Holy crap! imagine the graphics of RDR3, HZD 2, Next gen GOW , next gen gears of war etc...

  • 133 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for whatafailure
#51 Posted by WhatAFailure (368 posts) -

Plus, with a graphics thread, even lemmings, sheep and hermits can contribute somewhat. Even if it says PS5 in the title, they can chime in and speculate, debate, whatever.

If this was asking "How did you like God of War?", many of those same users can't respond in System Wars because they never played it!

Avatar image for warmblur
#52 Edited by warmblur (2381 posts) -

I'm more interested into seeing what next gen VR headset will look like especially on PC VR has spoiled me. Yeah I'm looking forward to see next gen graphics but being in VR takes it to a whole new level of being mind blown by tech looking at a tv or monitor can't replicate being fully immersed into a game.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#53 Posted by PC_Rocks (2323 posts) -

@emgesp said:
@pc_rocks said:

Who brought exclusives? DO I see a goal post move? You claimed console exclusives below the PC games out of the water which was factually proven to be false.

And it's not cherry picking, UC4 looks outright garbage outside of close up faces/cutscenes. One is a flagship 2016 Sony exclusive other was a last gen 2013 game on PC. One has fully dyanmic lighting, shadows, GI, caustics, reflections, particle effects, foliage. Other baked 99.9999999% of its stuff. It's apples to apples. YOu knows get owned even more, fine compare KZ:SF to Crysis 3 and gets pwned even more. I think I already mentioned the lies GG made about it in the other thread where I'm owning you over Sony lies. Crysis 3 is still more advanced than 100% of PS4 exclusives.

None of the games on PS4 or even Pro has fully dynamic lighting. So yeah and the fact remains a 2010 game needed to be downgraded in order to make it run on PS4 4 years later. You have been royally owned.

I was talking about exclusives. That was my original point you quoted.

Uncharted 4 as a whole is extremely impressive, sure you can cherry pick scenes that aren't flattering, but anyone could do that. Anyways Uncharted 4 has since been surpassed in graphical fidelity by other PS4 exclusives.

I don't care if Metro 2033 uses fully dynamic lighting when the overal graphics still look outdated to whats been released since on PS4/PS4 Pro. Just because a game uses fully dynamic lighting doesn't mean it automatically looks better than anything that doesn't use FDL. Metro Exodus on PS4 Pro looks much better graphically than Metro 2033.

Oh really because you said this in the post: There will be PS5 exclusives that blow what PC is currently doing out of the water. I don't see any exclusive there.

No UC4 as a whole is extremely shitty and only impressive for a console game. Crysis 2/3 shits on it and every single Sony game in every technical detail apart from PBR. There was no cherry picking, the cherry picking is by cows when they post screenshots of closeup cutscenes and onrails segments. In actual gameplay it just sucks. Hell I'm 100% sure the upcoming TLOU 2 will still be technically inferior to Crysis 3, TLOU 2 will still be baking 99% of its effects and graphics but little to no realtime effects.

You don't because you got owned. Lighting is the most demanding feature and the thing that improves the graphics the most. Fact is Metro 2033 from 2010 had to be downgraded to run on PS4 4 years later. And you can't even play the lazy devs excuse because in similar time ND put out TLOU remaster that couldn't fit 60 FPS but Metro on PS4 did while having much better graphics than TLOU remaster. So yeah, 9 years and counting. Wake me up when you have surpassed the bar set in 2010 before beating your chest about current PC games.

Avatar image for emgesp
#54 Edited by emgesp (7830 posts) -
@pc_rocks said:

Oh really because you said this in the post: There will be PS5 exclusives that blow what PC is currently doing out of the water. I don't see any exclusive there.

No UC4 as a whole is extremely shitty and only impressive for a console game. Crysis 2/3 shits on it and every single Sony game in every technical detail apart from PBR. There was no cherry picking, the cherry picking is by cows when they post screenshots of closeup cutscenes and onrails segments. In actual gameplay it just sucks. Hell I'm 100% sure the upcoming TLOU 2 will still be technically inferior to Crysis 3, TLOU 2 will still be baking 99% of its effects and graphics but little to no realtime effects.

You don't because you got owned. Lighting is the most demanding feature and the thing that improves the graphics the most. Fact is Metro 2033 from 2010 had to be downgraded to run on PS4 4 years later. And you can't even play the lazy devs excuse because in similar time ND put out TLOU remaster that couldn't fit 60 FPS but Metro on PS4 did while having much better graphics than TLOU remaster. So yeah, 9 years and counting. Wake me up when you have surpassed the bar set in 2010 before beating your chest about current PC games.

With the way better Zen 2 CPU, Navi based GPU with ray tracing capabilities, SSD and most likely at least 16GB's of GDDR6 in the PS5, the PC will have even less advantage out the gate come next-gen. PS4's CPU was a pretty big bottleneck this whole generation, well that will no longer be the case for PS5. You will be seeing a hell of a lot more 60fps games next-gen. No, not every game, but way more than this generation.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#55 Posted by PC_Rocks (2323 posts) -

@emgesp said:
@pc_rocks said:

Oh really because you said this in the post: There will be PS5 exclusives that blow what PC is currently doing out of the water. I don't see any exclusive there.

No UC4 as a whole is extremely shitty and only impressive for a console game. Crysis 2/3 shits on it and every single Sony game in every technical detail apart from PBR. There was no cherry picking, the cherry picking is by cows when they post screenshots of closeup cutscenes and onrails segments. In actual gameplay it just sucks. Hell I'm 100% sure the upcoming TLOU 2 will still be technically inferior to Crysis 3, TLOU 2 will still be baking 99% of its effects and graphics but little to no realtime effects.

You don't because you got owned. Lighting is the most demanding feature and the thing that improves the graphics the most. Fact is Metro 2033 from 2010 had to be downgraded to run on PS4 4 years later. And you can't even play the lazy devs excuse because in similar time ND put out TLOU remaster that couldn't fit 60 FPS but Metro on PS4 did while having much better graphics than TLOU remaster. So yeah, 9 years and counting. Wake me up when you have surpassed the bar set in 2010 before beating your chest about current PC games.

With the way better Zen 2 CPU, Navi based GPU with ray tracing capabilities, SSD and most likely at least 16GB's of GDDR6 in the PS5, the PC will have even less advantage out the gate come next-gen. PS4's CPU was a pretty big bottleneck this whole generation, well that will no longer be the case for PS5. You will be seeing a hell of a lot more 60fps games next-gen. No, not every game, but way more than this generation.

Irrelevant. That's not what you claimed and are now just writing random things to claw your way out of the hole you dig.

Avatar image for mosquitobaby
#56 Posted by MosquitoBaby (74 posts) -

@Planeforger said:

I'm guessing they'll be similar to this gen, but a little bit better?

It has been a very long time since we last saw huge leaps in graphical power between console generations.

We're not going to see a massive leap, anymore. Don't think its possible. Plus, let's not forget the number 1 reason - $$$.

Avatar image for emgesp
#57 Edited by emgesp (7830 posts) -
@mosquitobaby said:
@Planeforger said:

I'm guessing they'll be similar to this gen, but a little bit better?

It has been a very long time since we last saw huge leaps in graphical power between console generations.

We're not going to see a massive leap, anymore. Don't think its possible. Plus, let's not forget the number 1 reason - $$$.

Based on the specs its already confirmed to be a pretty massive leap. Ray-tracing even in its most basic form will do some really neat things visually. It'll take PS6 or PS7 to show the full capabilities of ray-tracing, but PS5 should give us a pretty good taste of things to come.

Developers will continue to improve their skills and engines to better take advantage of ray-tracing, its still early days so there hasn't been enough optimiziation done yet.

Avatar image for emgesp
#58 Posted by emgesp (7830 posts) -

@pc_rocks said:
@emgesp said:

Irrelevant. That's not what you claimed and are now just writing random things to claw your way out of the hole you dig.

The answer is still yes, PS5 will provide visuals that look more impressive than what PC is currently doing, just like PS4 eventually did compared to what PC was doing back in 2013. Best looking games on PS4 look more impressive overall than best looking PC games back in 2013. You don't have to agree, but a lot of people agree with me.

Avatar image for mosquitobaby
#59 Posted by MosquitoBaby (74 posts) -

@emgesp said:
@mosquitobaby said:
@Planeforger said:

I'm guessing they'll be similar to this gen, but a little bit better?

It has been a very long time since we last saw huge leaps in graphical power between console generations.

We're not going to see a massive leap, anymore. Don't think its possible. Plus, let's not forget the number 1 reason - $$$.

Based on the specs its already confirmed to be a pretty massive leap. Ray-tracing even in its most basic form will do some really neat things visually. It'll take PS6 or PS7 to show the full capabilities of ray-tracing, but PS5 should give us a pretty good taste of things to come.

Developers will continue to improve their skills and engines to better take advantage of ray-tracing, its still early days so there hasn't been enough optimiziation done yet.

Even with those specs, you can't expect a PS1 to PS2 leap. We're not going to see that anymore.

Avatar image for emgesp
#60 Edited by emgesp (7830 posts) -
@mosquitobaby said:
@emgesp said:
@mosquitobaby said:
@Planeforger said:

I'm guessing they'll be similar to this gen, but a little bit better?

It has been a very long time since we last saw huge leaps in graphical power between console generations.

We're not going to see a massive leap, anymore. Don't think its possible. Plus, let's not forget the number 1 reason - $$$.

Based on the specs its already confirmed to be a pretty massive leap. Ray-tracing even in its most basic form will do some really neat things visually. It'll take PS6 or PS7 to show the full capabilities of ray-tracing, but PS5 should give us a pretty good taste of things to come.

Developers will continue to improve their skills and engines to better take advantage of ray-tracing, its still early days so there hasn't been enough optimiziation done yet.

Even with those specs, you can't expect a PS1 to PS2 leap. We're not going to see that anymore.

PS2 to PS3 was actually a much bigger leap. Programmable shaders really made a big difference. You can think of ray-tracing as the programmable shaders of next-gen in how much of an impact they can improve the visuals. If PS5 has at least a 10 Teraflop GPU then we'll be in for a real treat. I think it'll be over that based on power consumption targets of OG PS4 and Pro. They should be able to hit around 11 - 12 Teraflops.

Look at what OG PS4 was capable of with those crappy Jaguar cores and a 1.84 Teraflop GPU. Now just imagine what developers will be able to do with a console that has 8 Zen 2 Cores and a 10+ Teraflop GPU with ray tracing capabilities. Its gonna be pretty awesome.

Avatar image for Pedro
#61 Posted by Pedro (34618 posts) -

Good Lawd, ray tracing is not going to introduce ground breaking visuals because it’s already in use in games in the form of imitation or pre calculated. Most people would not be able to tell the difference and those who can will rely on frame by frame comparison.

Avatar image for i_p_daily
#62 Edited by I_P_Daily (11824 posts) -

@whatafailure: That's just it cow threads revolve around the same 4 things graphics/sales/scores/awards never gameplay, at this point you guys are a broken record.

Find 3 threads in the last year from cows that is talking specifically about the gameplay if you can.

Avatar image for Gatygun
#63 Edited by Gatygun (1473 posts) -
@emgesp said:
@mosquitobaby said:
@emgesp said:
@mosquitobaby said:

We're not going to see a massive leap, anymore. Don't think its possible. Plus, let's not forget the number 1 reason - $$$.

Based on the specs its already confirmed to be a pretty massive leap. Ray-tracing even in its most basic form will do some really neat things visually. It'll take PS6 or PS7 to show the full capabilities of ray-tracing, but PS5 should give us a pretty good taste of things to come.

Developers will continue to improve their skills and engines to better take advantage of ray-tracing, its still early days so there hasn't been enough optimiziation done yet.

Even with those specs, you can't expect a PS1 to PS2 leap. We're not going to see that anymore.

PS2 to PS3 was actually a much bigger leap. Programmable shaders really made a big difference. You can think of ray-tracing as the programmable shaders of next-gen in how much of an impact they can improve the visuals. If PS5 has at least a 10 Teraflop GPU then we'll be in for a real treat. I think it'll be over that based on power consumption targets of OG PS4 and Pro. They should be able to hit around 11 - 12 Teraflops.

Look at what OG PS4 was capable of with those crappy Jaguar cores and a 1.84 Teraflop GPU. Now just imagine what developers will be able to do with a console that has 8 Zen 2 Cores and a 10+ Teraflop GPU with ray tracing capabilities. Its gonna be pretty awesome.

Raytracing is more tessellation / physics then programmable shaders if you would want to compare it.

It doesn't help performance even remotely it completely kills it. Then 4k and 60 fps with it?

Good luck letting that vega 64 boot that. We don't even know the clocks of the GPU and CPU for that matter. And how raytracing is going to even be used.

Next gen will pretty much be a PS4+ and nothing more.

Want a generation boost?

You need 40 tflops, 64 gb gddr6, ryzen that alteast beasts 5x faster then gen 2 with a SSD of whatever speed.

The gpu is going to be tripple the performance of a PS4 pro, wouldn't be shocked if that ryzen cpu is not much going to be then twice to three times the performance to not bottleneck that gpu. With tripple the memory

3x more performance in comparison towards a ps4 pro that can't even maintain 4k resolutions in any game on 60 fps. \

That SSD also isn't going to be a game breaker when everybody in the market will have to support xbox and pc drives with it. Much like blu-ray in the PS3 area, completely useless besides the few games sony pushes as exclusives.

Or could you explain me exactly what makes that ryzen gen 2 so special exactly?

Because as far as i see it. they wouldn't even be capable to run battlefield 5 at 4k, 60 fps and raytracing without having to full blown optimize the game ( lower visual quality ) like they did with metro 2033.

Also the ryzen clocks will decide if we see focus on high framerates or resolution. Low clocked ryzen will be more focus on resolution then framerate, high clocked ryzen will be more focused on framerates.

Also PS5 ryzen is going to be nowhere near the speed of desktop ryzens.

BF5 for you.

Finally, we have 4k ultra, where we get some good news and bad news. The good news is that the RTX 2070 and above all manage 60fps, as does the GTX 1080 Ti. The bad news is that ray tracing cuts performance roughly in half, but I'd suggest 4k with ray tracing is probably asking a bit much right now.

Avatar image for emgesp
#64 Edited by emgesp (7830 posts) -
@Gatygun said:

Raytracing is more tessellation / physics then programmable shaders if you would want to compare it.

It doesn't help performance even remotely it completely kills it. Then 4k and 60 fps with it?

Good luck letting that vega 64 boot that. We don't even know the clocks of the GPU and CPU for that matter. And how raytracing is going to even be used.

Next gen will pretty much be a PS4+ and nothing more.

Want a generation boost?

You need 40 tflops, 64 gb gddr6, ryzen that alteast beasts 5x faster then gen 2 with a SSD of whatever speed.

The gpu is going to be tripple the performance of a PS4 pro, wouldn't be shocked if that ryzen cpu is not much going to be then twice to three times the performance to not bottleneck that gpu. With tripple the memory

3x more performance in comparison towards a ps4 pro that can't even maintain 4k resolutions in any game on 60 fps. \

That SSD also isn't going to be a game breaker when everybody in the market will have to support xbox and pc drives with it. Much like blu-ray in the PS3 area, completely useless besides the few games sony pushes as exclusives.

Or could you explain me exactly what makes that ryzen gen 2 so special exactly?

Because as far as i see it. they wouldn't even be capable to run battlefield 5 at 4k, 60 fps and raytracing without having to full blown optimize the game ( lower visual quality ) like they did with metro 2033.

Also the ryzen clocks will decide if we see focus on high framerates or resolution. Low clocked ryzen will be more focus on resolution then framerate, high clocked ryzen will be more focused on framerates.

Also PS5 ryzen is going to be nowhere near the speed of desktop ryzens.

BF5 for you.

Finally, we have 4k ultra, where we get some good news and bad news. The good news is that the RTX 2070 and above all manage 60fps, as does the GTX 1080 Ti. The bad news is that ray tracing cuts performance roughly in half, but I'd suggest 4k with ray tracing is probably asking a bit much right now.

Comparing Console to PC 1:1 with specs doesn't work. A PC with exactly the same specs as a PS4/PS4 Pro would perform noticeably worse.

3.2Ghz Zen 2 CPU with a 10+ Tflop Navi GPU in dedicated console will punch above its weight compared to a similar Desktop setup.

We don't need the specs you listed to see a true improvement over the PS4. Also, we should be comparing PS5 specs to base PS4 specs as Pro simply took PS4 games and bumped the resolution, nobody was making games exclusively for the Pro.

Avatar image for Guy_Brohski
#65 Posted by Guy_Brohski (1913 posts) -

There will never be a larger incremental upgrade in graphics as there was going from 16bit to 32bit. Never.

Avatar image for boxrekt
#66 Edited by BoxRekt (1415 posts) -

@emgesp said:
@Gatygun said:

Raytracing is more tessellation / physics then programmable shaders if you would want to compare it.

It doesn't help performance even remotely it completely kills it. Then 4k and 60 fps with it?

Good luck letting that vega 64 boot that. We don't even know the clocks of the GPU and CPU for that matter. And how raytracing is going to even be used.

Next gen will pretty much be a PS4+ and nothing more.

Want a generation boost?

You need 40 tflops, 64 gb gddr6, ryzen that alteast beasts 5x faster then gen 2 with a SSD of whatever speed.

The gpu is going to be tripple the performance of a PS4 pro, wouldn't be shocked if that ryzen cpu is not much going to be then twice to three times the performance to not bottleneck that gpu. With tripple the memory

3x more performance in comparison towards a ps4 pro that can't even maintain 4k resolutions in any game on 60 fps. \

That SSD also isn't going to be a game breaker when everybody in the market will have to support xbox and pc drives with it. Much like blu-ray in the PS3 area, completely useless besides the few games sony pushes as exclusives.

Or could you explain me exactly what makes that ryzen gen 2 so special exactly?

Because as far as i see it. they wouldn't even be capable to run battlefield 5 at 4k, 60 fps and raytracing without having to full blown optimize the game ( lower visual quality ) like they did with metro 2033.

Also the ryzen clocks will decide if we see focus on high framerates or resolution. Low clocked ryzen will be more focus on resolution then framerate, high clocked ryzen will be more focused on framerates.

Also PS5 ryzen is going to be nowhere near the speed of desktop ryzens.

BF5 for you.

Finally, we have 4k ultra, where we get some good news and bad news. The good news is that the RTX 2070 and above all manage 60fps, as does the GTX 1080 Ti. The bad news is that ray tracing cuts performance roughly in half, but I'd suggest 4k with ray tracing is probably asking a bit much right now.

Comparing Console to PC 1:1 with specs doesn't work. A PC with exactly the same specs as a PS4/PS4 Pro would perform noticeably worse.

3.2Ghz Zen 2 CPU with a 10+ Tflop Navi GPU in dedicated console will punch above its weight compared to a similar Desktop setup.

We don't need the specs you listed to see a true improvement over the PS4. Also, we should be comparing PS5 specs to base PS4 specs as Pro simply took PS4 games and bumped the resolution, nobody was making games exclusively for the Pro.

Why waste your time talking to simpletons who live off multipats to make their arguments?

Everything these lost souls says is based off generic mutiplat development philosophy.

Neither xbox nor PC drones get to enjoy high quality AAA exclusives the likes Sony produce so their opinions are based on hardware that isn't coded to the metal to take advantage of the best a specific piece of hardware can produce.

Xbox and especially PC fanboys will make moronic arguments about how the power won't make a difference because they already have 6 and 10+TF systems that show jack shit over 1.8TF PS4 now LMAO.

They CAN'T accept PS5 will do anything better, poor fools.

These shortsighted fanboys don't realize that games are STILL developed around the power of base 1.3 and 1.8TF xbox one and PS4, and it won't change until next gen starts! That's when developers will finally actually *DEVELOP* games that push the power of those higher end systems.

A lot of bird brains actually think that because they are playing a higher res version of Final Fantasy XV or getting more frames on Assassin's Creed Odyssey they are actually seeing what a 1080TI caliber system is capable of.

It's like these guys don't understand what a GENERATION actually is. A base line of development for the industry! That base line is STILL 1.3/1.8TF Xbox One and PS4 UNTIL PS5 releases!!!

That fact that this

is console exclusive and looks better than any PC exclusive to date should tell you I am 100% spot on with everything I'm saying when it was developed specifically for 2013 consoles.

I can't wait for Sony to blow the doors off everything they think they know about graphics when Sony reveals PS5 later this year.

Avatar image for emgesp
#67 Posted by emgesp (7830 posts) -
@Guy_Brohski said:

There will never be a larger incremental upgrade in graphics as there was going from 16bit to 32bit. Never.

So? We don't need leaps that large to appreciate the improvements.

Avatar image for Pedro
#68 Posted by Pedro (34618 posts) -

@emgesp said:

Comparing Console to PC 1:1 with specs doesn't work. A PC with exactly the same specs as a PS4/PS4 Pro would perform noticeably worse.

3.2Ghz Zen 2 CPU with a 10+ Tflop Navi GPU in dedicated console will punch above its weight compared to a similar Desktop setup.

We don't need the specs you listed to see a true improvement over the PS4. Also, we should be comparing PS5 specs to base PS4 specs as Pro simply took PS4 games and bumped the resolution, nobody was making games exclusively for the Pro.

Consoles don't defy the laws of Physics. Consoles are factually and currently using PC parts. There is not magic behind consoles. The core advantage is the hardware is known and static. No hardware can punch above its weight. That is a falsehood from silly marketing.

Avatar image for emgesp
#69 Posted by emgesp (7830 posts) -
@Pedro said:
@emgesp said:

Comparing Console to PC 1:1 with specs doesn't work. A PC with exactly the same specs as a PS4/PS4 Pro would perform noticeably worse.

3.2Ghz Zen 2 CPU with a 10+ Tflop Navi GPU in dedicated console will punch above its weight compared to a similar Desktop setup.

We don't need the specs you listed to see a true improvement over the PS4. Also, we should be comparing PS5 specs to base PS4 specs as Pro simply took PS4 games and bumped the resolution, nobody was making games exclusively for the Pro.

Consoles don't defy the laws of Physics. Consoles are factually and currently using PC parts. There is not magic behind consoles. The core advantage is the hardware is known and static. No hardware can punch above its weight. That is a falsehood from silly marketing.

When you have fixed hardware that devs can optimize for then yes it can punch above its weight compared to a PC with the same exact specs. A PC with a 1.6Ghz Jaguar setup with a 1.84 Tflop GPU and only 8GBs of total ram would not run games as well as a base PS4.

Avatar image for rzxv04
#70 Posted by rzxv04 (686 posts) -

@whatafailure said:

This is from the upcoming Days Gone. Sony Bend, the developer, doesn't have console experience (previous games were Vita games and Bubsy 3D lol). If they can do this for 2013 hardware, next-gen will be JAW-DROPPING!

Same goes for The Order 1886. I was listening to recent GDC talks yesterday and they said the same thing; r@d has accomplished a feat for a new project coming from a PSP studio.

Avatar image for Pedro
#71 Posted by Pedro (34618 posts) -

@emgesp said:

When you have fixed hardware that devs can optimize for then yes it can punch above its weight compared to a PC with the same exact specs. A PC with a 1.6Ghz Jaguar setup with a 1.84 Tflop GPU and only 8GBs of total ram would not run games as well as a base PS4.

No, that is not punching about its weight, its simply doing what it was design to do. There is no evidence to back your claim. Hardware don't get better because they made their way into consoles.

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#72 Posted by DarthBuzzard (154 posts) -

@Pedro said:

Good Lawd, ray tracing is not going to introduce ground breaking visuals because it’s already in use in games in the form of imitation or pre calculated. Most people would not be able to tell the difference and those who can will rely on frame by frame comparison.

Quake 2 and Minecraft disprove this. Raytracing (and pathtracing) is a big difference, but it needs to be done using a full pipeline without rasterization.

Avatar image for Pedro
#73 Posted by Pedro (34618 posts) -

@darthbuzzard said:
@Pedro said:

Good Lawd, ray tracing is not going to introduce ground breaking visuals because it’s already in use in games in the form of imitation or pre calculated. Most people would not be able to tell the difference and those who can will rely on frame by frame comparison.

Quake 2 and Minecraft disprove this. Raytracing (and pathtracing) is a big difference, but it needs to be done using a full pipeline without rasterization.

You literally can bake the same lighting effects without the need of real time raytracing.

Avatar image for emgesp
#74 Edited by emgesp (7830 posts) -
@Pedro said:
@emgesp said:

When you have fixed hardware that devs can optimize for then yes it can punch above its weight compared to a PC with the same exact specs. A PC with a 1.6Ghz Jaguar setup with a 1.84 Tflop GPU and only 8GBs of total ram would not run games as well as a base PS4.

No, that is not punching about its weight, its simply doing what it was design to do. There is no evidence to back your claim. Hardware don't get better because they made their way into consoles.

The hardware in a console gets more utilized thanks to being fixed hardware. Devs can pretty much extract the full potential of GPUs/CPUs when they are in a console, you can't really do that with PC. Lower level APIs like Vulkan help to some degree, but its not supported in majority of PC games and its still not quite console level extraction of hardware, but it definitely closes the gap when its used.

Its thanks to these optimizations that allow PS4 to run games like God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, RDR2 and TLOU 2 with those garbage Jaguar cores at acceptable frame rates.

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#75 Posted by DarthBuzzard (154 posts) -

@Pedro said:
@darthbuzzard said:
@Pedro said:

Good Lawd, ray tracing is not going to introduce ground breaking visuals because it’s already in use in games in the form of imitation or pre calculated. Most people would not be able to tell the difference and those who can will rely on frame by frame comparison.

Quake 2 and Minecraft disprove this. Raytracing (and pathtracing) is a big difference, but it needs to be done using a full pipeline without rasterization.

You literally can bake the same lighting effects without the need of real time raytracing.

No. Baking by definition means it's static. There's already a huge difference between baked lighting and simple dynamic lighting without raytracing. Bring in full raytracing and it's another big difference.

Avatar image for Pedro
#76 Posted by Pedro (34618 posts) -

@emgesp said:

The hardware in a console gets more utilized thanks to being fixed hardware. Devs can pretty much extract the full potential of GPUs/CPUs when they are in a console, you can't really do that with PC. Lower level APIs like Vulkan help to some degree, but its not supported in majority of PC games and its still not quite console level extraction of hardware, but it definitely closes the gap when its used.

Its thanks to these optimizations that allow PS4 to run games like God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, RDR2 and TLOU 2 with those garbage Jaguar cores at acceptable frame rates.

You keep subscribing to these falsehoods and treating console hardware as if its something special when its not. Full utilization of hardware is simply maxing it out. This can be achieved on PC since most PC gamers are not sporting 2080Ti in which one or two of its features are not being full utilized but outside of these specific applications games would fully utilize the hardware. In addition to that you are ignoring the fact that absolute vast majority of developers which make up 97% of the games on the PS4 are not making games like God of War, Horizon etc couple this with the fact that if you only count the exclusives that looks great on the system makes up 0.3%. The best version of multiplatform games are on PC because they utilize the hardware. So, this notion of utilization being higher on console is simply false since the vast majority of games don't.

@darthbuzzard said:

No. Baking by definition means it's static. There's already a huge difference between baked lighting and simple dynamic lighting without raytracing. Bring in full raytracing and it's another big difference.

Real-time simply facilitates dynamic implementation and mostly at the cost of accuracy. Baking/non realtime has the luxury of being at higher fidelity and more accurate. Ray-tracing is not new to the industry. All of those games with great lighting are all based on ray traced lighting. The only difference now is that you will get a real time application at lower quality to the baked solution.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#77 Posted by PC_Rocks (2323 posts) -

@emgesp said:
@pc_rocks said:
@emgesp said:

Irrelevant. That's not what you claimed and are now just writing random things to claw your way out of the hole you dig.

The answer is still yes, PS5 will provide visuals that look more impressive than what PC is currently doing, just like PS4 eventually did compared to what PC was doing back in 2013. Best looking games on PS4 look more impressive overall than best looking PC games back in 2013. You don't have to agree, but a lot of people agree with me.

No, they don't. Period. People can agree all they want with you but they are factually wrong. 9 years and counting.

Avatar image for emgesp
#78 Posted by emgesp (7830 posts) -
@Pedro said:
@emgesp said:

The hardware in a console gets more utilized thanks to being fixed hardware. Devs can pretty much extract the full potential of GPUs/CPUs when they are in a console, you can't really do that with PC. Lower level APIs like Vulkan help to some degree, but its not supported in majority of PC games and its still not quite console level extraction of hardware, but it definitely closes the gap when its used.

Its thanks to these optimizations that allow PS4 to run games like God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, RDR2 and TLOU 2 with those garbage Jaguar cores at acceptable frame rates.

You keep subscribing to these falsehoods and treating console hardware as if its something special when its not. Full utilization of hardware is simply maxing it out. This can be achieved on PC since most PC gamers are not sporting 2080Ti in which one or two of its features are not being full utilized but outside of these specific applications games would fully utilize the hardware. In addition to that you are ignoring the fact that absolute vast majority of developers which make up 97% of the games on the PS4 are not making games like God of War, Horizon etc couple this with the fact that if you only count the exclusives that looks great on the system makes up 0.3%. The best version of multiplatform games are on PC because they utilize the hardware. So, this notion of utilization being higher on console is simply false since the vast majority of games don't.

No, what PC has to do is brute force by using more powerful hardware. Jaguar Cores + 7850 with only 8GBs in a PC setup would perform very poorly compared to base PS4 with newer games, again this is because of developers being able to extract more of the full potential of the hardware in a fixed hardware setup. This is not a myth.

Avatar image for emgesp
#79 Posted by emgesp (7830 posts) -
@pc_rocks said:
@emgesp said:
@pc_rocks said:
@emgesp said:

Irrelevant. That's not what you claimed and are now just writing random things to claw your way out of the hole you dig.

The answer is still yes, PS5 will provide visuals that look more impressive than what PC is currently doing, just like PS4 eventually did compared to what PC was doing back in 2013. Best looking games on PS4 look more impressive overall than best looking PC games back in 2013. You don't have to agree, but a lot of people agree with me.

No, they don't. Period. People can agree all they want with you but they are factually wrong. 9 years and counting.

You are allowed to have your opinion as do I. You cannot claim an opinion as a fact.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#80 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31020 posts) -
@nfamouslegend said:

Seems like the biggest jump we will see is games loading in a few seconds, pop in being a thing of the past, textures will fully resolve instantly via the very fast SSD, and physics and AI will be unlike anything we've seen even on PC. Going from 8 awful Jaguar cores to 8 zen2 cores with presumably 16 threads will be a factor of 7-10X performance. And while PC has great physics simulation no game is particularly coded to take advantage of 16 powerful threads like a console can be.

This would be great, but SSDs on PC don't remove pop-in either. pop-in is needed to limit the amount of GPU power that is needed.

Avatar image for cainetao11
#81 Edited by cainetao11 (36559 posts) -

@fileman3: I remember being excited about graphics this much. I remember the first 3D polygon gen I was excited as it seems u are. Not trying to start a fight but when did u start gaming? I don’t feel RDR2, GoW, HZD, Gears 4 were MILES better than PS3/360 games. Genesis to PS1 was MILES better. Atari 2600 to NES and SEGA Master system was Miles difference.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#82 Posted by PC_Rocks (2323 posts) -

@emgesp said:
@pc_rocks said:
@emgesp said:
@pc_rocks said:
@emgesp said:

Irrelevant. That's not what you claimed and are now just writing random things to claw your way out of the hole you dig.

The answer is still yes, PS5 will provide visuals that look more impressive than what PC is currently doing, just like PS4 eventually did compared to what PC was doing back in 2013. Best looking games on PS4 look more impressive overall than best looking PC games back in 2013. You don't have to agree, but a lot of people agree with me.

No, they don't. Period. People can agree all they want with you but they are factually wrong. 9 years and counting.

You are allowed to have your opinion as do I. You cannot claim an opinion as a fact.

Technical details and graphics are not opinion, they can be measured. Realtime effects >>> Baked effects. 9 years and counting.

Avatar image for emgesp
#83 Posted by emgesp (7830 posts) -
@pc_rocks said:
@emgesp said:
@pc_rocks said:
@emgesp said:
@pc_rocks said:

Irrelevant. That's not what you claimed and are now just writing random things to claw your way out of the hole you dig.

The answer is still yes, PS5 will provide visuals that look more impressive than what PC is currently doing, just like PS4 eventually did compared to what PC was doing back in 2013. Best looking games on PS4 look more impressive overall than best looking PC games back in 2013. You don't have to agree, but a lot of people agree with me.

No, they don't. Period. People can agree all they want with you but they are factually wrong. 9 years and counting.

You are allowed to have your opinion as do I. You cannot claim an opinion as a fact.

Technical details and graphics are not opinion, they can be measured. Realtime effects >>> Baked effects. 9 years and counting.

You are talking about one graphical technique as if that automatically makes one game look better than another. No, there are many things within a games graphics you must take into account. You cannot claim superiority of graphics just over one effect being used, that is just ignorant. Metro 2033's character quality isn't all that great by 2019 standards.


Avatar image for Ant_17
#84 Posted by Ant_17 (12469 posts) -

Imagine waiting for rdr3 for next gen when it will come for the next next gen in 20 years.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#85 Edited by ronvalencia (27876 posts) -

@The_Stand_In said:
@nfamouslegend said:

you're wrong. Developers don't make PC ports with the thought that everyone has a blazing fast SSD. The Spideman demo proved this point. You will never be able to swing through new York, fly through Ace Combat, or land any faster in PUBG on PC due to streaming limitations. PS5 developers will know every console has a stupid fast SSD so they will accommodate for that. Further no PC game is coded to take full advantage of 16 fast threads.

Do you even know what an SSD is?

It's a solid state drive. Drive as in hard drive. It's a storage device, nothing more. All assets are loaded at the beginning of a level, so it does NOT improve in-game performance whatsoever. It will only drastically reduce loading times between them and transitions. A PC port (or any game) doesn't need to built around an SSD, the read speeds just do their thing on their own. PC games are entirely installed on the hard drive, this means they can load files as fast as that drive can read them. Since PC games aren't held back by physical disk reading speeds either, this process is faster still.

Also, threads aren't fast. Cores are fast. Additionally, thermal constraints for a theoretically small device will most likely mean core speeds will be middling at best. Expect sub 3.5Ghz for each core, and that's being very generous.

Installing SSD on PS4 is nearly useless since the I/O interface is based on SATA to USB bridge.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#86 Edited by ronvalencia (27876 posts) -

@emgesp said:
@Pedro said:
@emgesp said:

The hardware in a console gets more utilized thanks to being fixed hardware. Devs can pretty much extract the full potential of GPUs/CPUs when they are in a console, you can't really do that with PC. Lower level APIs like Vulkan help to some degree, but its not supported in majority of PC games and its still not quite console level extraction of hardware, but it definitely closes the gap when its used.

Its thanks to these optimizations that allow PS4 to run games like God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, RDR2 and TLOU 2 with those garbage Jaguar cores at acceptable frame rates.

You keep subscribing to these falsehoods and treating console hardware as if its something special when its not. Full utilization of hardware is simply maxing it out. This can be achieved on PC since most PC gamers are not sporting 2080Ti in which one or two of its features are not being full utilized but outside of these specific applications games would fully utilize the hardware. In addition to that you are ignoring the fact that absolute vast majority of developers which make up 97% of the games on the PS4 are not making games like God of War, Horizon etc couple this with the fact that if you only count the exclusives that looks great on the system makes up 0.3%. The best version of multiplatform games are on PC because they utilize the hardware. So, this notion of utilization being higher on console is simply false since the vast majority of games don't.

No, what PC has to do is brute force by using more powerful hardware. Jaguar Cores + 7850 with only 8GBs in a PC setup would perform very poorly compared to base PS4 with newer games, again this is because of developers being able to extract more of the full potential of the hardware in a fixed hardware setup. This is not a myth.

PC has console style API access.

NVIDIA GPUs has NVAPI as used in Wolfenstein 2's Vulkan with NVAPI combo.

Loading Video...

DirectML and Meta-Commands coming to Windows 10 1903 build.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#87 Posted by PC_Rocks (2323 posts) -

@emgesp said:
@pc_rocks said:
@emgesp said:
@pc_rocks said:
@emgesp said:

The answer is still yes, PS5 will provide visuals that look more impressive than what PC is currently doing, just like PS4 eventually did compared to what PC was doing back in 2013. Best looking games on PS4 look more impressive overall than best looking PC games back in 2013. You don't have to agree, but a lot of people agree with me.

No, they don't. Period. People can agree all they want with you but they are factually wrong. 9 years and counting.

You are allowed to have your opinion as do I. You cannot claim an opinion as a fact.

Technical details and graphics are not opinion, they can be measured. Realtime effects >>> Baked effects. 9 years and counting.

You are talking about one graphical technique as if that automatically makes one game look better than another. No, there are many things within a games graphics you must take into account. You cannot claim superiority of graphics just over one effect being used, that is just ignorant. Metro 2033's character quality isn't all that great by 2019 standards.

It's you and your fellow cows that always use one characteristic to judge it i.e. animation and character models for cutscenes/onrail segments. In literally every single other metric Sony games and console games in general seriously lag behind top of the line last gen PC games. Be it lighting, foliage, textures, shadows, reflections, dynamic environments, physics, AA, AF, IQ, scale, DD, particle physics etc. Realtime >>> baked effects. 9 years and counting.

Avatar image for Diddies
#88 Posted by Diddies (2398 posts) -

@Addict187 said:
@Planeforger said:

I'm guessing they'll be similar to this gen, but a little bit better?

It has been a very long time since we last saw huge leaps in graphical power between console generations.

LOL you sir are just being silly this vid should give you an idea why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uarGe1Q5p08 the leap from ps3 to ps4 was huge and will be even bigger with the ps5

It will be even smaller. lol No where will be it bigger since there was mid-gen upgrades along the way. You are sir are the one being silly.

Avatar image for Diddies
#89 Edited by Diddies (2398 posts) -

@emgesp said:
@pc_rocks said:
@emgesp said:
@ArchoNils2 said:

If you want to see what next games look like, check out some gameplay videos of current games on PC ;D

There isn't a game on PC actually released that looks a generation better than current console exclusives. PC has some games that run with better frame rates, resolution and higher textures, but still looks like current gen for the most part.

There will be PS5 exclusives that blow what PC is currently doing out of the water.

I know right, just like PS4 exclusives blow what the PC was doing years earlier. /sarcasm

Oh and Metro 2033 from 2010. How it had to be nerfed to run on PS4 after 4 years.

The best looking PS4 exclusives do look better than what PC was doing at the time. Uncharted 4 still looks better than 99% of PC exclusives.

Also, that video is cherry picking certain scenes and one is a FPS vs a TPS. At least compare the same genre.

Lastly, plenty of FPS multiplats on current gen look much better than Metro 2033, so why even bring that up? I mean we can just use Metro Exodus as an example. Everyone and their Mother knows that the original Metro 2033 game was not very optimized.

But some of the mutliplats on PC set to Ultra look better than any console game out there.

Avatar image for Diddies
#90 Posted by Diddies (2398 posts) -

@emgesp said:
@pc_rocks said:

Oh really because you said this in the post: There will be PS5 exclusives that blow what PC is currently doing out of the water. I don't see any exclusive there.

No UC4 as a whole is extremely shitty and only impressive for a console game. Crysis 2/3 shits on it and every single Sony game in every technical detail apart from PBR. There was no cherry picking, the cherry picking is by cows when they post screenshots of closeup cutscenes and onrails segments. In actual gameplay it just sucks. Hell I'm 100% sure the upcoming TLOU 2 will still be technically inferior to Crysis 3, TLOU 2 will still be baking 99% of its effects and graphics but little to no realtime effects.

You don't because you got owned. Lighting is the most demanding feature and the thing that improves the graphics the most. Fact is Metro 2033 from 2010 had to be downgraded to run on PS4 4 years later. And you can't even play the lazy devs excuse because in similar time ND put out TLOU remaster that couldn't fit 60 FPS but Metro on PS4 did while having much better graphics than TLOU remaster. So yeah, 9 years and counting. Wake me up when you have surpassed the bar set in 2010 before beating your chest about current PC games.

With the way better Zen 2 CPU, Navi based GPU with ray tracing capabilities, SSD and most likely at least 16GB's of GDDR6 in the PS5, the PC will have even less advantage out the gate come next-gen. PS4's CPU was a pretty big bottleneck this whole generation, well that will no longer be the case for PS5. You will be seeing a hell of a lot more 60fps games next-gen. No, not every game, but way more than this generation.

Some mid level GPUs have ray tracing capabilities, but that doesn't mean they can do it well.

Avatar image for blackhairedhero
#91 Edited by Blackhairedhero (3234 posts) -

I'm actually really excited about next gen consoles but in all honesty I'm happy where graphics are right now. I think overall games look outstanding.

Avatar image for boxrekt
#92 Edited by BoxRekt (1415 posts) -

@blackhairedhero said:

I'm actually really excited about next gen consoles but in all honesty I'm happy where graphics are right now. I think overall games look outstanding.

I do as well, it's funny to watch hard core PC fanboys panic and act as if they are all currently have 20TF GPUs now lol.

Avatar image for pmanden
#93 Posted by pmanden (641 posts) -

@Guy_Brohski: Maybe. But I sometimes miss those great 2D graphics found in 16-bit titles such as Sonic 1-3, Super Mario World, Super Castlevania etc. They were not at 4k or 8k resolution, but damn they looked colorful and artistic. Some of today's indie games try to imitate that style, but they fail in my opinion. They are not the same.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#94 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (25255 posts) -
@R4gn4r0k said:
@nfamouslegend said:

Seems like the biggest jump we will see is games loading in a few seconds, pop in being a thing of the past, textures will fully resolve instantly via the very fast SSD, and physics and AI will be unlike anything we've seen even on PC. Going from 8 awful Jaguar cores to 8 zen2 cores with presumably 16 threads will be a factor of 7-10X performance. And while PC has great physics simulation no game is particularly coded to take advantage of 16 powerful threads like a console can be.

This would be great, but SSDs on PC don't remove pop-in either. pop-in is needed to limit the amount of GPU power that is needed.

Well, it does help with texture pop in. texture pop in is nearly non-existent after I moved Kingdom Come Deliverance to my SSD from my HDD, where it had a ton of pop in.

Draw Distance, however, is as you say, GPU based.

Avatar image for emgesp
#95 Posted by emgesp (7830 posts) -
@pc_rocks said:

It's you and your fellow cows that always use one characteristic to judge it i.e. animation and character models for cutscenes/onrail segments. In literally every single other metric Sony games and console games in general seriously lag behind top of the line last gen PC games. Be it lighting, foliage, textures, shadows, reflections, dynamic environments, physics, AA, AF, IQ, scale, DD, particle physics etc. Realtime >>> baked effects. 9 years and counting.

Baked or Not we have tons of examples of PS4 games with absolutely fantastic lighting quality. It all comes down to the skill of the developers. Techniques in of themselves doesn't mean crap if you don't have skilled developers behind them. You want to pretend PS4 exclusive games look like crap, that is your right, but you are just making yourself out to be a hater. Nobody is going to take comments like yours seriously when some of the most respected people in this field all agree that some of the best looking games this gen are PS4 exclusives.

Avatar image for emgesp
#96 Posted by emgesp (7830 posts) -
@Diddies said:
@emgesp said:

The best looking PS4 exclusives do look better than what PC was doing at the time. Uncharted 4 still looks better than 99% of PC exclusives.

Also, that video is cherry picking certain scenes and one is a FPS vs a TPS. At least compare the same genre.

Lastly, plenty of FPS multiplats on current gen look much better than Metro 2033, so why even bring that up? I mean we can just use Metro Exodus as an example. Everyone and their Mother knows that the original Metro 2033 game was not very optimized.

But some of the mutliplats on PC set to Ultra look better than any console game out there.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#97 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31020 posts) -
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

Well, it does help with texture pop in. texture pop in is nearly non-existent after I moved Kingdom Come Deliverance to my SSD from my HDD, where it had a ton of pop in.

Draw Distance, however, is as you say, GPU based.

I didn't know that, thanks for the info.

Anyway my next PC will be SSD based anyway: 1TB M2 to put games on and I'll transfer my SATA SSD from my current PC to install my OS on.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#98 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (25255 posts) -
@R4gn4r0k said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

Well, it does help with texture pop in. texture pop in is nearly non-existent after I moved Kingdom Come Deliverance to my SSD from my HDD, where it had a ton of pop in.

Draw Distance, however, is as you say, GPU based.

I didn't know that, thanks for the info.

Anyway my next PC will be SSD based anyway: 1TB M2 to put games on and I'll transfer my SATA SSD from my current PC to install my OS on.

I'm sure it depends on the game, as well. Since Kingdom Come streams the data from your drive to the engine, it makes a difference; although with some games, it may not change a thing. Like the Skyrim and Fallout Creation engine load the textures before you get into the world, I believe. Hunt Showdown also benefits since that streams textures in.

At any rate, I'm waiting for 2 TB nvme drives to come down, and then I'll probably pick up an x4 drive and move my current nvme drive over to it. My current is only an x2, so the iops only hits 1500 mb rather than 3000 that the x4 drives hit. But, any SSD will easily benefit over spinning disk. Even crappy 20 dollar SSDs have a huge speed increase over any HDD.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#99 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31020 posts) -
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

I'm sure it depends on the game, as well. Since Kingdom Come streams the data from your drive to the engine, it makes a difference; although with some games, it may not change a thing. Like the Skyrim and Fallout Creation engine load the textures before you get into the world, I believe. Hunt Showdown also benefits since that streams textures in.

At any rate, I'm waiting for 2 TB nvme drives to come down, and then I'll probably pick up an x4 drive and move my current nvme drive over to it. My current is only an x2, so the iops only hits 1500 mb rather than 3000 that the x4 drives hit. But, any SSD will easily benefit over spinning disk. Even crappy 20 dollar SSDs have a huge speed increase over any HDD.

Yeah it depends a lot on the engine which is used:

For example Unreal Engine 3 was infamous for its texture streaming, with games like Gears of War loading in textures minutes after the game had fully loaded already. This was especially bad on consoles, with slower harddrives/diskdrives;

Another example was RAGE and ID tech 5. There was a lot of texture streaming going on there as well.

I guess engines at the start of last gen just had issues trying to figure a way around having to load for minutes and minutes for the HD textures.

But it seems these issues are mostly gone now. UE 4 doesn't have the issue, ID tech 6 doesn't have the issue. And 7200RPM HDDs seem plenty fast enough at loading in gigantic textures. (I always use ultra high texture quality on my 11TB GTX1080ti).

Maybe Kingdom come is just an outlier? I'm looking into SSD for my next setup but the 2 HDDs I have at the moment now are fine at handling 99% of the games still.

Avatar image for sakaixx
#100 Posted by sakaiXx (5511 posts) -

Days gone did real time snow effect from no snow to pretty white. Damn sony studios are really something else. Amazing