Red Dead Redemption 2 uses checkerboard rendering to achieve a 4K image on the PlayStation 4 Pro, but unlike exclusives such as Horizon: Zero Dawn or God of War, the results leave a little to be desired. At the expense of getting too technical, the reconstruction technique is used to create an Ultra HD image without requiring the hardware clout to render a native image, and in the aforementioned games it’s produced some stunning results.
Of course Rockstar’s latest is a multiformat release, and Digital Foundry’s analysis recently revealed that the Xbox One X version does render at native 4K, resolving a clearer image than on Sony’s supercharged machine. This has resulted in plenty of baiting and goading from both sides of the "console war", with zoomed in screenshots of shoulders (!) used to demonstrate the differences between devices.
It’s also prompted some outrage in gaming communities due to the commercial that the PlayStation maker’s running for the game. At the end of its ad, the company shows a message: “Play in 4K on PS4 Pro.” It also incorporates the small print: “Play in 4K on PS4 Pro. Game outputs 2160p. 4K TV required.” All of which is accurate, but there are a few people who feel that the organisation is being purposefully misleading – others think it’s straight up lying.
As far as we’re concerned, this is just advertising – plain and simple. The language is no different to what was used for Horizon: Zero Dawn and God of War, both of which also used checkboard rendering – although vastly superior solutions to what Rockstar’s using in Red Dead Redemption 2. The fact is that the game does output at 2160p, it’s just using tricks to get there, like many games do. We’ll have to wait and see if there’s any further fallout to this, but at least legally it seems sound to us.
[source resetera.com]
Comments 69
Welcome to the next great gaming scandal.
When are gamers NOT fuming?
When Sony gives name changes and cross play... gotta complain about something. I've been too busy playing the games to notice a commercial. Lol
It's always something, isn't it?
Just salty xbots cos Red Dead isn't advertised with their favourite box.
Ahbooohoohoo!
@get2sammyb Yup, that didn't take long, did it? So glad I'm rocking an OG PS4. 1080P native all the way baby!
Hmmm...debating if the pitchfork is clean enough from last week’s uproar or if I should give it an extra polish for good measure. You know...all those eagle eyed gamers and all. Don’t want to disappoint.
@DLB3
But how else can we make fun of them???
only a fool would purchase a ps4 pro specifically for red dead 2 when ps5 is just around the corner. who cares... they can sell it off and buy an x1x if native 4k means that much to them. o, right, that would mean forgoing the best console exclusives in the industry, right? trade-offs have to me made with every platform... i hate to see console gamers acting like pc graphics whores but here we are.
@DLB3 Well I do think this also needed reporting. Like, maybe there are people in the community who do feel misled? I hear what you're saying, but it's still a talking point whether it's ridiculous or not.
I'm so tired of this outrage culture, I just want to play games
Does anyone think Sony Or Microsoft care for gamers? It’s all about money in their pockets.
@Badboyfx86 to some extent yes... but you do have to care about gamers and cater to them in order to create good will and entice sales of your (sony's) platform and games. you can't just ignore what the market wants and expect to have a successful platform. so to simplify and say it is just about money isn't quite the full story
@get2sammyb 1920x2160 ain't 3840x2160
Arrogant Sony is back!
@Porco True, it’s just that since day 1 the PR talk from both company’s have just been horrible.
Why didnt sony just make an actual 4k console if they want to promote 4k games...
This is a sad society we live in. Red dead redemption has just been released and there are peaple seeing things in 4k 2010p 19374p 927478429p. But to be fair who cares!
sure we all nowhere this stuff starts so many puddle people had very interesting twitter feeds were full of Xbox is the best type comments
@DLB3 i have never seen an ps4 pro ad with that disclaimer, they just say 4k or dynamic 4k.
I wish I could find more things to get offended by. :sigh:
@DLB3 Publishing articles like this is why conspiracy theories persist. "Journalists" (term used loosely) perpetuate the idea that because there are multiple viewpoints each are equally valid. They often are not. Sadly this will continue as long as "journalists" continue to promote 'talking points' and "fair balanced discussion of" in liu of actual journalism. It's is not confined to gamers.
4K is overrated I'm still gonna play in my PS4 Slim with 1080p without those huge chunks of gigs taking all my memory for just one game perfectly fine
Technically its not 4k its only just over 2k so they are right. If it advertises 4k. So it is false advertising . Resolution doesnt bother me or should bother anyone. Graphics don't make the game
@AdamNovice You honestly think this is caused by gamers getting a better version but less advertisement?
"It’s also prompted some outrage in gaming communities"
Colour me surprised. Some people really need a life.
JUST.PLAY.THE.GAME!!!!
@GKO900
No it's not. 4k looks fantastic
@Onion on sundays
what ever argument about outrage its still missleading advertising that sony is one of the worst for. going all the way back to ps1
You mean to say I can't play red dead on my ps4 pro in 4k and there is jaggies on the shoulders when I zoom in? Anyone want to buy my pro?....😂 who gives a flying flock anyway?
Just get the game installed and enjoy the hell out of it. When your shooting the hell of people and trying not to die the last thing you will be thinking is "the texture on his shoulder is shiiiiiite" embrace gaming and just be bloody grateful were in an age where we can all enjoy great games.
Well, that does it! I am sick and tired of sick and tired people telling me they’re sick and tired....
I am sick and tired of it! 😤😤😤
@GKO900 I tried playing The Last of Us Remastered in 1080 and 4K on a 4K TV, and I could only tell a difference when I literally stood a few inches away. So unless I did something wrong...yeah, I agree. Gimme 1080p 60fps any day.
Why are they outraged anyway?
I don't get it. Even when adverts are misleading like was the case with Xbox one S doing 4k gaming that prompts amusement, not outrage.
@Cycologist
Actually I think pointing out the ridicule in what's going on is good journalism. Stirring controversy and faking outrage like many sites do is what is wrong.
@Anguspuss
Maybe I'm missing something here. The ad tells you to 'Play in 4k' (with a 4k TV) ' on a PS4 Pro'.. Its looks like a standard advert to me.
Does anyone really care?, once you start playing it you get involved , gamers enjoy the ride, I've got a pro but once the game gets going there is no argument really
I have the HDR set at 150 for the game, I really do think the image could be better but still looks good!
But I'm trying to tune the image properly...it sucks to have to do this pc crap adjustments!
@AdamNovice why would they be salty when the game has clearer image on xbox one X, and it's pretty obvious. Ps4 pro owners (I'm one of those) should be salty at Rockstar for using bad implementation of checkerboarding.
@ShogunRok My favorite movie of all time. I might have to replace Kermit with that. Well I would if I could keep Kermit on NL and Taylor on here, he'd be wasted there.
Where's @bamozzy PS unofficial tech guru? No chance I spelled that right so somebody else should summon him.
Every game advertised for PS4 says "Play in 4K HDR". Not just Red Dead. Gamers need to calm down.
These types of people need to stop complaining on Twitter whilst sipping their Friday night Latte macchiato's in local coffee shops and instead go out, get p**sed, do loads of drugs and get laid!
@rjejr It is misleading to a degree as the game itself is only rendering half of a 4k frame and then filling in the 'gaps' by either interpolation or, if they use Sony's in built tracking, by pulling the pixels from the previous frame.
With native, every pixel of every frame is drawn each time. In other words, a native 4k image is drawn every frame fresh. With CB, the game only renders half the frame in a CB pattern and the other half is interpolated to create a '4k' image in size.
The fact that games like H:ZD and God of War probably use Sony's inbuilt image tracking mean that they probably pull the pixels from the previous frame to fill in those gaps to create their 4k image. If you stand still, the image can easily pull the pixels forward so you get the impression of a native 4k. Movement can lead to some issues as it doesn't line up perfectly with the previous frame.
At the end of the day, you are still getting a '4k' image and 4k is defined as 3840x2160. However, the game is only rendering a 1920x2160p image per frame where as the Xbox is rendering the full image every frame.
The problem is that when people think '4k', they think that is what the game has to be rendering but really its just a size. Its like a 6x4 photo means that its 6inches by 4 inches in size. A 4k image is defined by having 2160 pixels in height and 3840pixels in width. The Pro is giving you that BUT the game is not able to draw an image that size in the 33ms (30fps) and so only draws half and reconstructs the rest of the image by other means.
Its got nothing to do with output settings because a 1440p game is still output to a TV at 2160p - the difference there is that the image, being smaller, is then stretched to fit by essentially spreading out the pixels and then interpolating to fill in the gaps - this is 'upscaling'!
CB rendering is a way of creating the impression of a game running at a higher resolution. It is producing a 'full' size image but only 'half' of it is being drawn each frame.
At this moment in time there is no such thing as 4k not broadcasted or bluray . Linus tech tips proved it.
Next few years will be interesting!
Playstation 5 can’t come soon enough huh? Lol
It's actually really bad in some parts. I wish it was actually in 1080p or 1200p res with good super sampling.
It's so bad in some parts that it makes the game look worst than using a lower res.
@BAMozzy Thanks for all that. I was really just kind of wondering whether you thought Sony was lieing or not. I think we can all agree the fanboi's are out or control regardless, but is it legit 4k as Sony says?
Personally it seems like Sony is lieing, but not enough for me to care about as I don't own a 4k tv. Or a Pro. Not owning a Pro makes a lot of this irrelevant to me, and I appreciate that simplicity in that aspect of my life.
I mean, if the game was rendered in 640x480 technically it could output in 4k, just quadruple everything, or octagonal everything, but I don't think we'd want to call it 4k.
Upon further review - and some resetera perusal - makes this place look nice by comparison, man they are all Aholes on there - the ad doesn't specifically say "RDR2 in 4k", it says "Play on PS4 Pro in 4k", which you can, on some games, so it isn't technically lieing, maybe just a little misleading. But that's what happens you advertise a game and a console in a same ad. I can't tell you how
multiplat games I've seen advertised on TV where my wife would say, upon seeing an Xbox ad - "I thought that was a PS4/Sony exclusive". That's how Soy and MS market, make games look exclusive. This is sort of the same thing, slight of hand, blurry the message so no one can call you on it. Such is life.
@rjejr Whether you think its a lie or not, will depend on your PoV or agenda. Technically the image is a 4k image as its a combination of actual rendered pixels and some generated by an algorithm but still a '4k' image.
The difference between that and upscaling, is that the image is at the proper size but with some pixels not rendered so not stretched to fit and therefore can have the detail that a 4k image can. A smaller image can't have that fine detail because its too small and stretched up to fit. A fine dotted line (because its missing bits) will look better when those missing bits are added than a fine line blown up to fit a larger image.
Both CB and upscaling can have the same number of rendered and interpolated pixels but CB gives a better and sharper image because it can have more detail and not being stretched to fit. This is why CB can emulate a 4k image very well.
Technically a CB image is actually a 4k image because it is 3840x2160. Its essentially its like missing pixels out to ensure the frame gets drawn in time and then filling them back in with an algorithm. Its more 'misleading' than anything else but that isn't the first time either as Killzone used this technique too and then was sued for misleading people. Rainbow Six seige isn't 1080p either as that uses CB rendering to deliver 60fps but its still known as a 1080p game.
I personally think its more misleading than a lie. You are getting a 4k image but the game is NOT rendering all of them. Technically the same is true for upscaling too but the fact that you have a smaller image, means that you have to lose the detail and when enlarged, becomes more blurry.
A game like Spider-Man at 1572p actually renders the same number of pixels per frame as CB 4k. Gran Tourismo actually renders less as its CB1800p (2x900p).
Technically, every Xbox One game is output at 1080p but we all know that the games don't look sharp. On an S, you can technically upscale EVERY game to 4k at the console. If you have a 4k TV and connect it to a PS4, you also get a 4k image - upscaling is handled by the TV - the image is filling a 3840x2160 screen so must be 4k.
@BAMozzy
great technical explanation
Another none story for people to moan about of Facebook, we all know by now that very few games on Pro are native 4K and for the most part you'd be hard pressed to tell anyway. It's a shame nobody at Rockstar during their 100 hour weeks thought to call Guerrilla Games/Santa Monica about their reconstruction technique as Rockstars isn't great. It's strange because sometimes it looks very sharp and others it looks quite soft but overall disappointing after the likes of Horizon and God of War
OH GREAT! i got it digitally so i cant even sell it now that i know this ggrrrr
"Fans" ?! I don't think so. I think the vast majority of fans, i.e. people who have played the first game and enjoyed it ... since you can't be a fan if you are new to a series, are really happy just to get a new and really good Red Dead game.
Once console gamers start focusing on [marginally improved] graphics as 'the' most important factor, they should probably switch to PC gaming. Not that you shouldn't care, but the degree to which people care can be very silly.
@Ypmud Thanks but I tried to keep it simple rather than get deep into the technical side.
The main take-away though is that CB rendering is delivering the 'full' size image its quoting - whether that's 1080p in Rainbow Six Seige, 1800p in GT Sport or 2160p in RDR2, HZD or God of War. The difference between a Native rendered image and Chequerboard Rendering is that native means rendering the 'whole' image every frame where as CB renders only half and uses other methods to fill in the other half - both are exactly the same size.
However, if you were to take a smaller image, say 1572p which around the same pixel count as 2x1080p but obviously smaller in size and upscale it to fit a 2160p TV, you have principally the same as CB - half the pixels being rendered and the other generated by some algorithm to fill in the 'gaps' after spreading out all the pixels.
I think its misleading though because people expect the game to be rendering all the image if a game is said to be 4k - not half of it and then filling in the gaps. Every game on a Pro, when the output is set to 2160p, will leave the console at 2160p in size - regardless of what the actual game is running at. Battlefield 4 runs at 900p yet will be 2160p in size when it is sent to a 4k TV from a Pro. Pro owners with a 1080p TV, only get a 1080p image regardless of what resolution the game is running at. EVERY game that leaves a PS4 Pro, when the output is set to 2160p, will leave the console at 4k - whether its upscaled to that size, whether its using CB rendering or native rendering. Technically Sony aren't being dishonest by saying 'play at 4k' because the console can output at 4k regardless of the resolution the game is capable of running on the hardware. There would be uproar though if MS said 'play at 4k on the Xbox One S' which also has the ability to output EVERY game at 4k although these are upscaled 4x to 9x the size they can run at on the hardware.
The issue though is that people associate 4k with 'resolution' with games not image size. All it is though is 'size' and it just refers to how many pixels it has. Photo's are usually measured in inches 6x4, 7x5 (not that people use actual photos these days) and screen resolution is measured in pixels - how many pixels it has on the vertical. When people see 'play in 4k' they expect the game to be running at a native 4k, not using techniques to make the image fit the size. Technically MS can say play in 4k on an Xbox One S because the console will send a 2160p image to a TV too and wouldn't be dishonest - misleading but not dishonest!
@Porco @Badboyfx86 Porco is right. Just look at Sega, starting in the mid 90’s, and the detrimental effect their decisions had on the Sega brand. The release of the Sega Saturn being the point of no return, in terms of customer skepticism. Also, look at how the console wars tipped in Sony’s favor when Nintendo refused to use CD’s for the N64. They chose to give into the fear of losing profits, due to piracy, by sticking with carts.
Hahaha i care so little.
But enough to post here about it.
It is Still not very much though
@BAMozzy I dig your technical explanations. BAMozzy for President!
@TrickyDicky99 CB rendering is only rendering 1920x2160. The rest is just interpolated out - or in some cases, using data from the previous frame to determine what that missing information should be. Its not that different from rendering at 1440p native and spreading all the pixels out to fill a 2160p size and interpolating to fill the gaps.
In principal, its like drawing a dashed line - - - - - - - and then using an algorithm to fill in those gaps so you get a solid full line. Because its not being stretched to fit like a smaller image, the 'fine' details stay fine because you are not stretching them both vertically and horizontally. The hardware is not able to render everything in the allotted time, so its saving time by only rendering half of the image - which takes around the same time as rendering a 'small' image. Its NOT rendering a full 4k. Its rendering the equivalent to around 1572p.
The pixels that are interpolated are not necessarily accurate and by accurate, I mean the exact colour they should be if they were drawn in by the GPU. This is why you get the tell tale signs of CB rendering on edges. When devs use Sony's in built object tracking, there is a higher proportion of the pixels that are correct because it uses data from the previous frame. It was built in by Sony to give the Pro the ability to punch above its weight in terms of hardware specs - take out the element of 'guessing' what colour a pixel should be. Without the use of CB, games like HZD, God of War, RDR2 etc would be running at 1440-1572p because that is all the Hardware is capable of rendering.
CB is essentially a better way of upscaling because its starting with a large image size, rendering half of it and interpolating the other half. Because its not being 'stretched', you can keep more detail and sharper look and don't get the blur you associate with traditional upscaling. A full 4k render will render every pixel as it should be. CB will leave half of the pixels out and arrange those that are left in a CB pattern. The gaps (think black squares on a Chess Board) will be interpolated which is effectively an average of the pixels around it and not necessarily the right colour they should be. If all the pixels around that gap are all the same colour, it will assume that pixel should also be the same colour. If some are black and the others are white, it could assume that gap should be grey (depending on the algorithm). It could stretch 1 pixel over two so you get a dash instead of a dot - again depending on the algorithm.
Point is though, its NOT rendering 4k. Its delivering a 4k image - but so is an Xbox One S too if you set the output to 2160p on a 4k TV. The difference though is that the Xbox is rendering a ninth to a quarter of the pixels and much smaller image which is then stretched to fit a 3840x2160 size and then interpolating to fill in the gaps. Because the image is stretched both vertically and horizontally, you get more blur, more softness. Because the image is 'small', it can't have the fine detail.
If you take a piece of graph paper and cut out little squares in a CB pattern, then put that over an image of the Mona Lisa for example, the holes represent what is being rendered and the bits you can't see, the paper on top, is what is being 'guessed', filled in by an algorithm. Without that, then what you see through the gaps is what you get from the game.
CB rendering still maps the Pixels 1:1 with the resolution. That means that the game can keep fine detail and the lines are still 1:1 too - you can still have a line that's only 1 pixel wide at 4k. That line is too fine for 1080p as you can't have 'half' a pixel wide. If it's 1pixel wide at 1080p, when its 'stretched' to fit it may be two pixels wide (the equivalent to 1 pixel at 1080p) but you also get interpolation which will look at the colour of the line and the colours either side of it, and fill in a gap with a colour halfway between so you get a softening of that edge. A black line on a white background will now have a grey pixel between which is why it looks softer and blurrier - not as sharp as having a solid black next to a solid white.
You would NEVER call an upscaled 1440p image as a 4k image despite the fact that the hardware is rendering around the same number of pixels, then arranging those out over a full 2160p image size and filling in those gaps by interpolation. CB rendering is doing the same but instead of rendering the whole image, its leaving out 'gaps' which are then filled by interpolation.
Going back to the Mona Lisa, if you cut that up into very small squares, and throw away every other one, that is what CB rendering is doing. Its then using an 'algorithm' to guess what the colour of the squares you threw away was. Upscaling is like cutting up the Mona Lisa into squares, spreading them out to make the image larger and then filling in the gaps by using an algorithm to guess what should be there IF the image was actually that big. Point is, both methods are ways of making an image bigger with only 'half' of the actual information. The advantage of CB though is that its not stretching an image to fit and therefore can look sharper and retain more detail but at the cost of issues. These issues can be minimised by using data from the previous frame to have a good idea of what colour that pixel should be
As I said though, Sony aren't technically being dishonest because the game is being output at 2160p. It has 3840x2160 pixels - but then so does the Xbox One S version to when set to output at 2160p. It is misleading though because the game isn't running at 4k, its running at 1920x2160p - just like its running at 864p on Xbox One S and both the Pro and S are then spreading out those pixels and filling in the gaps by interpolation at the output stage. Its no different from your TV spreading out the pixels and filling in the gaps when you send it a low res image (like a DVD or Bluray on a 4k TV). If you have a STB and set to 1080p (or 4k if you have SkyQ for example), the SD channels are upscaled by the STB before sending it to the TV - I doubt your TV is receiving a low res image and then upscaling, its being upscaled by the device. Most devices have this ability and will output 'low' res content at a 'higher' res if you set the output higher.
My SkyQ is set to output at 2160p so I can watch 4k content. SD channels are output at 2160p, as are HD too but they are not 'native' 2160p. RDR2 is NOT rendering at 4k. Its rendering at 1980x2160p - its leaving out half of the image and then filling the rest with a 'guess' or in the best case scenario, using data from the previous frame to have a better idea on what the missing information should have.
If this was audio, it would be the equivalent of having a second of audio, then a second of silence, a second of audio and then another second of silence etc etc being played by a CD, then using an algorithm to try and fill in every bit of silence by looking at the noise before and after and guessing what would be 'needed' to get from one to the next before it comes out of the headphones. Using Sony's inbuilt tracking, would be like having a 'vocabulary' and therefore can make an educated guess at what word was being said/sung, looking at the previous chorus to see how that went and therefore have a better idea of what this chorus should be.
The data in those gaps, whether its upscaled or CB rendered isn't there, its completely missing. Its being filled by a algorithm that essentially is making an educated guess as to what it should be but with data from previous frames, it can look at objects in one frame and see where they are in the next and use that data to determine what has been left out and fill those gaps in. This is why Sony's exclusives have the best implementation of CB rendering. Its using data from the previous frame to take out a lot of the guess work.
I don't know how else to put it. Just because something is leaving the console at 2160p, it doesn't mean its rendering at 2160p. CB rendering is not that different from upscaling as its using a smaller number of pixels, spreading them out to fill the screen size and interpolating to fill in the missing spaces rather than leave them blank. The main difference between Upscaling and Chequerboarding is that Chequerboarding is effectively leaving out half of the data but gives a sharper and higher detailed image where as Upscaling doesn't leave out any data but is being stretched out which results in 'blur' and being smaller, doesn't have the detail. Both can have the same number of pixels being rendered in the GPU, both can have the same number of pixels being interpolated.
Given the choice of native ~1500p or CB2160p, I prefer Chequerboarding myself in general as that offers a sharper, more detailed and overall better PQ (in general) than upscaling but the hardware is still rendering around the same quantity of pixels. Rockstar could have decided to render the game natively on Pro and let an algorithm fill in the other half of the pixels when its upscaled but chose to leave out half of the image instead of rendering all of it and use an algorithm to fill in the other half. The issues associated with CB rendering are generally less obvious compared to the upscaling blur.
@TrickyDicky99 You are wrong!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboard_rendering
I know Wiki isn't the 'MOST' accurate, I have also read papers on it by Ubisoft and the fact that Digital Foundry are also able to determine games like RDR2 are running at 1920x2160p also shows that the game is running at 50% of 4k.
Every frame entering the buffer is only half the data, The first frame entering is all the black squares for example (N) and then the next frame is all the white squares (N+1). In the best case scenario, with Sony's in-built object tracking, they can use the data of from the previous to construct a full image relatively accurately - very accurate if there is NO motion because the frame is made of N and N+1. The fact that you get the black squares and then white means that ALL the data is received BUT it takes 2 frames to get ALL the data compared to Native which gives ALL the data 'every' frame and how they reconstruct or get the other 50% of the information is different depending on developer implementation and post processing. Its still just rendering 50% of the image per frame - no different in essence from rendering 50% of the image size and upscaling. Its more expensive in terms of resources than upscaling but the most expensive is to reconstruct using the previous frame as well as object tracking to ensure the previous frame and the new half that has been rendered align better so when they take the info from the previous frame to fill in the gaps left by the new frame, it lines up and produces a 4k image because its built up of two 1920x2160p images.
Its got more in common with interlaced TV signals which only had 1 half of the image at a time.
Developers have their own methods of CB rendering and the PS4 Pro was built with CB rendering in mind to give a better image than just using the previous frames data or other methods alone. As the games are in motion. just using the previous frame leads to errors in alignment - objects will have moved so you can't take the black squares from 33ms ago and combine them with the new white squares and expect everything to line up perfectly - which is why you can see issues - particularly in fast paced scenes where things can move quite a lot in that time. By using the ID buffer which tracks objects, you can move those black squares to 'fit' where they should be a bit better.
The point is though that CB rendering is still only sending half of the image per frame where native sends all of the data every frame!
Ok, 4K is not 4K for the start. It's 3840x2160 on XboxX not 4096x2160. So, it's 3.8K on XboxX. And why FHD1920x1080 is not called 2K or 1.92K then? So, all adverts for XboxX's 4K anything are also misleading.
Its higher frame rate and higher resolution on xbox one x those are just facts one x 9 times out of 10 plays multiplatform games better I've already got gruff from my friends for buying it for xbox they just cant seem to fathom the game being better on one x, slightly better but still better I love my ps4 pro but I tend to buy multiplats on one x cuz they run and look better I feel like ps4 lovers just cant swallow their pride and admit xbox has the superior version and just enjoy the game sony still has the best console if your only gonna own one because of their exclusives xbox one x won this battle only x tho cuz one s is the worst version but sony is still winning the war I have all consoles so I just get the best version no fanboy just call um as I see them then I buy um but hey sony still has spiderman
@whoisbdub
And Bloodborne
And God of War
And Horizon: Days Gone
And Until Dawn
And Persona 5
And Yakuza
And The Last Guardian...
I can go all day...
@lacerz I already said ps4 is king if you only want 1 console but the fact still remains multiplats are better on one x, ps4 exclusives are the best I know that, that's why I also have a pro, best of both worlds
@LN78 Nah, looks like is failbox fanboys trolling with PC and PS4 players.
@TrickyDicky99 You are WRONG!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcRn5CwrMHo
The game is running at 1920x2160p. In other words EVERY FRAME is rendering at 50% (half) that of NATIVE 4k. It is then blending two (or more) frames together in this case to create 1 image. If you transition from one scene to the next, the first frame (at least) is very poor because the previous frame doesn't align at all as it was different and takes at least another half frame to be rendered to be able to align and merge with.
As I said above, the first frame (all the black squares) is N and rendered in 33ms, the next frame is all the white squares, N+1) which is rendered 33ms after. These are 'merged' to create what looks like a 4k image, the next frame, N, is then merged with the previous N+1 and so on. The game is rendering 50% of native 4k every frame - it is NOT rendering a FULL 3840x2160p.
The final frame, after reconstruction may well be a full 3840x2160p but the GPU cannot render the full image every frame so its essentially rendering a full 4k every 2 frames or 'half' every frame unlike the X which is rendering a FULL 3840x2160 every frame.
If I am wrong, then you ought to tell DF and all the other 'professional' people they are wrong too - either that or be 'content in your ignorance'.
@LN78 The X is the better hardware and therefore is going to run Multi-platform games better - assuming the Devs utilise that big advantage. Its like a GTX970 isn't going to run games at the same frame rates, resolution and visual settings as a GTX1080ti. PC gamers know that having better hardware makes games run and look better so why can't console gamers expect the same?
It was OK for PS4 to have a much better GPU which meant better visuals (as proven by RDR2 at 1080p compared 862p on XB1) but now the X is out, the roles have reversed at the high end.
Lets be honest here, the Pro and X CPU is relatively close matched in that both are based on Jaguar yet the X is clocked at 2.3Ghz compared to the Pro's 2.1Ghz - that's 200mhz difference to convert to the speed we normally associate with GPU's. Considering the PS4 GPU runs at 800mhz and the Pro's GPU runs at 911mhz, you can see that 200mhz isn't insignificant as well as the fact that Xbox CPU offloads some tasks to other dedicated hardware too to free up more resources to handle tasks.
On raw compute power, the X GPU is 6Tflops compared to the 4.2Tflops in a Pro. That's a difference of 1.8Tflops - the base PS4 has a raw compute performance of 1.84Tflops - essentially a whole PS4 better. Of course we don't know how much more efficient the GPU could be so raw compute isn't necessarily an indication but as we often see a 2x improvement on X rather than just a 50% boost, it appears to be delivering more than just a PS4's worth above a Pro.
RAM too is much higher. It may just have an extra 3.5GB RAM allocated for games - excluding both's allocation to system, but the RAM is also 50% higher bandwidth too.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trolling Sony or belittling the Pro either but its basic common sense. If you had a PC that was the equivalent to a Pro, you wouldn't expect it to match up to a higher spec machine so why expect a Pro to do so?
The Pro is, in my opinion, a half way step between the PS4 and a true 4k console. A halfway step between PS4 and PS5. We see this in the average game comparisons. 4k is a 4x jump from 1080p yet we see most games hitting around 2x that of the PS4. RDR2 is no different as the Pro is running at 2x1080p compared to 1080p on a PS4, games like H:ZD, God of War etc are also running at that incremental increase - even Spider-Man too although instead of using CB method, they opted to go native and those that do go native, tend to be around the 1440p mark depending on what visual setting upgrades they choose - the more the lower the native resolution. Again, its not that different from a PC. If you have an RX580 a decent 1440p GPU, you turn up the visual settings, you drop down in frame rates but to keep frame rates at the same level, you can turn down the resolution.
It made sense for Sony to make the Pro more of a half step up than a 'leap' - which we can all agree the X is a big leap up from an Xbox One where RDR2 is running at around 6x the resolution of the base console. That gives Sony the scope to go the other half step with the PS5. Part of what people expect from a new generation is that visual leap and if you are already delivering native 4k with reasonably decent visual settings, then games won't look significantly better. They may play at double (or more) the frame rate but we all see games long before we play and if the games look just as good, then the PS5 won't be seen as much of an upgrade. Of course the PS5 has other areas too - like 4k HDR Bluray player, Dolby Atmos audio, Dolby Vision capability, Variable Refresh Rates functionality etc. The X has 'little' that would be seen as much of an upgrade - more of an iterative step up because its already offering 4k and those features. The main area is likely to be frame rates although Ray Tracing could be another area but in some games may well be more subtle differences compared to others - depending on the setting and time period.
As for the PS4 Pro version, I have seen that forcing the game to 1080p (setting the output at 1080p and turning off super-sampling in the Pro's settings) delivers a better image - specifically on 1080p TV's - as it forces the game to native 1080p and improves performance too - as demonstrated in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcRn5CwrMHo
At the end of the day though, the game looks better on a Pro than on a base XB1 and runs better too than the base consoles. It may not look as good as the X version but that's to be expected with the extra grunt the hardware has. There are some people calling for the resolution to be dropped to native (1440-1572p) rather than use CB but I do wonder if its more for marketing than actually for the benefit of gamers. Sony forcing Rockstar to use CB knowing the X was delivering native 4k. I don't know if it would look worse at a lower res - even though the GPU is still rendering the same pixel count - It could be blurrier but the Temporal Anti-Aliasing seems to work better on native resolutions - especially as you increase the resolution - as proven by the other console versions which are all native. It would super-sample better too for HD TV owners but whether or not it would look better on a 4k TV, I don't know - Spider-Man looks great though and certainly no worse than H:ZD or God of War which have the best use of CB seen in games...
@BAMozzy Thanks for all of that. That is the best explanation I've ever read for the difference between upscaling and checkerboard and it actually makes sense now. And I like your use of the word "misleading", it's very nice to read something less judgmental in a world gone mad. Makes me wonder if anybody woudl even care abotu Sony being misleading about RDR2 in 4k if it wasn't for X1X actually being 4k. Well if I understand things correctly about what people are saying, that X1X is actually rendering RDR2 in that true resolution, no checkerboard or upscaling.
Reminds me a little of when 720p TVs were considered HD, until most tv's were 1080p and then 720p tvs were HD, just not true HD or full HD, so anybody who bought a 720o HD at launch was considered state of the art, but when that tv was 7 or 8 years old and everybody had 1080p tvs all of a sudden my HD tv wasn't HD anymore.
@rjejr The thing is, 720p is HD and I am sure 1440p would be considered UHD too. High Definition is above what is considered standard and 720p was.
The difference between that and this is more the fact that Sony are misleading people to think the game is running at 4k - not half of that as it is. Its not being 100% clear on this - whether its upscaling or Chequerboard rendering, the game is not running at the resolution the game is being output at. A 900p game has a higher number of pixels being rendered than a CB 1080p - just like 1800p would be more pixels than CB4k and regardless of whether the console is set to output at 1080p or 4k, the game is still running at 'lower' than expected. Its not dishonest to say the game is being output at 4k in this case, but its also misleading people to think that the game itself is running at 4k.
As I said, MS could claim their XB1 is outputting at 1080p or their Xbox One S is outputting games at 2160p - not dishonest at all but it doesn't tell the whole truth either.
I can understand peoples issue with the way its advertised - its almost 'false' advertisement - except Sony are not stating the game IS running at a full 4k (nor stating otherwise either) and would get away with it because the console does output at 2160p. That being said, people do seem to be 'outraged' at the merest thing these days instead of enjoying the game for what it is. Its still a great game regardless of what methods are used to render it. If you only have a Pro, then its the 'best' that console can offer. the alternative would be 1440-1562p. You aren't going to get a RX580 to perform at the same level as a GTX1080 and I am sure if Rockstar had more performance available from the Pro, they may not have used CB rendering. Its a tool to devs to get the impression of much higher resolutions and/or frame rates from hardware that can't do it natively.
You asked though if I thought they were telling lies and technically they aren't. Dynamic 4k isn't telling lies either - even if the only time a game hits 4k is if you don't move and have your nose up against a wall to reduce draw distance, detail etc - calling a game 60fps - even if it runs at 40fps 99.99% of the time are quite common in gaming so its not unusual for things to not be as honest as they could in this industry....
720p is HD and has always been - even back when. It was always the low end of HD and not the top end. Its like HDR TV's today where you have 'low end' TV's that can play HDR content but aren't much brighter than SDR TV's and don't offer the wide colour gamut. 720p TV's were 'budget' HD TV's but as 1080p TV's got cheaper and people stopped buying 720p TV's as a result.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...