Mark Cerny thinks 8TF is the minimum for native 4K gaming

I disagree a GTX 980ti is not even 6 tflops and it does 4K gaming for me ofcourse not on ultra max settings but it does it.
It barely does on high settings though, and the fps would be all over the place in most titles. Those with poor optimization would be a shit show as well. Why would I play at 4K on a mix of medium/high settings? Just doesn't make sense. I'm aware 4K may allow you to relax AA settings, etc, but it still doesn't seem worth it.

I have a GTX 1080 and I've been playing at 1440p/Ultra in most titles, and given that experience I'm always quite surprised when people act like 4K is easy to achieve, specifically without making other compromises (frame rate especially). I've played most of the AAA's on PC this year, and 1440p seems to be the best of all worlds (I'm using a PG279Q monitor).

I guess opinions will vary, but I'm not spending as much as I have to play shit at sub 60fps, or even sub 30fps, or having to dial down draw distances a lot, etc.
 
The PS5 absolutely will cater to 4k 60fps at minimum, 4k 120fps will be common on many titles and 8k 30fps is something you will see on a morsel of titles.

The whole point of the Pro is to push 4k screen production and 4k content, so when the PS5 launches in a few years, pretty much everybody will be ready to take advantage of it with their 4k screens. In the meantime, PS4 is offering many native 4k games, dynamic 4k, close to 4k resolutions and checkerboarding 1800p etc....The fact that they can do all of that with HDR is a really impressive foray into UHD for consoles and I think current 4k screen owners will be impressed by the detail and clarity of their games through these rendering methods.

Lets put this in perspective..... I've had my 1080p screen for close to a decade, I bought it for the PS3, but the PS3 was predominantly 720p games and below. My 1080p screen gets maximum use from my PS4 since the majority of titles are 1080p, only from 2013, and yes, it's always a bummer when I see a 900p title on there, but that's not the worse we still have consoles like the XB1 from 2013 where common resolutions are 720p and 900p.......


I look at the Pro and it's only an iteration of the PS4 but look at the difference, I will be able to play so many 4k native games on it and so many games at resolutions that will be close like 3680x2070, 3520x1980 etc... and of course 1800p checkerboarded with HDR...Even geometry rendered 4k will be a big boost in image clarity over the resolutions we're seeing now...


So if you have to compare my 1080p experience on consoles. Pro is already delivering 4k native (1080p from 2013 consoles) and 1800p (900p from 2013 consoles) and resolutions even higher than 1800p. That's a far cry from what happened with my 1080p screen when I first purchased it years ago, I didn't have such native or close to native games to enjoy on the system 8-9 years back then. I only started enjoying consistent 1080p or even 900p content on it just 3 years ago, but with the Pro, I will be doing much better than that on day one with a 4k screen. So I believe the incentive to buy a 4k screen for the Pro is even greater than it was to purchase a 1080p screen for the PS3, and that's saying something, because the PS4.Pro is not the PS5, it's only a stopgap to usher in UHD gaming and content.
I'll call you Jumpman cause you jumping to conclusions man. 8k is far from standard. Ditto 120hz at 4k native for consoles.
 
I'll call you Jumpman cause you jumping to conclusions man. 8k is far from standard. Ditto 120hz at 4k native for consoles.
4k's universal benefits are questionable at best. Yes it makes a difference on certain TV sizes within certain viewing distances. But do you think industry would push for 120fps or 8K to sell new TV's? Just like they didn't push for 1080p 120fps native, they will ignore native 120fps.
 
Yeah I mean this isn't even a question. He must have meant 4K60, possibly he even said that and DS missed it in the translation.

Otherwise it's some pretty lame marketing FUD.
It's definitely Marketing FUD. Thinking about it more though, he probably intentionally made this statement so people think about Scorpio, but what he perhaps truly means is, to do current PS4 games in 4K, with perhaps slightly improved visuals, and 4K textures, would require an 8TF GPU. But even then, this statement still doesn't make sense, since there are a ton of high-end 3rd party games that run incredibly smooth at 4K with a 6 TF GPU on PC.

Also, I doubt he means 60FPS, unless he is referring to 4K 60fps with dialed back settings. Even the GTX 1080 and the Pascal Titan X have trouble hitting 60fps on current titles, even with dialed back settings, and those are 8.8 and 11 TF cards.
 
4k's universal benefits are questionable at best. Yes it makes a difference on certain TV sizes within certain viewing distances. But do you think industry would push for 120fps or 8K to sell new TV's? Just like they didn't push for 1080p 120fps native, they will ignore native 120fps.
8k will exist, but unless ps5 comes out in 2030, it won't be powerful enough. Linus tried it, and two brand new titans played CSGO very choppy. Also 120fps tvs are somewhat common.
 
Yeah I could have worded that better, my meaning was DS was spreading it as FUD if anything and it's more likely that Cerny said 4K60 or the interview was mistranslated.

I don't doubt that Cerny knows exponetially more about technical specs than anyone here, but the fact is 4K30 is plenty possible with less than 8TF as is easily evidenced with cards on the market today.
Of course it's possible. It's even coming to PS4Pro for a few games like TLOU.
 
It barely does on high settings though, and the fps would be all over the place in most titles. Those with poor optimization would be a shit show as well. Why would I play at 4K on a mix of medium/high settings? Just doesn't make sense. I'm aware 4K may allow you to relax AA settings, etc, but it still doesn't seem worth it.

I have a GTX 1080 and I've been playing at 1440p/Ultra in most titles, and given that experience I'm always quite surprised when people act like 4K is easy to achieve, specifically without making other compromises (frame rate especially). I've played most of the AAA's on PC this year, and 1440p seems to be the best of all worlds (I'm using a PG279Q monitor).

I guess opinions will vary, but I'm not spending as much as I have to play shit at sub 60fps, or even sub 30fps, or having to dial down draw distances a lot, etc.
I have had my 980ti for a year or so now and I play at 1440p with everything maxed too. Of most new games I could play most maxed at 4k above 30fps, only Alien Isolation has been ok at 60fps but at 2k there was only Quantum Break and AC Unity where I had to drop res to maintain 60fps. For me, playing on a 4K TV, until the power is there to hit 4K at 60fps there is no advantage to me of a new card like the 1080, at 60fps, and it seems like the Titan X and forthcoming 1080ti are still going to struggle to deliver that. Very happy at 2K though.
 
In my opinion, Cerny just admitted that the PS4 Pro is a console that is releasing too soon which is what I've been saying all along. My stance has been that Sony should just wait until native 4K/60 FPS is affordable for the console market. Releasing the Pro this holiday season just doesn't make a lot of sense especially when not many people have 4K TVs right now. Sony would have just been better off riding the success of the PS4 until 2018 when they can release a PS5 that would outperform the Scorpio. I don't get why Sony is so anxious to release this new hardware when both the technology and consumer market aren't ready for it.
 
Sorry but I can't agree with this at all. If one console is native while the other is sub-native, I think it's good that we know and not gloss over it as if it suddenly doesn't matter.
So one console will have all their games in native 4k and at the same settings?

Can you not understand the difference between comparing two products launching at the same time with the more expensive one performing worse and two products launching a year apart and having different prices.

And why are we pretending "friends list", "controllers" and "xbox live" weren't frequent guest in DF threads.
 
Good job advertising your 4k console.
This post.

Why do I feel like I'm the only person that actually listened during the PS4 Pro meeting?

It isn't a "Native 4k gaming console", it is an upgraded PS4 that is more 4k friendly. They even admitted it will be close to 4k (not native) in most cases and would utilize hardware and programming techniques to bridge the gap even more. Native 4k games will be the anomaly, mostly remasters and indie games.

an uneducated consumer is uneducated.
 
Games at their current console settings would be fine at 4k/30 at 6-7TF.

If you want current PC Ultra/Very High settings on console at 4k/30...yes, you need 8TF+
 
Not only do I think the Scorpio will be $500, I think $500 is just the low end of a possible price. A NeoGaf leak said that Sony was considering a better CPU to go along with the PS4 Pro Spec bump and just that increase over current Pro capability increased the price to $500. Scorpio is far more than a CPU increase over the PS4 Pro.



Edit:
Scorpio has been advertised with a specific set of specs and performance target. The main variable left remaining is price. The era of highly subsidized consoles is over. That is especially true of high end premium models. High end models are for consumers for who price is no object, and typically is where higher margins are earned. There is simply no way Microsoft is going to subsidize Scorpio more than the Slim. Given this, Microsoft is going to build the Scorpio to spec, and the price is going to be whatever the bill of materials dictate the price to be.
There's never been a high end console variant in the market so we have no idea how their pricing structure plays out. All I did is assume that because of the relationship to the One and given the crap they got over 499 (regardless of what you got for that) they will want to stay away from that price. The only way I can see a 499 or up price is if they do what they have done with the One S (500G 399, 1TB 449, 2TB 499, etc.). Other than that no way they will advertise the base Scorpio at 499 much less 599 or higher.
 
8TF is too low. Titan X Pascal is 11 TFLOPS and still not a single card 4K solution.
Agreed, if you care about frame rate.

I wish more people had the chance to try playing on a high end PC (Titan XP / 1080), because I think it would make more people question the marketing by Sony and Microsoft. I love PC, and I still think consoles are a great deal for a lot of people (I've owned the last few console gens), but I have a hard time believing that 4K is going to be viable so soon at console price points. Personally I never want to buy hardware that is going to struggle right out of the box.

Edit:

That's why he said 8TF is the minimum.
Lol, wow. He should see if Hello Games still needs PR staff. "It's a 4K screen and the game is technically running, so let's call this the 'minimum spec'."
 
Also 120fps tvs are somewhat common.
There is 120fps TVs?

I mean, actual TV that accepts 120fps input, not TVs that interpolate frames to produce 120fps from 60fps signals?


Edit: just re-read this part of the discussion, my question doesn't matter... I have no doubt they used 120Hz to market new TVs even if the real benefits aren't obvious. If they can't find something better than 8k, I have no doubt that we'll get 8k, just to tell us they're improving their sets. But I think HDR will be the next big marketing push (and its benefits are far more obvious)
 
The PS5 absolutely will cater to 4k 60fps at minimum, 4k 120fps will be common on many titles and 8k 30fps is something you will see on a morsel of titles.

The whole point of the Pro is to push 4k screen production and 4k content, so when the PS5 launches in a few years, pretty much everybody will be ready to take advantage of it with their 4k screens. In the meantime, PS4 is offering many native 4k games, dynamic 4k, close to 4k resolutions and checkerboarding 1800p etc....The fact that they can do all of that with HDR is a really impressive foray into UHD for consoles and I think current 4k screen owners will be impressed by the detail and clarity of their games through these rendering methods.

Lets put this in perspective..... I've had my 1080p screen for close to a decade, I bought it for the PS3, but the PS3 was predominantly 720p games and below. My 1080p screen gets maximum use from my PS4 since the majority of titles are 1080p, only from 2013, and yes, it's always a bummer when I see a 900p title on there, but that's not the worse we still have consoles like the XB1 from 2013 where common resolutions are 720p and 900p.......


I look at the Pro and it's only an iteration of the PS4 but look at the difference, I will be able to play so many 4k native games on it and so many games at resolutions that will be close like 3680x2070, 3520x1980 etc... and of course 1800p checkerboarded with HDR...Even geometry rendered 4k will be a big boost in image clarity over the resolutions we're seeing now...


So if you have to compare my 1080p experience on consoles. Pro is already delivering 4k native (1080p from 2013 consoles) and 1800p (900p from 2013 consoles) and resolutions even higher than 1800p. That's a far cry from what happened with my 1080p screen when I first purchased it years ago, I didn't have such native or close to native games to enjoy on the system 8-9 years back then. I only started enjoying consistent 1080p or even 900p content on it just 3 years ago, but with the Pro, I will be doing much better than that on day one with a 4k screen. So I believe the incentive to buy a 4k screen for the Pro is even greater than it was to purchase a 1080p screen for the PS3, and that's saying something, because the PS4.Pro is not the PS5, it's only a stopgap to usher in UHD gaming and content.
You're insane. Will continue to be majority 30fps with a large focus on higher IQ as it has always been.

There aren't even enough native 120hz TVs AND there are still people that think they can't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps. What fucking universe do you live on?
 
It barely does on high settings though, and the fps would be all over the place in most titles. Those with poor optimization would be a shit show as well. Why would I play at 4K on a mix of medium/high settings? Just doesn't make sense. I'm aware 4K may allow you to relax AA settings, etc, but it still doesn't seem worth it.

I have a GTX 1080 and I've been playing at 1440p/Ultra in most titles, and given that experience I'm always quite surprised when people act like 4K is easy to achieve, specifically without making other compromises (frame rate especially). I've played most of the AAA's on PC this year, and 1440p seems to be the best of all worlds (I'm using a PG279Q monitor).

I guess opinions will vary, but I'm not spending as much as I have to play shit at sub 60fps, or even sub 30fps, or having to dial down draw distances a lot, etc.
Remember that many of the games on console run at medium or maybe high settings at 30fps. It's quite easy to match console settings and frame rates at 4K on a ~6TF PC.

So one console will have all their games in native 4k and at the same settings?

Can you not understand the difference between comparing two products launching at the same time with the more expensive one performing worse and two products launching a year apart and having different prices.

And why are we pretending "friends list", "controllers" and "xbox live" weren't frequent guest in DF threads.
If there are two competing consoles, I think we should know what they are offering in terms of performance. Of course aspects like price and release dates will be kept in consideration but that's no reason to ignore the facts.

I also don't think it's wise to harp on what people used to say in DF threads. I consider friends and controllers legit selling points for any console. However what used to be more frequent was how they were labeled as Xbox fanboys and all that talk pretty much disappeared when the PS4 has provided better versions more often than not. Controller preference and friends are legit, name calling because people aren't happy with analysis results is the complete opposite.
 
I think Cerny is very likely to end up correct, and that the arguments that the PS4 Pro upscaled 4K 'isn't as good as native 4K' are a bit pointless. We will find that the Scopio will not run most games at native 4K resolution and 30fps without any upscaling.

What I think came as a surprise to most is how clever and effective the PS4 Pro scaling solution ended up to be. They are getting a lot of mileage out of hardware that is only moderately more powerful. I can't wait to see more details from DF etc in the coming weeks.

That said, the Scorpio is going to great, and Xbox players should be excited. It's going to be a great revision of the Xbox. It's a bummer to have to wait another year+.
 
A stock 1070 has a clock speed of1683MHz with GPU boost is just under 6.5TF and that's before it throttles. If you do decently in the silicon lottery you can overclock it to around or a bit over 2GHz and get close. To actually reach 8TF you need to be a silicon lottery jackpot winner you have to achieve 2.1GHz after GPU boost settles.

Besides that, a 1070 can do okay at 4K depending on the game but for something like, the Witcher 3 you have to run it medium settings to reach 4K at a decently solid 30FPS, other newer titles can probably do it too with sacrifices and might just be me but that doesn't seem worth it. We're still a good ways away from 4K without some significant compromises at that level.

But again, a 6TF NVIDIA GPU doesn't mean a 6TF AMD GPU would be able to achieve the same.
Most cards you buy today are OC'd anyway and there's always room for a bit more legroom to push it a bit more, that's why I said about 8TF. Obviously, if I had to mention the GTX1080 the price would go even higher which solidifies my point even more. The 1070's and 1080's are within the 8TF ballpark give or take, but look at how pricey they are currently.

PHOENIXZERO said:
I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to that than it just being retained in the memory. The only way we'll ever reach the point of no loading times and having enough RAM to fit an entire modern AAA budget sort of game into it is if games stop growing which they probably won't. Then again, there are other factors in play than just RAM amount. I think the odds are better that we get SSDs as standard with extremely fast read speeds to stream data quicker than we are to come to a situation any time remotely soon to where that is feasible and by remotely soon I mean before we're at an age where we have to worry about control of out bodily functions.
Good points, and I think we agree and you strengthen my point. However one thing is universal, memory is never ever too much. People may think they have enough because of game assets now, but things evolve. Before you had people satisfied with 512x,1024x, 2048x textures but now we are entering into 4k textures territory and even 8k textures will be a thing soon.

You look at Gears and TR, they're both using 4k textures, I'm pretty sure the next Mordor will have ridiculous texture resolution when it comes out too. Not only that, but memory bandwidth is also essential as many games are using lots of high resolution effects/alpha in their games. The days of half res alpha or quarter rez alpha and particles/volume effects have faded and such effects are now being rendered at full/high rez in current games.


There's no doubt that seamless worlds will be a huge thing for the next gen consoles. I look at some titles like Arkham and UC4 and I'm amazed by the streaming tech, and there's definitely a place for SSD's, but imagine when that is loaded into lots of fast memory to keep detail consistent and resident in the game world. Pop-in and dynamic lod is something that has to go. I think IQ (REZ, AA, AF, Textures) will be just fine next gen, but at least 48-64 GB's of memory will be ideal to push 4k or even 8k content seamlessly in all games come late 2019/2020.

Right now when devs put in the effort (which is lots of effort btw), you get a nice game with no loadtimes and minimal to no visible pop-in, but I'd like that for all games at default. So we'd see less pop-in and lod changes/adaptive detail etc... than we see in games like Battlefront, Unity, Witcher 3 etc....
 
The Pro is such a strange console. It's not a leap, it's just a skip. Casuals will no doubt buy the cheapest model. I wonder how many "gotta have the latest and greatest" people there will be in the console world.
 
This post.

Why do I feel like I'm the only person that actually listened during the PS4 Pro meeting?

It isn't a "Native 4k gaming console", it is an upgraded PS4 that is more 4k friendly. They even admitted it will be close to 4k (not native) in most cases and would utilize hardware and programming techniques to bridge the gap even more. Native 4k games will be the anomaly, mostly remasters and indie games.

an uneducated consumer is uneducated.
I've known it can't play games at native 4k since the product was announced. Still, I think the fact that it's not native 4K makes the Pro pointless. They should've held off on pushing 4k in any capacity 'til next gen. Outside of the hardcore gaming bubble, there's going to be a lot of confusion as to weather or not the Pro can do "true 4K" and Cerny's statement is not helping.
 
And if the Pro could only do 7tf he'd claim that is the minimum.
hmm? The Pro doesn’t even get anywhere close to 8TF? what are you talking about mate?

Also, something as low as 5% of current PS4 owners can be a target for both PSVR & Pro. Adding a good 5 million new hardware sales is good money. I don’t think Sony expects this thing to do 25 million.
 
And if the Pro could only do 7tf he'd claim that is the minimum.
Oh come on. He shared his honest opinion and I don't think there is anything more than that.

We can do console settings and frame rates at 4K with less than 8TF but I imagine he's considering improvements in other areas beyond just resolution.
 
8k will exist, but unless ps5 comes out in 2030, it won't be powerful enough. Linus tried it, and two brand new titans played CSGO very choppy. Also 120fps tvs are somewhat common.
Did he max out the GPU usage or was it just limited because of CPU? CSGO is very CPU dependent for framerate.
 
These reconstruction techniques are a godsend. Having to do native 4k would cripple next gen. But now at last we have a weapon against the resolution mongers and their perverse cravings.
 
I'll call you Jumpman cause you jumping to conclusions man. 8k is far from standard. Ditto 120hz at 4k native for consoles.
These consoles are not only about 2D TV's. A PS5 will also cater to VR......120Hz/240Hz refresh.

I also don't see what all the fuss is about, standards will change in the future. Perhaps if developers start making 120Hz as a benchmark for games, perhaps all games will start to be 60HZ minimum instead. That will be a nice step forward and I think future GPU's will have enough grunt to make that happen. Cpu's on the next gen consoles will be very decent so there won't be an issue in that regard.

You're insane. Will continue to be majority 30fps with a large focus on higher IQ as it has always been.

There aren't even enough native 120hz TVs AND there are still people that think they can't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps. What fucking universe do you live on?
If I had to look at the N64 (with it's 20fps games) or PS1 to determine how many 60fps games I would have played on the PS2, I would have been as sceptical as you are too.

I'm pretty sure 30fps games will still be a thing next gen, as in any gen, but the faster we bring in 120HZ as a standard to shoot for, the easier it will make 60fps a minimum standard. So I think that will be a good goal for the PS5 and XB2.0.....that mostly eradicates all these witcher 3 and just cause 3 scenarios. In any case, VR is also a platform that could benefit immensely from 120Hz, so let's not pretend it doesn't exist or it's some far-fetched notion. The next consoles will be powering VR, and yes, I can also see a push for 120Hz in non-vr games too.
 
I've known it can't play games at native 4k since the product was announced. Still, I think the fact that it's not native 4K makes the Pro pointless. They should've held off on pushing 4k in any capacity 'til next gen. Outside of the hardcore gaming bubble, there's going to be a lot of confusion as to weather or not the Pro can do "true 4K" and Cerny's statement is not helping.
far from pointless, it will make PSVR better and make every new game run 1080p @60/30 this gen (older games when patched). the 4k stuff is a bonus for those that have 4k TVs (or buy them now).

True native 4k PS5 will be 3 years from now. NO WAY they could survive until then with just PS4 OG on the market, especially with Scorpio next year AND PSVR just hitting market.
 
These consoles are not only about 2D TV's. A PS5 will also cater to VR......120Hz/240Hz refresh.

I also don't see what all the fuss is about, standards will change in the future. Perhaps if developers start making 120Hz as a benchmark for games, perhaps all games will start to be 60HZ minimum instead. That will be a nice step forward and I think future GPU's will have enough grunt to make that happen. Cpu's on the next gen consoles will be very decent so there won't be an issue in that regard.

If I had to look at the N64 (with it's 20fps games) or PS1 to determine how many 60fps games I would have played on the PS2, I would have been as sceptical as you are too.

I'm pretty sure 30fps games will still be a thing next gen, as in any gen, but the faster we bring in 120HZ as a standard to shoot for, the easier it will make 60fps a minimum standard. So I think that will be a good goal for the PS5 and XB2.0.....that mostly eradicates all these witcher 3 and just cause 3 scenarios. In any case, VR is also a platform that could benefit immensely from 120Hz, so let's not pretend it doesn't exist or it's some far-fetched notion. The next consoles will be powering VR, and yes, I can also see a push for 120Hz in non-vr games too.
Not going to happen.

If you try to focus on 120fps in a non-vr game, you'll be overshadowed by the much better looking game at 60fps or 30fps.
 
There's never been a high end console variant in the market so we have no idea how their pricing structure plays out. All I did is assume that because of the relationship to the One and given the crap they got over 499 (regardless of what you got for that) they will want to stay away from that price. The only way I can see a 499 or up price is if they do what they have done with the One S (500G 399, 1TB 449, 2TB 499, etc.). Other than that no way they will advertise the base Scorpio at 499 much less 599 or higher.
We have most definitely had high end premium consoles. The only difference was that they were only differentiated by hard drive size. Now we are also getting CPU and/or GPU improvements.

There is no basis for your relationship between Scorpio and the One. You just stated it as a fact. The closest relationship we have to the Scorpio is the PS4 Pro. As I quoted, it was priced at $500 with its current specs + improved CPU. That's below what the specs of Scorpio is so we know that Scorpio is going to cost more than that.

Everything you've said is just your HOPE that Microsoft with subsidize the price down. That doesn't make sense because consoles aren't highly subsidized this gen and even if they were, nobody subsidizes their high end product. If you are going to subsidize a product, you do it to your low end because it is targeted towards the people who are most price sensitive. After all, that's why you have a low end in the first place.

Edit:
I take that back a bit. If anything, Microsoft will subsidize Scorpio down to $500.

Edit x2:

For a hint to Microsoft's thoughts on pricing, the 2TB Xbox One S Gears of War is going for $450 right now. How much more hardware do you think the Scorpio will have over that? And you somehow think Scorpio will sell for $50 less? Inconceivable!
 
far from pointless, it will make PSVR better and make every new game run 1080p @60/30 this gen (older games when patched). the 4k stuff is a bonus for those that have 4k TVs (or buy them now).

True native 4k PS5 will be 3 years from now. NO WAY they could survive until then with just PS4 OG on the market, especially with Scorpio next year AND PSVR just hitting market.
That'd be nice except that PSVR also works (rather well) on the base PS4. In fact the PSVR launched a month before the Pro and all the games shown for it run on the base PS4 so they never really needed the Pro to sell PSVR in the first place. Not to mention almost every PS4 game runs at 1080p anyway. The true purpose of the PS4 Pro is to sell it along Sony's other 4K products; their TVs, Cameras, Smartphones, etc. and considering the Playstation is Sony's top brand, they need a 4K Playstation in order to complete that ecosystem. But considering Gaf is defending it as "not a 4K machine" I guess Sony's failing as pushing it as a 4K device.

Besides prettier games, which has never ever sold consoles ever, what exactly is to be gained from upgrading if your a current user or buying the cheaper model if your a new user.
 
8TF is too low. Titan X Pascal is 11 TFLOPS and still not a single card 4K solution.
The card doesn't do magic by itself. There are memory, CPU and a good dev who get the max power available from it.

It's not just plug the most expensive card and expect all the games suddenly became 4k 60 fps. That's not the way it work.
 
In my opinion, Cerny just admitted that the PS4 Pro is a console that is releasing too soon which is what I've been saying all along. My stance has been that Sony should just wait until native 4K/60 FPS is affordable for the console market. Releasing the Pro this holiday season just doesn't make a lot of sense especially when not many people have 4K TVs right now. Sony would have just been better off riding the success of the PS4 until 2018 when they can release a PS5 that would outperform the Scorpio. I don't get why Sony is so anxious to release this new hardware when both the technology and consumer market aren't ready for it.
That's silly. I'd rather they put this out now, then focus on 4K with their next iteration. Going crazy on hardware for a console experience experience directly tied down to much lower end hardware makes zero sense to me. They can still released a PS5 in 2-3 years with this current plan.
 
Nvidia TFLOPS != AMD TFLOPS! The GTX 980 Ti is significantly more powerful than the Scorpio will be.
Has this ever been verified? By the recent DX12 benchmarks, it appears that AMD's DX11 drivers got in the way of their hardware, not any way that FLOPs are measured differently between hardware companies.
 
That'd be nice except that PSVR also works (rather well) on the base PS4. In fact the PSVR launched a month before the Pro and all the games shown for it run on the base PS4 so they never really needed the Pro to sell PSVR in the first place. Not to mention almost every PS4 game runs at 1080p anyway. The true purpose of the PS4 Pro is to sell it along Sony's other 4K products; their TVs, Cameras, Smartphones, etc. and considering the Playstation is Sony's top brand, they need a 4K Playstation in order to complete that ecosystem. But considering Gaf is defending it as "not a 4K machine" I guess Sony's failing as pushing it as a 4K device.

Besides prettier games, which has never ever sold consoles ever, what exactly is to be gained from upgrading if your a current user or buying the cheaper model if your a new user.

no doubt Sony Corp has their hand on this thing, so what you are saying about having a "4k" PlayStation to push their products is true and I'm sure lead to some this.

The rest about there being nothing to gain from PS4 Pro, I couldn't disagree more. If you want a crisper/better PSVR experience in the headset you buy a PS4 Pro. If you want a crisper, more detailed 1080p / 4k HDR TV experience with current and upcoming PS4 titles, you get a PS4 Pro. If you don't care about either of those then don't buy it. Just wait another 3 years and get PS5.

I am extremely excited for PS4 Pro, mainly for the PSVR upgrades and my eventual 4k HDR TV purchase but I understand how not everyone will feel that way. If you're a PS gamer You'll either ugrade every 3 years or every 6 years depending on your individual tastes but there is nothing wrong with having a product available every 3 years.

I buy a new phone every 3 years or so, but I am not mad at companies or at people who upgrade every year because they want an upgraded model.

I guess I just don't understand your mentality around the existence of PS4 Pro being a bad thing for gamers.
 
I've known it can't play games at native 4k since the product was announced. Still, I think the fact that it's not native 4K makes the Pro pointless. They should've held off on pushing 4k in any capacity 'til next gen. Outside of the hardcore gaming bubble, there's going to be a lot of confusion as to weather or not the Pro can do "true 4K" and Cerny's statement is not helping.
It's been stated multiple times what it can do. Folks are being suspiciously ignorant if they're on gaf and don't know what it offers. In regards to casuals(and I don't mean to be crass), they're too clueless to really question any of it. It's why cameras were marketed as having higher megapixels even though most people didn't need it, why resolution is such a big deal in regards to TVs and any other marketing buzzwords. That subset of people were never technical enough to understand what any of it means to begin with. You tell them it's going to look better and you've convinced the bulk of them.
 
Being honest? Terrible look for Sony
why?

In my opinion, Cerny just admitted that the PS4 Pro is a console that is releasing too soon which is what I've been saying all along. My stance has been that Sony should just wait until native 4K/60 FPS is affordable for the console market. Releasing the Pro this holiday season just doesn't make a lot of sense especially when not many people have 4K TVs right now. Sony would have just been better off riding the success of the PS4 until 2018 when they can release a PS5 that would outperform the Scorpio. I don't get why Sony is so anxious to release this new hardware when both the technology and consumer market aren't ready for it.
Because all it is, is an upgraded PS4...it's not a new generation of console, just an upgraded PS4...games will look better, it will run games better than the normal PS4, and it will output games and media in 4k...

It's not meant to be a new generation, or compete with 1080's or Titans on the PC front...
 
It's been stated multiple times what it can do. Folks are being suspiciously ignorant if they're on gaf and don't know what it offers. In regards to casuals(and I don't mean to be crass), they're too clueless to really question any of it. It's why cameras were marketed as having higher megapixels even though most people didn't need it, why resolution is such a big deal in regards to TVs and any other marketing buzzwords. That subset of people were never technical enough to understand what any of it means to begin with. You tell them it's going to look better and you've convinced the bulk of them.
Casual gamers won't spend extra money on something they don't see the benefit of. The fact that they haven't yet jumped into the current-gen proves that they are price conscious. If they don't see a lot of difference between the base and pro PS4 then they will choose the cheaper option.

why?
Because all it is, is an upgraded PS4...it's not a new generation of console, just an upgraded PS4...games will look better, it will run games better than the normal PS4, and it will output games and media in 4k...

It's not meant to be a new generation, or compete with 1080's or Titans on the PC front...
I think the PS4 Pro will flop because many people don't see the point of it. It can't do native 4K on most games, it doesn't have a 4K Bluray drive, and it won't have any exclusive games or features. It just doesn't make sense to me why Sony would choose to fragment their platform this way. I'd be surprised if we see Sony pull the same stunt with the PS5.
 
Lastword living in cloud cuckoo land, ex Mr X media employee Luvofthagame getting all confused with PR shenanigans, and someone wishing cancer upon themselves! Ladies and Gentlemen i give you....Neogaf.