It's a device which is ten years too late.
It would have been great for the 7th generation. They all had HDMI output and 720p or lower output. Half the games had no AA at all.
In 2012 I had the crazy idea that I could design such a device for the 6th gen and earlier consoles. The algorithm is simple, but it was only 1D. Only worked across scanlines, not vertically. Also, with stronger filtering, HUD elements and text became fuzzy. Of course, the bigger problem was that I had no ability to turn it into hardware. It was a fun exercise, though.
As wonderfully polished as this device is, I just don't see much visual benefit to using it. I could only see improvements in the DF video when they showed closeups of still frames. Not in motion, though.
Agreed.
This cable would've been great for the PS360 when people were getting 1080p TVs.
The only current hardware I can think of that could make use of this would be the Switch, but I don't know how many Switch games are getting 1080p output in docked mode.
In terms of perf/Watt, perf/FLOP, perf/ROP, perf/mm^2 of die, perf/$$$ .... the X1X is clearly leading the PS4Pro and has been since its introduction.
perf/$$$ to whom? Microsoft/Sony or customers?
The fact that the Pro is selling for almost as much money as the XboneX tells me Sony is probably making quite a bit more money from the Pro than Microsoft is making from the XboneX.
Regardless, I'll tell anyone who only plays multiplatform titles (CoD, FIFA, etc.) that spending ~430€ on a XboneX is better than spending ~380€ on a PS4 Pro, but the exclusives are the reason why Sony hasn't significantly lowered the Pro's initial price from 2016, yet.
As for claiming a console released in November 2017 with a higher BoM being technically better than a console released in November 2016 with a lower BoM... well, color me impressed! /s
MS did a huge amount of profiling work on real software, tested changes using virtual system configurations and made lots of tweaks to memory access, caches, and per-chip board power delivery to squeeze everything they could out of a market leading but still finite amount of resources.
And Sony enabled Vega's rapid packed math, plus they introduced their own custom hardware for checkerboard rendering that saves bandwidth at little to no discernible difference on most 4K TVs.
And they did so while releasing a full year before the XBoneX.
Both companies did their own homework. Claiming MS
did a huge amount of profiling as a "plus" for its solution seems to imply that Sony didn't do the same, which is honestly a bit naive.
If the X1X is "brute force" compared to the PS4Pro, how come it's beating it in every possible measurable metric of efficiency when it's not artificially limited by a resolution or frame rate cap?
I won't call the X1X "brute force", but the Pro does have a couple of features that are clearly
beyond Polaris (as Cerny himself stated), whereas Scorpio seems to be a highly optimized Polaris architecture with electrical optimizations + process maturity that allow significantly higher clocks. This is further proven through the fact that
the Neo's CUs are significantly larger than Scorpio's, and the area dedicated to the iGPU is actually very similar between the two SoCs.
Since both consoles clearly have uneven production costs and weren't released at the same time, it's really not possible to claim which one gets the "
better overall technical achievement" award.
Unlike what we saw with PS3 vs X360 (X360 was the clear winner) and PS4 vs. Xbone (PS4 was the clear winner).
You’re trying too hard to put 4Pro and XBX as being the same type of device when it’s getting more clear over time they are not.
4Pro is a better PS4 experience.
XBX is the 4K experience of XBO. There’s nothing really to say more on that matter.
4Pro will always continue to be criticized heavily mainly because they launched a system with entirely mixed messaging. They can’t decide what they want it to be and everyone has a different opinion of what it should be.
There's no mixed messaging. The Pro is an enhanced PS4 experience for 4K TV owners,
as Sony always stated from the very start.
LONDON, 10th November, 2016 – Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe (SIEE) today launched PlayStation®4 Pro (PS4™ Pro), a high-end system that supports cutting-edge imaging technology to make games look richer and more detailed than ever before. PS4 Pro, which supports dynamic 4K gaming and 4K entertainment* is now available across Europe, the Middle East, South Africa and Australasia at a suggested retail price of EURO €399, GBP £349, AUD $559, R6999.
It's also a much better system for PSVR, though that only applies to the minority who have it (personal advice:
do get the Pro if you're planning on playing with PSVR!).
And 1080p TV owners will get downsampling (in the case of Pro-enabled games) or just boosted framerates - because why not.
The Pro and the XboneX are both mid-gen upgrades for the 8th generation of consoles, both targeted towards the surge of 4K TVs.
One appeared later, is more expensive and performs better overall. The other appeared sooner, is less expensive and performs worse overall.
But it makes no sense to claim they're not clear competitors with a very similar value proposition.
And I didn't know the Pro was being
criticized heavily.
Who's heavily criticizing the Pro, besides you and 1 or 2 others in an internet forum discussion?