DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Xbox being treated like the ugly step child. It's a shame, hope there is enough feedback to polish it for launch.
4 is 25% more than 3.2. 6 is 43% more than 4.2. The X1X is underperforming (as is the base X1, it shouldn't need to have all those visual downgrades in addition to the lower resolution).
I'd rather have native 1440p than 1800p cb.For those who still think checkerboard solution is free/cheap, these slides are from Dark Souls remastered. PS4 PRO and X1X versions are 1800pCBand XboxOne X is 1800P native. Despite the very large difference in pixels compared to a native 1800P they only managed to save 27% (2.6 ms) of rendering time.
Glad to see we change our mind about the bulk of PS3 optimisation issues.i said from the start ...the only reason why series x perform worst is the famous technical incapability of the dev team
This results make some comments in the other thread obviously ridiculous
1512p is the lowest as 1800p only remains for when you look at the sky.Again, why are taking into account the absolute minimum like One X version ran at fixed 1512p? In the worst case scenario (the dragon fight scene) One X is pushing "only" 25% more pixels, but in other scenes it can be up to 100% more pixels, and all the figures in between. And 100%, 80‰ or 50% are more that the 43% delta between 4.2 and 6.
Sekiro isn't open world and runs like shit. This sometimes has 100% higher pixel count on One X, that's the reason. Both apparently have DRS with Pro being 1800p CB/DRS and One X being 1800p DRS.1512p is the lowest as 1800p only remains for when you look at the sky.
The reality in the end is that you have a clear degradation in the results in all XBOX versions compared to what was seen in Shekiro. Is that even the average framerate is worse despite the cut in resolution. While in all versions Playstation maintain the level and basic conditions. Even in loading times they are specially treated.
The case of XBO vs PS4 is already absurd and obscene compared to what was seen in Shekiro.
There is no reason to deny the evidence regarding what was seen in Shekiro.
You mean 'gap' in a specific sense, as to difference in theoretical compute?Glad to see we change our mind about the bulk of PS3 optimisation issues.
Either we change the perception of PS3 architecture based on the ports or we admit PS5 SDK and tech made it easier for devs to help get optimisations done sooner and close the gap a bit… or somewhere in the middle .
Sekiro isn't open world and runs like shit. This sometimes has 100% higher pixel count on One X, that's the reason. Both apparently have DRS with Pro being 1800p CB/DRS and One X being 1800p DRS.
Sekiro is also 1800p CB on Pro and 1800p on One X (100% pixel count higher again here, too), 1080p on PS4 and 900p on One, PS4 had higher quality shadows over Xbox One.
What evidence do you have about Sekiro? Are you thinking of a different game?
Theoretical specs and achievable RoI in performance yes.You mean 'gap' in a specific sense, as to difference in theoretical compute?
That feature would be much more relevant with a higher bandwidth i think. I don't know what Sony were thinking in going with such an unbalanced compute/fillrate (64 ROPS!) to bandwidth ratio in PRO. I generally dislike it first for introducing mid-gen upgrade concept watering down Sony's own 'beloved belief in generations' second for its lack bandwidth and comically low clocks compared other systems using polaris as a base (partly due to lackluster cooling i guess). The machine should absolutely have 256 GB/s of bandwidth at least.That 8.4 TF goodness!
Sekiro isn't open world and runs like shit. This sometimes has 100% higher pixel count on One X, that's the reason. Both apparently have DRS with Pro being 1800p CB/DRS and One X being 1800p DRS.
Sekiro is also 1800p CB on Pro and 1800p on One X (100% pixel count higher again here, too), 1080p on PS4 and 900p on One, PS4 had higher quality shadows over Xbox One.
What evidence do you have about Sekiro? Are you thinking of a different game?
PS. In the analysis of DF no evidence of DRS cbr in Pro even in scenes where XBO X went down to 1512p. There is a long difference no matter how much it is denied. Not to mention that even with the cut in resolution that has not meant improving framerate compared to the PRo version, but the opposite.
PS2. It's funny because XBO X also had better shadows than PRO in Shekiro LOL. That is, the degradation is greater according to you?.
And without counting the issues of loading times that is a real indication of the difference in attention between versions.
Take it up with Tom.
And I said the PS4 version has better shadows than the One version, not the Pro shadows v One X...
Sekiro runs like shit, it also runs better on the Pro.LOL . There is no evidence of DRS in PRo at the most demanding moment where XBO X drops to 1512p. If you do not see meaning in that data, it is that you simply do not want to.
Then, correct, you only mentioned better shadows in PS4 version than XBO to support your argument. The funny thing is that you "" forget "" mention that XBO X also had better shadows than the PRO version, so you are adding another aspect to add to the clear and obvious performance degradation in XBO X compared to what was seen in Shekiro compared to PRo.
That and boosting the total RAM available to game devs by just 0.5 GB clearly wasn't enough as some games had lower texture quality on Pro than the X1X version. I'm sure they knew, Cerny certainly knew its limitations. In fact, he said this in a Japanese interview:That feature would be much more relevant with a higher bandwidth i think. I don't know what Sony were thinking in going with such an unbalanced compute/fillrate (64 ROPS!) to bandwidth ratio in PRO. I generally dislike it first for introducing mid-gen upgrade concept watering down Sony's own 'beloved belief in generations' second for its lack bandwidth and comically low clocks compared other systems using polaris as a base (partly due to lackluster cooling i guess). The machine should absolutely have 256 GB/s of bandwidth at least.
"If you're rendering natively in 4K, it's a personal estimate, but you'll need at least 8TFLOPS (FP32),"
And???Sekiro runs like shit, it also runs better on the Pro.
Let's just wait for the VGTech pixel counts, shall we? If the Pro has DRS lower bounds the same as the One X while using CB, that will explain everything here.And???
How Shekiro run is secondary in the discussion. The important thing is how it performed on each platform and the comparison with Elder beta.
What it shows is that in the Playstation versions they have maintained all the performance characteristics while the XBOX versions have seen a clear and evident degradation ..... Unless you tell us that the XBOX consoles have lost power along the way while PRo and PS4 are more powerful (ridiculous thing), the coherent reason will point to the less attention or optimization time (in the beta at least) on Xbox platforms. ..
In that context it can be said that there are small gaps slightly favoring either console depending on the metric for sure.Theoretical specs and achievable RoI in performance yes.
First. I doubt that VGtech is going to do analysis of the XBO X/S and PS4/Pro versions and more in the case of a beta network. Surely yes for XSeries-PS5.Let's just wait for the VGTech pixel counts, shall we? If the Pro has DRS lower bounds the same as the One X while using CB, that will explain everything here.
I've already said I don't trust Tom, the dude is blind and wrong a lot.*First. I doubt that VGtech is going to do analysis of the XBO X/S and PS4/Pro versions and more in the case of a beta network. Surely yes for XSeries-PS5.
Second, it is not necessary when you already have examples in the DF analysis where XBO X drops to 1512p while PRO maintains 1800p CBR ..... Unless now the argument has gone on to question and doubt DF
Indeed. Personally i find the chase for 4K to be very detrimental to graphic complexity and advancement in the first place. This is the reason why i considered the machine somewhat unnecessary.That and boosting the total RAM available to game devs by just 0.5 GB clearly wasn't enough as some games had lower texture quality on Pro than the X1X version. I'm sure they knew, Cerny certainly knew its limitations. In fact, he said this in a Japanese interview:
【西田宗千佳のRandomTracking】 マーク・サーニーが明かす「PS4 Pro」の秘密。「解像感の高い4K」のための工夫
PlayStation 4 Pro(PS4 Pro)は、「4K世代」に向け、PS4をアップデートしたハードウエアである。9月の発表以来、ハードウェアスペックは語られてきたが、デモを見たわけではないユーザーの立場から見ると、「実際にどう違うのか」分かりづらい部分があったと思う。エンターテインメントとしての「ゲームのビジュアル」がどこまで進化するのか、半信半疑な部分もあろうかと思う。av.watch.impress.co.jp
But at the end of the day, they had to launch it at the same price as the base PS4's launch price, so compromises had to be made while introducing smart rendering techniques to achieve IQ close to 4K.
No more than some other and not for that reason we have to think that they are always wrong .....I've already said I don't trust Tom, the dude is blind and wrong a lot.*
Why wouldn't a demanding area drop on the Pro, too? Does Tom say it stays at 1800p CB on the Pro?
* https://www.neogaf.com/threads/df-e...ate-of-last-gen.1624635/page-2#post-265112759
For those who still think checkerboard solution is free/cheap, these slides are from Dark Souls remastered. PS4 PRO and X1X versions are 1800pCBand XboxOne X is 1800P native. Despite the very large difference in pixels compared to a 'native' 1800P (%100) they only managed to save 27% (2.6 ms) of rendering time.
Edit: This is why i dislike statements like "is pushing twice the number of pixels" when one machine use 1800pCB and the other 1800P in a game. This is quite far from the truth on processing cost and IQ basis. If a game is 1600x1800 in one machine and 3200x1800 on the other using simple upscale now we could talk about 'twice number of pixels pushed' since performance cost and IQ difference would be much higher.
Same here! I find Naughty Dog's approach to be so much better. They just straight up render at 1440p rather than wasting resources chasing 4K, their TAA is very good, so it doesn't look too bad on a 4K display. This means they're able to put the GPU to good use by increasing graphics complexity, run physics, AI and whatnot on the graphics hardware.Indeed. Personally i find the chase for 4K to be very detrimental to graphic complexity and advancement in the first place. This is the reason why i considered the machine somewhat unnecessary.
That's certainly one way of doing it. Now imagine what they could do targeting 1080P on a native 1080P screen with no loss of crispness with substantially more resources available. Honestly 4K TVs dealt a heavy blow to graphic complexity in the sake of useless vanity mostly.Same here! I find Naughty Dog's approach to be so much better. They just straight up render at 1440p instead of wasting resources chasing 4K, their TAA is very good, so it doesn't look too bad on a 4K display. This means they're able to put the GPU to good use by increasing graphics complexity, run physics, AI and whatnot on the graphics hardware.
TLOU2 was native 1440p with TAA on PS4 Pro & native 1080p with TAA on the base PS4 & it had a crisp IQ imo.Same here! I find Naughty Dog's approach to be so much better. They just straight up render at 1440p rather than wasting resources chasing 4K, their TAA is very good, so it doesn't look too bad on a 4K display. This means they're able to put the GPU to good use by increasing graphics complexity, run physics, AI and whatnot on the graphics hardware.