Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
Are those gifs in-game?
Gran Turismo Sport [PS4]
- Thread starter Clukos
- Start date
Yeah it's gameplay. I just used bumper cam to control the camera. Which is why I always found it hilarious when people say the game only looks realistic in replays.
The lighting, reflection and shadowing looks ray-trace driven (haven't seen anything in the console or PC space with that type of fidelity). Absolutely gorgeous demo.
"More likely a target render." No shit! What hardware can do that fidelity graphics at 8k 120 fps in realtime?? What PC can even do 8K at 120 Hz on any game? It's a CGI render, necessary to show both the detail possible and to show the advantage high framerate has, hence the choice of racing. Did it have any GT Sport branding, or is it being a video of cars racing the only connection with the current PS4 game?
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
10 years down the line, we'll be arguing about why that does/doesn't look like trash.
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
On a serious note, I hope that demo's indicative that Sony are aware of the desirability of higher framerates.
Polyphony Digital provided the footage.
A 4K/60fps GT PS5 game with that type of lighting, shadowing and reflection, would still be unbelievable eye-candy.
That last 'obvious speculation' is moronic. We can't get 4k60 most of the time on top end GPUs and certainly not with bleeding-edge visuals. We can't get 4k120 at all. 8k120, 16x more than the most optimistic 4k60 results from a 2080, and they are thinking that points to what the next PlayStation console is going to achieve?? Fanboy madness.
But most PC games aren't optimized for a specific spec... but the hundreds of thousands of configurations out there. Brute forcing isn't optimization, but the lack of. I'm just saying, comparing PCs to consoles isn't necessarily the best way to gauge performance, especially when console developers (more specifically 1st party developers) will extract more performance from a set-spec.
Honestly, looking how gorgeous Forza Horizon 4 is on XB1-X at 4K/60fps, does give one hope towards the next-generation of racing games.
You don't optimise 16x performance out of a PC GPU. The overhead on PC isn't that bad!
That depends on the build. The vast majority of gaming PCs are still low to moderate spec builds. And let's not pretend we don't hear the complaints of PC gamers when a console version of game is running smoother than a high-end rig.
So you're suggesting an RTX 2080 can render those visuals now at 8K120 and the only thing holding it back is PD aren't creating the game exclusively for an RTX2080? And thus, when we get a PlayStation 5, it'll be able to take a game that runs 1080p60 on PS5 with a <2 TF GPU and create a 32x more demanding game at 8K120 while also improving the visual quality a huge amount through the power of optimisation? What GPU is PS5 going to have? A 64 TF thing Sony are secretly creating themselves? 4 RTX 2080s combined? Or just the equivalent of a 14 TF RTX which is perfectly capable of 8K120 photorealistic racers if only devs targeted it properly?
You don't optimised 16x performance out of a GPU. You may be able to cripple a GPU with poor code, but ordinary, standard code will be unlikely to even halve the performance. The visuals on show are completely out of the realm of realtime and there's zero sense in speculating that they point to 8k120 photorealistic racers as a possibility on PS5.
You don't optimised 16x performance out of a GPU. You may be able to cripple a GPU with poor code, but ordinary, standard code will be unlikely to even halve the performance. The visuals on show are completely out of the realm of realtime and there's zero sense in speculating that they point to 8k120 photorealistic racers as a possibility on PS5.
I suggested none of this. My statements were quite clear. Comparing PCs performance/capabilities isn't necessarily the greatest way on gauging console performance (and vise versa). And me mentioning a "GT PS5 game with 4K/60fps with lighting, shadowing, and reflections similar to the video, would still be unbelievable eye-candy," wasn't a statement of it happening, it was a statement that it would still look nice even at half the resolution and framerate.
You can do triple screen 4k/60 with three ps4 pro, they would be able to do 8k/120 with 4x PS5. Years ago the ps3 presentation with gt6 in 4k was tiling 4x ps3. The option was right there in the menu. It's a fringe feature but sim racers are fringe people.
At least it shows how much higher res the cars have been scanned. I guess.
At least it shows how much higher res the cars have been scanned. I guess.
In the context of the video and the extrapolation that this might be a view of PS5 performance, what other reference point do you suggest? Why is 16x an RTX 2080 not going to be somewhat representative of a realistic expectation? In general term, yes, console optimisation allows more bang per buck, but as I stated, a 16x performance is attainable over PC simply through optimised use of the hardware. In this case, given the enormous delta between what's actually possible versus what's on show, the PC is a completely fair reference point and why the speculation should never have been made.
It should be 8x, to be fair. 4x resolution and 2x framerate. If you have a game that's 4k60 on a 2080 (framerates range wildly by game, with some well below, some significantly faster), you'll need 8x the power to hit the same quality at 8k120. 10 TFs of the 2080 would need to be 80 TFs to produce the same game at 8k120 assuming a linear scale of performance > res+framerate.
It's 16x from 4k30 to 8k120, so whatever eye-candy drops a 2080 to 4k30 would need 16x the power. We can't really tell what this video's quality is like to know if its technical pushing boundaries or using GT style fakery.
It's 16x from 4k30 to 8k120, so whatever eye-candy drops a 2080 to 4k30 would need 16x the power. We can't really tell what this video's quality is like to know if its technical pushing boundaries or using GT style fakery.
But is this a realistic expectation from next gen consoles? Seems out of reach. Or did you mean "realistic" as in real performance boost required to reach that target?
