PS5 details from Mark Cerny: Backwards compatible, 8k, raytracing support, SSD standard, and more

Avatar image for Juub1990
#201 Posted by Juub1990 (8629 posts) -

@emgesp: And how the **** is that supercharged? Stop damage controlling.

Weren’t you the guy who was always claiming the Switch was gonna fail?

Avatar image for emgesp
#202 Edited by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@Juub1990 said:

@emgesp: And how the **** is that supercharged? Stop damage controlling.

Weren’t you the guy who was always claiming the Switch was gonna fail?

1. Supercharged because you couldn't find that on PC in 2013. PC Graphics cards had some GPGPU functionality, but not at the level of PS4 and no PC graphics card had 8GBs of GDDR5.

2. I never said the Switch was going to fail. I just simply have lower sales expectations than what others have said here.

3. Its not like anything Cerny said in that article was hopes and dreams. Everyone expected Zen and Navi to be in the PS5, the only real surprise was the SSD and ray-tracing functionality being included. He never said actual games would run in 8K, just that PS5 could support 8K output in some fashion, most likely for video. People are totally misinterpreting his 8K comment.

Avatar image for pdogg93
#203 Posted by pdogg93 (1597 posts) -

@Juub1990: dang you seem upset. Is it because you’re console of choice is essentially an nvidia tablet?

Avatar image for Juub1990
#204 Posted by Juub1990 (8629 posts) -

@emgesp: And since the PS4 couldn’t use 8GB of its GDDR5 what are you saying exactly? And none of that makes it a supercharged PC.

Yes you were the one who was always making threads it would flop. How does that foot taste?

You’re just a Sony shill.

Avatar image for Pedro
#205 Posted by Pedro (34904 posts) -

@emgesp said:
@Juub1990 said:

@emgesp: And how the **** is that supercharged? Stop damage controlling.

Weren’t you the guy who was always claiming the Switch was gonna fail?

1. Supercharged because you couldn't find that on PC in 2013. PC Graphics cards had some GPGPU functionality, but not at the level of PS4 and no PC graphics card had 8GBs of GDDR5.

2. I never said the Switch was going to fail. I just simply have lower sales expectations than what others have said here.

3. Its not like anything Cerny said in that article was hopes and dreams. Everyone expected Zen and Navi to be in the PS5, the only real surprise was the SSD and ray-tracing functionality being included. He never said actual games would run in 8K, just that PS5 could support 8K output in some fashion, most likely for video. People are totally misinterpreting his 8K comment.

Its worth noting that the PS4 factually does not have 8GB dedicated to graphics, not even close.

Avatar image for emgesp
#206 Edited by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@Juub1990 said:

@emgesp: And since the PS4 couldn’t use 8GB of its GDDR5 what are you saying exactly? And none of that makes it a supercharged PC.

Yes you were the one who was always making threads it would flop. How does that foot taste?

You’re just a Sony shill.

1. I said it used 5GB's for games which was still more video ram than any PC graphics card at the time.

2. No I didn't make tons of threads saying Switch would flop. I made some pre reveal assumptions, but once it was revealed I changed my stance and said it would definitely do better than the Wii U.

3. I'm a fan of Sony consoles yes, but I'm no shill. When they screw up I talk about it. I was not happy about $599.99 for PS3. I gave Sony tons of crap about that huge mistake.

4. The best looking PS4 games sill hold their own against games running on the top of the line PCs of today.

Avatar image for Pedro
#207 Posted by Pedro (34904 posts) -

@emgesp said:

1. I said it used 5GB's for games which was still more video ram than any PC graphics card at the time.

2. No I didn't make tons of threads saying Switch would flop. I made some pre reveal assumptions, but once it was revealed I changed my stance and said it would definitely do better than the Wii U.

3. I'm a fan of Sony consoles yes, but I'm no shill. When they screw up I talk about it. I was not happy about $599.99 for PS3. I gave Sony tons of crap about that huge mistake.

1. Also worth noting that the 5GB for games is shared for graphics and non graphics. And the Titan had 6GB making your statement false.

Avatar image for emgesp
#208 Posted by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@Pedro said:
@emgesp said:
@Juub1990 said:

@emgesp: And how the **** is that supercharged? Stop damage controlling.

Weren’t you the guy who was always claiming the Switch was gonna fail?

1. Supercharged because you couldn't find that on PC in 2013. PC Graphics cards had some GPGPU functionality, but not at the level of PS4 and no PC graphics card had 8GBs of GDDR5.

2. I never said the Switch was going to fail. I just simply have lower sales expectations than what others have said here.

3. Its not like anything Cerny said in that article was hopes and dreams. Everyone expected Zen and Navi to be in the PS5, the only real surprise was the SSD and ray-tracing functionality being included. He never said actual games would run in 8K, just that PS5 could support 8K output in some fashion, most likely for video. People are totally misinterpreting his 8K comment.

Its worth noting that the PS4 factually does not have 8GB dedicated to graphics, not even close.

I know its 5GBs of base PS4 and 5.5GBs on Pro. Point is it was a lot of GDDR5 memory at the time.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#209 Posted by lundy86_4 (53337 posts) -
@emgesp said:

1. I said it used 5GB's for games which was still more video ram than any PC graphics card at the time.

GTX Titan released earlier than the PS4 and had 6gb's GDDR5.

Avatar image for Juub1990
#210 Posted by Juub1990 (8629 posts) -

@emgesp: From memory the 6GB 7970 and OG titan 6GB were available in early 2013 so no it didn’t have more VRAM than all graphics cards available.

Lol at the best looking PS4 games looking as good as the best looking PC games. Sure in terms of art style and attention to detail. In terms of technology it’s not even a contest.

Avatar image for PinchySkree
#211 Posted by PinchySkree (1229 posts) -

A closed box that offers nothing of worth beyond an average attempt at running a game

Don't even bother comparing that to the PC platform

Avatar image for emgesp
#212 Posted by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@Pedro said:
@emgesp said:

1. I said it used 5GB's for games which was still more video ram than any PC graphics card at the time.

2. No I didn't make tons of threads saying Switch would flop. I made some pre reveal assumptions, but once it was revealed I changed my stance and said it would definitely do better than the Wii U.

3. I'm a fan of Sony consoles yes, but I'm no shill. When they screw up I talk about it. I was not happy about $599.99 for PS3. I gave Sony tons of crap about that huge mistake.

1. Also worth noting that the 5GB for games is shared for graphics and non graphics. And the Titan had 6GB making your statement false.

You mean a graphics card that cost over 2x the cost of a PS4? Okay, you got me. There technically was a graphics card with 6GBs of GDDR5 in 2013.

Outside that one super extreme exception it wasn't the norm in 2013 and most GPUs for PC were still in the 2 - 3GBs range at the time.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#213 Posted by lundy86_4 (53337 posts) -

@emgesp said:

You mean a graphics card that cost over 2x the cost of a PS4? Okay, you got me. There technically was a graphics card with 6GBs of GDDR5 in 2013.

Outside that one super extreme exception it wasn't the norm in 2013 and most GPUs for PC were still in the 2 - 3GBs range at the time.

You're also advocating for a company that R&D's this shit at an extensive cost, as well as buying in such bulk as to drive down costs... It's almost like your argument is completely garbage. On a spec-to-spec basis, you were completely wrong. If we were talking end-user costs, you may have had more than a single leg to stand on.

Avatar image for emgesp
#214 Posted by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@Juub1990 said:

@emgesp: From memory the 6GB 7970 and OG titan 6GB were available in early 2013 so no it didn’t have more VRAM than all graphics cards available.

Lol at the best looking PS4 games looking as good as the best looking PC games. Sure in terms of art style and attention to detail. In terms of technology it’s not even a contest.

Yes PC now has some cool new technologies being implemented, but PS5 will be getting those same technologies and I still think exclusives on the PS4/PS4 Pro hold their own visually. We are talking consoles with those garbage Jaguar cores, so just imagine what devs will be able to do with those Zen 2 cores.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#215 Edited by FireEmblem_Man (19732 posts) -
@lundy86_4 said:

@phbz: I understand the need for the output, and I agree that the reason is to dupe the more casual market. Unfortunately, I think we'll just end up lumped with these annoying faux-8K games with shite performance. One thing I did like about the Pro, was the offering for some games to output 1080p with higher frames.

I felt that it was a marketing ploy, to put more hype on how powerful the PS5 will be. Not saying games will run at 8K, but it was to persuade those hungry for power to adopt a PS5 when it comes out.

Avatar image for emgesp
#216 Edited by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@lundy86_4 said:
@emgesp said:

1. I said it used 5GB's for games which was still more video ram than any PC graphics card at the time.

GTX Titan released earlier than the PS4 and had 6gb's GDDR5.

But were PC games in 2013 actually using all 6GBs?

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#217 Posted by lundy86_4 (53337 posts) -

@FireEmblem_Man said:

I felt that it was a marketing ploy, to put more hype on how powerful the PS5 will be. Not saying games will run at 8K, but it was to persuade those hungry for power to adopt a PS5 when it comes out.

Yeah, it's pretty much par for the course when selling these products. Unfortunately, it just leaves the door open for "amazing graphics" at an "amazing 8K resolution," and we're gonna get bowled over with sub-30fps again. It's even more of an issue considering TV's are adopting things like FreeSync.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#218 Edited by lundy86_4 (53337 posts) -

@emgesp said:

But were PC games in 2013 actually using all 6GBs? We already know there were launch PS4 games using all available 5GBs of ram. Killzone being an example.

I don't know. That also wasn't your argument. Can you stick to a consistent point?

To actually answer... Probably. PC has consistently used higher resolutions earlier than consoles, and things like higher resolution textures will gobble up that video memory.

Avatar image for Archangel3371
#219 Posted by Archangel3371 (28116 posts) -

I wonder how big the file sizes for these games are going to be next gen.

Avatar image for emgesp
#220 Edited by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@lundy86_4 said:
@emgesp said:

But were PC games in 2013 actually using all 6GBs? We already know there were launch PS4 games using all available 5GBs of ram. Killzone being an example.

I don't know. That also wasn't your argument. Can you stick to a consistent point?

To actually answer... Probably. PC has consistently used higher resolutions earlier than consoles, and things like higher resolution textures will gobble up that video memory.

Well having something vs actually using it makes a difference. We'd need to see ram utilization numbers for PC games in 2013.

2GBs was the standard for PC graphics cards in 2013.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#221 Edited by lundy86_4 (53337 posts) -

@emgesp said:

Well having something vs actually using it makes a difference.

Again, not the point you were making. Make a consistent point instead of bouncing around in order to try and salvage your shoddy argument.

Furthermore, are you insinuating that PC GPU's are released with stupidly high memory for shits-and-giggles? My 2080 even taps out the memory at 4K on RE2. It's limited to 8GB's, which is kinda lame for a newer GPU. It could easily utilize more GPU memory if I racked up the texture detail.

Avatar image for Pedro
#222 Posted by Pedro (34904 posts) -

@emgesp said:

Well having something vs actually using it makes a difference. We'd need to see ram utilization numbers for PC games in 2013.

2GBs was the standard for PC graphics cards in 2013.

Irrelevant. Your claim was that NO PC had VRAM that was equal to the PS4. Your new utilization argument is just tripe.

Avatar image for emgesp
#223 Posted by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@Pedro said:
@emgesp said:

Well having something vs actually using it makes a difference. We'd need to see ram utilization numbers for PC games in 2013.

2GBs was the standard for PC graphics cards in 2013.

Irrelevant. Your claim was that NO PC had VRAM that was equal to the PS4. Your new utilization argument is just tripe.

Yes and I agreed with you. Anyways we can all agree that PS4 punched above its weight at the $399.99 price point and I think the same will be true for PS5.

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#224 Edited by MonsieurX (39119 posts) -

@boxrekt said:
@Steppy_76 said:

Also, there is zero confirmation that BC won't be locked behind a paywall of some sort.

Stop trying to make BC into a new definition fanboy. Backward compatibility on consoles started with PlayStation and the terminology hasn't changed.

Backward compatibility + behind a paywall = no longer backward compatibility.

You better hope MS doesn't pick up your moronic suggestion of BC because they would be the first one to actually charge for BC.

Please get your head out Sony's ass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_7800

Avatar image for Pedro
#225 Posted by Pedro (34904 posts) -

@emgesp said:

Yes and I agreed with you. Anyways we can all agree that PS4 punched above its weight at the $399.99 price point and I think the same will be true for PS5.

Consoles in general have the ability to deliver beyond the numbers of their specifications.

Avatar image for emgesp
#226 Posted by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@lundy86_4 said:
@emgesp said:

Well having something vs actually using it makes a difference.

Again, not the point you were making. Make a consistent point instead of bouncing around in order to try and salvage your shoddy argument.

Furthermore, are you insinuating that PC GPU's are released with stupidly high memory for shits-and-giggles? My 2080 even taps out the memory at 4K on RE2. It's limited to 8GB's, which is kinda lame for a newer GPU. It could easily utilize more GPU memory if I racked up the texture detail.

For the most part no, but something like the original Titan was definitely ahead of its time to where PC game development was at in 2013.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#227 Edited by lundy86_4 (53337 posts) -

@emgesp said:

For the most part no, but something like the original Titan was definitely ahead of its time to where PC game development was at in 2013.

Ahead, sure. You could easily utilize the memory at higher resolutions with higher resolution textures. Even in 2013, monitors were blowing 1080p out of the water. Obviously, they were not the most popular resolutions, but you could easily gobble up that 6gb's in 2013. 4K even came about for PC in 2014, but costs would be beyond stupid, but probably better than the first 4K tvs.

Avatar image for emgesp
#228 Posted by emgesp (7832 posts) -

@Pedro said:
@emgesp said:

Yes and I agreed with you. Anyways we can all agree that PS4 punched above its weight at the $399.99 price point and I think the same will be true for PS5.

Consoles in general have the ability to deliver beyond the numbers of their specifications.

That is why I'm so excited for the PS5. Look what base PS4 was capable of with those Jaguar cores and a 1.84 TFlop GPU. Now imagine what will be possible with 8 Zen 2 cores and a GPU that is probably around 5 - 6x more powerful just in terms of TFlops. Navi will obviously have other improvements as well thanks to better efficiency. I'm also expecting at least 16GBs of GDDR6 with the possibility of up to 24GBs.

Avatar image for Pedro
#229 Edited by Pedro (34904 posts) -

@emgesp said:

That is why I'm so excited for the PS5. Look what base PS4 was capable of with those Jaguar cores and a 1.84 TFlop GPU. Now imagine what will be possible with 8 Zen 2 cores and a GPU that is probably around 5 - 6x more powerful just in terms of TFlops. Navi will obviously have other improvements as well thanks to better efficiency. I'm also expecting at least 16GBs of GDDR6 with the possibility of up to 24GBs.

I have no real expectations because graphics have really plateau. The same cannot be said about overall gaming performance. I am more interested in better performing games than marginal graphical upgrades.

Avatar image for emgesp
#230 Posted by emgesp (7832 posts) -

@Pedro said:
@emgesp said:

That is why I'm so excited for the PS5. Look what base PS4 was capable of with those Jaguar cores and a 1.84 TFlop GPU. Now imagine what will be possible with 8 Zen 2 cores and a GPU that is probably around 5 - 6x more powerful just in terms of TFlops. Navi will obviously have other improvements as well thanks to better efficiency. I'm also expecting at least 16GBs of GDDR6 with the possibility of up to 24GBs.

I have no real expectations because graphics have really plateau. The same cannot be said about overall gaming performance. I am more interested in better performing games than marginal graphical upgrades.

Graphics have not plateaud. PS4 exclusives have only gotten better visually. God of War, Ghosts of Tsushima and TLOU2 all look impressive and noticeable step up from earlier PS4 exclusives.

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#231 Posted by GoldenElementXL (3234 posts) -

@emgesp said:
@lundy86_4 said:
@emgesp said:

1. I said it used 5GB's for games which was still more video ram than any PC graphics card at the time.

GTX Titan released earlier than the PS4 and had 6gb's GDDR5.

But were PC games in 2013 actually using all 6GBs?

Check this article Here regarding how PS4 games used the pool of GDDR5. Notice some of the 4.5GB used for Infamous Second Son is used for things that system RAM would handle on PC. Meaning the way the RAM is used on the console isn't the same as how VRAM is used on PC. So claiming the PS4 had more VRAM than most PC GPUs isn't an apples to apples comparison.

Avatar image for emgesp
#232 Posted by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@goldenelementxl said:
@emgesp said:
@lundy86_4 said:
@emgesp said:

1. I said it used 5GB's for games which was still more video ram than any PC graphics card at the time.

GTX Titan released earlier than the PS4 and had 6gb's GDDR5.

But were PC games in 2013 actually using all 6GBs?

Check this article Here regarding how PS4 games used the pool of GDDR5. Notice some of the 4.5GB used for Infamous Second Son is used for things that system RAM would handle on PC. Meaning the way the RAM is used on the console isn't the same as how VRAM is used on PC. So claiming the PS4 had more VRAM than most PC GPUs isn't an apples to apples comparison.

I get that and its a good point to bring up. I just remember the days when everyone and their Mother said anything more than 4GBs of GDDR5 in the PS4 would be a pipedream.

Avatar image for Pedro
#233 Posted by Pedro (34904 posts) -

@emgesp said:

Graphics have not plateaud. PS4 exclusives have only gotten better visually. God of War, Ghosts of Tsushima and TLOU2 all look impressive and noticeable step up from earlier PS4 exclusives.

Whatever floats your boat but it has plateau. Everything from now on is just going to be nitpicking visual upgrades with zoom and/or flipping between two images to discern the differences. Couple this with the common use of photogramatry which is as close to realism as you can get, the realism benchmark is more or less a done deal.

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#234 Posted by GoldenElementXL (3234 posts) -

@emgesp: You do remember how the PS4 was gonna have 4GB of GDDR5 until the devs complained, right? The pipe dream was a last minute change. Many speculate the removal of the PS camera, and relaxed online and used game policies were too. It pays off to show your hand last which is why I can’t fathom why Sony has shown theirs first every time since... They are almost doing the exact opposite of what got them here in the first place.

Avatar image for PAL360
#235 Posted by PAL360 (29587 posts) -

Sounds great, but i really hope devs don't waste resources on 8k in the next 10 years.

Avatar image for emgesp
#236 Posted by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@Pedro said:
@emgesp said:

Graphics have not plateaud. PS4 exclusives have only gotten better visually. God of War, Ghosts of Tsushima and TLOU2 all look impressive and noticeable step up from earlier PS4 exclusives.

Whatever floats your boat but it has plateau. Everything from now on is just going to be nitpicking visual upgrades with zoom and/or flipping between two images to discern the differences. Couple this with the common use of photogramatry which is as close to realism as you can get, the realism benchmark is more or less a done deal.

What evidence do you have that shows graphics have plateau? LOL, people were saying PS4 graphics wouldn't be a huge improvement over PS3 games back in 2013 as well and that obviously wasn't the case. We will see games on the PS5 that will be extremely impressive and something the average gamer will be able to discern and appreciate.

Avatar image for emgesp
#237 Posted by emgesp (7832 posts) -

@goldenelementxl said:

@emgesp: You do remember how the PS4 was gonna have 4GB of GDDR5 until the devs complained, right? The pipe dream was a last minute change. Many speculate the removal of the PS camera, and relaxed online and used game policies were too. It pays off to show your hand last which is why I can’t fathom why Sony has shown theirs first every time since... They are almost doing the exact opposite of what got them here in the first place.

Sony has nothing else to show this year so they needed something to keep people talking about their brand. This is simply a nice tease until full reveal.

Avatar image for Pedro
#238 Posted by Pedro (34904 posts) -

@emgesp said:

What evidence do you have that shows graphics have plateau? LOL, people were saying PS4 graphics wouldn't be a huge improvement over PS3 games back in 2013 as well and that obviously wasn't the case. We will see games on the PS5 that will be extremely impressive and something the average gamer will be able to discern and appreciate.

The same evidence you are claiming to use for the contrary. Hey, if you believe its going to be a graphical LEAP, knock yourself out. Don't be angry when its just a marginal visual upgrade. And the average gamer are the ones that makes Fortnite and Mindcraft billions and look at the graphics in those games. So, the average gamer generally don't care.

Avatar image for michaelmikado
#239 Edited by michaelmikado (364 posts) -

@Shewgenja said:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ps5-first-details-specs-backwards-compatible-8k-ps/1100-6466281/

It will also have a disc drive and it seems that early releases will be cross gen. PSVR support out of the box. Seems like a seamless upgrade from the 4.

The gamespot article is wrong. The original article never states it will have a disc drive just that it supports physical media.

Avatar image for michaelmikado
#240 Edited by michaelmikado (364 posts) -

@pyro1245 said:
@Shewgenja said:

@pyro1245: um. Ryzen has support for ridiculous amounts of pcie lanes. Also, I thought most nvme slots sat on x16? Am I wrong?

Threadripper is the one with the insane number of lanes. I'm pretty sure regular Ryzen has 16 + 4 for chipset. NVMe typically uses x4, but I'm sure you could make an SSD expansion card that uses more (onboard RAID controller or something).

@nfamouslegend said:

@pyro1245: Cerny claims that it has a raw bandwidth higher than any SSD available for PCs.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/exclusive-sony-next-gen-console/amp

Okay he is referring to PCIe gen 4, which has a higher bandwidth than gen 3. Current NVMe PCIe SSDs can saturate gen 3. Honesly I would be very surprised if they went with NVMe drives as they are much more expensive than their SATA counterparts. Any SSD would be a significant improvement over and HDD.

@xhawk27 said:
@nfamouslegend said:

@pyro1245: Cerny claims that it has a raw bandwidth higher than any SSD available for PCs.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/exclusive-sony-next-gen-console/amp

Faster than Intels Optime drives?

Optane + HDD is actually not a bad solution if you want a really large HDD. Performance is comparable to SATA SSDs.

I thought about Optane too but it’s more likely Samsung’s v nand mostly because they also make HBM2 which I suspect will be in the PS5.

Avatar image for emgesp
#241 Edited by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@Pedro said:
@emgesp said:

What evidence do you have that shows graphics have plateau? LOL, people were saying PS4 graphics wouldn't be a huge improvement over PS3 games back in 2013 as well and that obviously wasn't the case. We will see games on the PS5 that will be extremely impressive and something the average gamer will be able to discern and appreciate.

The same evidence you are claiming to use for the contrary. Hey, if you believe its going to be a graphical LEAP, knock yourself out. Don't be angry when its just a marginal visual upgrade. And the average gamer are the ones that makes Fortnite and Mindcraft billions and look at the graphics in those games. So, the average gamer generally don't care.

I'm going by history as evidence and the current specs that have been confirmed. Ray-Tracing even in its early usage will be able to do some really cool things, especially years into next-gen when developers get more of a grasp on that technology.

Obviously it will still be limited and it will take even much more powerful hardware to really show off what ray-tracing ist truly capable of, but yeah Ray-Tracing is basically the reason graphics won't plateu. This technology is the holy grail of graphics for the forseable future.

Avatar image for Shewgenja
#242 Posted by Shewgenja (21456 posts) -

@Juub1990: PS4 had huma to correlate with its shared graphics memory. Also something not used in PCs at the time, yet.

Avatar image for Juub1990
#243 Posted by Juub1990 (8629 posts) -

@Shewgenja: And that still didn't make it a supercharged PC so once again I wanna know where Mark Cerny wasn't lying through his teeth.

Avatar image for emgesp
#244 Posted by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@Juub1990 said:

@Shewgenja: And that still didn't make it a supercharged PC so once again I wanna know where Mark Cerny wasn't lying through his teeth.

You are taking his SuperCharged PC comment too literally. He never once said it was more powerful than top of the line PCs. Anyways PS4 punched above its weight. Build a PC with the exact same specs as PS4 and see what kind of performance you'll get. Spoiler Alert the PS4 will do better.

Avatar image for Shewgenja
#245 Edited by Shewgenja (21456 posts) -

@Juub1990: I'm starting to think that anything short of Sony tracking a Whipple blower to the PS4 is just going to equate to "Sony lies" so I'm out fam. Lol

Avatar image for Metallic_Blade
#246 Posted by Metallic_Blade (530 posts) -

Question is: Is Sony finally going to give us 4K UHD bluray capability. Seeing a base Xbox One S having it currently over a PS4 Pro that's almost double its price is quite frankly... embarrassing.

Avatar image for emgesp
#247 Posted by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@michaelmikado said:
@Shewgenja said:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ps5-first-details-specs-backwards-compatible-8k-ps/1100-6466281/

It will also have a disc drive and it seems that early releases will be cross gen. PSVR support out of the box. Seems like a seamless upgrade from the 4.

The gamespot article is wrong. The original article never states it will have a disc drive just that it supports physical media.

Its BC with PS4 games so it must have a disc drive, plus cartridges would be way too costly for the amount of data next-gen games will require.

Avatar image for Juub1990
#248 Posted by Juub1990 (8629 posts) -
@Shewgenja said:

@Juub1990: I'm starting to think that anything short of Sony tracking a Whipple blower to the PS4 is just going to equate to "Sony lies" so I'm out fam. Lol

Oh please, all you've done is attempt to shill to defend his bullshit. This goes right up there with the "power of the cloud" bullshit from Microsoft.

@emgesp said:

You are taking his SuperCharged PC comment too literally. He never once said it was more powerful than top of the line PCs. Anyways PS4 punched above its weight. Build a PC with the exact same specs as PS4 and see what kind of performance you'll get. Spoiler Alert the PS4 will do better.

The PS4 didn't have a supercharged PC architecture therefore Cerny lied through his teeth. What's so unclear about that? He made a comment to get people hyped for his product which turned out to be a lie. This happens all the time. Stop shilling.

Avatar image for emgesp
#249 Edited by emgesp (7832 posts) -
@Juub1990 said:
@Shewgenja said:

@Juub1990: I'm starting to think that anything short of Sony tracking a Whipple blower to the PS4 is just going to equate to "Sony lies" so I'm out fam. Lol

Oh please, all you've done is attempt to shill to defend his bullshit. This goes right up there with the "power of the cloud" bullshit from Microsoft.

@emgesp said:

You are taking his SuperCharged PC comment too literally. He never once said it was more powerful than top of the line PCs. Anyways PS4 punched above its weight. Build a PC with the exact same specs as PS4 and see what kind of performance you'll get. Spoiler Alert the PS4 will do better.

The PS4 didn't have a supercharged PC architecture therefore Cerny lied through his teeth. What's so unclear about that? He made a comment to get people hyped for his product which turned out to be a lie. This happens all the time. Stop shilling.

What is your definition of supercharged PC architecture? Also, there were in fact features in the PS4's architecture that had some advantages over PC GPUs at the time, more advanced GPGPU capabilities being an example. It was a semi-custom design and thats where I think the "Supercharged PC" comment is coming from. The fact it was a design that you couldn't find off the shelf.

All this is a moot point because the PS4 with its weak hardware is still putting out games with graphics that make PC gamers jealous. Show me one single PC game that you can actually buy that is much better looking than best looking PS4 exclusives.

Avatar image for UssjTrunks
#250 Edited by UssjTrunks (11299 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:
@NathanDrakeSwag said:
@R4gn4r0k said:

My predictions:

Backwards compatible: No

8k: Nope

raytracing support: No, or on an insanely basic level

SSD standard: Nope

You're calling the guy developing the console a liar?

Yeah anyone claiming 8K for next gen consoles is obviously a liar.

How much do you think a PC with 8K, ray tracing support and SSD costs?

It doesn't even exist.

The 2080 TI can barely run games at 4K with no ray tracing. A stable 60 fps with RT is really only possible at 1080p right now, and maybe 1440p for a few games.