Support NeoGAF

[Synth]

Why does generation not matter? ps4 and xbone came out at the same technological timeframe. You should't let your brand preference limit you to using the xbone as the basic metric.

And what world are you living in? There are multiplatform games, running on both ps4 and xbone. Those that run exclusively at 1080p on ps4, will not run at 4k on the xox at the exact same settings.

The point is that across different platforms there are no "exact same settings". You have two unique implementations of the same game, but they are not in anyway compatible. This means that games can run better or worse on each platform than the paper specs would suggest, and because you can never run the other version on the opposing console you could never benchmark how it would actually perform. Considering this is a Quantum Break thread, let's use it as an example. This game (and many others on PC) has both a DX12 and DX11 implementation, and they perform nothing alike... on the exact same specification PC. You can't do "like for like" comparisons across incompatible platforms, because the software stopped being like for like in order to even run on each.

Honestly, I'm surprised you're struggling with this. Your whole argument was about having a defined actually testable metric for a term... and you've since only been arguing for the untestable.

 

[TLZ]

no, it does indeed mean that the Xbox ONE X has a lot of power, in fact more than any other console on the market.

Stop spinning dude.

Can't be more than the Switch, surely?

 

[Synth]

Can't be more than the Switch, surely?

The Switch doesn't count any more than Smash Bros counts as a fighting game.

 

[TLZ]

The Switch doesn't count any more than Smash Bros counts as a fighting game.

Smash bros #1 bruh.

 

[onQ123]

At this point I don't even know what's going on in this thread.

 

[Duderino]

There's no technical reason the 1X shouldn't look better just like there's no technical reason the PS4 shouldn't look better than the XBO. Budgets and resources are the only limiting factors in this equation.

So dev support resources, graphics API's, hardware architecture design, profiling tools, firmware, and system specific integrated features have no role to play? How about the targeted optimizations engine developers do for each platform? (see many UE4 release notes)

Now I'm not saying that any of this will move needle, just that there are additional factors at play that fall in Sony and Microsoft's domain that can have an effect. Just as an example, input lag at times has been notably better on the Xbox One. We've debated this in the past, but Sony/Microsoft dev resources (hardware and/or software) to implement and improve checkerboarding quality could possibly be another differentiating factor. Way too soon in my opinion to draw any conclusions there, but if i recall correctly you had suggested it would not make a difference.

 

[onanie]

The point is that across different platforms there are no "exact same settings". You have two unique implementations of the same game, but they are not in anyway compatible. This means that games can run better or worse on each platform than the paper specs would suggest, and because you can never run the other version on the opposing console you could never benchmark how it would actually perform. Considering this is a Quantum Break thread, let's use it as an example. This game (and many others on PC) has both a DX12 and DX11 implementation, and they perform nothing alike... on the exact same specification PC. You can't do "like for like" comparisons across incompatible platforms, because the software stopped being like for like in order to even run on each.

Honestly, I'm surprised your struggling with this.

I am surprised you're struggling with my concepts.

ps4 represented the state of console 1080p performance in 2013, not the xbone despite releasing at the same time. Xox will not perform four times the current benchmark console 1080p performance, so it is not a True 4K machine.

Software inefficiencies will be present on both sides, and does not prevent evaluation of xox against the ps4, especially since hard numbers are available.

 

[Synth]

I am surprised you're struggling with my concepts.

ps4 represented the state of console 1080p performance in 2013, not the xbone despite releasing at the same time. Xox will not perform four times the current benchmark console 1080p performance, so it is not a True 4K machine.

Software inefficiencies will be present on both sides, and does not prevent evaluation of xox against the ps4, especially since hard numbers are available.

Look, right from the very start we can both agree that a "True 4K console" isn't really a concrete thing. It's a term that MS came up with. Their definition and target is effectively "4x Xbox One". Simple as that. If you're going to define a point of measurement, you have to actually be able to measure it. You can't do that with the PS4, hence its not the metric they've chosen (and when establishing a term, this would be their choice, much like a "Retina Display" would be Apple's and "HD Rumble" would be Nintendo's). MS can feasibly confirm any 1080p game can run on XB1X at 1080p.

You started out arguing that the difference between a "10 second car" and a "True 4K console" is that one was verifiable and the other was not. You even went as far as to previously state that the PS4 wouldn't be a "1080p console". Now you're happy to abandon all that and draw a concrete line in the sand (of your own chosen metric) in order to state definitively that the the XB1X is in fact not a True 4K console. Can you not see how badly you're contradicting yourself? If the PS4 isn't factually a 1080p console, as per your own post, then why is this now the "universal metric" you previously claim didn't exist, which a console's "True 4K" is measured by?

Basically, you just don't like it being called as such.

 

[c0de]

The funniest thing about that is the people who are the first to point to the ID Buffer benefits, which do exist, are also some of the first to claim the CBR artifacts aren't noticeable at normal viewing angles.

It will be interesting to see how much non-cb games will matter when PS5 launches

 

[onanie]

Look, right from the very start we can both agree that a "True 4K console" isn't really a concrete thing. It's a term that MS came up with. Their definition and target is effectively "4x Xbox One" simple as that. If you're going to define a point of measurement, you have to actually be able to measure it. You can't do that with the PS4, hence its not the metric they've chosen (and when establishing a term, this would be their choice, much like a "Retina Display" would be Apple's and "HD Rumble" would be Nintendo's).

You started out arguing that the difference between a "10 second car" and a "True 4K console" is that one was verifiable and the other was not. You even went as far as to previously state that the PS4 wouldn't be a "1080p console". Now you're happy to abandon all that and draw a concrete line in the sand (of your own chosen metric) in order to state definitively that the the XB1X is in fact not a True 4K console. Can you not see how badly you're contradicting yourself? If the PS4 isn't factually a 1080p console, as per your own post, then why is this not the "universal metric" you previously claim didn't exist, which a console's "True 4K" is measured by?

The shift in my argument is in response to the shift in others' argument from "True 4K equals just having a native 4K game, like a 10 second car", to "True 4K actually means four times the power of an xbone", implying the xbone is a 1080p machine. To go with the flow, in case you don't understand.

In relative terms, ps4 is more capable at 1080p than the xbone (note that i still never called the PS4 a true 1080p machine). It is more convincing to adopt ps4 as the 1080p metric, as our argument entails. the PS4 is 1.8TF, and the xox 6TF. The xox is unable to 4K the 1080p benchmark, so it is not a True 4K machine.

 

[Synth]

The shift in my argument is in response to the shift in others' argument from "True 4K equals just having a native 4K game, like a 10 second car", to "True 4K actually means four times the power of an xbone", implying the xbone is a 1080p machine. To go with the flow, in case you don't understand.

In relative terms, ps4 is more capable at 1080p than the xbone (note that i still never called the PS4 a true 1080p machine). It is more convincing to adopt ps4 as the 1080p metric, as our argument entails. the PS4 is 1.8TF, and the xox 6TF. The xox is unable to 4K the 1080p benchmark, so it is not a True 4K machine.

Sure, it may be "more convincing".. but that doesn't matter. It's a term they define, not you. If Sony call their console "Real 4K" the expectation is that it'd be 8TF, as defined by them. The term "Retina" screen was defined by Apple. "High Definition" is defined different all over the place by different companies in different sectors. They're just made up terms... all of them, including "10 second car". You pick a metric and give it a name. That's literally all there is to it. You're trying to do it right now, because in order to claim something as not being True 4K, you needed to pick a definition for the term, despite previously claiming there couldn't be one.

Also, you've been arguing with me exclusively for a while now, and my stance hasn't changed whilst yours has. From the start I argued that a "10 second car" can be defined with a criteria, just as any term can be.. you argued against that saying basically "this is what a 10 sec car is, you can't say what a True 4K console is because it's arbitrary", and now you've changed to "this is what a True 4K console would be, and the XB1X isn't it". You went from calling your own metric "arbitrary" to "the current benchmark". Nobody else influenced your change of stance... it happened because over time you accepted that the term can be defined, so instead opted to define it yourself.

The thing is, all the definitions are arbitrary. I can define a "10 second PC" right now based on what my PC can encode in that time window. I probably won't be agreed upon by a lot of people, but I could consistently reproduce the test with all PCs I encounter in the future based on that metric and separate them into groups of "10 second PCs" and those that aren't.

 

[Hermii]

I am surprised you're struggling with my concepts.

ps4 represented the state of console 1080p performance in 2013, not the xbone despite releasing at the same time. Xox will not perform four times the current benchmark console 1080p performance, so it is not a True 4K machine.

Software inefficiencies will be present on both sides, and does not prevent evaluation of xox against the ps4, especially since hard numbers are available.

Who gives a fuck, "true 4k" is a marketing term. I don't think MS has ever explicitly said it means native 4k, and they certainly never said it means 4 ps4s duck taped together.

 

[le.phat]

Who gives a fuck, "true 4k" is a marketing term. I don't think MS has ever explicitly said it means native 4k.

It's a marketing term that's intended to be very misleading, and straight up false in some cases.

 

[Hermii]

It's a marketing term that's intended to be very misleading, and straight up false in some cases.

Like I said, a marketing term.

 

[Murdoch]

Like I said, a marketing term.

That's as misleading as misleading gets. What term are they going to use when they manage to produce a machine that hits 4k natively across the board? 'absolutely 4k; honest!'

 

[Hermii]

That's as misleading as misleading gets. What term are they going to use when they manage to produce a machine that hits 4k natively across the board? 'absolutely 4k; honest!'

Im not sure if that machine is ever coming out, as some devs will always push effects, physics, complexity in other areas., frame rate etc before resolution.

 

[MilkyJoe]

If this is how X1 VS X1X threads fall apart, the X VS pro threads are going to be a war zone... Jeepers.

 

[onQ123]

It will be interesting to see how much non-cb games will matter when PS5 launches

If PS5 don't make use of CBR & other more efficient rendering tech it's taking a step backwards.

 

[Synth]

That's as misleading as misleading gets. What term are they going to use when they manage to produce a machine that hits 4k natively across the board? 'absolutely 4k; honest!'

There will always be the possibility of non-native software regardless, so it doesn't really matter. The only way to avoid that would be a console that only played a previously established library (like say a 4K PS1 or something). Every game on XB1X could be native 4K is the developer opted for it to be, same as PS4 Pro. The difference in chosen portrayal is what they've aimed for it to be. MS expects 1080p Xbox games to be native 4K on XB1X, whilst Sony doesn't expect 1080p PS4 games to be native 4K on PS4 Pro. They still market the PS4 Pro as a 4K console though, because they consider checkboarding to satisfy that condition.

 

[c0de]

If PS5 don't make use of CBR & other more efficient rendering tech it's taking a step backwards.

So you say we will see games on PS5 doing CB to achieve 4k resolution?

 

[Thebonehead]

Like I said, a marketing term.

So much anger over marketing and plenty of stupid analogies popping up in this thread.

So much so that, I'll throw one in myself. The 1x will be my first foray into buying UHD 4k discs.

I might treat myself to the Wonder Woman UHD for instance which:

• Was shot on 35mm and 6k Cameras
• Mastered in the Studio at 2k
• UHD blue is scaled up from the 2k studio master

What am I buying - Tru4k / Faux k / 2k?

 

[Hermii]

So you say we will see games on PS5 doing CB to achieve 4k resolution?

Absolutely, as it can look great and only costs a fraction of the computational resources.

 

[c0de]

Absolutely, as it can look great and only costs a fraction of the computational resources.

Then finally the whole resolution war will come to an end, I hope. Everything you see and perceive is as subjective as it ever was.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Really? I've never thought it was a looker. I couldn't believe it when people were going on about the graphics pre-release either.

I don't see how that's possible given that it has one of if not THE most expensive lighting systems in this medium, and incredibly high quality VFX and PP, is one of the only games to use DMM in some way, and has incredibly accurate material shading:

 

[Backfoggen]

If this is how X1 VS X1X threads fall apart, the X VS pro threads are going to be a war zone... Jeepers.

This is already essentially an X vs Pro thread somehow.

 

[onanie]

Sure, it may be "more convincing".. but that doesn't matter. It's a term they define, not you. If Sony call their console "Real 4K" the expectation is that it'd be 8TF, as defined by them. The term "Retina" screen was defined by Apple. "High Definition" is defined different all over the place by different companies in different sectors. They're just made up terms... all of them, including "10 second car". You pick a metric and give it a name. That's literally all there is to it. You're trying to do it right now, because in order to claim something as not being True 4K, you needed to pick a definition for the term, despite previously claiming there couldn't be one.

More convincing doesn't matter now? I don't think others would agree. While you think that I've been arguing with you exclusively, I am simultaneously addressing the points of others.

I will reiterate differently, hopefully simpler for you too. There is only one type of dry straight mile, while there isn't just a single archetypal game. People immediately understand what a 10 second car is (maybe not you), but it is laughable to accept that "True 4K" is a unique feature since almost anything can do 4K, even if it's just Pong.

Oops, forget that unique feature angle (since I'm going to have to call the ps4pro a True 4K machine too). The subsequent proposition (not mine) is that they actually meant 4 times the xbone. If the xbone is not really a 1080p machine, then how can 4 EX sub-1080p mean True 4K? Ps4 is the more convincing 1080p producer (still it's not True 1080p ®), and microsoft really came up short for True 4K if they wanted to 4 EX a 1080p console in principle.

Microsoft can sure pick any definition they like, but they are not necessarily convincing anyone.

 

[Grazzt]

Goddamn this thread is a mess. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Christocolus]

I don't see how that's possible given that it has one of if not THE most expensive lighting systems in this medium, and incredibly high quality VFX and PP, is one of the only games to use DMM in some way, and has incredibly accurate material shading:

Those are some stunning pics.

 

[EvB]

Iirc the section that DF was comparing was real time.

I’ll have a look later, I’ve got QB installed

 

[Thebonehead]

Those are some stunning 10 second pics.

There, corrected it for you in the spirit of the thread. /s

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

In the original patch thread most people had speculated 1440p base, so good to have that confirmed. Looking at the footage on youtube it really does make a world of difference compared to the 720p base. The game looks really incredible in parts but the super low resolution of the original version on console did it a disservice.

 

[teokrazia]

Really? I’ve never thought it was a looker. I couldn’t believe it when people were going on about the graphics pre-release either.

You should play the game.
Or inform about modern graphics techniques.

 

[Raide]

In the original patch thread most people had speculated 1440p base, so good to have that confirmed. Looking at the footage on youtube it really does make a world of difference compared to the 720p base. The game looks really incredible in parts but the super low resolution of the original version on console did it a disservice.

I wonder how many other games will get a rebirth of sorts on 1X? QB seems like the perfect title that was held back by older tech and can now look damn good on next-gen.

 

[Synth]

More convincing doesn't matter now? I don't think others would agree. While you think that I've been arguing with you exclusively, I am simultaneously addressing the points of others.

I will reiterate differently, hopefully simpler for you too. There is only one type of dry straight mile, while there isn't just a single archetypal game. People immediately understand what a 10 second car is (maybe not you), but it is laughable to accept that "True 4K" is a unique feature since almost anything can do 4K, even if it's just Pong.

Oops, forget that unique feature angle (since I'm going to have to call the ps4pro a True 4K machine too). The subsequent proposition (not mine) is that they actually meant 4 times the xbone. If the xbone is not really a 1080p machine, then how can 4 EX sub-1080p mean True 4K? Ps4 is the more convincing 1080p producer (still it's not True 1080p ®), and microsoft really came up short for True 4K if they wanted to 4 EX a 1080p console in principle.

Microsoft can sure pick any definition they like, but they are not necessarily convincing anyone.

No it doesn't matter how convinced you are of the definitions worth, when you were previously trying to argue it couldn't be defined. Glad you now agree they can pick any definition they like (regardless of it you like it or not), and I imagine you can now also see that this is a definition they could actually consistently reproduce, as per your previous requirement. So, they defined the XB1X being a true 4K console as:

"On a console to console experience, when we designed Scorpio and we said 4K console, we looked at games that are running at, let's say 1080p 60 on an Xbox One, and said we want that same game to be able to run at 4K 60 on a Scorpio," Spencer continued later in the interview. We looked at the design of the games we had on Xbox One today and said, if we increase the resolution and maintain the framerate we have, could we hit that?"

Is this measurable? Yes
Reproducible? Yes
Does the XB1X meet this criteria? Yes

It's really not that complicated...

This contrasts with Sony's approach to the PS4 Pro, where they expect a 1080p game on their console to reach 4K via checkboarding, which they typically refer to as "Dynamic 4K" (not to be confused with the usual dynamic resolutions we're used to seeing) in marketing. Both are perfectly fine terms to use, and each is defined by the respective console manufacturer.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I wonder how many other games will get a rebirth of sorts on 1X? QB seems like the perfect title that was held back by older tech and can now look damn good on next-gen.

Not sure, really. QB was a stunner held back by how blurry it was, a lot of other games on XBO just looked "fine" and will look "better" but I don't think most of them are really being held back in the same way.

 

[onanie]

No it doesn't matter how convinced you are of the definitions worth, when you were previously trying to argue it couldn't be defined. Glad you now agree they can pick any definition they like (regardless of it you like it or not), and I imagine you can now also see that this is a definition they could actually consistently reproduce, as per your previous requirement.

I don't think "True 4K" is indefinable. I do think it can be defined either meaningfully, if it is uniquely ubiquitous (not the case on xox), or trivially (to put it lightly) as in True 4K Sometimes ®. Pinch of salt is necessary to go with the latter perspective.

Subsequently, a new argument (for me, but not mine) is proposed that they really meant True4K is 4 EX xbones. As I stated, 4 EX a sub 1080p console (either xbone or ps4) is not true 4K, going along with this definition (not mine). I do accept that simple mathematics can predict that xox can reliably reproduce 4 EX sub 1080p. That would not describe True 4K, does it? Not really complicated, really.

 

[Hermii]

I don't think "True 4K" is indefinable. I do think it can be defined either meaningfully, if it is uniquely ubiquitous (not the case on xox), or trivially (to put it lightly) as in True 4K Sometimes ®. Pinch of salt is necessary to go with the latter perspective.

Subsequently, a new argument (for me, but not mine) is proposed that they really meant True4K is 4 EX xbones. As I stated, 4 EX a sub 1080p console (either xbone or ps4) is not true 4K, going along with this definition (not mine). I do accept that simple mathematics can predict that xox can reliably reproduce 4 EX sub 1080p. That would not describe True 4K, does it? Not really complicated, really.

You are way to caught up in trying to define a buzzword with no real definition.

Forza runs in 1080p on xbox one, native 4k on X. That is probably was Spencer was talking about. Or who knows, he was just trying to sell the X.

 

[Synth]

I don't think "True 4K" is indefinable. I do think it can be defined either meaningfully, if it is uniquely ubiquitous (not the case on xox), or trivially (to put it lightly) as in True 4K Sometimes ®. Pinch of salt is necessary to go with the latter perspective.

Subsequently, a new argument (for me, but not mine) is proposed that they really meant True4K is 4 EX xbones. As I stated, 4 EX a sub 1080p console (either xbone or ps4) is not true 4K, going along with this definition (not mine). I do accept that simple mathematics can predict that xox can reliably reproduce 4 EX sub 1080p. That would not describe True 4K, does it? Not really complicated, really.

It is meaningful though. It why games like Rise of the Tomb Raider can hit 4K native, along with Forza Motorsport 7 and others. Sony's "Dynamic 4K" is meaningful too, because it similarly sets a meaningful performance target for 2160cb like HZD.

Neither the XB1 or the PS4 are "sub-1080p" consoles. They have sub-1080p games (moreso for XB1), but that's purely on developer volition, and will continue to be true for both PS4P and XB1 regardless if they're 6TF or 10TF. To make the car parallel again, that's equivalent to disqualifying a "10 second car" for all the scenarios where it can't cover a quarter mile in 10 seconds. The term applies to a specific criteria deemed meaningful. It doesn't necessitate that this holds true all or even 50% of the time in varying scenarios.

 

[onanie]

It is meaningful though. It why games like Rise of the Tomb Raider can hit 4K native, along with Forza Motorsport 7 and others. Sony's "Dynamic 4K" is meaningful too, because it similarly sets a meaningful performance target for 2160cb like HZD.

Neither the XB1 or the PS4 are "sub-1080p" consoles. They have sub-1080p games (moreso for XB1), but that's purely on developer volition, and will continue to be true for both PS4P and XB1 regardless of they're 6TF or 10TF. To make the car parallel again, that's equivalent to disqualifying a "10 second car" for all the scenarios where it can't cover a quarter mile in 10 seconds. The term applies to a specific criteria deemed meaningful. It doesn't necessitate that this holds true all or even 50% of the time in varying scenarios.

Certainly, if you are going to accept a loose definition of True, then the PS4, not necessitating that it is true even 50% of the time, is a True 4K console too, and not just Dynamic.

 

[FutureLarking]

As someone who was never impressed with QB's image quality - it was far too grainy and ghosty and less "solid" feeling than I would have liked, and something I completely hate in this generation of gaming (with stupid looking reflections to boot) - I actually like all the clean up to the IQ. But damn, the amount of power required to get this game too an acceptable IQ is quite something. Remedy really pushed they're luck with what they were trying to accomplish with the base game on the X1

 

[Synth]

Certainly, if you are going to accept a loose definition of True, then the PS4, not necessitating that it is true even 50% of the time, is a True 4K console too, and not just Dynamic.

I mean, Sony could have, but they didn't. And the reason they didn't is because they aren't aiming for an equivalent target. A 1080p PS4 game wouldn't consistently be able to reach 4K native on PS4P. They're not even trying for them to be, otherwise the console would have been spec'd very differently. So if it can't reliably hit it under that metric, there's pretty much no useful metric you could give it that would be equivalent. Seemingly however the PS4P can reliably checkboard a 1080p to 4K, and so they defined a term they saw as fitting for that.

You can feel free to call it whatever you want though... just maybe try to be less uppity about the various marketing terms chosen.

 

[onanie]

I mean, Sony could have, but they didn't. And the reason they didn't is because they aren't aiming for an equivalent target. A 1080p PS4 game will rarely ever be 4K native on PS4P. They're not even trying for them to be, otherwise the console would have been spec'd very differently. So if it can't reliably hit it under that metric, there's pretty much no useful metric you could give it that would be equivalent. Seemingly however the PS4P can reliably checkboard a 1080p to 4K, and so they defined a term they saw as fitting for that.

You can feel free to call it whatever you want though... just maybe try to be less uppity about the various marketing terms chosen.

So Sony could legitimately call their console True 4K.

Just making an observation, but perhaps you shouldn't take my comments too personally.

How then is 4 EX sub 1080p game (whether artistic decision or power limitation) going to produce native 4k, without concessions? A significant proportion of xbone games are sub 1080p.

 

[Night.Ninja]

I assume those pictures are from the pc version?

 

[c0de]

How then is 4 EX sub 1080p game (whether artistic decision or power limitation) going to produce native 4k, without concessions? A significant proportion of xbone games are sub 1080p.

Xbox One X is significantly faster than 4x Xbox One - just not to the same amount. That said, DF had an article saying that going from 1080p to 4k doesn't actually mean you have to have 4x the power but less as not everything needs to be computed 4x. That could mean that 900p games will get very close to 4k and even get there but only time will tell if that will actually be the case.

I assume those pictures are from the pc version?

I would be surprised if Crossing Eden had access to an Xbox One X and the unreleased patch of QB.

 

[onanie]

Xbox One X is significantly faster than 4x Xbox One - just not to the same amount. That said, DF had an article saying that going from 1080p to 4k doesn't actually mean you have to have 4x the power but less as not everything needs to be computed 4x. That could mean that 900p games will get very close to 4k and even get there but only time will tell if that will actually be the case.

I take DF as meaning some effects will have to remain sub 4K, as a tradeoff.

 

[Synth]

So Sony could legitimately call their console True 4K.

Just making an observation, but perhaps you shouldn't take my comments too personally.

How then is 4 EX sub 1080p game (whether artistic decision or power limitation) going to produce native 4k, without concessions? A significant proportion of xbone games are sub 1080p.

There is literally no such thing as "without concessions" when it comes to computer graphics. I detailed in an earlier post how quite a lot of XB1X games would be 900p for reasons that wouldn't necessarily rule out native 4K on XB1. Keep in mind also, that the XB1X isn't exactly 4x more powerful than the XB1 (more like 4.6x), so it would realistically be capable of hitting 4K on a number of games that couldn't reach 1080p on XB1.

And yes, Sony could legitimately have called their console "True 4K", and supplied a definition for the term the details why. For example, even with a checkerboarded resolution, the final rendered output would be 3840x216, as opposed to say an Xbox One S that merely upscales the image to that resolution.

And I can assure you, I'm not taking any of your comments personally. It's not as if we've been sitting here hurling insults at each other.

I take DF as meaning some effects will have to remain sub 4K, as a tradeoff.

Not necessarily. If you go by various PC benchmarks for example, going from 1080p to 4K doesn't necessarily result in a consistent quartering of your framerate, Forza Motorsport 6 for example was stated to only be using ~66% of the console's performance when running at 4K without any other enhancements. It didn't spike up to 88% until they added the PC's Ultra setting on top.

 

[Md Ray]

2560x1400p!!

You need a insane pc to get it to that res

All this with only one guy doing it in his spare time too

Seems 1080p is smooth which on pc you needed a beefy pc to do

Nope, you don't need an insane or beefy PC. A GTX 970/1060 PC gets similar frame-rate as XB1X at 1440p (upscaling enabled) at settings equivalent to XB1. Same with 1080p (upscaling disabled), settings equivalent to XB1, you get 40-50fps.

 

[onanie]

There is literally no such thing as "without concessions" when it comes to computer graphics.

And yes, Sony could legitimately have called their console "True 4K", and supplied a definition for the term the details why. For example, even with a checkerboarded resolution, the final rendered output would be 3840x216, as opposed to say an Xbox One S that merely upscales the image to that resolution.

And I can assure you, I'm not taking any of your comments personally. It's not as if we've been sitting here hurling insults at each other.

Sony could just say the ps4p is True 4K, simply with the existence of native 4k games on the ps4p, even if it is less than 50% of the case. No need to even ponder the meaning of the final output resolution.

If you go by various PC benchmarks for example, going from 1080p to 4K doesn't necessarily result in a consistent quartering of your framerate

This phenomenon does not rule out CPU dependency as a more plausible explanation.

 

[Synth]

Sony could just say the ps4p is True 4K, simply with the existence of native 4k games on the ps4p, even if it is less than 50% of the case. No need to even ponder the meaning of the final output resolution.

Sure, but they didn't. You can coin whatever marketing term you want, but you still want to consider how often people will point out its absence. At some point it'll bring more negative attention than positive.

 

[onanie]

Sure, but they didn't. You can coin whatever marketing term you want, but you still want to consider how often people will point out its absence. At some point it'll bring more negative attention than positive.

That is true.