• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

PS4 Pro Review

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The fact a game would play WORSE on a newer, higher tech, more expensive version of the same console, would definitely piss me off as a customer though. It's pretty much unacceptable in my eyes. But then again I'm not really in the market for this.
 
Well, that's why he said "worse" is subjective. The frame rate might be less stable, but it's because of HDR and a higher resolution. The frames aren't dropping just because the hardware's flawed, it's because the games are doing more work to give you more on the graphics side. So, while I agree that they should have aimed for frame rates, it's not that it outright "plays worse," it's that they either need some optimization tweaks or they threw more at the better hardware than they should have.
 
Still, it makes no sense to do involuntary supersampling for native 1080P titles.

I live in a world where one of the most advertised features of the PS4 versus the XB1 was that games would run native 1080P and that running 900P and scaling to 1080P was considered cheating at best and false advertising at worse. With a few exceptions, the PS4 Pro leverages checkerboard scaling (its fancy scaling, but still scaling) to extend its reach to 4K. Instead of having silky smooth 60 FPS, the console is wasting more GPU power scaling everything up and then down than if they had just added a small bit of AA/AF. No one can deny that supersampling is good when you have enough overhead, but the PS4 Pro doesn't have it. I'm in agreement that a few dropped frames here and there isn't all that bad, but that's only when at 60FPS. Skyrim SE runs at 30 FPS. Two to five dropped frames (as reported) is 6 to 17 percent! When the performance drops start to mimic 24FPS motion picture speeds, that's a problem. I'll admit I'm exaggerating the severity of the problem a bit, but the point is that its a completely avoidable situation.

The bottom line is that Sony needs to allow people the option to switch off supersampling and allow the PS4 Pro to work in native 1080P when playing games on a 1080P TV. If you want to limit the FPS to 30 to match the lesser machine....fine....but it should be a rock solid 30 FPS.
 
To be fair though. Battlefield 1 runs at a higher resolution and gets 10-15fps higher frame rate. It's a lot more demanding than skyrim is too. A good developer can leverage the pro to benefit their game engine. Maybe it takes a bit of extra work on their part? It's pretty new and I would not be surprised if some games got pro support kind of patched in haphazardly in order to take advantage of the hype surrounding the pro and people looking for any games to show off their new console.
 
Anteaus said:
Still, it makes no sense to do involuntary supersampling for native 1080P titles.

I live in a world where one of the most advertised features of the PS4 versus the XB1 was that games would run native 1080P and that running 900P and scaling to 1080P was considered cheating at best and false advertising at worse. With a few exceptions, the PS4 Pro leverages checkerboard scaling (its fancy scaling, but still scaling) to extend its reach to 4K. Instead of having silky smooth 60 FPS, the console is wasting more GPU power scaling everything up and then down than if they had just added a small bit of AA/AF. No one can deny that supersampling is good when you have enough overhead, but the PS4 Pro doesn't have it. I'm in agreement that a few dropped frames here and there isn't all that bad, but that's only when at 60FPS. Skyrim SE runs at 30 FPS. Two to five dropped frames (as reported) is 6 to 17 percent! When the performance drops start to mimic 24FPS motion picture speeds, that's a problem. I'll admit I'm exaggerating the severity of the problem a bit, but the point is that its a completely avoidable situation.

The bottom line is that Sony needs to allow people the option to switch off supersampling and allow the PS4 Pro to work in native 1080P when playing games on a 1080P TV. If you want to limit the FPS to 30 to match the lesser machine....fine....but it should be a rock solid 30 FPS.
Click to expand...

1080p at 60 fps is a pretty unreasonable performance target for PS4 Pro considering how weak the cpu is. What gets to me is that you can't even get 1080p at 30 fps though with the PS4 Pro. That's completely unforgivable to me since even the weak Jaguar cores are capable of that and the only problem is they're trying to render too high a resolution for what the gpu can handle. I was really excited about the PS4 Pro being a console with slightly better visuals but a rock solid 30 fps and was willing to pay $400 for it until I saw just how lousy PS4 Pro support appears to be from devs and how little Sony cares about it.

I also find it really disappointing that a cpu light game like Rise of the Tomb Raider has massive drops when running in the fast framerate mode on PS4 Pro. Digitial Foundry showed drops into the low 40s on that game. If that's the best case scenario for PS4 Pro framerate, sign me up for the Slim. I'd much rather play at a consistent 30 fps than bouncing between 40 fps and 60 fps.
 
cmdrdredd said:
To be fair though. Battlefield 1 runs at a higher resolution and gets 10-15fps higher frame rate. It's a lot more demanding than skyrim is too. A good developer can leverage the pro to benefit their game engine. Maybe it takes a bit of extra work on their part? It's pretty new and I would not be surprised if some games got pro support kind of patched in haphazardly in order to take advantage of the hype surrounding the pro and people looking for any games to show off their new console.
Click to expand...

Which is the game I play the most. On PC and PS4. I do not regret buying the Pro at all. Every game I play looks better, and I don't notice any slower frames. Are there some? Seems to be from articles out there, I don't notice them though. Perhaps one day I will but not in the game I play so far. Seems like a win for me, and with 2x the storage.
 
Yes, there is at least 2 games with the Pro patch run worse on the Pro than on PS4. Digital Foundry tested them and sadly it's the major games, The Last of Us and another one I cared less for. However, all other games runs great and show improvement. Additionally we're super early. The leading edge is the bleeding edge so I wouldn't be surprised if an updated patch fixes it. Again, many other pro patched games show improvement over the PS4.
 
razel said:
Yes, there is at least 2 games with the Pro patch run worse on the Pro than on PS4. Digital Foundry tested them and sadly it's the major games, The Last of Us and another one I cared less for. However, all other games runs great and show improvement. Additionally we're super early. The leading edge is the bleeding edge so I wouldn't be surprised if an updated patch fixes it. Again, many other pro patched games show improvement over the PS4.
Click to expand...

Right and the complaints are "this is outputting at 1080p why is it worse?" When the console is only outputting 1080p but rendering at 1800p. Maybe the developer should have rendered at 1400p instead. I have seen complaints about watch dogs 2 and skyrim both running with some fps drops that the normal PS4 supposedly doesn't experience. I have never seen anyone tell me if it affects their game when they are playing. They can point to digital foundary but that doesn't really tell us a real world experience. Neither does them zooming in on pixels to compare Xbox and PlayStation. I'm not against the information but I wonder if people actually playing the game have noticed the slowdowns or if it affected the game in some way. Not to mention that Ubisoft and Bethesda both have a history of poorly optimized games.

Battlefield 1 renders at 900p and scales to 1080p on the normal PS4. On the pro it renders 1800p and scales to 4K and runs 10-15fps higher in multiplayer. That's not an insignificant feat. It's double the resolution. If DICE can do it what's everyone else's excuse? In the case of Last of Us that is one of the few titles that render at 4K on the pro. Naughty Dog might have been too aggressive there. Plus it is a port from the PS3 originally to begin with. I can't speak on other titles, think I read something about uncharted 4 as well but I didn't catch the details.
 
Bought a Pro on launch day. (I didn't have current gen console)

I own a LG 4K TV with HDR Pro

Setup the PS4 Pro, turn it on... and...... black screen with audio that's breaking up.

Change the cable, did everything I could think of, wasted time.... thought I had a bad console.

Hit up google to find out my PS4 Pro doesn't like the HDCP enabled 2.2 HDMI ports on my newer TV... have to downgrade my PS4 to 1.4 HDCP by entering a menu on boot and boom ---- I've got 4k and HDR...

The problem is now nothing works (apps). Only gaming does, which is fine, as everything "smart" my PS4 does my TV already does anyways...

but come on. I feel like I'm being left out in the cold here. TV companies and Sony are blaming each other.... am I going to get a fix? I sent in tickets to Sony and LG who both acknowledged the issue but not much as far as fixing it.. just hey do this and you can game!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...ryone-is-blaming-everybody-else/#59d254733662
 
Lots of problems online with those LG OLED TV's and the PS4 Pro. Sucks.

That said; my Sammy 4K HDR TV works beautifully with the PS4 pro. 😛

I have not loaded up all of my older games but i can say that when I played Driveclub on the ps4pro...it looks worse than usual. Tossed it into my standard ps4 and it looks much better on a 1080p screen. So that is one game I won't be playing on the 4k set with the pro.

I do have Watch Dogs 2 on the ps4 and I have to say...it looks great in 4K. The details are just lovely. If the fps are up and down I can't tell. It seems to me to play smoothly. Time will tell though.
 
cmdrdredd said:
Here is the big question. Does the game suck now that you know it loses a couple fps since the game is sharper looking?

You took sony's words literally too. They said the game can't be an inferior experience. It isn't when the game looks better. They were probably vague on purpose. I don't think for a second they meant it will always be the same frame rate. They were probably sly and means it can look better or run better pick one. I think the developers picked looking better. Imagine the backlash if a game as old as sky rim didn't run above 1080p. The internet would shut down with all the whining. I don't disagree with your point, they should give the option for rendering 1080p with a more stable frame rate.
Click to expand...

OK, here are the literal words that were given to devs by Sony, according to Eurogamer:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...ion-4k-neo-and-the-original-ps4-will-co-exist
  • Games running in Neo mode must operate at a native rendering resolution of 1920x1080 (1080p) or higher.
  • A game's frame-rate must meet or exceed its equivalent performance level on base PlayStation 4 hardware.
I suppose these requirements could have changed, maybe they weren't as official as Eurogamer claims, or that there is still some wiggle room in that second statement since the games that perform worse on pro run pretty close to base hardware level on average, they just seem to have worse dips.
 
I think the "its equivalent performance level" is the wiggle room. One could argue that 25-28 FPS at 1800p upscaled to 4K on the Pro is better than a consistent 1080p on the base/Slim model. That, and they could say "the frame rate meets or exceed at the same performance level of the base, but we are operating above the equivalent performance level by exceeding 1080p."
 
WhiteNoise said:
Lots of problems online with those LG OLED TV's and the PS4 Pro. Sucks.

That said; my Sammy 4K HDR TV works beautifully with the PS4 pro. 😛

I have not loaded up all of my older games but i can say that when I played Driveclub on the ps4pro...it looks worse than usual. Tossed it into my standard ps4 and it looks much better on a 1080p screen. So that is one game I won't be playing on the 4k set with the pro.

I do have Watch Dogs 2 on the ps4 and I have to say...it looks great in 4K. The details are just lovely. If the fps are up and down I can't tell. It seems to me to play smoothly. Time will tell though.
Click to expand...

I've yet to see one OLED owner not able to get it working by enabling HDMI settings, changing HDMI cables, removing other devices from the chain, or a combination.
 
jacktesterson said:
Bought a Pro on launch day. (I didn't have current gen console)

I own a LG 4K TV with HDR Pro

Setup the PS4 Pro, turn it on... and...... black screen with audio that's breaking up.

Change the cable, did everything I could think of, wasted time.... thought I had a bad console.

Hit up google to find out my PS4 Pro doesn't like the HDCP enabled 2.2 HDMI ports on my newer TV... have to downgrade my PS4 to 1.4 HDCP by entering a menu on boot and boom ---- I've got 4k and HDR...

The problem is now nothing works (apps). Only gaming does, which is fine, as everything "smart" my PS4 does my TV already does anyways...

but come on. I feel like I'm being left out in the cold here. TV companies and Sony are blaming each other.... am I going to get a fix? I sent in tickets to Sony and LG who both acknowledged the issue but not much as far as fixing it.. just hey do this and you can game!
Click to expand...

You enable HDMI Ultra HD Deep Color for the HDMI port you use? That's important. Some Tvs will likely see an update like Vizio is doing.
 
Lil Frier said:
I think the "its equivalent performance level" is the wiggle room. One could argue that 25-28 FPS at 1800p upscaled to 4K on the Pro is better than a consistent 1080p on the base/Slim model. That, and they could say "the frame rate meets or exceed at the same performance level of the base, but we are operating above the equivalent performance level by exceeding 1080p."
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say that "equivalent performance" can also mean lesser performance?

The very definition of "equivalent performance" means that it is equal.

As in, if something runs at a steady/constant 30fps, equivalent performance would also be running at a steady/constant 30fps.

Running at 25-28fps is not "equivalent" performance, that is lesser performance.

The whole resolution aspect of this is handled in the first bullet point, not the second one.
 
I think he was just saying that "performance level" can be interpreted differently than "always locked 30fps" to "mostly 30fps".

Wouldn't surprise me but again I don't give them a pass when other games run 2x the resolution and increased performance to boot.
 
Maybe, but "always locked 30fps" and "mostly 30fps" are factually not equivalent, which is what that article is saying Sony claims.
 
Lil Frier said:
I think the "its equivalent performance level" is the wiggle room. One could argue that 25-28 FPS at 1800p upscaled to 4K on the Pro is better than a consistent 1080p on the base/Slim model. That, and they could say "the frame rate meets or exceed at the same performance level of the base, but we are operating above the equivalent performance level by exceeding 1080p."
Click to expand...

I agree. This is a big point of contention for me because of the divide between the subjective and the objective. Performance metrics can be objective, but what is used for baseline can be quite subjective. If a consistent 30/60 FPS is the goal, then the PS4 Pro objectively fails at least in some applications regardless of its higher price and superior hardware. If higher resolution carries more weight than FPS, then the math can get fuzzy. The problem is that all gamers do not see it the same way, and marketing needs to be tweaked to work through that ambiguity.

I personally think the PS4 Pro is a great piece of hardware for the money in spite of its minor issues; however, I absolutely believe Sony was blindsided by the Scorpio announcement and that the PS4 Pro was designed to compliment the PS4 Slim; not to compete at the 4K level. Much like the PS3 was marketed as a 1080P device in spite of being designed for 720P gameplay, the PS4 Pro is being marketed for 4K when at best it should be 1440P. I'm sorry, but scaling is scaling not matter how fancy a dress Sony puts on it. Sony said scaling was evil when the XB1 did it as a marketing point; they were right then and they are right now. Scaling is about admitting that you fell short of what you intended. The fact that a few select games will be able to do 4K native is irrelevant. Before I recently replaced it, my 3 year old PC GPU could display 4K and even handle a couple games at reasonable FPS, but in no way was it capable of mainstream 4K gaming. It would have been better to just wait until they could build a proper 4K device, even at the risk of not being first.

In spite of being a great device in general, the lower performance ceiling of the PS4 Pro at 4K means that Microsoft doesn't need to try as hard to surpass it. By using scaling to reach 4K, Sony can't criticize Microsoft should they choose to implement it without being a hypocrite.
 
Anteaus said:
I agree. This is a big point of contention for me because of the divide between the subjective and the objective. Performance metrics can be objective, but what is used for baseline can be quite subjective. If a consistent 30/60 FPS is the goal, then the PS4 Pro objectively fails at least in some applications regardless of its higher price and superior hardware. If higher resolution carries more weight than FPS, then the math can get fuzzy. The problem is that all gamers do not see it the same way, and marketing needs to be tweaked to work through that ambiguity.

I personally think the PS4 Pro is a great piece of hardware for the money in spite of its minor issues; however, I absolutely believe Sony was blindsided by the Scorpio announcement and that the PS4 Pro was designed to compliment the PS4 Slim; not to compete at the 4K level. Much like the PS3 was marketed as a 1080P device in spite of being designed for 720P gameplay, the PS4 Pro is being marketed for 4K when at best it should be 1440P. I'm sorry, but scaling is scaling not matter how fancy a dress Sony puts on it. Sony said scaling was evil when the XB1 did it as a marketing point; they were right then and they are right now. Scaling is about admitting that you fell short of what you intended. The fact that a few select games will be able to do 4K native is irrelevant. Before I recently replaced it, my 3 year old PC GPU could display 4K and even handle a couple games at reasonable FPS, but in no way was it capable of mainstream 4K gaming. It would have been better to just wait until they could build a proper 4K device, even at the risk of not being first.

In spite of being a great device in general, the lower performance ceiling of the PS4 Pro at 4K means that Microsoft doesn't need to try as hard to surpass it. By using scaling to reach 4K, Sony can't criticize Microsoft should they choose to implement it without being a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

All true but there is nothin solid on what Microsoft will actually have in there. There is a performance goal they lined out but hitting it at a reasonable price might be a bit tough. We will have to see there. They may very well end up in the same situation where 4K can happen for some games and not all. I'm not really interested in the Xbox at the moment though. They need some exclusives that are not on pc for me to consider the new console. Competition is good but I am not loyal to Xbox and have no real friend with one so they have to show me the games that I have to buy an xbox to play. They had this at launch, now they really don't. At least not for me.
 
Overwatch received a patch on Tuesday, and one of the console-only additions was a profile for the PlayStation 4 Pro. I'm curious how it works since I specifically saw Overwatch on a list of high profile (or high sales) games that didn't have a PS4 Pro profile at the time of release.
 
cmdrdredd said:
All true but there is nothin solid on what Microsoft will actually have in there. There is a performance goal they lined out but hitting it at a reasonable price might be a bit tough. We will have to see there. They may very well end up in the same situation where 4K can happen for some games and not all. I'm not really interested in the Xbox at the moment though. They need some exclusives that are not on pc for me to consider the new console. Competition is good but I am not loyal to Xbox and have no real friend with one so they have to show me the games that I have to buy an xbox to play. They had this at launch, now they really don't. At least not for me.
Click to expand...

True. It's about the games. Quite literally the only games I care about on the PS4 right now is Dragon Quest Builders and Horizon Zero Dawn. Gran Turismo is dead to me (GT Sport? FU PD). Virtually everything else I care about is multi-platform or PC only.

It's sad really. IMO the PS4 Pro is the first true 1080P gaming console, and it has shortcomings only because display tech is currently surging and Sony has to keep up or be perceived as yesterday's news. Regardless of what some people might claim about 4K, 4K is spreading like wildfire right now. Very large HDMI 2.X HDR 4K tvs are all over the place for less than a grand.
 
Last edited:
purbeast0 said:
Maybe, but "always locked 30fps" and "mostly 30fps" are factually not equivalent, which is what that article is saying Sony claims.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that "equivalent performance" is stupidly vague, to the point of almost being useless. I mean it to say that being a few frames under, while not the same in pure frame rate, can be weaseled into "better" when factoring the resolution. So, they can say something like "the game would be a higher frame rate at the same resolution of the base model, but we're upping the resolution, and we're a bit lower in frame rate, but we're overall at a higher level of performance because the visuals are better."

I'm not saying it to advocate for that reality, only that it might be why these hiccups are allowed to skate. It might also be that they had different experiences in testing, and will patch further to get it to the expectations we have (same frame rate, better visuals) sometime soon.
 
I'll be picking one up soon but I need a 4k TV too. Was thinking to get the curved Samsung 55" SUHD TV from best buy while it's on sale for close to $1100.

There are a lot of other TVs on sale with good prices but not a lot of them have HDR. Good thing the hard drive is 1tb too so transferring everything over should be 1:1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top