Bandwidth is part of the profiling right?
They targeted 300 GB/s from profiling and delivered 326 GB/s. They did target 4K.PS4 Pro is built around CBR technologies to hit 4K
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2017]
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
They targeted 300 GB/s from profiling and delivered 326 GB/s. They did target 4K.PS4 Pro is built around CBR technologies to hit 4K
Microsoft had a target for they what they wanted the hardware to achieve and planned around that. Sony's goal seemed simply to put out a more powerful PS4 in hopes to [in their own words] "stem console owners from switching over to PC late in the console cycle".
In truth I think both of them achieved it.
The 1440p max of the Pro is disappointing. I mean, they might as well have targeted 1080p and added more AF/better shadows/better LOD. That might have made a more tangible visual difference. I know the Pro and X are supposed to be consoles to support those who have 4K screens, but if it's not closer to 4K than 1080p, it seems like just adding resolution to add resolution. Some Pro games hit 1600p or 1800p and I guess that's the issue with the mid-gen consoles--you just don't know how much improvement you're getting game to game. I'm guessing PS4 is 900p so 1080p with much better IQ would be a big improvement still. BF does look really good overall.
I think the point is that you don't really need to do in depth profiling but just need to whack more RAM BW in there. Without a comparable PS4Pro (no claims of profiling for targets, and just doubling up PS4 with increased BW to boot), we don't know how much difference the fine tuning brings.Bandwidth is part of the profiling right?
I'd even argue that PS4Pro is designed for 4K at all. I think it's just a stop-gap system. What changes can we make to PS4 without incurring a large cost to make a higher-end version of our console? Let's chuck in some ID buffer and see where that takes us.
Incidentally, has anyone seen Sony's marketing of PS4Pro's 4K. "Dynamic 4K" they're calling it in UK cinema ads. Doesn't that sound way more awesome than boring old static 4K?
Incidentally, has anyone seen Sony's marketing of PS4Pro's 4K. "Dynamic 4K" they're calling it in UK cinema ads. Doesn't that sound way more awesome than boring old static 4K?
Well I guess they couldn't advertise Cinematic 4K because the lack of UHD BluRay hardware?
Another game on XBX with higher resolution and worse framerate though. After Wolf 2, FF15, now Battlefront 2.
Take your pick I guess etc.
Take your pick I guess etc.
By an entire 1 or 2 FPS in very minor situations.
I'll take the substantial increase in resolution and image quality improvements for the rare 1-2 fps drop.
I think both the Pro and X exist to support 4K TVs in a way 1080p consoles can't. It's also why I don't believe we will get a PS5 Pro/XBox 2 X even if the PS5 era lasts 6+ years, because I predict 8K will still be niche for the next 10 years. 4K TV's hit mainstream in the middle of the PS4/XBox One era and they wanted a console to sell to them. Personally, I think Sony should have gone Krazy Ken on the Pro and made the best $500 system in 2016. If it could have hit ~5 TF with 12 GB of 250+ GB/s RAM, I bet things would look much closer to X. Don't know why they insisted on $400 when they have the low end PS4 covered. But this is getting off topic.I think the point is that you don't really need to do in depth profiling but just need to whack more RAM BW in there. Without a comparable PS4Pro (no claims of profiling for targets, and just doubling up PS4 with increased BW to boot), we don't know how much difference the fine tuning brings.
I'd even argue that PS4Pro is designed for 4K at all. I think it's just a stop-gap system. What changes can we make to PS4 without incurring a large cost to make a higher-end version of our console? Let's chuck in some ID buffer and see where that takes us.
Incidentally, has anyone seen Sony's marketing of PS4Pro's 4K. "Dynamic 4K" they're calling it in UK cinema ads. Doesn't that sound way more awesome than boring old static 4K?
My big knock against the Pro is Sony didn't make super-sampling a standard feature. I mean it a lot cases it's not really getting near 4K nor can you always take the benefits to a 1080 screen...so it's kind of like either be able to do one or the other but not neither...but maybe that's my OCD-like thinking.
I still think Pro will be attractive option especially if it hit's $350 soon.
Well you took your pick.
Some would say on their TV they wouldn't notice a 1400p vs 1800p difference but they would certainly notice the occasional framerate drops.
It's very odd though that those dynamic resolution engines are less effective on the XBX hardware.
The X must hit sometimes a GPU bottleneck . After all, the resolution is much higher.
They coud easily fix this in a future patch.
The article says the 4Pro is blurry while the OneX isn't. That's what people would notice, the blurriness of the 4Pro instead of the sharper higher quality image of the OneX. As for resolutions comparisons, it's more of a 1400p vs 2160p as that's the upper resolutions where as its 1296p vs 1800p on lowest resolutions.
if it can't be detected consciously or subconsciously for 99% of the game and only shows up in FPS displays, then I think they've done enough. But for the clean sweep in DF analysis, then yea i guess be nice for it to be 100% locked.
just seen advert and it looks like they've changed it to just 4K?Incidentally, has anyone seen Sony's marketing of PS4Pro's 4K. "Dynamic 4K" they're calling it in UK cinema ads. Doesn't that sound way more awesome than boring old static 4K?
I thought dynamic sounded more impressive, but maybe with the advent of the 1X, by just saying 4K they see it as a simpler message
Are they?
Renegade_43
Newcomer
Seriously? One is running at 2.3 times the resolution and both versions only drop 1-2 fps. It's not a take your pick situation. Don't pretend you can catch an occasional drop to 59fps lol. That's getting to be quite a stretch.
Sources ? Nx Gamer posted on resetera that the usual resolutions found on XBX were between 1800p and 1900p, not 2160p. DF didn't talk about an average on either machine AFAIK, only minimum (1296p vs 1800p) and maximum (1440p vs 2160p), only talked about perceptual 4K on XBX or so which is totally subjective.
On their image comparison tool, XBX mostly looks like the resolution is between Pro and PC, so the 1850p average number from Nx gamer is sound.
Let's see what Nx gamer has to say more about the actual minimum resolution on XBX and the average resolution on Pro.
It's not. Only if you compare maximum resolutions.
The actual article from Digital Foundry.
Renegade_43
Newcomer
Ok it is running at 2 times the resolution comparing minimums. 2.3 times or 2 times the resolution.
Not necessarily. For instance, in W2 the Pro tends to stick closely to its 1440p target while there are greater variations on X.
Globalisateur made a point. It's true that DF didn't give the average resolution on both consoles. But i still expect a large difference.
- Status
Similar threads
