Here's The New PlayStation 4 Pro, Arriving November 10 For $399

[alextheblue]

Holiday 2017 is far far away for technology in other words Sony really punched MS again. What counts is what currently you offer and XBOX S compared to PS4 Pro is a bad joke.

I don't know, I talked to a few PS4 owners I know personally, and they seemed a little annoyed that they're already releasing a new console. Not everyone bought a PS4 on day 1 and has been waiting for the "Pro" model ever since. When this thing nears release, the trade-in and personal sale value of used current-gen PS4s is going to drop quite a bit, so you'd have to shell out another couple hundred bucks to trade up. If frame rates are higher in competitive games, that's going to make them feel like they have to trade up or else be at a disadvantage. Like I said before, they were rushed into releasing this because of their VR headset.

 

[bit_user]

Sorry Sony. No UHD Blu-ray = No Sale.

Sure, it would've been nice and made this a more compelling upgrade for existing PS4 owners, but I don't see it as a must-have.

I think it's pretty obvious that the only reason they even bothered with this half-step generation was probably too many beta testers of their VR HMD were barfing, with the original PS4 hardware. So, I take this as an exercise to max out the specs of the PS4, while retaining hardware compatibility, within an acceptable price (and "acceptable" has to be regarded with the added cost of VR, in mind).

Surprised the PS4 Pro doesn't come standard with a 2TB (samsung/seagate M9T) laptop drive.. not much more cost than 1TB. Sounds good, more people would buy.

Don't care. I upgraded my PS3 Superslim to a SSD and very glad I did! If I get a PS4 Pro, I will definitely do the same.

 

[bit_user]

I guess game reviews will have to mention how it performs on BOTH systems now, potentially doubling the review process? Also having a constant 60 fps vs 30 fps is going to make a huge difference for online multiplayer shooters (something PC users can usually address by adjusting graphics settings etc, but consoles don't usually have those). This fragmentation of the PS4 is really is going cause a lot of potential issues imo.

You must not ever play console games; all FPS games on consoles are 60FPS for the past many years.

Spreading blatant disinformation does no one any favours. At least say "I think" before writing something that you aren't certain is factual (which it obviously isn't) as turkey3_scratch has pointed out.

Who are you even chastising? turkey3_scratch was the one blowing smoke, as Supernova1138 helpfully pointed out.

 

[nitrium]

Who are you even chastising? turkey3_scratch was the one blowing smoke, as Supernova1138 helpfully pointed out.

Sorry, I meant Supernova1138 (not turkey3_scratch). I was using copy/paste and was obviously looking at the wrong message (and poster).

 

[photonboy]

30FPS vs 60FPS

I would not expect any 30FPS games to suddenly become 60FPS. You would have to increase the CPU and GPU speed both by at least 100% to achieve this.

Increasing the CPU by 30% or so is useful to minimize drops below the target in theory, but they ALSO increase the graphicals that benefit can disappear (by upping the CPU draw call).

If you change NOTHING in the game then you significantly decrease drops below the 30FPS or 60FPS target compared to how it ran on the PS4.

NEW games are going to have the same CPU dilemma. If they aim for 30FPS on the PS4, they'll still use up CPU draw calls to the GPU thus be lucky to maintain 30FPS for the PS4 Pro.

 

[bit_user]

30FPS vs 60FPS

I would not expect any 30FPS games to suddenly become 60FPS. You would have to increase the CPU and GPU speed both by at least 100% to achieve this.

No, for the games that were locked at 30 FPS and could hold it consistently, it might've been the case that the hardware fell just short of hitting 60 FPS. So, less than 100% speed up would be required.

And as far as the hardware is concerned, I believe the GPU is more than twice as fast. At least in raw floating-point, they claim 4.2 TFLOPS vs. 1.84 TFLOPS for the original. However, memory bandwidth probably didn't double.

In any case, it doesn't matter what we think. We can debate this all day, but it will have no bearing on what the game devs actually do. I'm just curious what's actually been announced about this.

 

[TOMpel]

imma buy those, im a collector of Playstation since PSone (box and rounded), OMG!! basic, slim and PRO!? MINE!

 

[dstarr3]

I really do hope the industry looks at this added power as a means to improve resolution/framerate and not just dump in more eye candy while still settling for barely 30fps. Games look fine now, we need better playability much more than we need more eye candy.

 

[Shane_40]

ATI rx 470 8gb = ps4 pro

 

[Shane_40]

rx 470 8gb = ps4 pro

 

[nitrium]

rx 470 8gb = ps4 pro

Well not quite. The RX 470 has 8GB of DEDICATED GDDR5 memory. The PS4/Pro has 8GB of SHARED memory (with the CPU), which realistically gives an upper limit of about 6GB of usable VRAM, depending on how much overhead the game/OS has. In raw GPU performance the RX 470 is 4.9 TFlops (vs 4.2 TFlops of the PS4 Pro), so is still ~20% faster (console optimisation and lower overheads largely mitigates that difference though).

 

[bit_user]

rx 470 8gb = ps4 pro

The RX 470 has 8GB of DEDICATED GDDR5 memory. The PS4/Pro has 8GB of SHARED memory (with the CPU), which realistically gives an upper limit of about 6GB of usable VRAM, depending on how much overhead the game/OS has. In raw GPU performance the RX 470 is 4.9 TFlops (vs 4.2 TFlops of the PS4 Pro)

IMO, it's a useful comparison, since it sets the upper bound of how much performance we can expect (and it's why I disregard the notion of this being a proper 4k console).

Some estimates of the original PS4 put the GDDR5 bandwidth allocated to the CPU at a rather low level.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=628386

BTW, a benefit of shared memory is that data can be moved between the CPU and GPU more efficiently. I'm not sure whether the net benefit is better than we'd get by simply having separate memories.

PS5 will surely have HBM2. That should provide plenty of bandwidth for everyone.

 

[nitrium]

Some estimates of the original PS4 put the GDDR5 bandwidth allocated to the CPU at a rather low level.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=628386

I wasn't referring to memory bandwidth. I was referring to the outright amount of it available to the GPU (which is 100% on a RX 470 8GB, and something less than that on a PS4 given it needs to be shared with the rest of the system - i.e. the OS and game code, OS services, sound, or whatever else is needed - I estimate the average PS4 game might use around ~2GB(?) for that).

 

[TOMpel]

idk what u guys saying but why i can't have 'em both?
im a maniac gaming you know..
GAMING4LIFE

 

[bit_user]

idk what u guys saying but why i can't have 'em both?
im a maniac gaming you know..
GAMING4LIFE

Okay, here's a question: why would you want both versions of the same console, even when one is better in all ways? Do you have shelves full of consoles that you only look at? Is it a bit like collecting art or maybe cars?

Do you ever mod your consoles, like by installing a SSD, or to play import games?

If an older console is broken, but you hardly play it, do you replace it or get it repaired? Or do you simply keep the broken one? Or do you just trash it, at that point?

BTW, I do see the appeal of having some vintage consoles (I got an original PS3 so I could play PS1 and PS2 games, years ago, then got a PS3 Super Slim to "save" the first PS3 for only PS1/PS2 games).

 

[TOMpel]

i thought we're talking bout PC (RX 470) against consoles, like i own both PC and console. And yeah i'm collecting for my happiness and mods.

 

[photonboy]

As for "comparing", having too many games at 30FPS with drops below that too just kills things for me.

Having 4K at 30FPS to me is ridiculous. I know WHY it happened:

a) "4K" is easy to sell to people (60FPS vs 30FPS not so much)
b) CPU portion is not ready for over 2X the performance per core. (a bit more overclock and ZEN would have got us there)
c) cost

I have an 1080p HDTV. So.... what?

My understanding is it will look slightly better due to the higher res, then DOWNSCALING (anti-aliasing more or less).

The lack of 4K BD player killed it for me. I have a gaming PC so this was supposed to be a living room thing for Netflix, all DVD/BD including 4K, and some of the PS4 games I've wanted to play.

It looks like I'll hold off and get the XBOX ONE Scorpio which will support 4K BD. It's more compatible anyway with the same controller layout, and push to unify W10 and XBOX (i.e. shared games, and streaming PC to XBox One occasionally).

4K HDTVs are too expensive anyway. I wonder if Sony jumped the gun here? Actually I was okay with the GPU since the CPU limit isn't going to get you from 30FPS to 60FPS anyway.

But no 4K BD from SONY of all people? HUH?

4K HDTV + 4K media player is a no-brainer, isn't it? I can only assume that the COST of the 4K BD unit was prohibitive. Well, then maybe they should have waited.

Then how is it that the SLIM version of the XBOX is coming with the 4K BD player?

(did anybody else get confused on naming... XBOX ONE S, for "slim" and XBOX ONE Scorpio... sigh)

 

[bit_user]

My understanding is it will look slightly better due to the higher res, then DOWNSCALING (anti-aliasing more or less).

My understanding is that most games which support 4k will be upscaled. Which any 4k TV would do, anyhow. So, I really don't see the point of marketing it as 4k. What it's really about is PSVR. They just don't want to say it, because that would (correctly) imply the VR capabilities of the original PS4 are sub-par.

Again, to have some idea of what native 4k performance would be like, go find some 4k benchmarks on the RX 470, and then scale them down a bit more (due to slower CPU and memory bandwidth sharing between CPU & GPU). As you'll see, the PS4 Pro is in no way a proper 4k console.

The lack of 4K BD player killed it for me.

If you wait, perhaps Sony might refresh it with 4k Blu-ray support (and maybe you'll have a 4k TV, by then). Or, maybe the PS5 will be too close at hand, for that.

It looks like I'll hold off and get the XBOX ONE Scorpio which will support 4K BD.
...
But no 4K BD from SONY of all people? HUH?

4K HDTV + 4K media player is a no-brainer, isn't it? I can only assume that the COST of the 4K BD unit was prohibitive. Well, then maybe they should have waited.

And I can't believe MS leapfrogged Sony on 4k Blu-ray support. That's deliciously ironic.

And they can't have waited any longer, because they need this to launch at the same time as PSVR.