PS5 Pro *spawn

[Shifty Geezer]

Feel this is a fundamental change in how consoles handled QA and certification. Maybe Sony allowed games out without proper testing just to fill the Pro launch roster with more than a handful of titles? Could create lists of lots more titles that offer 'support' even if it's broken support.

Very hard to know who to blame, but by golly I want to blame someone!

 

[snc]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1858610797871513693

 

[Gamer09]

you'll create a specific narrative about the new hardware

There is no specific narrative going on. When you accuse users of creating a specific narrative then you should back that up. The PS5 Pro is a nice upgrade, however we shouldn't forget it's price tag and 700 dollars, or 800 to a 1000 euro's is alot of money for the actual upgrade we get. It's a fact that digital foundry, or atleast the two mentioned reviewers have been praising it highly. At the moment the uplift in graphics and features doesn't really represent a 700, or 800 dollars or more 'tag.

The 4 Pro offered a 225% uplift in GPU power, a larger CPU clock increase from 1.6ghz to above 2.1ghz. It launched three years after the base console and included a disc-drive. While also offerering upscaling technology which at the time was good, good enough to go from 1080p all the way to 4k. All for 399 dollars.

Ray tracing atleast as it is in the PS5 Pro isn't that impactful, and PSSR, which is in it's infancy, does come at a cost eating away from the 45% gpu uplift the Pro got. HZ's TAA solution isn't that much worse, heck it's probably doing a better job.

There is no narrative, there is no Xbox to speak about in the mid-gen and Nintendo doesn't care about this 'enthusiast' market. The Pro is a nice uplift and worth it to those who care about it as much as those from the DF team.

 

[Globalisateur]

There is no specific narrative going on. When you accuse users of creating a specific narrative then you should back that up. The PS5 Pro is a nice upgrade, however we shouldn't forget it's price tag and 700 dollars, or 800 to a 1000 euro's is alot of money for the actual upgrade we get. It's a fact that digital foundry, or atleast the two mentioned reviewers have been praising it highly. At the moment the uplift in graphics and features doesn't really represent a 700, or 800 dollars or more 'tag.

The 4 Pro offered a 225% uplift in GPU power, a larger CPU clock increase from 1.6ghz to above 2.1ghz. It launched three years after the base console and included a disc-drive. While also offerering upscaling technology which at the time was good, good enough to go from 1080p all the way to 4k. All for 399 dollars.

Ray tracing atleast as it is in the PS5 Pro isn't that impactful, and PSSR, which is in it's infancy, does come at a cost eating away from the 45% gpu uplift the Pro got. HZ's TAA solution isn't that much worse, heck it's probably doing a better job.

There is no narrative, there is no Xbox to speak about in the mid-gen and Nintendo doesn't care about this 'enthusiast' market. The Pro is a nice uplift and worth it to those who care about it as much as those from the DF team.

GPU boost was the biggest hoax of the century, and that was 128% more Tflops BTW, don't twist the maths here. On PS4 Pro without boost modes games were having a paltry 7% to 30% better performance depending of the bottleneck to be compared vs 7% to 40% better perf and 70% better resolution on PS5 Pro and without patches. Most games had about zero improvements on PS4 Pro because of the 30fps cap and lack of DRS anyways. For instance Bloodborne on PS4 Pro? barely any improvements to be compared with Elden Ring noticeable improvements on PS5 Pro (up to 40% higher fps in graphics mode and much higher resolution in performance mode).

In patched games difference can be bigger on PS5 Pro thanks to PSSR. Basically 100% better performance. Some have better IQ and more RT (and it's just the start).

People are complaining about 45% more rendering with 62% more TFLOPS on PS5 Pro? That's actually pretty efficient! On PS4 Pro, with 128% more compute most games only had 77% better resolution with patches, from 1080p to 1440p. And do not forget the terrible ports like RDR2 on PS4 Pro where the base PS4 actually had sharper IQ for some than on PS4 Pro.

Games that had the biggest improvements on PS4 Pro were the CPU limited games that had an uncapped framerate. But those were quite rare like GoW at 1080p and maybe MHW.

 

[Boss]

There is no specific narrative going on. When you accuse users of creating a specific narrative then you should back that up. The PS5 Pro is a nice upgrade, however we shouldn't forget it's price tag and 700 dollars, or 800 to a 1000 euro's is alot of money for the actual upgrade we get. It's a fact that digital foundry, or atleast the two mentioned reviewers have been praising it highly. At the moment the uplift in graphics and features doesn't really represent a 700, or 800 dollars or more 'tag.

I don't know what world you live in but $700 is not a lot of money at all especially in the electronics sector. Covid inflation + AI inflation + slowing down of Moore's law means the price is logical and expected. They're making a smaller margin on this than any of the big electronic producers like Apple, Nvidia, etc. That I'm sure of.

The 4 Pro offered a 225% uplift in GPU power, a larger CPU clock increase from 1.6ghz to above 2.1ghz. It launched three years after the base console and included a disc-drive. While also offerering upscaling technology which at the time was good, good enough to go from 1080p all the way to 4k. All for 399 dollars.

You mean the PS4 Pro that took us from 1080p on the ps4 to 1440p-1600p? So it's not a real 225% uplift. We had to wait for the XB1X to give us true 4k. One must also consider the state of AMD in 2016. Zen 1 wasn't even out yet and AMD was in a much worse financial condition that they are today. Their margins were slim and that meant you could get a way better deal.

Ray tracing atleast as it is in the PS5 Pro isn't that impactful, and PSSR, which is in it's infancy, does come at a cost eating away from the 45% gpu uplift the Pro got. HZ's TAA solution isn't that much worse, heck it's probably doing a better job.

Ray tracing in general is not impactful barring a handful of games and I'd argue that ray tracing benefits developers more than it benefits the end user. The only reason this ray tracing push is occurring is due to the increase in man hours and cost when developing games nowadays. While the desired fidelity has increased, a strong argument could be made that this spike in dev time is caused by lack of developer restraint. A game with baked GI, good SSR, accurate cube maps and good shadow maps is sufficient for the average user. The issue is that these things don't grow linearly as the scope of the game increases. As a result developers are making bigger games for an audience who didn't ask for them and an audience who barely finishes the games. All while doing this, they're driving the cost of hardware up in the name of RT to speed up development times. The annoying part is they hoard the savings to themselves and don't pass it onto customers.

 

[Liandry]

True mid-gen upgrade was only Xbox One X. That was 5x flops, + 50% RAM, higher RAM bandwidth, (stil widest memory bus in any console). That was real difference and games looked different. Almost all games run in 4k, (or very close to 4k), instead of 1080p and with some graphics upgrades, sometimes very noticeble upgrades. PS5 Pro is cool, but in my opinion in general that is LOL.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't know what world you live in but $700 is not a lot of money

Most people are living in a world with a cost of living crisis and the least disposable income of a generation. Mid-gen console value should be considered in relation to how much spare cash people had at the time. Was it one month's total disposable cash, or 6 months of saving? Are you bracketing consumers by income and ignoring a certain subset when evaluating value?

Also, everyone needs to calm down. You can express your view of the value of PS5 Pro, and challenge others' views and data, without passive-agressiveness. A lot of the recent language choices in this thread aren't positive discussion but arguing.

 

[oliemack]

I don’t want to be overly critical about it.

They started with doubt
The new message was that it was amazing and you would never use FSR over PSSR
Now the messaging is that some things are clearly broken with PSSR

And I suspect the future will improve to obtain that higher level of consistency so their original thoughts would end up being true anyway.

If you’re an early adopter, you’re going to get mixed results. Which sucks. But like Shifty said, there is time to return it they must.

If you go back and watch our initial coverage, I was pleased with the results from PSSR but there were some issues relative to native 4K rendering. Plus, there was a lack of information about games that would use PSSR as a replacement for FSR 2 at low resolutions, which I repeatedly stressed.

Take this, for instance, from my TLOU Pt 2 preview: Looking forward, I’d be very curious to see how PSSR behaves with lower input resolutions and more challenging game content. The Last of Us offers a satisfying 1440p to 4K upscale, but a lot of demanding PS5 software runs with sub-1080p internal resolutions, sometimes with noisy ray traced lighting effects. In those situations, FSR is really not up to the task of delivering a stable looking, reasonably sharp image. That bar will be more challenging for PSSR to clear, but that’s going to be important in titles like Star Wars Outlaws and Alan Wake 2, both of which are slated to receive Pro upgrades.

Now we have the console in hand, and at least some of those results at low resolutions aren't great. A couple games have unusual issues as well.

I don't think there's any particular conflict between those two findings. I really try to keep myself measured in the video content we do without stretching something past what the material we have indicates

 

[iroboto]

I don't think there's any particular conflict between those two findings. I really try to keep myself measured in the video content we do without stretching something past what the material we have indicates

Yea, I recognize that. You didn’t have enough test data to really know pre-launch. They gave you access to titles that had the best versions of PSSR.

But I think what hurt is that consoles became more PC like here. Some titles are straight up flashing now, other titles have become even blurrier than stock ps5. I don’t think anyone was expecting that, so it was a blindside here for early adopter.

Consoles are supposed to just work, it’s something I’ll hold over PC. But in this case, It didn’t just “work” everywhere and there’s starting to be some blow back because there’s not really a timeline or guarantee that these old titles they used to play will be fixed except for a patch to come out to disable PSSR for versions that are bad.

Empathetic to the potential that someone really enjoyed certain older titles. And they’re now borked because the PSSR implementation is bad. You can no longer play the game you enjoy and either you go back to your PS5 if you still have one or you stop playing it until a patch comes.

But then it brings us back to, if you paid $700 and everyone is disabling PSSR on the titles you like to play, what is the point of upgrading.

I’m not entirely sure how best to have a position on this one, without a doubt things are going to be better. The issues I believe appear localized, but it’s a bit more widespread than 1 or 2 titles. Curious to see your discussion at the next DF Direct.


Reference some issues being reported on ubisoft titles.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855036667054457185

I mean there are the issues that you guys have covered with PSSR not performing well for older variants, and then there is straight up boost issues like the ones posted above.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Reference some issues being reported on ubisoft titles.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855036667054457185

That video is awful. But the response from Ubi is also really confusing. "Have you tried the other modes?" Like, did they not experience this in testing?

We need a clearer investigation in what titles are busted and when. We need proof it's the games, not the consoles.

 

[iroboto]

That video is awful. But the response from Ubi is also really confusing. "Have you tried the other modes?" Like, did they not experience this in testing?

We need a clearer investigation in what titles are busted and when. We need proof it's the games, not the consoles.

Yea some of these are also older titles getting boosted. These aren’t just PSSR titles necessarily. The issue can be removed if you turn off the boost settings.

Ubisoft isn’t going to fix these older ones.

On PC we haven’t had these issues. DX might be a slog. But when we upgrade GPUs we don’t break games. I guess as I get older, I’m re-evaluating now the value of DX to maintain stability and compatibility versus extracting a bit more performance with something like GNM.

 

[snc]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1858635462577172846

 

[TEEDA]

We' re probably 3 to 4 years before the next gen PlayStation hardware and so have those years with games being designed with base PS5 / Xbox consoles.
I really wonder with the upcoming waves of new games coming next year and the years ahead how much of a gap we will see. i am also wondering how games such as Marvel 1943: Rise of Hydra will run like or even the new GTA VI.
As for the PS5 pro I don't really dig into the " Fidelity pro " modes. or even being able to choose the old Fidelity or old performance modes really.
I'd rather have only one balanced mode like the versatility mode in FFVII Rebirth.
I remember some people switching between Quality (free roam traversal) and performance (combat) in games like FFXVI. I wonder if XVI will eventually get a pro patch in the future.
I personaly would love to see just a balanced mode without too many options for games in the future. in the deep dive Cerny said that a major % of players were looking for performance rather than graphics.

 

[Karamazov]

We would need to know PS5 Pro's BOM to see if Sony is making good margins or not with it.

 

[techuse]

You mean the PS4 Pro that took us from 1080p on the ps4 to 1440p-1600p? So it's not a real 225% uplift. We had to wait for the XB1X to give us true 4k. One must also consider the state of AMD in 2016. Zen 1 wasn't even out yet and AMD was in a much worse financial condition that they are today. Their margins were slim and that meant you could get a way better deal.

That's certainly a better boost than no resolution upgrade at all, which is the most common result thus far.

 

[snc]

That's certainly a better boost than no resolution upgrade at all, which is the most common result thus far.

To be fair we could easly see resolution boost if devs didnt decide to impelemnt costly pssr (and didnt bother to check if its good decision for their game/engine )

 

[techuse]

To be fair we could easly see resolution boost if devs didnt decide to impelemnt costly pssr (and didnt bother to check if its good decision for their game/engine )

“Could have” is fine for discussion, but only "what is" matters for comparison WRT context of the post I quoted.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Again, this is not a thread on the value of PS5 Pro, nor how to apply economic principles to evaluate relative costs of products in a free-market economy. As already mentioned here, so I'm removing this OT.

 

[Below2D]

PSSR is nowhere near as good as we were initially led to believe. At lower resolutions, it's simply terrible and it has major issues with specular highlights and grass.