Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2016 - 2017]

[Globalisateur]

Dishonored 2. According to NX gamer the games runs better on Pro with no screen tearing and often 5fps higher on Pro using the same cutscenes, around 4:30 on the video.

We certainly won't see DF doing a positive article about it. They probably put the game in their ignore list when they realized it ran better on Pro.

 

[iroboto]

Dishonored 2. According to NX gamer the games runs better on Pro with no screen tearing and often 5fps higher on Pro using the same cutscenes, around 4:30 on the video.

We certainly won't see DF doing a positive article about it. They probably put the game in their ignore list when they realized it ran better on Pro.

Global, hate to say it, but you sound like an Xbox One guy.

[emoji6][emoji111]️️[emoji56]

 

[Boxercide]

Doesn't WD2 currently perform like crap regardless? All I've seen is widespread reports of the game simply being rushed out the door while having huge issues.

 

[Recop]

Dishonored 2. According to NX gamer the games runs better on Pro with no screen tearing and often 5fps higher on Pro using the same cutscenes, around 4:30 on the video.

We certainly won't see DF doing a positive article about it. They probably put the game in their ignore list when they realized it ran better on Pro.

I think that you're a bit to rude with DF.

Actually, their job is very helpful. They push developers to be more careful about their work.

I'm really glad that they pointed out some issues with Pro games.

 

[Clukos]

I think that you're a bit to rude with DF.

Actually, their job is very helpful. They push developers to be more careful about their work.

I'm really glad that they pointed out some issues with Pro games.

This, if it wasn't for DF covering those issues it would have been a lot harder to communicate that.

Doesn't WD2 currently perform like crap regardless? All I've seen is widespread reports of the game simply being rushed out the door while having huge issues.

Yes but it runs worse on the Pro, which shouldn't be happening under any circumstance. As we've seen from RotTR and R&C this is totally up to the developer. Sony should give Pro users the option to run in "legacy" mode to avoid mediocre ports like that. At last, the console space is entering the PC space, how long till "dirty peasant normal Ps4 port, lazy devs i should be getting 100 fps on my Pro!"

 

[Gitaroo]

Still waiting for HDD comparison...

 

[novcze]

They sure must have fun at Digital foundry searching for all those rare stress points where the Pro version runs worse than the PS4 version and selectively ignoring the cases where it could be the contrary.

I have PS4 Pro and I'm completely fine with DF highlighting these issues. I don't like framerate drops also and I don't expect Pro to perform worse than original.

 

[mpg1]

Still waiting for HDD comparison...

there are a few videos out there about SSD vs stock hard drive. Seems to cut down loading times fairly significantly..

 

[mpg1]

Battlefield 1 Multiplayer PS4 Pro vs PS4 Gameplay Stress Tests:

 

[Gitaroo]

there are a few videos out there about SSD vs stock hard drive. Seems to cut down loading times fairly significantly..

I am more interest in finding out if sataIII mean anything over the old PS4. Also comparison between 7200rpm HDD and 5400rpm SSHD on the pro.

 

[Clukos]

Battlefield 1 Multiplayer PS4 Pro vs PS4 Gameplay Stress Tests:

I had to laugh at the dude who started firing at the two DF guys just running around the map. Whoever was controlling the Pro was like "Shit, what do i do now? Am i supposed to shoot him?"

 

[VGA]

Battlefield 1 Multiplayer PS4 Pro vs PS4 Gameplay Stress Tests:

That's a great way to compare the PS4 and PS4 Pro conquest performance. Good work by DF.

 

[goonergaz]

I am more interest in finding out if sataIII mean anything over the old PS4. Also comparison between 7200rpm HDD and 5400rpm SSHD on the pro.

Well something has happened to improve load times - the stock (read slow) HDD in the Pro is faster at loading than my 7200 SSHD in my original PS4. If this is down to SATA or CPU is debatable, but either way loading is quicker. I should get my SSD any day and will be posting some times.

 

[Technewsreader]

BF1 side by side comparison is one of the best things i've seen regarding the Pro. This makes me excited for the future.

I hope the base PS4 will still hold up well in the future though

 

[AlNom]

Well something has happened to improve load times - the stock (read slow) HDD in the Pro is faster at loading than my 7200 SSHD in my original PS4. If this is down to SATA or CPU is debatable, but either way loading is quicker. I should get my SSD any day and will be posting some times.

Is that comparing unenchanted playback (where the APU is supposed to revert to PS4 speed)?

 

[Arwin]

I remember that just a better HDD controller significantly improved my HDD's performance (this when my motherboard's broke and you could still easily buy dedicated HDD controllers). Perhaps even when the bottleneck for slower harddrives does not reach SATA II maximum bandwidth, a newer, better SATA III controller is still more efficient.

 

[Globalisateur]

I remember that just a better HDD controller significantly improved my HDD's performance (this when my motherboard's broke and you could still easily buy dedicated HDD controllers). Perhaps even when the bottleneck for slower harddrives does not reach SATA II maximum bandwidth, a newer, better SATA III controller is still more efficient.

That's exactly what I am hoping for. But we need tests of stock HDDs of both PS4 and Pro to verify that theory.

Again testing SSD is totally useless because we know by experience that SSD or SSHD will improve loading times. We already know the results of those tests and those tests are only for a minority of people.

 

[Allandor]

I remember that just a better HDD controller significantly improved my HDD's performance (this when my motherboard's broke and you could still easily buy dedicated HDD controllers). Perhaps even when the bottleneck for slower harddrives does not reach SATA II maximum bandwidth, a newer, better SATA III controller is still more efficient.

yes and no. It does only make really a little difference as far as your data is in the cache. Everything else is bandwidth bound.
Those minor tweaks from sata 2 => sata3 makes almost no difference if you are bound by seeking and bandwidth.

I really don't know why they haven't tested the old HDD in the new PS4 pro and vice versa. With this test we know, that the 1TB drive is faster than the 512GB drive .... well... I could tell you that before the test
Also they should test a PC game with an encrypted drive. This makes also a difference, as the data must be decrypted before it can be used.

 

[user542745831]

@grandmaster :

Why are you using the old H.264 format for your 4K download videos on digitalfoundry.net?

H.264 is not efficient for 4K.

Why don't you use the much more efficient open VP9 format which is already being used by YouTube and considered by Netflix?

Here's a recent video on VP9 vs. H.265 vs. H264 (vs. AV1) done by the Netflix encoding department (and the Alliance for Open Media):

 

[Rurouni]

@grandmaster :

Why are you using the old H.264 format for your 4K download videos on digitalfoundry.net?

H.264 is not efficient for 4K.

Why don't you use the much more efficient open VP9 format which is already being used by YouTube and considered by Netflix?

Here's a recent video on VP9 vs. H.265 vs. H264 (vs. AV1) done by the Netflix encoding department (and the Alliance for Open Media):

To save us poor souls that don't have enough power to play VP9 or H.265 4K? Actually, I don't know if I can play H.264 4K yet, maybe I should try it first.
Personally I'm fine with H.264. Yes, it is larger, but it is more compatible with hardware acceleration. Probably offer 2 encodes for 4K would be better instead of eliminating H.264.