PS4 Pro's Boost Mode Is Proving to Be Quite the Beast

4.50: How the PS4 Pro should've been, minus 1 USB port. Even the original models get HDD support. What a time to be a PS4 owner.

@Vincent294 do you know if the PS3 is going to have the external HDD support

@jrpgdude Seems to be on life support now, and with no announcement I'm not getting my hopes up.

I think @BAMozzy mentioned this in another article, but it's great that the Pro's extra power is no longer going to waste. I don't have a Pro just yet, but I'd find it frustrating to play a game with frame rate issues knowing that my console's extra power isn't being utilised to make performance better. Boost mode definitely makes the Pro more attractive, especially if you've got a library of older games.

KTs Musuo games are gonna run better now! What a time to be alive. 400 people on screen and 60fps here we come!

Assassin's Creed Unity isn't borderline unplayable on PS4, to be fair. It may have been at launch, but it's been patched considerably since then. I played out maybe 6 months after it came out, and it was fine for me.

Never upgrade.

@ZurapiiYohane64 It's not necessarily for 'old' games, just games without a pro patch (as they still have games coming out without official pro support) - however, FF 15 has had a pro patch, so it is already using the full CPU and GPU size and speed.

The framepacing should be resolved in the 60fps patch though.

@Unashamed_116 True - I played it form day one and it was fine - even after a day or so with the patches dropping all over the place it ran great - I was able to complete it with no issues, bugs or frame rate issues - the main problems were on PC and Xbox one.

This boost mode does seem to help in Paris if you are running around all the npcs though - as that's the only area I ever had a slight reduction in framerate

Ps4 pro has a blood-starved beast mode

I played Unity on XBOX One and I never ran into any serious issues. That being said, I didn't play the game at launch, so maybe that's why it ran pretty smooth for me.

@ToddlerNaruto It did, though digital games couldn't be installed on it. At least from what I've heard.

@MadAussieBloke Wow.

Just got a pro, so wicked timing for me. I can notice the difference on patched games so will try others when the patch drops!

Like others have said, AC Unity had framerate issues at launch, but the patch that dropped about a month after that eradicated all of them. I played it around Christmas that year and didn't run into any major drops.

That being said, it's one of my least favourite AC games, but not for any technical reason.

How did Sony think this wasn't worth mentioning?

Sony didn't mention it as maybe it was a meant as a pleasant surprise. Maybe they didn't mention it because it also shows how 'weak' the PS4 is. I know it was the most powerful console, but the reality is, it wasn't powerful enough to run the games being developed at a consistent and 'high' standard. Developers have had to bring in dynamic scaling and checkerboard rendering to try and keep frame rates more stable. Checkerboard rendering isn't just on PS4 Pro.

I know I bought my Pro with more of an eye to the future and upcoming releases. I expected those games to benefit more from 'Pro enhanced modes' - Resolution increases, better visuals and improved (if not higher) frame rates BUT I certainly didn't expect old games to run exactly the same, issues and all, as the PS4. I didn't spend £350 to only play a few games at enhanced level and expected some (if not all) of that extra power to be available to improve the performance of old games. I didn't expect 'old' games to suddenly jump from 30 to 60fps or to suddenly jump in resolution to UHD levels but I did expect them to run much closer and more consistently at their target level.

I had a hard time justifying my purchase or recommending a Pro to owners of a PS4 - especially if they had a 1080p TV. The fact that only a few games (proportionally) have any enhancements and the rest play exactly the same as a standard PS4 is hard to justify. Now with the boost though, there is a significant reason to upgrade regardless of your TV. The potential size of the library that could benefit from extra power jumps significantly. It was my biggest complaint about the PS4 Pro so glad Sony has seen sense.

I am sure I said that Sony could have had this in one of the comments sections back in November. I even said at the time they could have a 'disclaimer' and a few members said that Sony won't do that because 'gamers are idiots' and complain to Sony their games don't work. 2 Months later - its coming!

I've yet to experience AC Unity, but I've learnt that even framerate issues can be a subjective thing based on comparative experience - I think it was in this blog's comments that I heard "FFX remaster running poorly on Vita". I had completed the game in question by then and couldn't relate to the sentiment much, although I do suppose it may be due to me comparing the game to PS1 FFs - which had even more annoyingly slow loading times. And I never had an impression of the characters moving slowly. Perhaps I'd feel quite a difference if I got to play a PS4 version, but my case proved that "minimal framerate decency" isn't set in stone for all games and platforms either. Welcome as the framerate boosts can certainly be. To be honest, even the latter didn't compel me to pay extra for a PS4 Pro back in December, and mind you, I wasn't upgrading either!

I'm so close to buy a Pro, just for fun (I currently own a ps4). Only thing that prevents me is not having a 4k TV. And that is close to being purchased as well. Just haven't dug into TV specs that fit my needs. When the 4k is here, Pro soon will follow. All these extra features are very welcomed ^^

Anyone tested The Witcher 3 yet?

@ToddlerNaruto really I didn't know I want to try it out thanks

Its eyewatering beautiful for racing fans. Check out Scaff UK and his PCars in thunderstorm and Assetto Corsa - both run smooth as silk! Phenomenal!😮
https://youtu.be/Lo6B6WXG0ew

Me like.

@BAMozzy Give yourself a pat on the back then.

Alternate colour version and I am in, Sony.

Could this make Just Cause 3 run more smoothly?

Im still waiting for the Pro slim. My PS4 works great and i still have loads of functie on it so i can wait.

When is 4.5 out and do you access boost mode from the options menu?

Boost mode isn't even listed on the PS Blog article. It boggles my mind that they aren't promoting this.

@Giygas_95 Potentially, yes. In theory it should make all games without Pro patches run better, even if it's just minor stuff like reduced load times.

@Serf 4.5 is out at some point over the next few weeks. And yeah, you just toggle boost mode on and off from the settings menu.

@ShogunRok Any guesses as to when it might drop for people who didn't sign up for the beta test?

It's about time. Still not gonna buy one, though.

@JoeBlogs Had the Pro launched in 2013, a time of no 4K TV's, the games would ALL run at 1080p and probably 60fps too. The developers have had to scale back games to run on consoles. Most of the games were developed for multi-platform release so with more power, the games would be optimised to run on that hardware. Games like BF4 (launch title) would probably run at 1080p instead of 900p, at a locked 60fps and maybe with higher/Max visual effects. Games like the Witcher 3, Dark Souls 3 etc would be 1080/60 instead of 30fps - even Uncharted 4 could have been 60fps (as they were targeting this). Its not like these games 'can't' or weren't designed for 60fps - look at the PC versions!

The Pro essentially is used to increase resolution - something that has come about because 4K TV's are becoming more widespread and likely to increase in popularity. However a few games have shown that the power can be used to increase frame rates instead.

I understand why Sony opted to release the PS4 with the configuration it did. To release a console with the power of the Pro in 2013 would no doubt of priced them out of the home console market or Sony would have to sell the console at a big loss.

Developers have had a choice about whether to push visuals over performance and in most cases its a juggling act based on the available power. Games like the Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 could have dropped to 900p, scaled back some visual effects, lighting, shadows etc to ensure that 'problem' areas still run more consistently at 30fps on the PS4 and had they had the 'Pro' hardware then, the balancing act, would still be in place but it would probably be around 1080/60fps and the level of visual effects. A game like Rise of the Tomb Raider can't run at a locked 1080/60fps on a Pro so even with its increase in power of the standard hardware, developers would still be balancing performance over visual effects - the difference is that with more power, there is less scaling back. By that I mean, they may not have decided to keep the game at 30fps on console initially but targeted 60fps instead. Had the Pro been released instead of the PS4, those 1080p mode, higher frame rate modes would probably be the 'standard' of games from the start.

@Giygas_95 I'd guess about a week and a half to two weeks from now, or thereabouts.

@Unashamed_116 I played AC:Unity within a couple months after launch and had zero issues. The game played well, stable all the way through. I platinumed it and never had a single issue. I think most of the AC:Unity complaining is just people complaining to complain. It is the internet after all.

As for the topic at hand, I am conflicted. I want my games to run better on the PS4 Pro, but I don't want to give developers an excuse to not build pro support into their games from the start.

@JoeBlogs I doubt Dice would have made a 'different' game if Sony had given us the power of the Pro at launch. The game was built for a variety of platforms anyway and also released on Last generation hardware. The difference would only have been in the optimisation. Instead of reducing the resolution to 900p, they could easily have ran the game at 1080p. Visual settings no doubt could be set higher too.

A game like Battlefront (also 900p) would struggle to run at the full 1080p and with the visual settings on Max and keep 60fps, the same is true for Rise of the Tomb Raider at 60fps - in fact that game can't run at 1080/60 with the settings not maxed out.

Even if the 'Pro' had released instead of the PS4, I doubt games would be any different in terms of game-play or content. The majority of games released would still struggle to hit the 1080/60 with settings on Max. Developers would still need to scale back somewhere to get games to run - whether that's on a few visual settings or like they had to do for the PS4, on resolution and even frame rates. I am almost certain that if the Pro had been available, games like Bloodbourne, Dark Souls 3, Witcher 3, Uncharted 4 etc etc would ALL of targeted and hit 60fps. That would still need to have optimisation and compromises on certain aspects - like maybe not have the highest quality shadows, lighting or reflections but as they were limited by the PS4's hardware, they had to compromise on frame rate. I am sure these games could run at 60fps on the PS4 but the compromise would be resolution and most likely visual effects too. All the extra power would have done wuld be to allow developers to make less compromises. The games would no doubt be the same but with extra power, the frostbite engine games would no doubt have hit 1080p instead of 900p and I expect that the 30fps games - certainly the Multi-platform ones, would have targeted 60fps instead - after all we know that these games run perfectly well at that frame rate on PC's so its not like the engine/animations etc were designed around 30fps so that was a 'compromise' for console hardware.

As I said, even with the Pro hardware configuration, games would still not run at their 'max' visual settings at 1080/60 so some compromises would still need to be made - chances are we may not have had dynamic scaling or checkerboard rendering being created or implemented so frequently either. Of course I don't know if that would have changed a game like Horizon for example as according to the developers that game was built for 30fps. Maybe Guerrilla Games would have built the game and engine for 60fps had the Pro released in 2013.

If you look at the Pro's hardware, the CPU is only 30% faster than the PS4, the RAM only has a slight boost in bandwidth and the GPU is literally 2 PS4 GPU's bolted together with a slight boost to clock speeds. Overall its around 2.2x more powerful than the standard PS4 but certain parts are not scaled up in line with other parts. It doesn't have 2x better CPU or double the RAM or bandwidth. Developers are 'already' pushing the Pro's hardware but the boundaries are different to that of the PS4. With the PS4, the maximum range is upto 1080/60 where as the Pro is designed upto 2160/60. Because of the 4x jump in resolution yet only a 2.2x increase in power of the PS4, developers are NEVER going to push the Pro to the point where games can't run on a PS4. Even a game that ONLY manages 1080p on the Pro when pushed to its limit should still run just as well on the PS4 at 720p (720p is 921600p - 1080p is 2.07m pixels - over 2x the resolution) If a game struggles to run at 900p on a Pro, then chances are it won't run well on a PS4. The reason I mention resolution, is that the GPU is the area that had the biggest increase and a 2x increase is roughly the difference between 720 and 1080p. Any game that runs at or above 1080p on a Pro should run on a PS4 to a similar standard.

The difference between a Pro and a PS4 isn't that 'great' when you look at the difference between generations for example. The Pro is already being pushed to try and reach 2160 or as close to it as possible but developers have slightly more choice when it comes to optimising games. They can decide whether to increase the resolution, the visual effects or the frame rate (or a combination of) over the PS4 version. You aren't going to get a jump from 30fps to 60fps and a jump from 1080p to 1440p+ because the difference between the two consoles isn't that great. This is why Tomb Raider has a 1080/30 high visual mode, a 1080/60 unlocked frame rate mode or a 4k(UHD)/30 mode and not a 4k(UHD) 60 with high quality visual mode. Essentially, they have used the 'extra' to boost 1 of the 3 areas individually in 3 separate modes and given us the choice of how we want to play.

If something like RotTR could run at native 4k/60 with settings on Max, then I would be concerned that the PS4 could eventually reach a point where games can't run on that hardware sufficiently well considering that game runs at 1080/30 which is 1/8th of the difference without looking at the power required for the difference in visual settings.

Any developer building a game with the Pro in mind and targeting any resolution over 1080p certainly wouldn't have a game that 'runs' like 'poo' on the PS4!

@Vincent294 Why minus 1 usb port? I use that port for my PSVR.

@xpacerx Should've been, minus 1. As in, should have 3.

@BAMozzy I want to say "HUZZAH and THANK YOU!" for your tech insight and contributions to the PushSquare community. I learn so much from you and I appreciate your time in sharing with us.

@JoeBlogs I think you are missing the point. Had the Pro been the specs at launch, games would still be the same. The lack of power means that developers have had to make more sacrifices to their games in order for them to run. This isn't content related but things like sacrifices to resolution, frame rates and or visual effects/settings. The extra 2x power is adequate to increase frame rates from 30fps to 60fps in games like Bloodbourne, Dark Souls etc.

When the PS4 launched, the maximum a game can run at was defined by the TV's which was 1080p and 60fps. Even a Pro would have difficulty running a game like BF4, Dark Souls, Bloodbourne, Witcher 3 etc at 1080p, 60fps with MAX visual settings.

All that extra power would have made it easier for developers to hit their 'target settings without having to compromise on something - like Resolution or Frame Rate. The reason games like the Witcher 3, Dark Souls etc are 30fps (and can't hold that in some situations) is because of the Hardware - not the developers opting to make the game with one eye on the PS4/XB1 specs. Had the PS4 had the same specs as the Pro at launch, more games would no-doubt run at 1080/60 but having 'half' the power meant that developers had NO choice but to half the frame rate. Like I said even the Pro would struggle to run these games at 60fps with the full visual settings so they would still be restricted by hardware constraints, still need to make sacrifices 'somewhere' - like turn down the quality of lighting effects, reflections, shadows etc. Having more power to play with at the start would have meant far fewer or less impacting compromises.

The lack of power, if anything, will actually cause developers to stagnate if designing for consoles primarily. If they can't manage to hit 1080/60 with relative ease at the start of a generation, then chances are its only going to get more difficult as time goes on. Do you honestly think Naughty Dog wanted to cut their Frame Rate in half or drop the resolution of the MP down to 900p by choice? Had they had the Pro from the start, I am sure they would have released Uncharted 4 at 1080/60 across both aspects.

All AAA games that are multi-platform, run on a PC at 4k and frame rates at 60fps or above so every game is has compromises - all the Pro would have done is allow developers to make fewer compromises at the start.

@starhops Glad you find it useful - thanks...

Great News! That Boost mode should have been there since Pros launch day. I wish they would also release a PS3 Pro I know I know its oldgen and probably impractical... but still that old gen console would benefit even more from upgraded hardware. I would buy one for sure

@JoeBlogs No I'm not because todays max specs, even back in 2013 had the Pro released, it still wouldn't be 'max' specs. I don't care how much you love PS4, the truth of the matter is, it wasn't a top spec machine despite being more powerful than any other console. You could build a similar priced PC - Not high end, for a similar budget and that could deliver 1080/60 in BF4!

The PS4 was never capable of delivering max settings on release. Games like BF4 never ran at Max settings and even Killzone uses checkerboard techniques because it can't manage to run at a full 1080p and the MP also only runs at 900p.

At best the PS4 was on the low end of mid range for the time and but certainly not high end and delivering anything near Max settings. Even today the Pro isn't exactly high end. You can buy a GPU with more power for little more than half the cost of the Pro. The RX480 with 8GB RAM, the same as in the Pro but with much higher clock speeds delivering around 5.5tflops - that like a PS4 Pro and XB1 combined for £200. That's nowhere near the last years TitanX whic is beaten by a GPU the same cost as a Pro.

Point I am making is that in 2013. had the PS4 had the same specs as the PS4, it would be much closer to high end specs and be capable of delivering those Max settings but what we got was a PS4 that was 'capable but nowhere near powerful enough for games to reach their maximum settings.

I don't doubt that the PS5 will have 30fps games because by then the boundaries will no doubt be higher too. Instead of trying to hit 1080p, the console will no doubt be expected to hit 2160p instead. The same issues will no doubt be in place but instead of not hitting 1080p or compromising on frame rates down to 30fps to reach that resolution. It will no doubt be 'under-powered' compared to the high-end GPU's at that time that will no doubt be able to deliver 4k/60 with max settings and maybe even push towards 8k.

@JoeBlogs Developers have a choice on how to optimise their game on limited hardware. The point I was making is that had the PS4 Pro been the specs at launch, it would have been far easier for developers to optimise games much closer to their target level. Console gamers wouldn't have to play games at 30fps (that run at 60fps+ on PC) so games like the Witcher 3, Dark Souls, Bloodbourne etc could have targeted 60fps on consoles instead. Because of the PS4's limitations, they were forced into deciding whether to drop the frame-rate to 30fps and target 1080p or drop the resolution down to 900 or even 720p and target 60fps. Had the PS4 Pro been the 'standard' of console hardware, the developers could have targeted 1080p and 60fps. You wouldn't have needed the conversation about whether the game should be 900p to ensure a locked 30/60fps or even dropping down to 720p to achieve those. The fact you are even mentioning this shows how under-powered the console is for the games it was running.

We wouldn't have needed dynamic scaling or checkerboard rendering. The Pro has the power to run most games at 1080p/60p with at least the level of visual settings we see on the PS4. Games like Tomb Raider are CPU heavy so they may still have struggled to hit 60fps with the 2.1ghz CPU but the drops wouldn't be as big and would be more consistent.

No doubt that at launch, some games could also have had Max or at least close to Max visual settings. Some visual settings can cripple the performance so I still expect that not all settings would be on Max.

As games have progressed over the 3+ years, Games have no doubt become more complex and/or more resource heavy. Games visual settings would still need to be turned down to run on a Pro.

When consoles launch, you expect that they should run the first games at a certain standard - like 1080/60. Maybe as developers get used to the system, the architecture ect, they improve in visual quality without affecting the resolution/frame rate and by the end of the generation, games have reached their max and maybe then having to compromise on things like resolution or frame rates. However at launch both the XB1 and PS4 had to make compromises.

That doesn't mean to say I don't understand why Sony opted for the specs they did. At the time, we were in economic turmoil, analysts were suggesting that areas most likely to be hit would be the leisure industry and consoles were 'dying'. Sony (and MS) had to bring out consoles to continue to bring the latest games to its customers. Sony could have made the Pro but not for that budget. In an economic crisis, bringing out a £700+ console would be suicide. Even a £350 console seemed 'steep'at this time. However as sales have shown, it was totally justified but that doesn't mean it wasn't 'under-powered' for the time from a technical sense.

While I love my Pro it is nowhere near high end gaming spec's, you only have to compare BF4 running at it's best on a PC 2 maybe more year's ago and it's still much much better than the Pro can offer now, that game look's awsomely beautifull on PC on full spec's compared to even now on the Pro.