Raffles

@__jamiie I hope you're wrong, consoles are fun.

@takasugi77 Why does Gran Turismo say hi?

GT7 and FH4 are the best racing games of the generation by far, both amazing games, but in the realm of racers they couldn't be more different.

Yes for Ishin.

@SJBUK I don't disagree. Even though I have a PC plugged into my living room TV with Playnite etc, I do find the slickness and convenience of consoles unbeatable.

Optimisation is an interesting one. When console hardware was radically different to PCs, console specific optimisation could and would trump similar spec PCs. We're talking in the PS2 and 360/PS3 eras.

These days though it's quite different. As hardware has become more standardised, and the PS5 is essentially a PC with a Ryzen 3700, Radeon RX 6700, and its own API - console specific optimisations are less of a thing and the performance between PC and console is often closely matched.

In some of DF's comparisons, I was actually surprised the RX6700 outperformed the PS5 in more cases than not, I thought it would be the opposite on account of a more lightweight OS and a custom optimised custom graphics API.

In some cases it still happens though. My 3070, despite being closer in power to a PS5 Pro, can't match the base PS5 in Ratchet and Clank. At 1440p with raytracing, similar to PerformanceRT mode on the PS5, it can only manage about 40fps. The PS5 runs at a solid 60.

Another big advantage for console over PC gaming is actually the shader compilation stuttering that has really hampered PC gaming ever since DX12.

It's another reason to generally choose the console version.

@SJBUK Sure, I know all that, and even though I have a PC with an RTX 3070 (similar power to a PS5 Pro as it happens), 9/10 I'll play a game on the PS5 or SeriesX. I like the speed, convenience, front ends, just the whole console experience. The only exception being if a game is capped at 30 on console, then I'll play on PC.

I'm just saying for anyone who might be interested, you don't have to spend anywhere near £2k to go the PC route. I just did a test build on Amazon including case and power supply for just over £1000, for an 4070 Super and Ryzen 7600. Yes it's £300 more, but both CPU and GPU are about 50% faster than a PS5 Pro. So you get 50% more performance for 43% more money, decent value

@Medic_alert Yes it's funny, upscaling is still a dirty word for some people, even though elite image reconstruction like DLSS has proved to be so good it can actually beat native 4k. Looks surprisingly stable in motion too, as that's one of the biggest flaws of TAA, and TAAU.

On that note, PISSER is much better than I expected. Not quite as good in motion as DLSS, in some of the static shots I actually preferred the image to DLSS.

DLSS has proved to one of the best things about modern gaming. Native resolution is a waste of resources, when you can render at half resolution, and achieve the same or better level of detail/clarity, better spending GPU resources for the quality of each pixel rather than 8 million pixels for the sake of it.

@Medic_alert Yes it's a decent chunk more, but still half the price that was bandied around, and you do get a machine that's more powerful and future proof.

@SJBUK You can spend under a grand on PC components that would beat a PS5 Pro. That would be an RTX 4070, Ryzen 5 7600, mobo, 32gb of RAM etc.

Yes it's still a bit more than a PS5 Pro, but not even close to £2k, and you get a powerful, versatile, future proof system.

PC gaming is not for everyone, and tbh I'm more of a console gamer myself, but it's an absolute myth you need to spend £2k to build a good PC, when you build a legit gaming PC for less than half that.

The best headline I've seen so far on Push Square.

@Weebleman Agreed.

You know, as an aside regarding PC gaming, I'm a console gamer at heart and not really a typical PC gamer at all.

It always makes me laugh when people act like they don't want a gaming PC as you have to sit hunched over a chair with a mouse and keyboard. At this point, that's quite an old fashioned view of PC gaming.

For over a decade, I've had a gaming PC plugged into the living room TV via HDMI, just like a console, with a wireless Xbox controller or 8bitdo Pro 2.

Paired with a wireless controller, and having Playnite autostart with Windows, it really bridges the gap to the convenience of console gaming. Playnite is a piece of software that essentially acts like a console front end - just a big list of thumbnails of all the games you have installed, that you can browse with a controller and start playing like you would a console.

There are pros and cons to PC gaming though. I won't argue with you about the pick up and play nature - PC gaming still has more quirks and more setup involved than console gaming.

The pros are the scalability and range of games on offer, as well as the essentially infinite library that carries forward to future PCs. But the convenience and simplicity of consoles means that's my preferred way to play 9/10, the main exception being if I can play a much better version on PC, ie higher framerate etc

@Weebleman lol at the reactions of your wife and friend. My girlfriend usually has a similar reaction, but strangely she seemed more impressed than I anticipated by DF's comparisons

Your account of the pro is interesting though, as it's almost exactly how I feel, only I haven't taken the plunge yet.

When it was first unveiled, the comparisons seemed so underwhelming and the price seemed so absurd, that I immediately scoffed and dismissed the idea of getting one.

But since then, it's been looking more attractive, and the inevitable "new gadget" thing kicked in, just like you said.

It's tough to justify though, as I do have a 3070 - which has similar capabilities to the Pro GPU - paired with a better CPU. So for me, right now at least, it would be just for GT7. I do love GT7, but still.

Having said that, I know exactly what you mean about future proofing the back end of the gen. You can already see the change happening, developers getting carried away and pushing things more than the horsepower of the machines really allows. Invevitably we'll start seeing lower and lower base resolutions, and/or lower and lower framerates.

The 360/PS3 was particularly extreme like this. As impressive as it was you had technical powerhouses like GTA 5 and Far Cry 3 running on them at all, it was at about 720p20

So it was actually Far Cry 3 that pushed me towards PC gaming, until this gen pulled me back towards the console side.

@Weebleman Agreed, I appreciate it too

You know, I assumed it was maybe because you were so pumped about your new PS5 Pro, which is good, obviously that's part of the fun of new machines right? Or maybe you're very perceptive to framerate and can tell a big difference between 90 and 120, in which case fair play.

Who knows, maybe it'll seem like a big jump to me too playing GT7 at a locked 4k120

@Eduard_Brenton Forza Horizon 4 and Microsoft Flight Simulator

@Weebleman Ha, I was just about to reply that mode on the PS5 is a fixed 4K too

In fact, as far as I'm aware, GT7 doesn't use dynamic resolution in any mode, just drops frames instead.

That's one of the reasons I was curious about your head and shoulders comment. As the base PS5 can run GT7 at full 4k circa 90fps, and it does look and feel incredible with VRR. For me at least, the difference between that and 4k120 is negligible. 90 feels quite a bit smoother than 60, but beyond 90 seems like diminishing returns. 120fps+ seems most useful for lowering input lag. I've tried the locked 120hz mode in GT7 that runs at 1260p, and it does feel silky smooth, but not really worth the hit in clarity when the unlocked VRR mode feels extremely smooth and responsive anyway. For me, head and shoulder would more be 30 to 60 or 1080p to 4k

Having said that, would I choose 4k120 given the choice? Of course. That is the ideal resolution/refresh rate that maxes out our TVs, and the dream would be for all games to run at 4k120.

As I said before, what appeals to me the most is the new Pro raytracing mode. I was initially disappointed that it ran at sub 4k, but it turns out PISSER is much better than I expected. I didn't expect it to be anywhere near DLSS, especially the initial version, but it almost is. DLSS seems a bit cleaner and more stable in motion, but in some of the comparison shots with R&C I think, I actually preferred the PSSR image, seemed a bit smoother and more pleasing to the eye, with a similar amount of detail.

And in the GT7 footage, I was really surprised that the new PSSR upscaled raytracing mode actually looked slightly sharper/more detailed the than existing native 4k image.

@Weebleman I was curious as yeah I was aware this is pre-patch.

I play GT7 on a 120hz OLED screen, and the unlocked quality mode in VRR is brilliant. Amazingly hitting 90fps on a PS5, regularly.

I'm not sure I'd consider the same thing at 120fps to be "head and shoulders" above the base game running that mode in VRR at the same resolution but I'm sure it feels good yeah.

I look forward to seeing what the actual Pro patch is like, as the Pro version of GT7 is the what makes the PS5 Pro most appealing to me.

Oh and I hope they retain the option of playing the core version of GT7 at 4k120, as that obviously has appeal.

@Weebleman In what way is GT7 head and shoulders above the base version?

@GADG3Tx87 When did they beg?

@gaston Yep. A TFLOP advantage only really manifests in real world performance, if everything else is equal - memory bandwidth, TDP, GPU architecture etc.

The Quest 3 has extremely limited memory bandwidth, only 64gb/s, which is just over twice that of a Nintendo Switch. Yet we're asking it to push 6 million pixels at 72fps+

So it's pretty clear why such dated visuals are needed, with largely baked lighting etc. The cost per pixel - or lack of - becomes paramount.

I'm impressed by some of the visuals on the Quest 3, given the basic shaders, lack of post processing, lack of realtime shadows, multiple realtime lights etc. A mixture of good art direction, textures, modelling etc still results in some very attractive games.

In comparison, even the base PS4 has almost 3 times the memory bandwidth of the Quest 3.

From what I've seen first hand, the Steam Deck also outperforms the Quest 3, despite on paper the Quest 3 having a slight TFLOP advantage.

What many people probably don't realise about the Quests, is their CPU is extremely limited. Meta err'd on the side of caution in a big way with the clockspeed of the XR2, despite having active cooling.

With mobile VR, you'd naturally think the GPU would be the limiting factor, having to push so many pixels at such a high framerate. But the CPU is just as big a bottleneck imo, and limits the kind of games you can make.

For reference, the Steam Deck CPU is over twice as powerful as the Quest 3's. And yet, it's acceptable - just about - for a Steam Deck game to run at 30fps. On the Quest 3 you're working with a CPU that's half the speed, targeting 72fps. Therefore big complex games, with lots of draw calls, physics, streaming system etc, are going to be very challenging.

The Quest 3 has some impressive tricks up its sleeve though, that does help it punch above its weight, such as SpaceWarp.

@NEStalgia Check this out, a recent GPU comparison DF did with the PS5, and afaik the only one directly comparing the PS5 to a 4060. The PS5 actually outperforms the 4060 in Plague Tale Requiem. The PS5 is on par with the 2070 Super in Avatar, and in Alan Wake Quality Settings the 4060 is only 6% faster, so very much the same class of GPU.

https://youtu.be/PuLHRbalyGs?si=5wuISr31gr8Bx8yN&t=697

As you can see, the PS5 is a far closer match to a 2070 Super and 4060 than a base 2070, and the PS5 Pro (as silly as I think it is, costing £800 with disc drive etc), is significantly better than a 4060.

@NEStalgia Almost all the benchmarks DigitalFoundry have done on the PS5 has put it significantly above the 2070 in everything apart from raytracing. Generally in 2070 Super territory, and in one or 2 games matching a 2080. Which is again, in line with a 4060. The base PS5 is not quite as good, but close to a 4060.

Yes if you only look at TFLOPS the PS5 Pro is in 4060 territory, but there's more to performance than just TFLOPS.

Look at the ROG Ally for example. On paper it has twice the TFLOPS of the Series S, but due to the terrible memory bandwidth, it's not as good as SeriesS in real world performance.

The 4060 has 15 TFLOPS on paper, but its memory bandwidth isn't even close to the PS5 (272 vs 448 gb/s), so despite the compute advantage, it has ballpark PS5 performance.

To further prove it's not as simple as TFLOPS - the RX 6800 is about 40% faster than a 4060, despite on paper having more or less the same TFLOPS. That's due to a huge advantage in memory bandwidth, and pixel/texel throughput.

@NEStalgia I don't like to defend the PS5 Pro, but I've noticed in some recent posts you've cited it as being equivalent to a 4060.

That's not accurate. In fact, ironically, it's the base PS5 that's closest to a 4060. From Nvidia's current GPU lineup, the 4060 is the closest, and in some recent DigitalFoundry benchmarks, the PS5 did perform almost on par with a 4060. Which makes sense, as they are both between a 2070 Super and 2080 and the PS5 always performed similarly to those two.

I don't think it's as good as a 4070 either, but it's much closer to a 4070 than it is to a 4060 or even 4060 ti.

It's pretty much an RX6800 with much better image reconstruction.

"More vibrant colours"

As well as PSSR and a few more TFLOPS, does the PS5 Pro have a newly extended colour gamut? HDR10++? HDR20?

@Loamy PSSR aside, yes I agree the raw 45% increase in GPU horsepower should help any PS5 game that is pushing the system to its limits - either maintain resolution, maintain 60fps, or both.

So it certainly has its merits sure, even without any PS5 Pro specific updates.

But the CPU boost is only 10% (3.5ghz to 3.85ghz) so the increase in loading times is negligible. We're talking about a level taking 6 seconds to load on a PS5, and 5.45 seconds to load on a PS5 Pro

I just had to clarify a couple of things, I don't want people getting the wrong idea, thinking they'll be getting proper image reconstruction to 4k/8k on any game, and blazing fast load times

Cheers.

@Loamy Out of everything you listed as automatic improvements, the only one that's true is dynamic resolution improving, and sticking to the upper bounds.

Even stabilising framedrops is only going to apply if the game is GPU bound. Which means a lot of the time yes it could well lead to a solid 60fps if GPU load is causing the drops, but in other cases like Dragon's Dogma 2 and Cyberpunk, not so much, as they are often CPU bound.

And PSSR being used at a system level as you suggested, isn't possible. PSSR is like DLSS, it needs to be integrated into the render loop, per game, by the developer.

And loading times also won't be improved, the PS5 Pro has the same CPU.

@thefourfoldroot1 You appeared to dispute the idea that FPS Boost exists, saying "if the devs locked the game at 30, it's locked at 30 regardless of hardware".

Clearly that's not true. Even though it required work from Microsoft, there are plenty of 30fps games running at 60fps on a SeriesX, with no developer input.

So maybe it's you who's confused?

@thefourfoldroot1

Here you go. FPS Boost is amazing, a big reason I bought some of these games on the SeriesX.

https://news.xbox.com/en-us/fpsboost/

https://www.purexbox.com/guides/all-fps-boost-games-for-xbox-series-x-and-xbox-series-s

Pretty sizable list too that Microsoft have essentially hacked to run at 60fps.

The PS1 colours have never been bettered in a console, before or since.

The PS5 Pro is a bit pointless, but man I love the PS1 colour scheme, might have to grab a controller at least.