If that looks like shit to you, then you need to get your eyes checkedForbidden West looked LIKE SHIT in performance mode for the first few months, it was almost unplayable. That 1800 figure is after some CB fuckery, they fixed it after a few months but it was a mess at launch - and I had to complete it like that.
How is is not cross gen when it literally looks 80% the same on PS4 consoles?
The PSSR is the only good thing on the Pro. You really want to play with the artifacts seen on base ps5? Look again the video.
The playstation brand of the first parties unfortunately can bleed his eyes. Forgive him.
Anything that's detailed is gonna look like artifacts when zoomed in and captured on YouTube.
No, it's not just a captured issues zoomed. Those artifacts are quite common with real time effects as lighting and AO and ps5 is vastly worse of ps5 pro especially in motion judging from the video. Have you ever played Alan Wake 2 or StarWars Outlaw? IQ is better in still but when you start to move is shit show without PSSR, especially with vegetation, very similar to what I seen there.
We're talking about different things, different Pros & Cons
The problem isn't with the PS5 Pro, but with the developer not taking advantage of the Pro.
And we have several examples of games where the PS5 Pro had a good implementation PSSR, and compared to the PS5, the image quality has been greatly improved.
examples with pssr
Space marine 2
Final fantasy 7 R
Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart:
Demon's Souls
Stellar Blade
The last of us part 2
The last of us part 1
The First Descendant
The Crew Motorfest
Battlefield 6 open beta
difference from a company that gets the most out of the console... Battlefield 6 open beta runs up to 30% better fps on PS5 Pro vs PS5 in performance mode, while also having "substantially better" image quality using PSSR and higher average resolution too.
PS5 VS PRO (PSSR)
I do blame the Pro hardware. It's simply not enough of an upgrade over the base model. I also blame the developer who did not put that extra hardware to good use.
It is enough an update. Nobody wants a 1.000€ Pro. And the lazy upgrade is way better than 1440p one from the previous Pro. It's just some cases where is toooooooo lazy and usually involves Worst Engine Ever 5.
Nope, 30-45% faster GPU is not good enough for a Pro upgrade. I generally don't even recommend people to upgrade their GPUs if it's less than a 50% uplift and in my case, I only upgrade when it's 100% or more.
I would happily buy a $1000 Pro with twice the GPU performance of a regular PS5 over the $700 one we have.
Sony is no longer in the business of subsidizing consoles. I understand the new reality of the market. We no longer get consoles for pennies on the dollar because of the manufacturing costs and Sony now refuses to take a beating by selling at a loss.
That, again, is the 1.000+€ PS5Pro. Not viable.
That is not realistic to expect today with super high end graphic card 3 years in the making gaining about 15% of raw rendering power (for 500€ and the same amount of RAM more on top of that).
I'd do too. Fuck, I already did since I got the 30th anniversary. But let's be realistic here. The sales of the pro are already meager at 950€. And that 1.000€ one wouldn't have silicon budget to eliminate smearing with FSR1. That'd be another 300€ extra.
I completely agree with this. Virtuos already knew they were dealing with a problematic engine and it wouldn't have killed them to just test a little and say "ok, maybe the extra LOD must go", or something like that.
About 99% of the Pro upgrades showed a marginal to a significant upgrade compared to the base model.
How did you read my post and came to the conclusion that it wasn't on the developer when I explicitly said it was also on them?
Whilst the PS5 Pro is not remotely close to let's say 2x of a PS5 (not even 50% more), I would say that obviously most of the fault relies on the developer by delivering a Pro mode worst than the base model.
i dont recall it like that
Both Konami so I assume Metal Gear's issues will be completely ignored just the same.
There is not only Raster performance to look at (RT is 2-3x)… and 45% is without PSSR either (sure it looks better in motion than when the camera is still in some games, but I am not sure I would want it the other way around…).
Agreed, hence why I followed it up with:
So while I don't expect miracles from the Pro. I sure as hell expect it to at worst perform similarly to the base PS5.
Not this generation.
True, it has to be coded for it for full advantage but this is the RT part of RDNA4 so we know its advantages. The Sony games pushing RT do tend to have a quite higher resolution and higher framerate ceiling.
Piece of shit card with 8GB of VRAM and 8 PCIe lanes that further gut its performance under certain scenarios.
This is constant DF rhetoric, based on comparing still screenshots. A lot of games they claimed had poor PSSR implementation, like BG3, are night and day difference in favor of PSSR when you compare them in motion. The spatial upscalers always looked OK in stills when there's enough accumulated data. However, at low internal resolution, they fall apart when movement starts.In your image, look at the amount of artifacts it generates to make it sharper.
In motion, things change. PRO besides having better sharpness, it also eliminates the artifacts... which, in my opinion, is the most horrible thing. This happens all the time in the game.
all the scenes below are moving scenes ( ps5 pro right side)
ok 3 of those are 60 on pro but GOW was a very unstable 60fps on pro
It's not just the price. PS5 Pro maxed out the normal TDP budget of consoles.
I do, I wanted an $1,000 PS5 Pro with a faster cpu and better gpu.
He's talking about doubling the performance of the PS5, not the Pro.
