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

oh totally, but you have to agree they have stressed the "native 4k" thing pretty hard
Yeah and to an annoying extent IMO. I think they should drop the "Native 4K" talk and just reference it as 4K like Sony. I understand that this is likely their way to market their machine as the more capable box, but people to latch onto the wrong thing at times. So it may be beneficial to just stick to the most powerful console talk and stop talking about native and uncompressed pixels.
 
Wasn't that what Microsoft did with the Xbox One, not design it for the highest graphics. Althouh instead of doing so to keep the price down, they chose to shove Kinect in the box.
Man it would have been such a different outcome if they had a $349/$399 base model beneath the $499 Kinect model at launch.
you and I both know graphics/power was mostly not the reason the Xbox One had such a troubled start
 
you and I both know graphics/power was mostly not the reason the Xbox One had such a troubled start
From my experience it was a major factor that many Xbox 360 owners jumped ship to the PS4 at least here in Germany. Main reason from people that were on my friends list: spec/perf advantage.
 
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 not confusing at all. Simple indie games and PS3 ports will probably be in native 4K. New AAA games will be in native resolutions higher than 1080p, and then upscaled to 4K.

If you can't understand that, the PS4 Pro isn't intended for you, period. The "Pro" moniker is very intentional. It's targeted at the kind of people who give a rat's ass about resolution and frame rate (a very small portion of the gaming demographic), but don't want to "switch over" to PC. It's a niche product for a niche audience, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as the standard model is still supported and the games run decently on it.
 
From my experience it was a major factor that many Xbox 360 owners jumped ship to the PS4 at least here in Germany. Main reason from people that were on my friends list: spec/perf advantage.
it was certainly a factor but let's not pretend it didn't have other stuff going against it
 
From my experience it was a major factor that many Xbox 360 owners jumped ship to the PS4 at least here in Germany. Main reason from people that were on my friends list: spec/perf advantage.
The info we got suggested that price, power and MS' desire to watch you have a wank in your living room was the driving force.
 

etta

my hard graphic balls
it was certainly a factor but let's not pretend it didn't have other stuff going against it
That wasn't my point, I just found it funny to see the "Sony was honest with their intentions of not going for native 4K" when Microsoft said the same thing, "we didn't design it for the best graphics", and they got shit for that honesty.
 
I don't necessarily mean Microsoft is trying to force devs to do one thing or the other, I just mean I think people are expecting native 4k from this thing and the first 3rd party game to break that is going to be somewhat controversial
Really? I would assume a big cross-section between people who will see/know there is a difference and people who know that 3rd party games can be under 4K. Unless you mean the "other" type of concern, which you really can't do anything about.
 
Firstly, it won't be $500. It just won't

That aside, I don't think Microsoft and Sony are going for the same thing with Pro and Scorpio. My guess is, Sony is using the Pro as a holdover until they can ready up the PS5, with the Pro being more than capable enough for most people to satisfy them. I suspect Microsoft wants Scorpio to be the "base model" gateway console into their ecosystem for close to a decade.

As an example, let's take OnQ's FP32/16 theory and apply it to Scorprio as we currently know it. If it's a 6TF FP32 console, then we can assume (not know) that it would be capable of 12TF FP16 performance. In this instance, it should allow Scorprio to continue to play newer games well into the future even if it means reduced resolutions and performance. It allows Microsoft to continue to drive the cost of Scorprio down over the years and continue to sell it as a cheap option to enter the Xbox ecosystem before deciding to later upgrade to the newer system. Much like Apple kept the iPad 2 around even after the 3 and 4 were done.
Do we have any quotes that MS want Scorpio to be the base model? From everything I've read their direction is very similar to Sony's as far as refreshes go. I do agree with you that they'll likely phase out older hardware while still supporting the refreshed model. It looks like they are molding the Xbox API to support different hardware configurations.

Also there's more reason to think Scorpio will be $500 than not.

Wasn't that what Microsoft did with the Xbox One, not design it for the highest graphics. Althouh instead of doing so to keep the price down, they chose to shove Kinect in the box.
Man it would have been such a different outcome if they had a $349/$399 base model beneath the $499 Kinect model at launch.
Even if we ignore Kinect, I wouldn't be surprised if XBO hardware cost more to make than the PS4. It's a larger, more complicated, APU.
 
As an example, let's take OnQ's FP32/16 theory and apply it to Scorpio as we currently know it. ...In this instance, it should allow Scorpio to continue to play newer games well into the future even if it means reduced resolutions and performance.
It's not "OnQ's theory", it's a feature of the Polaris architecture that AMD touted. And the existence of FP16 support at increased speed does not necessarily mean FC would be easier. If the next round of hardware focuses on single-precision for technical reasons, Scorpio would require more dev work to make those games run (versus unspecialized executables).

That wasn't my point, I just found it funny to see the "Sony was honest with their intentions of not going for native 4K" when Microsoft said the same thing, "we didn't design it for the best graphics", and they got shit for that honesty.
No, they did not. They got shit for the choice they made, not for their honesty in revealing it. Just like Sony now, for their "4Kinda".
 

onQ123

Junior Member
Firstly, it won't be $500. It just won't

That aside, I don't think Microsoft and Sony are going for the same thing with Pro and Scorpio. My guess is, Sony is using the Pro as a holdover until they can ready up the PS5, with the Pro being more than capable enough for most people to satisfy them. I suspect Microsoft wants Scorpio to be the "base model" gateway console into their ecosystem for close to a decade.

As an example, let's take OnQ's FP32/16 theory and apply it to Scorprio as we currently know it. If it's a 6TF FP32 console, then we can assume (not know) that it would be capable of 12TF FP16 performance. In this instance, it should allow Scorprio to continue to play newer games well into the future even if it means reduced resolutions and performance. It allows Microsoft to continue to drive the cost of Scorprio down over the years and continue to sell it as a cheap option to enter the Xbox ecosystem before deciding to later upgrade to the newer system. Much like Apple kept the iPad 2 around even after the 3 and 4 were done.

It's not a theory it is a fact that PS4 Pro is 4.2TF FP32 / 8.4TF FP16 this is not a theory
 

onQ123

Junior Member
It's not "OnQ's theory", it's a feature of the Polaris architecture that AMD touted. And the existence of FP16 support at increased speed does not necessarily mean FC would be easier. If the next round of hardware focuses on single-precision for technical reasons, Scorpio would require more dev work to make those games run (versus unspecialized executables).


No, they did not. They got shit for the choice they made, not for their honesty in revealing it. Just like Sony now, for their "4Kinda".
Native FP16 support is a part of Polaris but the double rate FP16 is a part of Vega but Sony has the feature in the PS4 Pro before it comes out on a AMD standalone GPU.
 
That wasn't my point, I just found it funny to see the "Sony was honest with their intentions of not going for native 4K" when Microsoft said the same thing, "we didn't design it for the best graphics", and they got shit for that honesty.
It's not the same thing at all. The Pro has the best graphics you can get this year in a $400 box.

MS were selling a weak console in 2013 for $500 and going as far as to send employees to this very website to lie about it being underpowered compared to the $400 PS4.
 
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.
Overshadowed in what regard? COD is not the best looking title out there, but it looks good nonetheless and runs at 60fps, It sells gajillions. MGS5 is one of the best rated TPS this gen, it looks good with some of the best lighting I've seen in an openworld game and surely it runs at 60fps. It sold well too.

In any case, your game need not look like pong to run it at 60fps, that's a myth. Look at DOOM 2016, that's surely a nice looking FPS and it runs at 60fps with some of the best effects and animation I've seen in an fps to date.
 
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.
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.
Sorry, I had a brain fart. 8tf as a baseline is probably correct in fairness.
 
Overshadowed in what regard? COD is not the best looking title out there, but it looks good nonetheless and runs at 60fps, It sells gajillions. MGS5 is one of the best rated TPS this gen, it looks good with some of the best lighting I've seen in an openworld game and surely it runs at 60fps. It sold well too.

In any case, your game need not look like pong to run it at 60fps, that's a myth. Look at DOOM 2016, that's surely a nice looking FPS and it runs at 60fps with some of the best effects and animation I've seen in an fps to date.
Did you read my comment you quoted? You talked about the likelihood of a 120fps non-VR game launching.

Even the examples you listed are the exception rather than the norm. There are still far more games launching at 30fps for a reason.
 
That wasn't my point, I just found it funny to see the "Sony was honest with their intentions of not going for native 4K" when Microsoft said the same thing, "we didn't design it for the best graphics", and they got shit for that honesty.
"Honesty"....

MS started with their shitshow "honesty" way before launch : deal with it
 
とはいえ、2Kから4Kになると、画素数の総量は8倍になり、描画のためのメモリーがより必要になるのは事実だ。
Now I'm not a techie or anything, but going from 2k to 4k is a 4X pixel count increase, no? They're saying 8 times in this article, lol.
 
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.
120fps with foveated rendering + eye tracking is the next step on the VR path. Wider fov, thinner panels possibly with moving variable pixel density so that the render your eyes look at is 8k, area around it 4K and the rest 1080p.

I wouldn't be surprised if a significant part of the approach to designing PS5 will be based around the best ways to hit a high resolution target at super high frame rates using a variety of the kind of rendering & processing tricks Cerny has been talking about. For example, when rendering in VR there is a substantial amount of unused screen area that still needs to be rendered. This is where using FP16 could be used since accuracy on completely unseen output isn't as important.
 
"Honesty"....

MS started with their shitshow "honesty" way before launch : deal with it
Lmao, you always seem one response away from losing your shit behind these consoles. MS did catch flack for saying they "didn't target the highest graphics" and saying their strategy was to have a "balanced" console. It actually happened. Their shit was under powered and they came out and said it and got shitted on. Sure, it was wrapped up with a lot of other dumb shit that they were doing, but it did happen.
 

etta

my hard graphic balls
Lmao, you always seem one response away from losing your shit behind these consoles. MS did catch flack for saying they "didn't target the highest graphics" and saying their strategy was to have a "balanced" console. It actually happened. Their shit was under powered and they came out and said it and got shitted on. Sure, it was wrapped up with a lot of other dumb shit that they were doing, but it did happen.
Yea, some people seem very touchy about certain Scorpio-related topics.
 
Sorry wasn't clear. I meant the over a year early announcement for Scorpio as the counteract.
I could have sworn we had the iterative XB1 rumor thread before the Neo rumor thread. I honestly think they both wanted to do upgraded but had different priorities. Sony knew they had the market and figured it was best to offer a compromise. They were able to deliver that a lot quicker at the price they knew they wanted. MS wanted something a bit more powerful and decided to wait. But I agree with you that MS wouldn't have announced so early had Sony not pulled the trigger. Now we have Sony with a year head start and who knows if the difference between Pro and Scorpio will even matter to the masses. MS would be wise to constantly push that "most powerful console ever" line because otherwise the market has already swung PS4s way and being a year late isn't going to do them any favors.

Previous post:
I remember there was a big thread where it was rumored that MS was making an iterative console and people lost their shit. Saying it was a bad idea and that MS was killing the console generation as we knew it. Then people started dropping rumors about the Pro and the hysteria died down a lot. That was a funny time. But even before all of that a Sony exec made a comment about what it would be like to have a souped up PS4 so I really don't think either company was shook by the other.
So I really think they were just on their own path. That long gen was nice for console numbers and software but I think they wanted to have a meaningful reason for people to pick up a new box while also giving gamers a reason to stick around for more than 5 years.
 
this ps4 pro had no business coming out this early. the whole thing looks dumb.
Nah ps4 pro comes at a strategically good time and price. I dont think sony can do it any better.

Just remember ps4 pro is not a stop gap or mid gen system. It is still a ps4 family , it gives gamers another option than just the slim model.
 

onQ123

Junior Member
this ps4 pro had no business coming out this early. the whole thing looks dumb.
It came out at the perfect time actually because the move from 28nm to 14/16nm happened this year so why not benefit from this & get longer life out of your platform? what people don't seem to get is that PS4 Pro is just another route from the usual slim models but instead of making the console smaller & cheaper they added on to it because of 4K.
 
Man I feel that 4k is such a waste. Xbox is already pushing for native 4k games and I would love to have seen what could have been done with all that power at 1080p.
 
this ps4 pro had no business coming out this early. the whole thing looks dumb.
That's not exactly a compelling argument. Uptake for 4K displays is on the rise with this holiday season being a likely breakthrough period. Why not ship a console that is capable of improved visuals with the new display technology? It's pretty much a given.

Your logic in saying that it has no business coming out this early could just as easily be applied to the Xbox 360. Games weren't delivered in native 1080p, so it shouldn't exist? Nonsense. Sony is setting expectations reasonably here: the current price/performance sweet spot occupied by consoles isn't going to use brute-force native rendering to deliver 4K content with the most attractive balance of per-pixel rendering sophistication and raw resolution. Even next year is likely a little premature to expect otherwise.

8TF single-precision and sufficient memory bandwidth to match sounds like a reasonable goal for getting native 4K from most titles, and may even be a little low as we expect more and more sophistication in rendering.
 
It's not the same. We will just get smoother framerates at 1080p other than that there won't be much difference. If a new gen started and 4k didn't exist it would give developers the power to whatever they wanted.
It depends on the game. Rise of the Tomb Raider will have a 1080p mode that will basically turn the game to the highest settings of the PC version. These settings will be turned down in the 4K mode.

1080p on other games at the very least will have a massive boost to image quality, aliasing will hopefully become largely something of the past. Other games will ramp up effects. If a game already has a PC version with higher settings and effects than a base PS4 can handle it should be relatively trivial to add them into the Pro build.
 

onQ123

Junior Member
Why is PS4 Pro only 4.2 TF then Cerny! Why!






I'll buy it anyways :)
Because it's a PS4 Pro


Seriously how did people go from thinking this console would only be for 4K movies & upscaling PS4 games to 4K to thinking that some native 4K games & some efficient 4K rendered games are not good enough?
 
I'm by no means a computer expert but I'm still confused why people think Microsoft won't be able to hit native 4k on the Scorpio.

Most games will probably Target 30 frames and if not all they have to do is dial back settings to hit that native 4K. Being able to Target one single setup should help developers hit that 4K magic number a lot easier.

I was able to play max Payne 3 in 4k at 30 fps pretty easy on a 7870. Scorpio will be much more powerful than that.

Heck last of us will support native 4k on pro right?
 
I'm by no means a computer expert but I'm still confused why people think Microsoft won't be able to hit native 4k on the Scorpio.

Most games will probably Target 30 frames and if not all they have to do is dial back settings to hit that native 4K. Being able to Target one single setup should help developers hit that 4K magic number a lot easier.

I was able to play max Payne 3 in 4k at 30 fps pretty easy on a 7870. Scorpio will be much more powerful than that.

Heck last of us will support native 4k on pro right?
PS4 Pro will be hitting native 4K on quite a few games, so Scorpio should have little trouble on a few more.
 
It's weird to me that people have latched on to his claim about teraflops.

"users will be able to discern the difference between games on PS4 and the improved versions on PS4 pro at a glance."

To me, that seems like the more glaring and dubious statement. Does anyone really think that differences will be discernible at a glance, for the experienced user?