Hitman and Rise of the Tomb Raider) and we already HAVE a lot of games that have enormously improved anti-aliasing. These are all noticeable at 1080p and that's only the launch window, like with any launch, it's going to take time for developers to get used to the new hardware.
And the idea that Scorpio's going to be this big new gen hardware is laughable. Both companies are using the exact same tech, one's just coming out a year before the other. And they're both reliant on developers not fucking up their support.
I mean, it sounds like we are getting our information from the same place, Digital Foundry, and they have been consistently saying the CPU is a major problem for the Pro. Sure some games have higher framerates, but hitting that magical steady 60 seems out of reach for the hardware for most games.
There are going to be developers who can get it to work on the Pro. Games like Doom proved that some devs are just ahead of the pack in terms of optimizing to the hardware. The Pro is going to be no different. That being said I think the average dev is not going to offer 1080p at 60. Ultimately, that's what I care about, I think 60fps is going to make a bigger difference then 1440p or whatever bump in res they are going for. Sadly Nintendo is the only console company dedicated to frame rate over resolution.
The reason Scorpio could be better is by optimizing design decisions. Hypothetically, lets say the PS4 Pro cost $100 more and had a better CPU. If the CPU unbottlenecked most games and cleared the way for 60fps, doesn't that make it a much more attractive system, despite being $100 more? Let's say they added UHD to the package, isn't that totally worth $25 more?
The slim should have given Sony wiggle room to go with a $500 price point and differentiate the systems more. Instead they played it very conservatively. I also think them choosing to not have unpatch games take advantage of the new hardware is also a mistake. Especially given that I know some people who upgraded to the Xbox One S for very minor framerate boosts.
Oops, sorry, I forgot to reply a few days ago when I wanted to. I got caught up in Pokemon and then FFXV.
If that bold bit is your takeaway of what Digital Foundry's been saying then I'm really not sure what to say to you. I can't remember them once calling the CPU a "major problem", they only point out when games are obviously CPU limited or not, and never really speculate on what it'd take to hit some "magical 60fps" unless the developers have aimed to hit it. On top of that, how is that even remotely the same as "the Pro's going to be bad at delivering improvements at 1080p"? Seems like you're moving your goalposts.
id Software are definitely one of the best technical developers around but you're being ridiculous if you think Doom hitting 60fps is proof of that. Most developers could hit 60fps IF they wanted to, the problem is (if you deem it a problem, a lot of people don't) that they don't give a shit and would rather have prettier graphics at 30fps. Games that are designed to hit 60fps, tend to do so or be close enough. Battlefield 4, Doom, CoD, Street Fighter V, Titanfall 2, MGSV and so on. Whether the Pro was a huge upgrade or not, that wouldn't have changed. It's one of the main reasons why Sony and Microsoft both went with their relatively pitiful CPUs and powerful GPUs in the first place (cost also being another big reason).
Besides, what CPU were you expecting them to include to unbottleneck (which is a silly term because different games have completely different bottlenecks) those games anyway? Using the architecture both Sony and Microsoft have settled on, there were two AMD APUs they could've chosen between: Jaguar (which is in the PS4, Xbone and Pro) and Puma (which is an iteration on Puma which basically just uses less power). It's not a matter of throwing money at it (though I don't think Sony were ever going to launch above $400), those are the only choices they had and they're pretty much the same. So as I've pointed out numerous times before, if you're expecting the Scorpio to be any different on that front, prepare to be disappointed. AMD do have their "next gen" APU, Zen, coming but they've made it clear it'll only be available for custom designs (which includes consoles) in 2018/19.
The good news is that I think Sony could change the decision not to allow unpatched games to take advantage of the new power with a firmware patch. Even make it a system settings option people could toggle if they are willing to accept some level of risk of jank if a game wasn't coded well.
On a technical level, is that even possible? I know PC games are built to allow for zillions of hardware configurations, but console games are built with just one in mind. (Or they were until now.)
Yeah, it's possible. The Xbone S has an extra 0.09 TFLOPS that gives some games a tiny performance boost (like 1-3 frames) and if you go back to the PS2, you might remember it had a couple of options to improve backwards compatible PS1 games (I think it was faster loading and better texture filtering?). It does open the possibility of breaking the games though, which is why they usually make those improvements optional or have to go back and test a shitload of games to make sure they work properly.
I think it'd be a good move for Sony to add both an optional base mode (for the few Pro games that a developer fucks up) and an optional enhanced mode (which'll give a boost to base PS4 games at the users risk that it'll screw something up) but I guess I can see why they didn't.
On a completely different note, there are a couple of Pro patch updates:
1. VG Tech tested CoD Black Ops 3 and found that it runs significantly better on the Pro at 1080p. Sounds like the performance issues DF found are only an issue at 4K, so the Pro patch wasn't as bad as everyone thought.
2. The Last of Us Remastered received a patch that fixed the framerate in 1080p/60fps mode but at the same time, got rid of super sampling. It's a pretty shitty solution to it but I guess all the people who complained got what they were asking for, it runs and looks exactly the same as the base version now.
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
edited December 2016
The CPU bottleneck is a narrative that recurs not all the time, but the argument generally tends to pop up when a game tends to implement calculation-heavy tasks like complex enemy AI behaviours. As developers get smarter about their games and push for even more complexity in their systems (which is definitely happening more and more), hopefully hardware developers will start to see the need for beefier CPUs - but at the same time we'll see the CPU bottleneck argument being invoked even more for this generation of videogames
I
I think it'd be a good move for Sony to add both an optional base mode (for the few Pro games that a developer fucks up) and an optional enhanced mode (which'll give a boost to base PS4 games at the users risk that it'll screw something up) but I guess I can see why they didn't.
Too much possibility for random shenanigans in multiplayer based games. Plus it could make it possible to easily glitch trophies. I really don't see Sony allowing it and just hoping nothing goes too crazy.
In 2017 I am hoping for developers to make some better use cases for games played at 1080p on the Pro
Because earlier tonight I got to try out the Pro on a friend's 4K HDR set, and even though he's been swearing by the thing, I gotta say, after trying out Titanfall 2, FFXV and Rise of the Tomb Raider on it...I wasn't very impressed, and have definitely been unsold on going out of my way to buy a 4K set until my current one needs replacing
From what I can pull out of the video:
-No ESRAM. From what I understand, ESRAM was MS's little cheat for getting past the fact that the One had slower DDR3 RAM: basically it was a tiny (32meg) bit of blazing fast RAM that could be used to very quickly load small chunks of the game. Apparently the Scorpio has no ESRAM, but MS still says Developers should program for it because they aren't allowing Scorpio-only games; they still have to support the One's hardware. Most interstingly, this suggests the base RAM for the Scorpio is going to be ridiculously fast, if MS can run older One games on the hardware without needing the ESRAM.
-6TF GPU and 4x the L2 cache of the One; one hot tamale of a processor!
-Like the PS4 Pro, Delta Color Compression is part of the GPU feature-set allowing
-Digital Foundry is guessing that, despite the photos taking at CES suggesting the upcoming Zen cpu cores would be used in Project Scorpio, workarounds suggested for certain limitations imply it won't be. (Said limitations shouldn't exist in the next-gen chipset)
-Sounds like MS's "True 4K" might be a little less than true, recommending using tricks to render certain parts of the game as lower resolutions while the main picture is still 4k, or just straight up using the "checkerboarding" that the PS4 Pro uses. Apparently they have at least one in-house game running at true 4k though.
-They believe it'll have 12gigs of DDR5 RAM with 320gb/s of bandwidth.
and one of the devs behind Ori and the Blind Forest had some.. uh, things to say about it compared to the PS4 Pro.
All consoles now are x86 PCs and the architecture will remain the same, that's why Sony was able to quickly iterate on the PS4 and make a beefier version of it.
Scorpio is a next-gen machine with the added benefit that all your old games will still be compatible. From this point on, similar to PCs, you'll not lose your library when you buy a next-gen system. I guess since NeoGAF is confsued, Microsoft will need to do a little work to make it clear to everyone that Scorpio isn't just a half-assed upgrade (which the PS4 Pro kinda is...), but a full blown next-gen machine that's just backwards-compatible to your current library.
Except they've said (unless I'm mistaken) that short of VR games, there won't be any exclusives. It's hard to sell a next-gen machine without any exclusive software.
Except they've said (unless I'm mistaken) that short of VR games, there won't be any exclusives. It's hard to sell a next-gen machine without any exclusive software.
There's room in that 25 million gap with the PS4, and I'm guessing a steeper price will factor into their estimates of how many people are going to buy this
Except they've said (unless I'm mistaken) that short of VR games, there won't be any exclusives. It's hard to sell a next-gen machine without any exclusive software.
Very true. Sony's learned this the hard way--on the anecdotal side, I'vet yet to meet anyone who bought a PSFro, and online, they seem to uniformly regret their purchase overall, though one or two games are yielding a better experience specifically. People are still buying the actual PS4 (including the new revision), the console they want.
EDIT: The white paper seems to agree, as far as SKU's go.
Except they've said (unless I'm mistaken) that short of VR games, there won't be any exclusives. It's hard to sell a next-gen machine without any exclusive software.
Very true. Sony's learned this the hard way--on the anecdotal side, I'vet yet to meet anyone who bought a PSFro, and online, they seem to uniformly regret their purchase overall, though one or two games are yielding a better experience specifically. People are still buying the actual PS4 (including the new revision), the console they want.
I'm pretty hard in the bag for Sony this go round and I see no reason to touch the PSPro. There just isn't a big enough difference to justify a repurchase. Not even sure there is enough of one that if I had to replace my PS4 I'd go for the Pro.
On the Scorpio side things seem a little different with some very considerable hardware differences that should be a big change from what the base XB1 is capable of. The open question is if the games are going to show up for it. The entire half generation idea has this issue with developers not having great incentives to actually make the upgraded (and more costly to produce) games for the hardware.
Except they've said (unless I'm mistaken) that short of VR games, there won't be any exclusives. It's hard to sell a next-gen machine without any exclusive software.
Very true. Sony's learned this the hard way--on the anecdotal side, I'vet yet to meet anyone who bought a PSFro, and online, they seem to uniformly regret their purchase overall, though one or two games are yielding a better experience specifically. People are still buying the actual PS4 (including the new revision), the console they want.
I'm pretty hard in the bag for Sony this go round and I see no reason to touch the PSPro. There just isn't a big enough difference to justify a repurchase. Not even sure there is enough of one that if I had to replace my PS4 I'd go for the Pro.
On the Scorpio side things seem a little different with some very considerable hardware differences that should be a big change from what the base XB1 is capable of. The open question is if the games are going to show up for it. The entire half generation idea has this issue with developers not having great incentives to actually make the upgraded (and more costly to produce) games for the hardware.
The scaling graphical options for the PSFro launch have been either an incredible diversity of options, or an annoying nightmarish copy of the most unfun aspects of PC gaming, depending on a half full/half empty perspective. I personally don't think it's very sustainable: down the line, as the PSFro matures as a technological standard (which it desperately needs to), I think we'll see fewer options overall per game, maybe down to two. By coming a year later, with a much larger hardware leap from its predecessor, "Project Scorpio" will probably end up doing the same thing: minimal futzing around (and of course, Microsoft has years of experience with this, and most recently with their PC ports).
Yea, when the Kinect became optional all the major devs took a walk because spending resources on something a fraction of a fraction of your audience can use is not a great idea. At least the Scorpio doesn't require conceptual retooling of gameplay so maybe they'll put some work into it but it still doesn't seem like 3rd parties have much incentive to.
For what it's worth I picked up a Pro and a 4k TV and I certainly don't regret it. My one annoyance is the lack of a UHD drive, so I'll be looking at picking up an Xbox One S somewhere down the line. I'll probably wait till the Scorpio price is announced and see if there's a drop in the One S.
The difference in the Pro and base is pretty evident in a lot of VR titles, and Last Guardian in 4k HDR (though admittedly the base can do HDR) was stunning. I've just started up Titanfall 2 and it's wonderfully sharp.
I don't regret it at all. I got improved VR performance and a bit of visual increase to go with my 4KTV purchase, and a well needed hard-drive upgrade for about £200 when resale of the PS4 is taken in to account.
I'm certainly NOT the general public though in my purchase decisions.
I'm a little skeptical Microsoft will do anything truly cool with Scorpio since they couldn't be arsed to do anything truly cool with Kinect.
How does this even make sense? Scorpio is just more power.
This is like comparing a pure gimmick like 3D TVs to a straight upgrade like 4K TVs.
My point is that Microsoft themselves didn't put much effort into doing something truly new into new technology, and just kind of expected people to be impressed with the tech by itself. When Nintendo came out with the Wiimotes, they at least came up with some interesting stuff like Wii Sports and such to show people why it could be cool. With Kinect.... they just did Wii Sports again. The few really cool things came outside of Microsoft.
Which is why I'm not expecting much beyond "graphics nerds may or may not notice a 10 percent difference in visuals!" that the PS4 Pro also ran into.
one of the devs behind Ori and the Blind Forest had some.. uh, things to say about it compared to the PS4 Pro.
All consoles now are x86 PCs and the architecture will remain the same, that's why Sony was able to quickly iterate on the PS4 and make a beefier version of it.
Scorpio is a next-gen machine with the added benefit that all your old games will still be compatible. From this point on, similar to PCs, you'll not lose your library when you buy a next-gen system. I guess since NeoGAF is confsued, Microsoft will need to do a little work to make it clear to everyone that Scorpio isn't just a half-assed upgrade (which the PS4 Pro kinda is...), but a full blown next-gen machine that's just backwards-compatible to your current library.
This is exactly what I expected. A full next-gen machine that is backwards-compatible with existing games.
Unless and until they allow Scorpio-only games to be developed, or if a killer-app game is released that has obvious and easily definable advantages on Scorpio over XBone, OR there is some other compelling reason to buy a Scorpio (an Oculus Rift bundle, perhaps?) I expect there will be pretty weak support for the box. At least initially. I mean, it's pretty hard to say that a 4K TV is not a clear upgrade over a standard 1080p set. They've been available for three years and they still are only a sliver of the TV market.
They did some cool stuff with the Kinect. It was viable hardware. Then people rejected the product because they weren't interested in gaming that way, so it was made optional, at the overwhelming demand of the consumer, and no one developed for it. But to say Microsoft didn't actually do anything cool with it is wrong. They had a few amazing functions that were built into the launch apps.
The sports app could detect wrist positioning and finger flexion, which allowed for some really new control functions. And the exercise app being able to detect heart rate visually was pretty amazeballs.
I'm a little skeptical Microsoft will do anything truly cool with Scorpio since they couldn't be arsed to do anything truly cool with Kinect.
How does this even make sense? Scorpio is just more power.
This is like comparing a pure gimmick like 3D TVs to a straight upgrade like 4K TVs.
My point is that Microsoft themselves didn't put much effort into doing something truly new into new technology, and just kind of expected people to be impressed with the tech by itself. When Nintendo came out with the Wiimotes, they at least came up with some interesting stuff like Wii Sports and such to show people why it could be cool. With Kinect.... they just did Wii Sports again. The few really cool things came outside of Microsoft.
Which is why I'm not expecting much beyond "graphics nerds may or may not notice a 10 percent difference in visuals!" that the PS4 Pro also ran into.
Playstation Move was a trainwreck--you could extrapolate that PS VR in its entirety is 'wrecked for the same reasons.
(Though at least PS VR actually makes use of the Move technology, which is more and more a criticism of its capabilities.)
You can extrapolate a lot of theories based on this sort of reasoning, but they're not very convincing necessarily.
-Digital Foundry is guessing that, despite the photos taking at CES suggesting the upcoming Zen cpu cores would be used in Project Scorpio, workarounds suggested for certain limitations imply it won't be. (Said limitations shouldn't exist in the next-gen chipset)
FYI, this was already debunked right after it came out, though most sites didn't seem to dig into it. AMD had a TV in their booth showing a loop of their (boring) New Horizon event from last month and the photo was taken while this specific bit was on screen, where AMD were patting themselves on the back for their partnerships with Sony and Microsoft. That's all it was. If the photo had been taken a minute earlier, it would've had the PS4 on screen.
Anyway, great Digital Foundry video. The gist of it is basically a confirmation of what a lot of people were already saying. It's not using Zen (AMD already ruled that out ages ago), GDDR5x, HBM or any other fanboy pipe dreams, it's using the same tech as the PS4 Pro but a year later: Polaris (PS4 Pro) -> Vega (Scorpio), making the GPU ~40% more powerful and the GDDR5 RAM ~40% faster. And the CPU will probably be a Jaguar.
I'm hearing some HDR televisions, particularly OLED sets, have terrible input lag when HDR is enabled. That's another thing putting me off making an upgrade right now.
Some manufacturers have fixed that issue already. Samsung has the lowest input lag numbers at 21ms (4K, HDR) and 37ms (4K, HDR, 4:4:4) on their 2016 KS8000. LG patched their 2016 models to have low input lag. The impressive E6 read 36.8ms (4K, HDR). Their 2017 models may have even less. It's not something you have to worry about too much anymore, but you still need to do some research on specific manufacturers on models. http:///www.rtings.com is one good source.
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
I'm hearing some HDR televisions, particularly OLED sets, have terrible input lag when HDR is enabled. That's another thing putting me off making an upgrade right now.
Some manufacturers have fixed that issue already. Samsung has the lowest input lag numbers at 21ms (4K, HDR) and 37ms (4K, HDR, 4:4:4) on their 2016 KS8000. LG patched their 2016 models to have low input lag. The impressive E6 read 36.8ms (4K, HDR). Their 2017 models may have even less. It's not something you have to worry about too much anymore, but you still need to do some research on specific manufacturers on models. http:///www.rtings.com is one good source.
Yeah the difference pre and post firmware update on my LG C6 is ridiculous. When playing The Last Guardian in HDR previously (not the most responsive of games at the best of times) the delay was obvious in even the menus!
After the firmware update I'd say the latency is below what I observed on my older Panasonic Plasma.
I think it'd be a good move for Sony to add both an optional base mode (for the few Pro games that a developer fucks up) and an optional enhanced mode (which'll give a boost to base PS4 games at the users risk that it'll screw something up) but I guess I can see why they didn't.
Posts
I mean, it sounds like we are getting our information from the same place, Digital Foundry, and they have been consistently saying the CPU is a major problem for the Pro. Sure some games have higher framerates, but hitting that magical steady 60 seems out of reach for the hardware for most games.
There are going to be developers who can get it to work on the Pro. Games like Doom proved that some devs are just ahead of the pack in terms of optimizing to the hardware. The Pro is going to be no different. That being said I think the average dev is not going to offer 1080p at 60. Ultimately, that's what I care about, I think 60fps is going to make a bigger difference then 1440p or whatever bump in res they are going for. Sadly Nintendo is the only console company dedicated to frame rate over resolution.
The reason Scorpio could be better is by optimizing design decisions. Hypothetically, lets say the PS4 Pro cost $100 more and had a better CPU. If the CPU unbottlenecked most games and cleared the way for 60fps, doesn't that make it a much more attractive system, despite being $100 more? Let's say they added UHD to the package, isn't that totally worth $25 more?
The slim should have given Sony wiggle room to go with a $500 price point and differentiate the systems more. Instead they played it very conservatively. I also think them choosing to not have unpatch games take advantage of the new hardware is also a mistake. Especially given that I know some people who upgraded to the Xbox One S for very minor framerate boosts.
I dunno, Sony went into this with a huge lead and I think tried to have that momentum carry the brand up, but I think it was slightly too much too soon. I don't even know anyone with a 4k TV right now, and I was still interested in the Pro. Seeing the early reactions and how little the machine actually does... definitely turned me off buying one.
Breathe easy. Even Sony's not that evil.
On a technical level, is that even possible? I know PC games are built to allow for zillions of hardware configurations, but console games are built with just one in mind. (Or they were until now.)
It depends on the coding of the game. If a game is capped at 30 FPS, for instance, than unlocking the extra hardware for that game should only have the effect of stabilizing it at 30 FPS. No more frame dips, etc. If a game is coded to allow the speed of the system to regulate it's frames and physics calculations (aka bad coding) then unlocking the extra power could cause that game to get very janky, very quick. From the games point of view the configuration IS the same. it's the same GPU, the same CPU, just more of it. It's not like Pro games need to be coded to a new API or anything, they just have to broadcast they have a Pro mode so the system knows to unlock the extra hardware. In theory nothing is stopping the firmware from doing that itself for any game whether it broadcasts it has a Pro mode or not. To make it a "clean" experience Sony would likely need to offer a way to suppress the behavior, either at a system or game by game level, so if a game IS janky with the extra hardware turned on, the user has a recourse.
On a different note, I can report that FF15 does take wonderful advantage of the Pro. I've played it in both 1080p/60 and 4K (super sampled)/30, and it looks and runs great in both. I still prefer the smooth 60 over the extra visuals, but at least the option is there.
It's just 30
Really looks like MS had the right plan this go round.
I've been playing Final Fantasy XV and I can't tell a difference between the High and Light modes other than the fact the latter runs a lot smoother. I had to squint to see any visual improvements with the former, but the constant frame skips were obvious and annoying.
The Last of Us: Remastered was a much better showing. I popped that game into the Pro the other day and the resolution bump presents an incredibly sharp, clean image, even on my 1080p display.
Oops, sorry, I forgot to reply a few days ago when I wanted to. I got caught up in Pokemon and then FFXV.
If that bold bit is your takeaway of what Digital Foundry's been saying then I'm really not sure what to say to you. I can't remember them once calling the CPU a "major problem", they only point out when games are obviously CPU limited or not, and never really speculate on what it'd take to hit some "magical 60fps" unless the developers have aimed to hit it. On top of that, how is that even remotely the same as "the Pro's going to be bad at delivering improvements at 1080p"? Seems like you're moving your goalposts.
id Software are definitely one of the best technical developers around but you're being ridiculous if you think Doom hitting 60fps is proof of that. Most developers could hit 60fps IF they wanted to, the problem is (if you deem it a problem, a lot of people don't) that they don't give a shit and would rather have prettier graphics at 30fps. Games that are designed to hit 60fps, tend to do so or be close enough. Battlefield 4, Doom, CoD, Street Fighter V, Titanfall 2, MGSV and so on. Whether the Pro was a huge upgrade or not, that wouldn't have changed. It's one of the main reasons why Sony and Microsoft both went with their relatively pitiful CPUs and powerful GPUs in the first place (cost also being another big reason).
Besides, what CPU were you expecting them to include to unbottleneck (which is a silly term because different games have completely different bottlenecks) those games anyway? Using the architecture both Sony and Microsoft have settled on, there were two AMD APUs they could've chosen between: Jaguar (which is in the PS4, Xbone and Pro) and Puma (which is an iteration on Puma which basically just uses less power). It's not a matter of throwing money at it (though I don't think Sony were ever going to launch above $400), those are the only choices they had and they're pretty much the same. So as I've pointed out numerous times before, if you're expecting the Scorpio to be any different on that front, prepare to be disappointed. AMD do have their "next gen" APU, Zen, coming but they've made it clear it'll only be available for custom designs (which includes consoles) in 2018/19.
Yeah, it's possible. The Xbone S has an extra 0.09 TFLOPS that gives some games a tiny performance boost (like 1-3 frames) and if you go back to the PS2, you might remember it had a couple of options to improve backwards compatible PS1 games (I think it was faster loading and better texture filtering?). It does open the possibility of breaking the games though, which is why they usually make those improvements optional or have to go back and test a shitload of games to make sure they work properly.
I think it'd be a good move for Sony to add both an optional base mode (for the few Pro games that a developer fucks up) and an optional enhanced mode (which'll give a boost to base PS4 games at the users risk that it'll screw something up) but I guess I can see why they didn't.
On a completely different note, there are a couple of Pro patch updates:
1. VG Tech tested CoD Black Ops 3 and found that it runs significantly better on the Pro at 1080p. Sounds like the performance issues DF found are only an issue at 4K, so the Pro patch wasn't as bad as everyone thought.
2. The Last of Us Remastered received a patch that fixed the framerate in 1080p/60fps mode but at the same time, got rid of super sampling. It's a pretty shitty solution to it but I guess all the people who complained got what they were asking for, it runs and looks exactly the same as the base version now.
Too much possibility for random shenanigans in multiplayer based games. Plus it could make it possible to easily glitch trophies. I really don't see Sony allowing it and just hoping nothing goes too crazy.
PSN:Furlion
Because earlier tonight I got to try out the Pro on a friend's 4K HDR set, and even though he's been swearing by the thing, I gotta say, after trying out Titanfall 2, FFXV and Rise of the Tomb Raider on it...I wasn't very impressed, and have definitely been unsold on going out of my way to buy a 4K set until my current one needs replacing
Hoping that FFXV framerate patch comes real soon
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-the-race-to-4k-how-scorpio-targets-ultra-hd-gaming
From what I can pull out of the video:
-No ESRAM. From what I understand, ESRAM was MS's little cheat for getting past the fact that the One had slower DDR3 RAM: basically it was a tiny (32meg) bit of blazing fast RAM that could be used to very quickly load small chunks of the game. Apparently the Scorpio has no ESRAM, but MS still says Developers should program for it because they aren't allowing Scorpio-only games; they still have to support the One's hardware. Most interstingly, this suggests the base RAM for the Scorpio is going to be ridiculously fast, if MS can run older One games on the hardware without needing the ESRAM.
-6TF GPU and 4x the L2 cache of the One; one hot tamale of a processor!
-Like the PS4 Pro, Delta Color Compression is part of the GPU feature-set allowing
-Digital Foundry is guessing that, despite the photos taking at CES suggesting the upcoming Zen cpu cores would be used in Project Scorpio, workarounds suggested for certain limitations imply it won't be. (Said limitations shouldn't exist in the next-gen chipset)
-Sounds like MS's "True 4K" might be a little less than true, recommending using tricks to render certain parts of the game as lower resolutions while the main picture is still 4k, or just straight up using the "checkerboarding" that the PS4 Pro uses. Apparently they have at least one in-house game running at true 4k though.
-They believe it'll have 12gigs of DDR5 RAM with 320gb/s of bandwidth.
Meanwhile, Phil Spencer teased it a bit
and one of the devs behind Ori and the Blind Forest had some.. uh, things to say about it compared to the PS4 Pro.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
There's room in that 25 million gap with the PS4, and I'm guessing a steeper price will factor into their estimates of how many people are going to buy this
Very true. Sony's learned this the hard way--on the anecdotal side, I'vet yet to meet anyone who bought a PSFro, and online, they seem to uniformly regret their purchase overall, though one or two games are yielding a better experience specifically. People are still buying the actual PS4 (including the new revision), the console they want.
EDIT: The white paper seems to agree, as far as SKU's go.
I'm pretty hard in the bag for Sony this go round and I see no reason to touch the PSPro. There just isn't a big enough difference to justify a repurchase. Not even sure there is enough of one that if I had to replace my PS4 I'd go for the Pro.
On the Scorpio side things seem a little different with some very considerable hardware differences that should be a big change from what the base XB1 is capable of. The open question is if the games are going to show up for it. The entire half generation idea has this issue with developers not having great incentives to actually make the upgraded (and more costly to produce) games for the hardware.
The scaling graphical options for the PSFro launch have been either an incredible diversity of options, or an annoying nightmarish copy of the most unfun aspects of PC gaming, depending on a half full/half empty perspective. I personally don't think it's very sustainable: down the line, as the PSFro matures as a technological standard (which it desperately needs to), I think we'll see fewer options overall per game, maybe down to two. By coming a year later, with a much larger hardware leap from its predecessor, "Project Scorpio" will probably end up doing the same thing: minimal futzing around (and of course, Microsoft has years of experience with this, and most recently with their PC ports).
Or so I speculate.
How does this even make sense? Scorpio is just more power.
This is like comparing a pure gimmick like 3D TVs to a straight upgrade like 4K TVs.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
I am very interested in Scorpio, if only for improved loading times and download speeds, in addition to extra shinies
The difference in the Pro and base is pretty evident in a lot of VR titles, and Last Guardian in 4k HDR (though admittedly the base can do HDR) was stunning. I've just started up Titanfall 2 and it's wonderfully sharp.
I don't regret it at all. I got improved VR performance and a bit of visual increase to go with my 4KTV purchase, and a well needed hard-drive upgrade for about £200 when resale of the PS4 is taken in to account.
I'm certainly NOT the general public though in my purchase decisions.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
My point is that Microsoft themselves didn't put much effort into doing something truly new into new technology, and just kind of expected people to be impressed with the tech by itself. When Nintendo came out with the Wiimotes, they at least came up with some interesting stuff like Wii Sports and such to show people why it could be cool. With Kinect.... they just did Wii Sports again. The few really cool things came outside of Microsoft.
Which is why I'm not expecting much beyond "graphics nerds may or may not notice a 10 percent difference in visuals!" that the PS4 Pro also ran into.
Unless and until they allow Scorpio-only games to be developed, or if a killer-app game is released that has obvious and easily definable advantages on Scorpio over XBone, OR there is some other compelling reason to buy a Scorpio (an Oculus Rift bundle, perhaps?) I expect there will be pretty weak support for the box. At least initially. I mean, it's pretty hard to say that a 4K TV is not a clear upgrade over a standard 1080p set. They've been available for three years and they still are only a sliver of the TV market.
The sports app could detect wrist positioning and finger flexion, which allowed for some really new control functions. And the exercise app being able to detect heart rate visually was pretty amazeballs.
Playstation Move was a trainwreck--you could extrapolate that PS VR in its entirety is 'wrecked for the same reasons.
(Though at least PS VR actually makes use of the Move technology, which is more and more a criticism of its capabilities.)
You can extrapolate a lot of theories based on this sort of reasoning, but they're not very convincing necessarily.
FYI, this was already debunked right after it came out, though most sites didn't seem to dig into it. AMD had a TV in their booth showing a loop of their (boring) New Horizon event from last month and the photo was taken while this specific bit was on screen, where AMD were patting themselves on the back for their partnerships with Sony and Microsoft. That's all it was. If the photo had been taken a minute earlier, it would've had the PS4 on screen.
Anyway, great Digital Foundry video. The gist of it is basically a confirmation of what a lot of people were already saying. It's not using Zen (AMD already ruled that out ages ago), GDDR5x, HBM or any other fanboy pipe dreams, it's using the same tech as the PS4 Pro but a year later: Polaris (PS4 Pro) -> Vega (Scorpio), making the GPU ~40% more powerful and the GDDR5 RAM ~40% faster. And the CPU will probably be a Jaguar.
And so I can just tell it to turn off whenever one of my cats turns it on with his nose.
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
Some manufacturers have fixed that issue already. Samsung has the lowest input lag numbers at 21ms (4K, HDR) and 37ms (4K, HDR, 4:4:4) on their 2016 KS8000. LG patched their 2016 models to have low input lag. The impressive E6 read 36.8ms (4K, HDR). Their 2017 models may have even less. It's not something you have to worry about too much anymore, but you still need to do some research on specific manufacturers on models. http:///www.rtings.com is one good source.
Yeah the difference pre and post firmware update on my LG C6 is ridiculous. When playing The Last Guardian in HDR previously (not the most responsive of games at the best of times) the delay was obvious in even the menus!
After the firmware update I'd say the latency is below what I observed on my older Panasonic Plasma.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
One of those modes is happening!