• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PS5 Pro Specs Leak are Real, Releasing Holiday 2024(Insider Gaming)

Elios83

Member
So for a few I optimized games u need a new console ?

It's not a few optimized games.
All games going forward will have Pro modes and many previously released games will get patches.
Also it's not just "optimization", we could have ray tracing feasible to be implemented at a level that wasn't possible before, with much better image quality thanks to the AI upscaler instead of FSR/FSR2 and higher frame rate as well.

You're absolutely free to say that you're happy with what you have now and you won't buy another console, but it has no sense to deny there's a whole enthusiasts/upgraders market that thinks otherwise.
 
GIF by Amuse
If it's not more powerful than the RTX 5090 they should sell it for $300 :)
 
Great, so it’s going to be 60fps for resolution modes with the possibility of added ray tracing and consistent 4K upscaled image.

That’s all I wanted. GT7 is going to look wild.
Ray tracing on gameplay maybe?

I hope they go crazy on the draw distance and LOD transitions become invisible... Only minor problem with the games graphics ATM, at 4k60 mode.
 
It's because of size, thermals, power consumption, price. Hopefully this wasn't a serious question.
TWGyS9s.gif
Of course it's a serious question, next year Xbox will launch a console that will compete head to head with the RTX 6090 and destroy Sony!!

obviously I'm joking but there are people who really expect this to compete with an RTX 4090 or the future 5090 for only $500 XD
 
Last edited:

Loxus

Member
Yeah, there's supposedly an AI engine on the Pro. Again,we aren't getting 54 CU because of the number of shader engines, there's 2 SEs for the Pro.
That 2 Shader Engine is not confirmed.

How would that work with BC?
It's the Shader Engine that's disabled for BC, not WGP as for as I know.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Why don't they need to? If it's still Zen 2, is it gonna be larger or faster? Otherwise we will still have CPU limited games that can't reach a consistent 60fps, and that would suck.
I think that a good frequency bump might resolve some of these CPU issues and the GPU might also be able to be more independent. Other games will probably be brought in the HDMI VRR window and some devs may call it a day.

It would be nice to have more, but the budget is not infinite and I would not spend on changing the CPU core unless it came for a very very cheap cost.
 

Bojji

Member
Yes I was talking about that price range for the GPU because that's the price category where consoles can't really hope to compete anymore with PCs in performance.
And as you said if to get something comparable to consoles you need 500$ (I haven't checked the prices I'm trusting your figures) just for the GPU and then you need to add the rest of the PC you realize how much more constrained console designers are or conversedly how much worse the performance per dollar metric is on PC.

But this is not about consoles vs PC though, at least not for me.
My point was that Cerny has clearly focused on fixing the deficiencies of the original PS5 design and doing that smartly to keep costs down.
Fixing the shitty RDNA2 ray tracing performance and using a combo of adequate raster improvement to make an AI upscaler do its job greatly, is a really balanced way to do things without making this thing cost 700$ (I hope for my wallet... "pie_tears_joy: )

Cerny looked to what Nvidia was doing and aimed to emulate that and fix PS5 shortcomings with Pro. We have seen what developers are willing to do to sometimes, dropping to 720p like resolutions and FSR2 completely breaks in this scenario. With Pro they will be able to produce decent picture quality in the end.

Cerny is not some visionary but he is clearly smart.

What about the rest of the components or are you running your games on a GPU alone?

Honestly why do people continue to argue that PC are comparable value wise to consoles.

Console makers barring Nintendo take a loss on console sales at launch.

Do GPU makers take a loss on PC at launch?

Doesn’t that say enough?

Of course that full PC costs more, in 2019 machine comparable to PS5 was like this:

CPU R5 3600 - 200$
MB - 100$
GPU - 2070S - 500$
PSU - 50$
Case - 50$

Windows is free (unactivated) and few bucks for M&K = ~900$

Digital PS5 launched for 400$, but I was responding to claim that you needed 1000$ GPU. 2070S still offers better image quality than PS5 thanks to DLSS and this GPU is 5 years old.

So still likely more money than a PS5 Pro after you account for other components and peripherals...

Who knows what PS5 Pro price will be.
 

Gaiff

SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Cerny looked to what Nvidia was doing and aimed to emulate that and fix PS5 shortcomings with Pro. We have seen what developers are willing to do to sometimes, dropping to 720p like resolutions and FSR2 completely breaks in this scenario. With Pro they will be able to produce decent picture quality in the end.

Cerny is not some visionary but he is clearly smart.



Of course that full PC costs more, in 2019 machine comparable to PS5 was like this:

CPU R5 3600 - 200$
MB - 100$
GPU - 2070S - 500$
PSU - 50$
Case - 50$

Windows is free (unactivated) and few bucks for M&K = ~900$
That PC won’t POST my guy.
 

Codeblew

Member
And yet this console won't even be on a level of 3080 4 years later.

Consoles upgrades will slow down, without big node reductions you need more power to achieve higher performance and that's part of the reason why this console is not impressive at all even compared to (already unimpressive) PS4 Pro.

PS6 will be even less impressive upgrade than PS5 was to PS4.
You're not wrong. Moore's Law is dead after all. It affects PC's, phones, Etc... just as much.
 

shamoomoo

Member
That 2 Shader Engine is not confirmed.

How would that work with BC?
It's the Shader Engine that's disabled for BC, not WGP as for as I know.
True. But condensing everything together saves on space and we know the CPU is already small and since last gen,these consoles have been GPU heavy.

Also, why would Sony go for 3SE to have 30 WPGS?
 
It'll be a mix of people upgrading and people buying it as their first PS5. I don't think it's going to be a significant driver of sales on its own after the frantic scalping period.

PS4 Pro only ended up being about 12% of the PS4 install base by the end of last generation. If the base PS5 remains on the market and is less expensive than the PS5 Pro then it's probably reasonable to believe that 12% is probably also the ratio Sony expects this time around. Games will continue to be made to base PS5 specs because there are already 50+ million of those out there. No games will be made specifically for PS5 Pro specs, they'll have Pro support bolted on. So game prices in general will probably stay the same.

Dunno why, but this bolded part's gonna trigger a small rant from me.

If Sony don't slow down or stop the PC ports for non-GAAS titles they aren't getting near 12% this time around. Because for the core who'd buy a Pro, there's less reason to do so when they can get those 1P games on an as-good-or-better PC shortly after the PS5 versions release, and still play their multiplats with better settings in the meantime on the same PC.

The fact Sony's inadvertently ported almost all of their big non-GAAS titles since 2020 to PC by now, only halfway through the console gen, and only have a handful of actual exclusive 1P left, is insanely short-sighted of them. If the Nvidia leak's true, the only games 1P that could still exclusive to PS5 that'll be left (non-GAAS) by EOY, are Astro's Playroom and Spiderman 2. A whopping 1.5 games (Astro's more of a "demo" not a full game).

Every single port since 2020 was Sony giving less and less reason for PS5/PC core enthusiasts to consider a PS5 Pro and it's a damn shame. Hopefully they are changing that strategy because, yeah, great tech aside the Pro could face a big challenge hitting even 8% of PS5 lifetime sales when all's said and done, if they don't have the 1P exclusives (actual exclusives, not timed 1-2 year exclusives before porting to PC) to push it. Because besides just that software issue, PSVR2 isn't hitting the same way PSVR1 did (which benefited the PS4 Pro), and there is no 4K TV market rush/growth like when the PS4 Pro was a thing, either.

So in what world is a PS5 Pro whose big selling point to hardcore/core enthusiasts (vast majority of Pro customers) is playing 1P timed exclusives at settings still lower than an inevitable PC ports 1-2 years later (or Day 1 in some cases, for non-GAAS you never know), going to do 12% of the install base numbers let alone higher?

Well sorry for the semi-rant I just had to look at the sales part from the perspective of what drivers are or aren't present to push PS5 Pro the same way PS4 Pro was pushed. But most critically how the biggest driver potentially absent is 100% of Sony's own doing. I hope that's changed internally because both PS5 & the Pro, and also systems like PS6, definitely need that big driver back.

Also one other thing: why are people still obsessed with TFs? I thought that poison went away a couple years ago but people are still determining all performance gains from TF paper specs. Did we learn nothing from the PS5 vs. Series X TF nothingburger?
 
Last edited:

Bojji

Member
That PC won’t POST my guy.

LOL, forgot about RAM so easily ~1000$ for that PC.

You're not wrong. Moore's Law is dead after all. It affects PC's, phones, Etc... just as much.

Grim times ahead, Nvidia is still able to do big jumps but prices are in insane territory for top cards.

Developers better learn to optimize again because hardware won't become that much faster on consoles.

Could they do Ps3 emulation on these specs?

Yep, not all games would run at full speed but most probably would, Sony could also write much more efficient emulator than RPCS3. But they don't want to do it, there is like 1% chance

dumb-and-dumber-lloyd.gif
 
Last edited:

shamoomoo

Member
Cerny looked to what Nvidia was doing and aimed to emulate that and fix PS5 shortcomings with Pro. We have seen what developers are willing to do to sometimes, dropping to 720p like resolutions and FSR2 completely breaks in this scenario. With Pro they will be able to produce decent picture quality in the end.

Cerny is not some visionary but he is clearly smart.



Of course that full PC costs more, in 2019 machine comparable to PS5 was like this:

CPU R5 3600 - 200$
MB - 100$
GPU - 2070S - 500$
PSU - 50$
Case - 50$

Windows is free (unactivated) and few bucks for M&K = ~900$

Digital PS5 launched for 400$, but I was responding to claim that you needed 1000$ GPU. 2070S still offers better image quality than PS5 thanks to DLSS and this GPU is 5 years old.



Who knows what PS5 Pro price will be.
Lol? Before the PS5 was released Sony and Microsoft could've implemented stuff for ML, if developers truly cared I'm sure both companies would be willing to accommodate.

Nvidia use case for ML on their GPUs didn't really come in until Ampere and even now most of the AI capability of Nvidia GPUs are used for image quality.
 

Bojji

Member
Lol? Before the PS5 was released Sony and Microsoft could've implemented stuff for ML, if developers truly cared I'm sure both companies would be willing to accommodate.

Nvidia use case for ML on their GPUs didn't really come in until Ampere and even now most of the AI capability of Nvidia GPUs are used for image quality.

Nvidia was the visionary here, no one cared about Ai hardware before. We also know that Sony wants to use Ai to image upscaling, other use cases may not even appear this gen.

Yup. It’ll work but you still need a storage device. So another $80 or so.

There is that too. Full PC better than PS5 is ~800$ in 2024 so prices are definitely better now.
 
Last edited:
LOL, forgot about RAM so easily ~1000$ for that PC.



Grim times ahead, Nvidia is still able to do big jumps but prices are in insane territory for top cards.

Developers better learn to optimize again because hardware won't become that much faster on consoles.



Yep, not all games would run at full speed but most probably would, Sony could also write much more efficient emulator than RPCS3. But they don't want to do it, there is like 1% chance

dumb-and-dumber-lloyd.gif
I wonder if they will do some downloadable Ps3 classics as a special treat for the Ps5 pro
 
Last edited:

Audiophile

Member
8MB Cache on 4.5GHz Zen2 that's assisting in far greater AI and RT loads than before sounds like it'd be a major bottleneck.

It's already 1/4 of the default 32MB, I would have at least expected a bump to 16MB.

The most cost-effective solution would be to add a stack or two of 8MB 3D V-Cache for 16-24MB.

I'd hope for a reasonable GPU cache bump too. That 576GB/s memory (again, with that AI and RT..) will likely be coming up a little short and bolting on cache would be a major help in easing the need for more bandwidth.

As for the memory footprint, I actually think it'll be ok as long as they offload the OS to small chunk of cheap DDR4.

4GB would probs cost 5 bucks for Sony and they'd gain back ~3.5GB of the GDDR6; which is a nice asymmetric cost/benefit win. They could also cordon off 512MB as the SSD Cache and drop the existing 512MB DDR3 to further simplify.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Naturally all the "Leak Bros" on X/YouTube are running with the high floppage.

77TF - FP16 Half-Precision
33.5TF - FP32 Single Precision Dual-Issue
16.75TF - FP32 Single Precision << The traditional unit of measurement and what we need to compare it to PS5's 10.28TF.
~1TF - FP64 Double Precision

So that's a 63% jump in TF.

The 45% faster "render" which was original referred to as "raster" seems to be a bit of a miscommunication. I'm guessing this is in regards to the GPU frontend jumping from 64ROPS to 96ROPS minus a small clock reduction.

Back to the flops... That's a 63% jump in raw compute, then you can add the isolated architectural gains of RDNA3 (and some RDNA4) for an idea of real-world perf (on console you might see ~20-30%). As for dual-issue, it's hard to say for sure, but if on average, ~10% of workloads can be ran this way then that's an extra 10% of additional perf. Probably looking at ~20TF equivalent or 2X.

Then if the RT acceleration capabilities are 2x as good, then that's 4x the RT performance in ideal circumstances.

Still surprised by the 2180MHz number, I'd have thought they'd just stuck with 2233 at least, the extra 53MHz is unlikely to break the bank. I can only assume this is in Pro only mode and that in base mode it runs at 2233 with 24CUs shut off.

Or, these leaks are only reporting the low end of the Pro's Continuous Boost scheme, just as the low end of the same was reported for PS5.

Thanks for this breakdown.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
ok, so like i suspected. The 45% figure is straight form sony. Very disappointing.

But ray tracing performance and dlss 4k performance is very intriguing. For Avatar which currently runs at 720p internal resolution being upscaled to 1440p FSR, we could go to 1080p internal resolution and 4k dlss which is typically better than even FSR2 1440p. (Though not in Avatar which has a great FSR implementation and not so great DLSS implementation)

It's great to see this as an extension of TAAU. I prefer TAAU over FSR. Used it in Callisto on PC and it was a revelation. Though it did start to fall apart at 58% resolution or 4k balanced upscaling. lets hope AI upscaling gets great results at 50% scaling. And then they can use framegen to go up to 90 fps.

Spiderman 2 is 1080p 60 fps so if we assume 2x more ray tracing performance, we are already at 1512p. 3x would be 1800p. 4x would be native 4k. i wouldnt be surprised if the 4x number came from either a spiderman 2 or ratchet benchmark.

star wars is cpu bound with RT on but its roughly 1440p internal in the 30 fps mode. i wonder if they can get 60 fps here by dropping to 1080p in the ray tracing mode and using PSSR with better image quality than the FSR2 quality mode at launch. Though i doubt ea is ever going back to this game or franchise.

Now Alan Wake 2, FF7 Rebirth, FF16 and other games like skull and bones dropping to 720p in their performance modes? that 45% increase gets them to 900p and i dont know if upscaling to 4k from there will produce great results. i never go below 4k dlss performance.

It sucks that the raw gpu performance gain is so low because the ray tracing and AI acceleration stuff is so damn intriguing. I feel like sony couldve had an x1x like monster here with just another 25-30% increase in raw performance. But right now it feels like another PS4 Pro with some really interesting tech but also some needless concessions that will ultimately hamper it in the long run.

You do know they want to sell millions of these PS5 Pros right?
 
Naturally all the "Leak Bros" on X/YouTube are running with the high floppage.

77TF - FP16 Half-Precision
33.5TF - FP32 Single Precision Dual-Issue
16.75TF - FP32 Single Precision << The traditional unit of measurement and what we need to compare it to PS5's 10.28TF.
~1TF - FP64 Double Precision

So that's a 63% jump in TF.

The 45% faster "render" which was original referred to as "raster" seems to be a bit of a miscommunication. I'm guessing this is in regards to the GPU frontend jumping from 64ROPS to 96ROPS minus a small clock reduction.

Back to the flops... That's a 63% jump in raw compute, then you can add the isolated architectural gains of RDNA3 (and some RDNA4) for an idea of real-world perf (on console you might see ~20-30%). As for dual-issue, it's hard to say for sure, but if on average, ~10% of workloads can be ran this way then that's an extra 10% of additional perf. Probably looking at ~20TF equivalent or 2X.

Then if the RT acceleration capabilities are 2x as good, then that's 4x the RT performance in ideal circumstances.

Still surprised by the 2180MHz number, I'd have thought they'd just stuck with 2233 at least, the extra 53MHz is unlikely to break the bank. I can only assume this is in Pro only mode and that in base mode it runs at 2233 with 24CUs shut off.

Or, these leaks are only reporting the low end of the Pro's Continuous Boost scheme, just as the low end of the same was reported for PS5.

Good info and analysis. Thanks for breaking it down.

So if the clocks can be run just as high as PS5, we are also looking at closer 17.15TF at a minimum. If the clocks are even higher than base PS5, even higher we go.

70% increase in compute is pretty good. Your 20 TF comparison didn't even include the AI upscaling, which probably adds another 10-20% in perceived output. So now you are getting pretty close to the PS4 --> PS4 Pro level of compute equivalent jump, just done so with other architectural improvements instead of pure compute.

Games that take advantage of the new features (Sony exclusives) will look exceptional. Games that don't put in much effort should still get a decent increase.
 
Last edited:

Dorfdad

Gold Member
I have a 3080 and this is very disappointing because i was hoping for at least 3080 levels of performance so i can leave the hassle of PC gaming behind and just plug and play games without having to waste hours on settings and building shaders and what not. last year broke me.

But keep in mind that the 3070 is vram starved and while you might get by in most games after a few patches, its going to be hassle. if you upgrade to a 4060 or 4060 ti, you will run into the same issues with that 8gb vram.

going to 4070 for the same $599 price point as the ps5 pro is going to get you to 3080 performance at which point you will have to make the same decision as me. Do you settle for 4k dlss performance on consoles or 4k dlss balanced on pc with some games letting you do 4k dlss quality? But with a lot more headaches?

i will buy this thing for ps5 first party games since those are the only games i truly care about nowadays, but i could probably spend an extra $400 and get a 4080 super and gain around 50% more performance.
I see everybody posting stuff like this, but the problem is you’re thinking in PC terms and not in consult terms. Developers have better access and tools to squeeze way more out of the included GPU and PC developers do.

We’ve seen time and time again, capable developers can do on the PS five. I’m not worried, and if they upscaling technology is close to, or on par with dlss Without having to have patches for games, I will be quite happy happy.

While PC gaming ultimately be better in all aspects for the most part, Complete pain in the ass I spend more time fiddling with Settings driver updates and trying to squeeze three more frames out of every game than I ever do playing them. It’s a mental condition I have I guess.

I believe we’re getting to a point that we’re not there yet of diminishing returns and graphics. If I told you you could have 4K at 120 frames as a base locked setting on ps6 would you buy that or spend $4000 to get a PC which could do 4K-8k 240? At that point I feel like it’s diminishing returns..
 
If Sony don't slow down or stop the PC ports for non-GAAS titles they aren't getting near 12% this time around. Because for the core who'd buy a Pro, there's less reason to do so when they can get those 1P games on an as-good-or-better PC

The people wanting PC are going to get PC regardless. I think a PS5 Pro has a good shot of getting at least 10% market share. The thing is, the PS5 Pro benefits PS6, so even with the low percentage it's worth pursuing. Everyone will benefit from PS5 Pro when we get PS6.

The PS5 Pro is for.....console owners who want a console and a better performing console. Period. I think the recent changes in 2018+ with massive power hungry GPUs put to bed the idea that a "Pro" could ever compete with a very high end PC. That's just not a reality. There are too may constraints, unless Sony wants to go extremely expensive which of course they don't seem open to doing given how small the marketshare would be for such a product.
 

Loxus

Member
True. But condensing everything together saves on space and we know the CPU is already small and since last gen,these consoles have been GPU heavy.

Also, why would Sony go for 3SE to have 30 WPGS?
For backwards compatibility.
The code name for PS5 Pro is Trinity.
Trinity means 3.

3 Shader Engine with 18 CU each for backwards compatibility.
18 CUs (1 SE) for PS4
36 CUs (2 SE) for PS4 Pro/PS5
54 CUs (3 SE) for PS5 Pro

Mark Cerny said he likes running the GPU at high clocks.
54 CUs @ 2.425 GHz = 33.5 TF
60 CUs @ 2.18 GHz = 33.5 TF


As for the CPU, you can't go with some things Kepler says and leave out the other stuff.



I mean, why on earth do you want this from the PS5 Pro? I doesn't make sense.
 

Xaeroxcore666

Neo Member
It's not a few optimized games.
All games going forward will have Pro modes and many previously released games will get patches.
Also it's not just "optimization", we could have ray tracing feasible to be implemented at a level that wasn't possible before, with much better image quality thanks to the AI upscaler instead of FSR/FSR2 and higher frame rate as well.

You're absolutely free to say that you're happy with what you have now and you won't buy another console, but it has no sense to deny there's a whole enthusiasts/upgraders market that thinks otherwise.
Official sources of that?


Ray tracing on gameplay maybe?

I hope they go crazy on the draw distance and LOD transitions become invisible... Only minor problem with the games graphics ATM, at 4k60 mode.
Is embarrasing GT7, despite being a georgeus looking game, didnt had ray tracing on gameplay. I mean, yes, its one of the prettiest racer out there, but also is a game built around PS4 first...how cannot a PS5 cant add ray tracing on gameplay on a crossgen game?

Whats the point of PS5 existing then? We still have just a few of worthy to be called next games and now if we want the really next gen games, gotta buy another console? Why isnt people upset for this?
 
Last edited:

Audiophile

Member
Good info and analysis. Thanks for breaking it down.

So if the clocks can be run just as high as PS5, we are also looking at closer 17.15TF at a minimum. If the clocks are even higher than base PS5, even higher we go.

70% increase in compute is pretty good. Your 20 TF comparison didn't even include the AI upscaling, which probably adds another 10-20% in perceived output. So now you are getting pretty close to the PS4 --> PS4 Pro level of compute equivalent jump, just done so with other architectural improvements instead of pure compute.

Games that take advantage of the new features (Sony exclusives) will look exceptional. Games that don't put in much effort should still get a decent increase.
I think there's gonna be a lot of one thing compounding another. ~3x RT is good but then with better ML functionality you'll get better denoising as well (and perhaps some reconstruction too), meaning you could redirect some of the RT budget away from casting more rays and spend it on additional RT features. Or you could cast more rays and denoise it for ultra high quality. Or keep the same quality and increase the depth/size of the BVH structure. Ideally it'll be a bit of everything layered together.

While the core compute or render output might not be leagues ahead, the 2-4x AI upscaling that likely looks a lot better than 2x FSR2 will mean the console can render at similar resolutions and spend the remaining compute budget on other FX.

My hope is that first party titles at least use a combination of small-moderate upgrades across the board to raise the whole image in a balanced way. Let's say Death Stranding 2's Fidelity is 2160CB @ 30fps on PS5 with RTGI, then perhaps Pro can do 1530P up to 2160P PSSR @ 40fps with RTGI + higher accuracy/better denoise or they could add-on RT Reflections or Shadows. Perhaps PS5 Pro could even render at a lower res and get a comparable end result to current methods; and then all of that extra compute could be spent purely on FX.

I'm a lot more excited about the PS5 Pro vs the PS5 than I am the PS4 Pro vs the PS4; even if the raw multipliers are lower. It's all about efficiency and smart implementations; and being a closed box with exclusive titles I think they could really lean into this stuff with some surprising results.

The cool thing here is the display resolution target (4K) for flagship titles hasn't changed (I know that 8K is mentioned but that'll be an edge case). And if these implementations are as good as expected then we might be looking at equivalent image quality at 1/4 the native render res or much better image quality at 1/2 the native render res. It's close to doubling your output out of the gate.
 
Last edited:
Cerny looked to what Nvidia was doing and aimed to emulate that and fix PS5 shortcomings with Pro. We have seen what developers are willing to do to sometimes, dropping to 720p like resolutions and FSR2 completely breaks in this scenario. With Pro they will be able to produce decent picture quality in the end.

Cerny is not some visionary but he is clearly smart.



Of course that full PC costs more, in 2019 machine comparable to PS5 was like this:

CPU R5 3600 - 200$
MB - 100$
GPU - 2070S - 500$
PSU - 50$
Case - 50$

Windows is free (unactivated) and few bucks for M&K = ~900$

Digital PS5 launched for 400$, but I was responding to claim that you needed 1000$ GPU. 2070S still offers better image quality than PS5 thanks to DLSS and this GPU is 5 years old.



Who knows what PS5 Pro price will be.
You forgot either the ram or ssd disk there. Also the 50 bucks for the case and psu gives you crap quality wares but sure I got with it if you want something ultra cheap and still be more than double as expensive as a ps5 on release.
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
I see everybody posting stuff like this, but the problem is you’re thinking in PC terms and not in consult terms. Developers have better access and tools to squeeze way more out of the included GPU and PC developers do.

We’ve seen time and time again, capable developers can do on the PS five. I’m not worried, and if they upscaling technology is close to, or on par with dlss Without having to have patches for games, I will be quite happy happy.

While PC gaming ultimately be better in all aspects for the most part, Complete pain in the ass I spend more time fiddling with Settings driver updates and trying to squeeze three more frames out of every game than I ever do playing them. It’s a mental condition I have I guess.

I believe we’re getting to a point that we’re not there yet of diminishing returns and graphics. If I told you you could have 4K at 120 frames as a base locked setting on ps6 would you buy that or spend $4000 to get a PC which could do 4K-8k 240? At that point I feel like it’s diminishing returns..
Am i? I am comparing it to Sonys own 45% estimate which is in comparison to the ps5, not pc. We know how ps5 games perform, we can easily deduce what that 45% extra power will buy us.

Things will be different for ray traced games which is good news for future AAA games.
 
Top Bottom