PS4 Pro Official Specifications (Codename NEO)

[MrFox]

Some of the presentations/patents were showing simple separation into only a few rectangular zones. I'm wondering if it's a limitation of the hardware that provides this capability. If it was fully flexible, they would have used circular gradient zones instead of such rough square zones. It just makes a lot more sense to do this radially. Or maybe this is a limitation of the OG PS4, and the Pro might allow something else?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2015/0287166.html

 

[Jay]

Assuming multires rendering is rendering the whole scene chopped up into different resolution pieces, I'm not sure it's a good fit for non-VR. You'd have parts of the image at a different resolution - a slightly blurrier square here and there. In VR these low res areas are confined to the periphery which is blurrier anyway, so makes sense as an optimisation to not render what the player isn't looking at.

I'm not seeing much application for lower resolution pieces of image outside of VR. Unless it's really sophisticated and can dynamically reduce complex pieces of scene on the fly, so let's say reflections could be dynamically res reduced without the devs needing to worry about it.

yes it's best fit for vr.
I believe that DF in a bf1 breakdown thought it might be doing it's own multi res. As the resolution seemed to be different at different places on screen. I'll try look for vid when I get in.

edit
this is what I was thinking of, seems like they were unsure what the cause was, did they ever get to the bottom of it?

approx 40sec in to 1min40 where they say the edges seem like could be different resolution.

 

[milk]

Assuming multires rendering is rendering the whole scene chopped up into different resolution pieces, I'm not sure it's a good fit for non-VR. You'd have parts of the image at a different resolution - a slightly blurrier square here and there. In VR these low res areas are confined to the periphery which is blurrier anyway, so makes sense as an optimisation to not render what the player isn't looking at.

In the world of checker board rendering, temporal reconstruction, dynamic res, and 4k buffers, rendering different parts of the screen (and different intermediate buffers) at separate resolutions makes more and more sense.
A naive solution would sure look weird, with different squares on the screen looking blurrier than others. But if instead the lower res tiles are just more reliant on past frame data for reconstruction than the high-res tiles, the difference would be much harder to notice, and would disapear whenever you stopped to try to look at it, as just a few fractions of a second would be enough for the temporal reconstruction to converge the whole screen into a detailed, sharp and clean image.
The future is promising.

 

[sebbbi]

In the world of checker board rendering, temporal reconstruction, dynamic res, and 4k buffers, rendering different parts of the screen (and different intermediate buffers) at separate resolutions makes more and more sense.
A naive solution would sure look weird, with different squares on the screen looking blurrier than others. But if instead the lower res tiles are just more reliant on past frame data for reconstruction than the high-res tiles, the difference would be much harder to notice, and would disapear whenever you stopped to try to look at it, as just a few fractions of a second would be enough for the temporal reconstruction to converge the whole screen into a detailed, sharp and clean image.
The future is promising.

Also think about out of focus areas (DOF) or areas behind heavy particle effects (smoke, dust, etc). Lower res rendering selectively could work. Especially when combined with reprojection and sample jittering (to reconstruct full res image).

 

[AlNom]

Assuming multires rendering is rendering the whole scene chopped up into different resolution pieces, I'm not sure it's a good fit for non-VR. You'd have parts of the image at a different resolution - a slightly blurrier square here and there. In VR these low res areas are confined to the periphery which is blurrier anyway, so makes sense as an optimisation to not render what the player isn't looking at.

I'm not seeing much application for lower resolution pieces of image outside of VR. Unless it's really sophisticated and can dynamically reduce complex pieces of scene on the fly, so let's say reflections could be dynamically res reduced without the devs needing to worry about it.

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/shadow-warrior-2-nvidia-multi-res-shading

 

[mpg1]

hmmmm...person claims corner of his PS4 Pro melted

http://heatst.com/tech/meltgate-whats-the-deal-with-the-melting-ps4-pro-rumor/

 

[MrFox]

hmmmm...person claims corner of his PS4 Pro melted

http://heatst.com/tech/meltgate-whats-the-deal-with-the-melting-ps4-pro-rumor/

Cold side of the console.

Burn pattern originates from the outside corner.

Recommends not feeding click bait.

 

[London Geezer]

 

[mpg1]

PS4 Pro vs PS4 SSD Loading Times: Does SATA 3 Make A Difference?

 

[Technewsreader]

hmmmm...person claims corner of his PS4 Pro melted

http://heatst.com/tech/meltgate-whats-the-deal-with-the-melting-ps4-pro-rumor/

Nothing to see here. Just Dat Meltstation

 

[Allandor]

PS4 Pro vs PS4 SSD Loading Times: Does SATA 3 Make A Difference?

well, as I said before, the SATA 3 connection makes "no" difference. It is another thing in the system that bottlenecks the whole thing.
I'm thinking on something like decryption, integrity checks or something like that. So you can't break into the system by altering the HDDs content.
Maybe DF should check the PC-loadtimes again with an encrypted drive.

 

[Boxercide]

They very clearly stated they believe it's an allocation since there has to be bandwidth for recording, downloads, etc.

 

[Pixel]

They very clearly stated they believe it's an allocation since there has to be bandwidth for recording, downloads, etc.

If its a allocation thing do, side apps like the browser startup alot faster with an SSD?

 

[Rikimaru]

Does DF always reformat system after game install? Because there is almost 2x difference in speed in the beginning and the end of mechanical HDD.

 

[Globalisateur]

well, as I said before, the SATA 3 connection makes "no" difference. It is another thing in the system that bottlenecks the whole thing.
I'm thinking on something like decryption, integrity checks or something like that. So you can't break into the system by altering the HDDs content.
Maybe DF should check the PC-loadtimes again with an encrypted drive.

What matters to most people is that in most cases the stock HDD on the Pro is faster than the one inside the OG PS4. And I don't think the loading times of just cause 3 should be used in an objective test. I think I remember that those were fucked up in some cases with some abnormal very high times happening randomly.

And too bad they didn't test the games that had being properly Pro patched like COD, Battlefield or Rise of the Tomb Raider. It's quite odd the titles they have chosen actually, 4 titles that we know have not being patched for the Pro.

As a whole the methodology used here is really terrible. They should have tested recent and patched Pro games because from now on all games will be patched for Pro. But at least we know the stock HDD inside the Pro is faster than the stock HDD inside the OG PS4.

Fallout 4:

PS4 HDD: 55.30 seconds
PS4 SSD: 29.06 seconds
Pro HDD: 48.54 seconds
Pro SSD: 26.40 seconds

Witcher 3:

PS4 HDD: 1m 32.3s
PS4 SSD: 1m 09.2s
Pro HDD: 1m 18.6s
Pro SSD: 1m 07.3s

Just cause 3:

PS4 HDD: 1m 10.2s
PS4 SSD: 43.52 seconds
Pro HDD: 1m 16.4s
Pro SSD: 42.29 seconds

Project Cars:

PS4 HDD: 50.30 seconds
PS4 SSD: 40.26 seconds
Pro HDD: 43.58 seconds
Pro SSD: 41.03 seconds

 

[Allandor]

What matters to most people is that in most cases the stock HDD on the Pro is faster than the one inside the OG PS4. And I don't think the loading times of just cause 3 should be used in an objective test. I think I remember that those were fucked up in some cases with some abnormal very high times happening randomly.

And too bad they didn't test the games that had being properly Pro patched like COD, Battlefield or Rise of the Tomb Raider. It's quite odd the titles they have chosen actually, 4 titles that we know have not being patched for the Pro.

As a whole the methodology used here is really terrible. They should have tested recent and patched Pro games because from now on all games will be patched for Pro. But at least we know the stock HDD inside the Pro is faster than the stock HDD inside the OG PS4.

yeah, but those numbers are only for the HDD itself, not for the connection-type. They should have tested the 1TB drive in the old PS4 and the 512GB drive in the PS4Pro, only than those numbers would say us anything.
At least we can see, that the SSD makes can get more of the new interface (not suprising) ...
What we now know
PS4 vs PS4 Pro, the PS4 Pro is faster... yey ^^

 

[Globalisateur]

yeah, but those numbers are only for the HDD itself, not for the connection-type. They should have tested the 1TB drive in the old PS4 and the 512GB drive in the PS4Pro, only than those numbers would say us anything.
At least we can see, that the SSD makes can get more of the new interface (not suprising) ...
What we now know
PS4 vs PS4 Pro, the PS4 Pro is faster... yey ^^

But we don't know that actually, the differences seen in those tests were not significant enough IMO. SSD being Slightly faster on 3 games is not enough data. Maybe the Pro is kind of emulating the OG PS4 interface when the games aren't patched like it emulates the CPU and GPU on unpatched games.

Maybe the bandwidth allocated to the HDD is higher on Pro games (that could explain the SATA3 interface). Maybe the Pro games can better use the SATA3 interface even without having a higher bandwidth allocated to the HDD.

But we wouldn't know that using that flawed test using only un-patched games.

 

[goonergaz]

Done some loading tests myself;

 

[loekf]

Done some loading tests myself;

The Toshiba is not a SSHD:

http://storage.toshiba.com/docs/product-datasheets/mq01abdxxx.pdf

It's a HDD Sony is using both the HGST and this Toshiba in the PS4 Pro. The Pro HDD perforams faster than the 1TB in the PS4 Slim.

 

[goonergaz]

The Toshiba is not a SSHD:

http://storage.toshiba.com/docs/product-datasheets/mq01abdxxx.pdf

It's a HDD Sony is using both the HGST and this Toshiba in the PS4 Pro. The Pro HDD perforams faster than the 1TB in the PS4 Slim.

it's definitely being sold as one;

https://www.scan.co.uk/products/1tb...d-sata-iii-25-5400rpm-95mm-32mb-cache-8gb-ssd

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00HJKPN9M/?tag=b3d-21


And this review (anong others) says it is...

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/5740/toshiba-1tb-sshd-mq01abd100h-review/index.html

??