Support NeoGAF

[Shin]

I hope MS doesn’t go for the spec race, but the content race, because I like their hardware and competition is good for all.

I hope they do because it might push Sony to do better (see system features and services), someone should push spec and 60FPS.

 

[TheMikado]

Yes. While 1080p games do look noticeably worse on 4k TVs (depending on tv size and viewing distance), difference between “true” 4k and checkerboard 4k is not noticeable without pausing the game and examining things up close.

I want 4k checkerboard at 60fps + rendering improvements, “true 4k” is not something people should ask for.

This guy gets it. Personally I’d prefer 60fps only because it would eliminate a major technical hurdle for most games to be converted to VR.

 

[TLZ]

Yes. While 1080p games do look noticeably worse on 4k TVs (depending on tv size and viewing distance), difference between “true” 4k and checkerboard 4k is not noticeable without pausing the game and examining things up close.

I want 4k checkerboard at 60fps + rendering improvements, “true 4k” is not something people should ask for.

I don't agree it's noticeably worse. I can hardly tell the difference.

 

[Leonidas]

https://www.techradar.com/news/comp...idia-who-makes-the-best-graphics-cards-699480

Nope,



Do you think games optimised by Sony wont be very parallel optimised .....LOL

This is not PC land, sony consoles are optimised differently and they get allot out of them, PC through windows is totally different. 1070 does not like DirectX12 as much, what do you think will be the parrallel coding CPU and GPU on console ?

Yes Vega 56 is slightly faster, but that's a bad comparison.

Vega 56 has over 2.5x the die area. (510mm^2 vs 314mm^2) much higher production costs.
Vega 56 launched over a year later. (8/2017 vs 6/2016)
Vega 56 consumes a lot more power(280 watts vs 160 watts).
Vega 56 runs hotter.
Vega 56 is louder.

Over 2x the die size, 1.7x higher power draw.
Is that a fair comparison?

In the past 5 years AMD has never produced a GPU of similar size and power to nVidia while also outperforming it.

 

[PocoJoe]

Yes Vega 56 is slightly faster, but that's a bad comparison.

Vega 56 has over 2.5x the die area. (510mm^2 vs 314mm^2) much higher production costs.
Vega 56 launched over a year later. (8/2017 vs 6/2016)
Vega 56 consumes a lot more power(280 watts vs 160 watts).
Vega 56 runs hotter.
Vega 56 is louder.

Over 2x the die size, 1.7x higher power draw.
Is that a fair comparison?

In the past 5 years AMD has never produced a GPU of similar size and power to nVidia while also outperforming it.

Yes it is fair comparasion.

Consumers care about performance and cost, so why would it matter if cards have different power draw or chip is bigger if they cost the same?

Those that care about power draw compare it too, but it is not fair to blame amd for power draw/size when they have different architecture and smaller budget.

It is common urban legend that nvidia flops >>>> amd flops.

Yes, on pc world they have more perf per same flops on some situations and sometimes not(like mining and some games), but it also depends of how companies calculate and mark their flop readings.

Then drivers, windows, game optimization and other things affect it as well.

We can say that formula F1 is faster than a rally car on formula track, but we cant say that because f1 is faster than rally car on formula track, it must be also faster on rally track.

Only nvidia console at the moment is switch, and it wont show any secret "nvidia flop powah".

Consoles are propably so well optimized on low level APIs that using nvidia chip with same flops = who knows if there would be any real world difference(other than maybe cooler temps and higher price)

 

[DaleinCalgary]

still happy with 1080p 60 fps thank you

 

[DeepEnigma]

If they need 7.4 Tflops for 4K30 PS4 visuals won't they need 15 Tflops for 4K60 PS4 visuals?

Last gen visuals... any native 4K60 game on PS5 will look like a PS4 game.

The next-gen console graphics leap is bottle-necked by all sorts of up-scaling and rendering techniques if the speculated 10-12 Tflops is even remotely true.

Not necessarily, the CPU handles the majority of the frame rate so if they're going to have a CPU that have 3-4x the power and the memory bandwidth that will probably be 3-4x as well, that's where the brunt of the frame rate improvements come in.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I don't agree it's noticeably worse. I can hardly tell the difference.

Agreed. The scaler (and even integer) on a Sony set for example is top of the line. 1080p looks nice and crisp. It is nothing like 720p on a 1080p set.

 

[Calibos]

Didn’t read everyone’s posts, but I am still trying to figure out what a “regular PS4” game is?

The whole thing comes off as another log to throw on the console war fire. Hot takes everywhere on the internet. “MS lied!” “Cerny was right!” Etc...

There are regular Xbox games already running at native 4K on 6 t-flops. Many games like Farcry 5 run at native 4K for most of the gameplay...on 6 t-flops. There is native 4K everywhere you look.

So I guess this “talk” was probably about posturing devs and console makers towards a target performance that makes AMD the most money in the end?

Blurred lines everywhere too BTW. If a game hits native 4K a little or most of the time, is it not a 4K title? Also is 4K in an AMD talk referencing UHD or full fat 4096 4K?

 

[Leonidas]

Yes it is fair comparasion.

Consumers care about performance and cost, so why would it matter if cards have different power draw or chip is bigger if they cost the same?

Those that care about power draw compare it too, but it is not fair to blame amd for power draw/size when they have different architecture and smaller budget.

It is common urban legend that nvidia flops >>>> amd flops.

Yes, on pc world they have more perf per same flops on some situations and sometimes not(like mining and some games), but it also depends of how companies calculate and mark their flop readings.

Then drivers, windows, game optimization and other things affect it as well.

We can say that formula F1 is faster than a rally car on formula track, but we cant say that because f1 is faster than rally car on formula track, it must be also faster on rally track.

Only nvidia console at the moment is switch, and it wont show any secret "nvidia flop powah".

Consoles are propably so well optimized on low level APIs that using nvidia chip with same flops = who knows if there would be any real world difference(other than maybe cooler temps and higher price)

I'm not getting into a discussion about consumer cost.

I'm looking at it strictly from die size and power consumption. Looking at it from my perspective(die size/power) it's not a fair comparison.

 

[aevanhoe]

I don't agree it's noticeably worse. I can hardly tell the difference.

It really depends on the screen size and viewing distance. I am very close to the TV while I game (around 1.5m) and at 55” I definitely notice the difference. Of course, not all 1080p games are the same, it also depends how sharp and antialiased the image is. Some 1080p games look better than others. 1440p is also quite fine, too.

 

[TheMikado]

Yes Vega 56 is slightly faster, but that's a bad comparison.

Vega 56 has over 2.5x the die area. (510mm^2 vs 314mm^2) much higher production costs.
Vega 56 launched over a year later. (8/2017 vs 6/2016)
Vega 56 consumes a lot more power(280 watts vs 160 watts).
Vega 56 runs hotter.
Vega 56 is louder.

Over 2x the die size, 1.7x higher power draw.
Is that a fair comparison?

In the past 5 years AMD has never produced a GPU of similar size and power to nVidia while also outperforming it.

At worse we would see a 7nm Vega, but preferable 7nm Navi. This would be for heat, power, and space reasons.

 

[phil_t98]

Mostly smoke and mirrors if you are talking about Forza. Compared to GT the cars have less detail, the crowds have less detail, the tracks, backgrounds, etc.
Digital Foundry has a video of it.
The game was made to run on the base X1, so it's limited by it and 6tf is more than enough to run it at 4k, even with better textures.

you look at most Digital foundry videos and the X beats the pro and a lot of games can run at 4K 30/60 fps now, with all this console needs to be 4x more powerful next gen to get 4k 30/60 fps it doesn't take into account better effects and lighting and AI stuff into account so I think it will need to be more than 4x to get that new next gen feel and not currant gen games running always at 4k

 

[TheMikado]

you look at most Digital foundry videos and the X beats the pro and a lot of games can run at 4K 30/60 fps now, with all this console needs to be 4x more powerful next gen to get 4k 30/60 fps it doesn't take into account better effects and lighting and AI stuff into account so I think it will need to be more than 4x to get that new next gen feel and not currant gen games running always at 4k

What are you talking about? The X is Always going to beat the pro on an equivalent game.

 

[thelastword]

What is there to doubt?

nVidia graphics chips are smaller, have higher performance per flop, lower bandwidth requirements, use less power and clock much higher compared to AMD. It's not feasible for AMD to close the gap between nVidia any time soon.

Last I checked, flops are measured the same way, it's math. Apart from FLOPS there are other things that can cripple or enable a card, architecture, api's used, the amount of vram, type of vram, thermals etc......Looking back at NV cards which used gameworks to primarily cripple the opposition's performance is not a point of reference to suggest that lower flop NV cards perform better than AMD cards.......

There's a reason AMD does better in vulkan and DX12 and even then, I'm not sure any title is using AMD cards to the optimum yet. However since AMD is shipping Vega and Ryzen kits en masse to developers to get them to actually optimize for said hardware during dev time, I expect future vega and even Navi products (which PS5 is based on) to benefit fully in the next few years.......DX11 and gameworks be damned, even DX12...Intel is fully onboard the Vulkan train, their GPU's launch in 2020, same as PS5 and they have a beef with NV, people looking at the past to tell the future are also people who think things will never change or that AMD is just twiddling it's thumbs.........

He'll throw in the best available hardware from a cost to power threshold.. He doesn't make any hardware guy, he just throws it in a box. He isn't some magic genius.

I never spoke of fairy tales. Cerny is a certifiable genius, what he did with PS4 and PRO are genius, no fairy dust.....PS4 was suppose to be a 1080p console and that it is, it slapped the XBOX-ONE silly at $399, the PRO was supposed to be a CB console and that it does with all it's major titles, those without CB also have excellent IQ and visuals, it does it's job, also at $399.....I'm sure Cerny could have done 6TF at $500.00 1 year before MS, but the console had to be $399. You do a great job within the scope set, because Sony Knew that 500.00 was out of the range of many, especially not for a mid-gen upgrade, and that has proven to be true with both vanilla PS4 and PRO which was $399 vs $500 xboxes.....

One thing I can say, Microsoft will never allow Sony to release a more powerful console again.

You realize they meant that for their 2013 console?????, of course it was just a pr bluff, then came talks of "the most balanced console by DF" in the media.....So when people called that power bluff out, MS resorted to unlimited power of the cloud..... TBH, the PS4 could never outdo the XBOX ONE when you think about it, due to the cloud of course........it's only that we're still waiting on a game to show that power 6 years later, I'm still optimistic tbh, I mean Crackdown 3 is still poised to show us that cloud power rating.....when it launches.....

Almost isn't good enough. Both base current gen consoles were designed with 1080p in mind so the majority of base console games this gen ended up being 1080p with some falling a bit short of that.

There might still be a few titles that fall below 4k next gen, not so much because the consoles can't do it, but because the developers may want to push something else. Remedy, just outright refuses to do a native title and prefers to pummel the screen with a million effects and transparencies, so we will see, but even remedy should have enough power to do 4k 30fps at least...

 

[Skyn3t]

I'm pretty sure that Far Cry 5 runs in native 4K/30 fps on Xbox One X. And I believe that the console has 6 TFLOPS GPU. But maybe the cut the draw distance, let some pop-up in the console version to achieve that.

 

[CrustyBritches]

Real question is where we will get to point where our eyes will no be able to see difference as they are literally not capable seeing of such minute details. And i sort of agree here. At 4k with some sort of 2xAA you get to that point unless you sit really really close.

4K is that point. I should have clarified that I'm not an advocate of 1080p/60fps on next-gen systems. No need. A 10-12TFLOPS GPU with Ryzen 1600 equivalent CPU will blow the doors off 4K gaming. 4K Checkerboard rendering will handle the demanding 60fps titles.

We're in agreement.

 

[thelastword]

I'm pretty sure that Far Cry 5 runs in native 4K/30 fps on Xbox One X. And I believe that the console has 6 TFLOPS GPU. But maybe the cut the draw distance, let some pop-up in the console version to achieve that.

It's dynamic resolution with some settings on low. Don't forget, that you will need much more power to do next gen level visuals at true 4k with no DR. Farcry 5 standard is not even close to the best visual standard this gen, so 6TF or even 7.4TF won't cut. That was specified for current gen console visuals at 30fps for the most part, with some settings on low, lower AF count, some shadow resolution cutbacks, AO etc...

If you're doing 4k native constantly next gen, you can't keep piggy backing on lower AF counts and halfrez shadow resolution, the console engineers have to make appropriations for the 4k generation of consoles...or such visual discrepancies will be called out easily in 4k.

 

[Ar¢tos]

What are you talking about? The X is Always going to beat the pro on an equivalent game.

The second part of his sentence was about the power difference needed between current gen and next gen, not about pro and x1x.

 

[LittleBusters]

If they are smart, they will never allow Sony to have more 1st party studios of that calibre and exclusives again. When there were no titles, people bought PS4 more because of better performance, but later, they kept buying it because of the games.

I hope MS doesn’t go for the spec race, but the content race, because I like their hardware and competition is good for all.

I hope the 5 new studios are just the start. Microsoft needs at least 13 studios.

 

[onQ123]

4K is that point. I should have clarified that I'm not an advocate of 1080p/60fps on next-gen systems. No need. A 10-12TFLOPS GPU with Ryzen 1600 equivalent CPU will blow the doors off 4K gaming. 4K Checkerboard rendering will handle the demanding 60fps titles.

We're in agreement.

4K isn't that point our eyes will always adapt once we get used to something better 4K is going to start looking bad. if you take a long enough break from HD even SD will look good to you again but if you look at 4K all the time 1080P look soft to you. The same thing will happen if you start seeing 8K 12K 16K & so on all the time 4K will look a lot different to you than it does now.

 

[CrustyBritches]

4K isn't that point our eyes will always adapt once we get used to something better 4K is going to start looking bad. if you take a long enough break from HD even SD will look good to you again but if you look at 4K all the time 1080P look soft to you. The same thing will happen if you start seeing 8K 12K 16K & so on all the time 4K will look a lot different to you than it does now.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. My only practical experience with 8K is downsampled to a 4K screen, but the requisite amount of power to jump to 8K will be wasted compared to dropping the power into better lighting, materials, dynamics, and framerate.

On a scale of 1-10, I'd rate the visual impact of jumping from:
480p to 720p: 9
720p to 1080p: 7
1080p to 1440p: 6
1440p to 4K: 4

I wonder what the difference in real-world visual impact will be between 8K checkerboard and native 8K?
---
Regardless, I would agree that 7.4TFLOPS(AMD) is a good mark for what it takes to run a 1080p PS4 game at 4K. Probably less than that as rasterization efficiency improves with increase in resolution. Compute performance isn't everything, a GTX 1060 6GB OC can run PS4 settings quality on a number of games at 4K/30fps and that's like 4.5TFLOPS with 192-bit memory bus.

 

[onQ123]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. My only practical experience with 8K is downsampled to a 4K screen, but the requisite amount of power to jump to 8K will be wasted compared to dropping the power into better lighting, materials, dynamics, and framerate.

On a scale of 1-10, I'd rate the visual impact of jumping from:
480p to 720p: 9
720p to 1080p: 7
1080p to 1440p: 6
1440p to 4K: 4

I wonder what the difference in real-world visual impact will be between 8K checkerboard and native 8K?
---
Regardless, I would agree that 7.4TFLOPS(AMD) is a good mark for what it takes to run a 1080p PS4 game at 4K. Probably less than that as rasterization efficiency improves with increase in resolution. Compute performance isn't everything, a GTX 1060 6GB OC can run PS4 settings quality on a number of games at 4K/30fps and that's like 4.5TFLOPS with 192-bit memory bus.

Take a look at how some of Neogaf felt about 4K less than 6 years ago

4K Support : could it have a influence on which Next Gen Console you buy?



I can still remember when GT1 on PS1 cars looked amazing to me then Dreamcast came out & the games was so much cleaner it made it hard to look at the PS1 games but before that happened I seen nothing wrong with the PS1 games. The impact isn't going to be nowhere near this going from 4K to 8K but the point is that even a PS1 game look perfect in the eyes of someone who haven't seen better. This is where we are with 4K you don't think you will notice a difference but once your eyes adjust to even higher resolutions you will start to seeing the flaws in 4K.

 

[CrustyBritches]

This is where we are with 4K you don't think you will notice a difference but once your eyes adjust to even higher resolutions you will start to seeing the flaws in 4K.

Not the same. I've seen 8K material and compared it to 4K and it appears 4K represents the marker where you start experiencing extreme diminishing returns in regards to image quality from increasing resolution.

It's possible that there would be no perceivable difference between 8K CBR and 8K.

I get it, you don't think there are diminishing returns from resolution past 4K, and I do. I'll leave it at.

 

[onQ123]

Not the same. I've seen 8K material and compared it to 4K and it appears 4K represents the marker where you start experiencing extreme diminishing returns in regards to image quality from increasing resolution.

It's possible that there would be no perceivable difference between 8K CBR and 8K.

I get it, you don't think there are diminishing returns from resolution past 4K, and I do. I'll leave it at.

And I'm telling you that you only feel this way because your eyes haven't adapted to anything over 4K yet but once it does you will see it the way we see 1080P now & how we seen 720P & SD after getting used to 1080P.

 

[LittleBusters]

Not the same. I've seen 8K material and compared it to 4K and it appears 4K represents the marker where you start experiencing extreme diminishing returns in regards to image quality from increasing resolution.

It's possible that there would be no perceivable difference between 8K CBR and 8K.

I get it, you don't think there are diminishing returns from resolution past 4K, and I do. I'll leave it at.

CBR?

 

[TLZ]

It really depends on the screen size and viewing distance. I am very close to the TV while I game (around 1.5m) and at 55” I definitely notice the difference. Of course, not all 1080p games are the same, it also depends how sharp and antialiased the image is. Some 1080p games look better than others. 1440p is also quite fine, too.

I'm around the same distance as yourself and same TV size. I do have an oled, so maybe that does a good job?

 

[LittleBusters]

1080p if already pretty good, 4K is perfect. 4K at typical living room viewing distance is 'retina' already. It's like the 440+ ppi displays on smartphones. Past the 326ppi of the iPhone 4 there really was no point except for spec race.

I feel due to the limitation on the human eye, 8K will be pointless waste of resources. Eventually it will happen anyway due to the inexorable march of technology but there will be no need to rush into buying one.

 

[DeepEnigma]

1080p if already pretty good, 4K is perfect. 4K at typical living room viewing distance is 'retina' already. It's like the 440+ ppi displays on smartphones. Past the 326ppi of the iPhone 4 there really was no point except for spec race.

I feel due to the limitation on the human eye, 8K will be pointless waste of resources. Eventually it will happen anyway due to the inexorable march of technology but there will be no need to rush into buying one.

8K+ is more beneficial in the VR realm, obviously due to viewing distance as you mentioned.

 

[CrustyBritches]

CBR?

Checkerboard Rendering. Got sick of saying "Checkboard Rendering" over and over.

 

[aevanhoe]

I'm around the same distance as yourself and same TV size. I do have an oled, so maybe that does a good job?

I also have an OLED, and it has solid upscaling. Whatever the TV, however, that viewing distance combined with that size makes a good 4K experience.

This chart from rtings.com explains it nicely:

 

[bitbydeath]

I also have an OLED, and it has solid upscaling. Whatever the TV, however, that viewing distance combined with that size makes a good 4K experience.

This chart from rtings.com explains it nicely:

I don't agree with these charts.
Images don't look better when you step further back depending on screen size, they just get smaller at least for me...
Obviously you need to see the entire screen in your view for it to look best but otherwise the further you step back the screen just gets smaller.
4K difference is easily noticeable no matter how close you get as long as you compare it from the same perspective as the smaller res'd screen.

 

[Shifty]

Images don't look better when you step further back depending on screen size, they just get smaller

I'd argue that they look sharper if viewed from distance because the pixels become less distinct and noticeable. Individual pixels become more noticeable if you move closer, so logically speaking the inverse must also apply to a certain point.

 

[Insane Metal]

I don't agree with these charts either. Perception is different for every individual.

 

[TheMikado]

I'd argue that they look sharper if viewed from distance because the pixels become less distinct and noticeable. Individual pixels become more noticeable if you move closer, so logically speaking the inverse must also apply to a certain point.

The effect happens for me, I’ve assumed I was the only one lol.

For reference I wear corrective lens that give me better than 20/20 so I can see and read details better from farther away. It’s why I really see little difference because I have to stand far enough from a TV where I can’t see the individual pixels otherwise it looks like crap to me. I actually hated HD for a long time for that very reason and preferred SD for a while.

That said unless all content is 4K I can’t get a 4K set because it just ends up looking like a blocky pixelated mess to me when upscaled. Not a resolution snob, I just have to have the screen render the same resolution as the content and I’m good all the way down to SD.

 

[mckmas8808]

That sound like some crazy thing that onq123 would say oh wait

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/ps4-neo-presentation-might-have-leaked.1246596/page-34#post-210446334

BRUH!! You were right on point!

 

[Harlock]

8K 30 FPS confirmed for PS6.

 

[pawel86ck]

Misleading thread title, that's what they estimate it'd take for PS4 games at 4K.


PS4 = 1.84 Tflops. 7.4 is 4x PS4

If you took the same ratio for Xbox One to Xbox One X you'd only need 5.2 Tflops to run Xbox One games at 4K. Xbox One X has more than that. The result is many Xbox One X games running at 4x Xbox One resolution with more detail and resolutions many times reaching native 4K.

On top of that xbox X GPU architecture is improved, making it's 6 tflops even more efficient compared with standard xbox one. Performance in games is not always about tflops numbers alone, for example nvidia GTX 480 (1,3 tflops) vs AMD 5870 (2,7 tflops). People would think 2,7 tflops GPU would destroy 1,3 tflops but no , performance was similar and in fact Nv 1,3 tflops card was even faster in many games. Xbox X has just 1,8 tflops more compared with ps4p, yet as many games shows it can render games with even 2x more pixels. That's only result of much more efficient architecture, not because of just tflops numbers increase alone, because otherwise xbox x would never be so much faster compared with ps4p.

 

[onQ123]

1080p if already pretty good, 4K is perfect. 4K at typical living room viewing distance is 'retina' already. It's like the 440+ ppi displays on smartphones. Past the 326ppi of the iPhone 4 there really was no point except for spec race.

I feel due to the limitation on the human eye, 8K will be pointless waste of resources. Eventually it will happen anyway due to the inexorable march of technology but there will be no need to rush into buying one.

To tell the truth I think 8K might get a bigger push than 4K , 4K is more like 720P was for HD it came 1st & was cheaper but it was 1080P that got Blu-ray & so on & was seen as the HD standard. I could see that happening with 8K even though 4K is more marketable & we already have 4K Blu-ray & streaming. (we had 720P HDDVD/Blu-ray also)

You have a lot of people who wasn't moved by 4K or they are still waiting to upgrade if they held out on moving from 1080P Blu-rays , 8K will be in a better position than 4K was when PS4 /Xbox One came out when PS5 & Xbox Next come out. 8K might not be needed but it's going to come at us fast.

 

[thelastword]

Everytime I mention 8k and people say "WOW" or some such thing as if things never move on.....I remember when people thougt 480p could never be eclipsed or that 720p was good enough or when 1080p panel owners said we don't need better. It's just like when Bill Gates said 640kb of memory was enough, the truth is, this technology train can never stop, and if you have not observed that, then you're simply in denial for one reason or another....

Higher rez will always look sharper than a lower rez, that's not fairy dust or wishful thinking, it's fact........Even this gen, consoles are already offering freesync solutions, dynamic rez and varied game modes. Are we to believe consoles will never evolve as it relates to specs, options and tech? The XBONEX though it doesn't power any 120hz games, it has the option, then because of VR, consoles will no doubt get support for 240hz etc....

Let's be clear here, HDMI 2.1 spec supports 4k at 120Hz and 8k at 60Hz, I see no reason why we won't see 8k games next gen or 4k 120hz games, these games may not be the next uncharted, but surely such resolutions will manifest itself in AA and indie games. There will be many affordable 4k 120hz Tv's come 2020, 8k TV's would be pushing itself out at that time too.....So we may see 4kCB 120hz titles at the AAA level as an option or 4k native 120hz to a lesser degree, to 4k native 60hz or even 8kCB 30HZ on consoles as options for any one title, that covers pretty much every TV option that will be available and popular then, and if you're still on 1080p, you're still getting an extremely clean and jaggie free experience with downsampling out the wazoo.......

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

This is a very rough estimate, given that the "regular Ps4 game" probably varies A LOT in visual quality.
Might as well say that you'll need 4-8TF to run the average modern AAA game at 4k, 30FPS.
Sounds a lot less stupid than making up a precise number like 7.4 and attributing it to a broad category like "regular Ps4 game".

 

[onQ123]

This is a very rough estimate, given that the "regular Ps4 game" probably varies A LOT in visual quality.
Might as well say that you'll need 4-8TF to run the average modern AAA game at 4k, 30FPS.
Sounds a lot less stupid than making up a precise number like 7.4 and attributing it to a broad category like "regular Ps4 game".

That number is to cover the range of 1080P PS4 games going to 4K unchanged.

 

[Calibos]

Everytime I mention 8k and people say "WOW" or some such thing as if things never move on.....I remember when people thougt 480p could never be eclipsed or that 720p was good enough or when 1080p panel owners said we don't need better. It's just like when Bill Gates said 640kb of memory was enough, the truth is, this technology train can never stop, and if you have not observed that, then you're simply in denial for one reason or another....

Higher rez will always look sharper than a lower rez, that's not fairy dust or wishful thinking, it's fact........Even this gen, consoles are already offering freesync solutions, dynamic rez and varied game modes. Are we to believe consoles will never evolve as it relates to specs, options and tech? The XBONEX though it doesn't power any 120hz games, it has the option, then because of VR, consoles will no doubt get support for 240hz etc....

Let's be clear here, HDMI 2.1 spec supports 4k at 120Hz and 8k at 60Hz, I see no reason why we won't see 8k games next gen or 4k 120hz games, these games may not be the next uncharted, but surely such resolutions will manifest itself in AA and indie games. There will be many affordable 4k 120hz Tv's come 2020, 8k TV's would be pushing itself out at that time too.....So we may see 4kCB 120hz titles at the AAA level as an option or 4k native 120hz to a lesser degree, to 4k native 60hz or even 8kCB 30HZ on consoles as options for any one title, that covers pretty much every TV option that will be available and popular then, and if you're still on 1080p, you're still getting an extremely clean and jaggie free experience with downsampling out the wazoo.......

When do we start getting extremely diminished returns though? 4K is very sharp and clean on a high end PC. Does 8K really give enough to justify the expense?

...and those tiny fonts in Maya will be even smaller...ugggh!

 

[onQ123]

https://www.finder.com.au/gran-turismo-8k-playstation-5

Polyphony over-specced Gran Turismo Sport for future 8K consoles

Gran Turismo Sport is set to be with gamers for a long time as Polyphony Digital reveals future-proofing of assets.
As I write this, I am sitting in the opulent lobby of developer Polyphony Digital’s Tokyo headquarters. I’ve just enjoyed a lengthy, in-depth studio tour, an interview with Kazunori Yamauchi and a tonne of hours playing the game. It’s due out on October 13 as a PlayStation 4 exclusive and it’s a lot of fun. Over the coming week, I will be passing a heap of new information your way, including this interesting tidbit about the scale of rendering the art team is doing.
During the studio tour, Kazunori Yamauchi took us from desk to desk, showing his staff beavering away on the game and the insane amount of detail the team goes to make the experience authentic. It’s really quite insane. At one particular desk, he zoomed right in on the wheel of a car to show the small-type – like the PSI – was in place and legible. A ridiculous detail given you’ll never notice at 300km/h flying down from the heights of Mount Panorama. Then he said the following: "It takes six months to create a single car. It’s over-specced for PS4 Pro. So we are building for future versions of the console rather than the one we see today".

Intrigued by the suggestion that Gran Turismo Sport is being built to work on a theoretical PlayStation 5, whenever it might eventuate, during our one-on-one I asked Kazunori Yamauchi to clarify that comment. He replied, “I think it would be no problem to run it at 8K even.”

https://www.gtplanet.net/gt-sport-used-showcase-sonys-mega-85-8k-hdr-tv-ces-2018/

GT Sport Used to Showcase Sony’s Mega 85″ 8K HDR TV at CES 2018



Tech enthusiasts from all over the world have descended upon Las Vegas for the annual Consumer Electronics Show. The 2018 iteration is in full swing and PlayStation’s head company Sony is in the thick of the action.
Alongside future consumer goods, many companies use this as a proving ground to show off prototype technology and this year Sony brought something very big.
Hosted in the company’s booth at the event is a massive 85-inch TV. This isn’t just any television set though, as the X1 Ultimate Prototype outputs a mammoth 8K resolution with beautiful HDR to boot. Not bad at all.
The TV’s biggest party trick comes from its brightness output, though. Sony’s X1 achieves a reading of 10,000 nits. That’s almost five times the amount found on regular 4K high-end televisions right now.
Unsurprisingly, those on the show floor are commenting that the display is staggering. For us at GTPlanet though, there’s got to be a hook for why this thing interests us as fans of the racing genre. You probably know where this is headed.

Sony is running GT Sport‘s opening cinematic on the display to highlight the TV’s capabilities. Considering this sizzle-reel already looks stunning on 1080p and 4K displays available right now, we can only imagine how fantastic this looks in action. It’s also a huge credit to Polyphony Digital to see the electronics firm relying on its creation to show off Sony’s new toy.
Way back in November 2016, Polyphony gave a breakdown of the technical capabilities of GT Sport. At the time, the PS4 Pro was new, and Yamauchi-san had discussed the “future-proof” nature of the BT.2020 standard. Coincidentally, the system supports up to 10,000 nits of brightness. It appears we’re living in the future, then.
You can catch a glimpse of the video on Digital Trends’ report on the display. Unfortunately, the glory of the X1 can’t really be captured by a clip like this. Attendees are the only ones fortunate (for now) to see an 8K 10,000 nits display in action. Who knows, perhaps this will become the norm in the near future.

 

[Bogroll]

https://www.finder.com.au/gran-turismo-8k-playstation-5





https://www.gtplanet.net/gt-sport-used-showcase-sonys-mega-85-8k-hdr-tv-ces-2018/

A little bit misleading that 2nd part as it was GT Sport opening cinematic what was used to showcase the 8k tv. Gameplay would not look that great at 8k.

 

[J4K]

When do we start getting extremely diminished returns though? 4K is very sharp and clean on a high end PC. Does 8K really give enough to justify the expense?

...and those tiny fonts in Maya will be even smaller...ugggh!

You're thinking too small. Higher resolutions for the future will be about two things:

1) Virtual Reality
2) Mega large televisions

Ever since smartphones started packing stupid amounts of pixels into 6in rectangles, we've all held tangible proof in our hands of this idea of diminishing returns. At a certain point, we actually don't need more pixel density and this is somewhat obvious to us now. Even over-res'd Samsung Galaxy Phones actually run their output resolutions lower than the display's capability in order to save battery life and most people would never actually notice it's happening. But the true lesson here isn't that there's no place for higher resolutions -- it's that there's specific cases where they make a lot of sense and will justify their expense.

Picture that it's 2025 and you've got a 110in television screen running nearly the size of your living room wall. Suddenly those pixels are looking pretty noticeable -- even at 4K.

Or you've got a new VR headset strapped to your face and you can still see the screen door effect rearing its ugly head.

The future of higher resolutions isn't about making your current 42in living room set get extra pixels you won't even notice. It's about the next generation of displays that will require 8K to make the digital world feel even less discernible from the real one.

 

[onQ123]

A little bit misleading that 2nd part as it was GT Sport opening cinematic what was used to showcase the 8k tv. Gameplay would not look that great at 8k.

What's misleading? it says that it's the opening cinematic in the post you replied to , also what would they be playing this in 8K with? (Like 6 PS4 Pros) it's clearly just a video

 

[phil_t98]

What are you talking about? The X is Always going to beat the pro on an equivalent game.

as I said the next Gen consoles need to be more than 4X more powerful than currently available PS4 and Xbox one. its not just about upping resoloution its also about enhancing everything graphics wise. Yes the X will always beat the pro but when you look at how people are putting it on here its like the X is just running xbox one games at a resoulotion of 4K and its more than that by adding 4k textures and enhancing effects and what not

 

[Journey]

If they are smart, they will never allow Sony to have more 1st party studios of that calibre and exclusives again. When there were no titles, people bought PS4 more because of better performance, but later, they kept buying it because of the games.

I hope MS doesn’t go for the spec race, but the content race, because I like their hardware and competition is good for all.

I have faith in Phil Spencer based on what he's done so far, ie. the recent studio acquisitions and overall direction he's been taking Xbox.

 

[Ar¢tos]

I have faith in Phil Spencer based on what he's done so far, ie. the recent studio acquisitions and overall direction he's been taking Xbox.

1 of the studios was already 1st party (basically) and of the other 3 I only see AAA potential in one. They need more bigger studios to compete on the 1st party level.
On the other hand, Sony Japan Studio has done very little this gen they finally released The Last Guardian and made Knack 2, so it's one less studio to compete with. It will take another 10 years for them to release another worthwhile game.