5 reasons GT6 is a PS4 game

[daus26]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of those rumors, so I'm aware of that. However, didn't the rumor also claim that one of the purpose to run dual gpus was the ability to run 4K? I need to dig up them articles again.

Also, you may be right about consoles having outdated cards... although the PS3's Nvidia 7700 series (or somewhere around that) wasn't that old back in 2006.

*edit

Rumors, rumors, rumors... *sigh*

http://translate.google.de/translat...-Spezifikationen-der-Next-Gen-Konsole-886090/

 

[Samus]

That one was proven fake. I've also seen nothing about dual GPUs, only working in tandem with an APU. That's not the same as two decicated GPUs at all, the APU would just give the GPU a small boost.

As I've said countless times, "4k Blu-Ray/Video" I can totally see happening on the PS4, pushing a new video technology but 4k gaming I just don't see. Remember that in terms of gaming Blu Ray was merely a larger disc format, nothing more. It didn't bring anything new to gaming tech wise because it's just a storage disc, albeit a big one.

 

[avens]

BTW multiple video cards produce stuttering, no matter the fps or brand. That sounds like the next Sony screw up.

 

[Samus]

Like I said though, I've not seen anything about multiple video cards. Just an APU used to accelerate the GPU. Nothing like multiple GPU.

 

[Mulan]

All you can do is hope. That is what i do. Now we are a bit away from topic, but its fun.
Even though Simon has good points and shows it with current proof it says nothing about tommorow. Ive seen bigger leaps than this. If PS4 would have anything lower than 4k playback id be dissapointed. But what about 4K gaming? Well, for now its not that important. But in 5 years or 8? I donät know. I have seen 4k and i love it so i hope PS4 goes for 4K gaming. Even if its just exclusive games like GT6 it would be great to know that the PS4 is something you can count on for years to come. And if they can merge it with google TV + other nice features i can see it cost more and still be worth it. Im not saying that PS4 an no 4K gaming is lousy, its not. But i think 4K gaming is great way for Sony to show that the PS4 is the most powerfull console. And i know one thing, tech is moving fast. Memory bandwith, memory prices, chips and CPU are built to go faster and faster and consume less power att the same time.
1-2 years is alot of time in this business is all i know. And 5 years is like decades, things go really fast.

 

[Samus]

That's all very nice but you've not explained HOW they could manage 4k gaming, technologically? Saying you've seen bigger leaps doesn't mean much when the PS4 tech has to be finalised a long time before it goes into mass production. If <$150, 4k gaming capable video cards don't exist right this second they're not going to exist in the PS4 which is already a long way into development going by most sources.

 

[Mulan]

That's all very nice but you've not explained HOW they could manage 4k gaming, technologically? Saying you've seen bigger leaps doesn't mean much when the PS4 tech has to be finalised a long time before it goes into mass production. If <$150, 4k gaming capable video cards don't exist right this second they're not going to exist in the PS4 which is already a long way into development going by most sources.

No, i cant say because no one knows the specs 100%.
But i can speculate. And that is if they go for a more traditional setup (no cell) then they can have developers do their job without knowing the exact performance. They can get a minimum performance setup. When the time comes Sony can put in better hardware. Like, faster memory or faster cpu.
And what is more important is the price they going for. If they make it at 800-1000$ then it will have hardware that would cost alot more for a normal perosn (i assume Sony gets better price and they also take a little loss). In a closed system that is optimized for only that things can get fast. If people hope for cheaper then i think Wii U or perhaps Xbox will be a better choice, i think and hope sony goes for full performance.

 

[jabofu]

That's all very nice but you've not explained HOW they could manage 4k gaming, technologically? Saying you've seen bigger leaps doesn't mean much when the PS4 tech has to be finalised a long time before it goes into mass production. If <$150, 4k gaming capable video cards don't exist right this second they're not going to exist in the PS4 which is already a long way into development going by most sources.

I expect them to not even come close to 4k with most PS4 games.

Lets see what graphics card the ps3 has: The Nvidia RSX based on the Geforce 7800 GTX, but with 550 mhz. This graphics card in a pc could not play the latest games, like Skyrim or CoD 3, not now or then in 1080p. When it came out, games like Far Cry 1 and Doom 3 were the latest games. So how did they managed the 1080p resolution they pushed with the PS3? The PS3 has the Cell processor. A very powerful cpu for its time, but really complicated. But this combination of cpu and gpu works till today and let the latest games run very good on the PS3.

But as I said before, in most games they had to lower the resolution or to trim the graphics in another way. I think we will see the same with the PS4, if they won't upgrade the hardware extremely.

It is also not easy to compare pc specs to a console. We know that the hardware of the PS3 and Xbox 360 are ancient, but they still manage to run new games very good. They just don't have the problems a pc have. The games can be optimized to one hardware combination and not to nearly an unlimited amount on combinations on pc. The os is very small and doesnt need much ressources and no useless services are running under the hood like on a pc. Simple and powerful.

The AMD 6870 is a graphic card that you can buy for 150 &#8364;, that can display games in 3k resolution (5760x1080) with ease back in 2010. So why shouldnt a gpu based on a good current amd card with a good processor (next cell or a normal one) display 4k games?

They have a big advantage now, because the technology is already matured. Back in 2005/2006 it was the starting point of quad core cpus and such technologies. There are working clever people in the hardware apartments. Just think about how the smartphones have improved in the past years, it is getting crazy.

I cant wait till the next gen consoles. And while waiting for them, I just enjoy the games like GT5, Forza and others.

 

[avens]

No, i cant say because no one knows the specs 100%.
But i can speculate. And that is if they go for a more traditional setup (no cell) then they can have developers do their job without knowing the exact performance. They can get a minimum performance setup. When the time comes Sony can put in better hardware. Like, faster memory or faster cpu.
And what is more important is the price they going for. If they make it at 800-1000$ then it will have hardware that would cost alot more for a normal perosn (i assume Sony gets better price and they also take a little loss). In a closed system that is optimized for only that things can get fast. If people hope for cheaper then i think Wii U or perhaps Xbox will be a better choice, i think and hope sony goes for full performance.

What you still don't get is that increasing the resolution doesn't necessarily mean better graphics.
Right now with the same specs you will get better visual quality with 1080p than 4k, because the resources that aren't going into upping the resolution 3x can be used into implementing better lightning, effects, filters, models (obviously GT5's "premiums" aren't the best version PD has), etc.

Also it isn't that easy to release a console. For example this gen Sony went for full performance, but it ended up being more expensive and with less performance than the 360. And if you want "full performance" you go for a pc in first place, as they are always ahead of consoles.

 

[ProjectVRD]

I expect them to not even come close to 4k with most PS4 games.

Lets see what graphics card the ps3 has: The Nvidia RSX based on the Geforce 7800 GTX, but with 550 mhz. This graphics card in a pc could not play the latest games, like Skyrim or CoD 3, not now or then in 1080p. When it came out, games like Far Cry 1 and Doom 3 were the latest games. So how did they managed the 1080p resolution they pushed with the PS3? The PS3 has the Cell processor. A very powerful cpu for its time, but really complicated. But this combination of cpu and gpu works till today and let the latest games run very good on the PS3.

But as I said before, in most games they had to lower the resolution or to trim the graphics in another way. I think we will see the same with the PS4, if they won't upgrade the hardware extremely.

It is also not easy to compare pc specs to a console. We know that the hardware of the PS3 and Xbox 360 are ancient, but they still manage to run new games very good. They just don't have the problems a pc have. The games can be optimized to one hardware combination and not to nearly an unlimited amount on combinations on pc. The os is very small and doesnt need much ressources and no useless services are running under the hood like on a pc. Simple and powerful.

The AMD 6870 is a graphic card that you can buy for 150 €, that can display games in 3k resolution (5760x1080) with ease back in 2010. So why shouldnt a gpu based on a good current amd card with a good processor (next cell or a normal one) display 4k games?

They have a big advantage now, because the technology is already matured. Back in 2005/2006 it was the starting point of quad core cpus and such technologies. There are working clever people in the hardware apartments. Just think about how the smartphones have improved in the past years, it is getting crazy.

I cant wait till the next gen consoles. And while waiting for them, I just enjoy the games like GT5, Forza and others.

Oh dear, don't go down that road. I have already been attacked by the PS3 fanboys for suggesting below average PC hardware is better than PS3 hardware.

 

[avens]

Oh dear, don't go down that road. I have already been attacked by the PS3 fanboys for suggesting below average PC hardware is better than PS3 hardware.

And you didn't post any proof whatsoever. Still waiting the skyrim $350 laptop v. ps3 youtube video.

 

[jabofu]

Oh dear, don't go down that road. I have already been attacked by the PS3 fanboys for suggesting below average PC hardware is better than PS3 hardware.

In theory it is better, but in most cases it won't work out. Sure you can find a pc setup thats better for a less price or get a better graphic overall, but a console player don't want the pc experience to be clear. Many want to put the disc in the console, start it up and play with the controller in front of their tv.

So, it doesnt matter if a pc is more powerful, when the player prefers the console experience.

I just tried GT5 in 3D on my 46" Toshiba and I want the PS4 asap.

 

[Samus]

No, i cant say because no one knows the specs 100%.
But i can speculate. And that is if they go for a more traditional setup (no cell) then they can have developers do their job without knowing the exact performance. They can get a minimum performance setup. When the time comes Sony can put in better hardware. Like, faster memory or faster cpu.
And what is more important is the price they going for. If they make it at 800-1000$ then it will have hardware that would cost alot more for a normal perosn (i assume Sony gets better price and they also take a little loss). In a closed system that is optimized for only that things can get fast. If people hope for cheaper then i think Wii U or perhaps Xbox will be a better choice, i think and hope sony goes for full performance.

You need to get this idea of an $800+ console out of your head. It's just not going to happen.

The AMD 6870 is a graphic card that you can buy for 150 &#8364;, that can display games in 3k resolution (5760x1080) with ease back in 2010. So why shouldnt a gpu based on a good current amd card with a good processor (next cell or a normal one) display 4k games?

Older games at lower settings. A single HD6870 would not run a more demanding 2012 game at 5760x1080 with decent performance and visuals. Even at 1080p you have to turn things down if you want 60fps.

Now it might just be me but I'd much rather have a 1080p output with everything maxed running at 60fps out than a 4k output with everything turned down and running at 30fps.

 

[avens]

You need to get this idea of an $800+ console out of your head. It's just not going to happen.

Older games at lower settings. A single HD6870 would not run a more demanding 2012 game at 5760x1080 with decent performance and visuals. Even at 1080p you have to turn things down if you want 60fps.

Now it might just be me but I'd much rather have a 1080p output with everything maxed running at 60fps out than a 4k output with everything turned down and running at 30fps.

I think the problem is most people think that more resolution is the only thing that matters.

 

[Samus]

I think they also don't realise you need a huge screen to even notice resolutions that high, unless you're using the extra resolution in width, as Eyefinity does. I think some people assume they'll be able to buy a 32" 4K TV, sit 6 feet from it and marvel in the detail of 4K.

There is also the large point that graphics are not everything.

 

[jabofu]

Older games at lower settings. A single HD6870 would not run a more demanding 2012 game at 5760x1080 with decent performance and visuals. Even at 1080p you have to turn things down if you want 60fps.

Now it might just be me but I'd much rather have a 1080p output with everything maxed running at 60fps out than a 4k output with everything turned down and running at 30fps.

I can subscribe to that. The card i mentioned was just an example. Again, you cant compare pc specs and console specs completely. It was a card from 2010. In pc hardware terms: ancient. My view on it is, that 4k is a possiblity and no unrealistic shenanigans as many think.

I think the problem is most people think that more resolution is the only thing that matters.

If you play on a 22" monitor it is not everything that matters, but it changes dramatically, when you play on a 37"-46" tv while not sitting 5 meters away.

Just connect a pc/labtop to a 1080p tv (>37") and see just the difference betweent 1920*1080 and 1280*720. The difference is very noticable. Now try even lower resolutions than 1280*720. Some console developers even went under 720p with some games. I know Halo 3 was such case.

Thats why a 80"+ tv might not be so enjoyable with "only" 1080p. It would be crazy to hook up an old PS1 or NES to such a thing.

I think they also don't realise you need a huge screen to even notice resolutions that high, unless you're using the extra resolution in width, as Eyefinity does. I think some people assume they'll be able to buy a 32" 4K TV, sit 6 feet from it and marvel in the detail of 4K.

There is also the large point that graphics are not everything.

I am curious how they want to sell these big tvs. Even when you have a rather large living room, a 50" tv is nearly the largest to reasonably put there. So, I am not sure who will buy 70"-80"+ tvs.

But I guess its hard to judge if you have not seen such a tv with a 4k video source on it. From experience with downsampling on pc, I am sure it could be interesting.

 

[avens]

If you play on a 22" monitor it is not everything that matters, but it changes dramatically, when you play on a 37"-46" tv while not sitting 5 meters away.

Just connect a pc/labtop to a 1080p tv (>37") and see just the difference betweent 1920*1080 and 1280*720. The difference is very noticable. Now try even lower resolutions than 1280*720. Some console developers even went under 720p with some games. I know Halo 3 was such case.

Thats why a 80"+ tv might not be so enjoyable with "only" 1080p. It would be crazy to hook up an old PS1 or NES to such a thing.

If you read my other posts on this thread you'll see I'm fine with 1080p for the PS4, not less not more.

As you said, halo3 runs at less than 720p (640p) yet that's the reason why it looked awesome when it was released. There's no way it could run like that at 720p or more.
Nowadays most console games don't run at 1080p, even if they say they do: Developers know resolution is not everything and that with lower resolution they can achieve better results. Want another example? GT5.

And the difference between 1080p and 4k is not noticeable under common real life conditions. Even if you are in one of the rare ones, I'm telling you right now a console game will look better at 1080p than 4k.

 

[Mulan]

If you read my other posts on this thread you'll see I'm fine with 1080p for the PS4, not less not more.

As you said, halo3 runs at less than 720p (640p) yet that's the reason why it looked awesome when it was released. There's no way it could run like that at 720p or more.
Nowadays most console games don't run at 1080p, even if they say they do: Developers know resolution is not everything and that with lower resolution they can achieve better results. Want another example? GT5.

And the difference between 1080p and 4k is not noticeable under common real life conditions. Even if you are in one of the rare ones, I'm telling you right now a console game will look better at 1080p than 4k.

This is just rubbish if you assume people want 32-40" tv. Why go and see a movie in theatres if size doesnt matter?
Projector or lcd or oled, size will get bigger.
And one thing more, why show 4k gt5 now if its not a teaze for what is coming?

I find the 4k demo a proof that pd is going for this.... or can anyone say why they do it...i think it can be a good marketing feature...4 ps3 or 1 ps4...easy to get how powerfull ps4 will be in marketing perspektive.

 

[Foxiol]

This is just rubbish if you assume people want 32-40" tv. Why go and see a movie in theatres if size doesnt matter?
Projector or lcd or oled, size will get bigger.
And one thing more, why show 4k gt5 now if its not a teaze for what is coming?

I find the 4k demo a proof that pd is going for this.... or can anyone say why they do it...i think it can be a good marketing feature...4 ps3 or 1 ps4...easy to get how powerfull ps4 will be in marketing perspektive.

Think again...

The thing here is not GT5 running in 4k...they are showing off their 4K resolution TV´s...GT5 has nothing to do with it...the game helps to show how it looks because of the graphics quality of the game. No more no less.

First hardware and then money are the main reasons to say that we are not going to see 4K games, because current hardware (GPU´s) can´t handle that very well and for the money that one of those GPU´s cost you can buy an entire PS4 (if it is going to cost the same as the PS3 at release...lets say $/€500)...

The only thing that the PS4 would do is the same as the actual 4K DVD/Blue Ray reproducers are doing right now...they use a chip or something like that to upscale the resolution so you can see it in a 4K TV. (you need one capable of doing 4K resolution which costs you money)

If you want to play games at 4K you are missing the main factor...you´ll need that 4K capable TV first...then GPU´s that can run games at that resolution, games also made at that resolution...etc. And again do you think that a PS4 is going to have a GPU capable of doing 4K? Really...and how much do you think it will cost to you?...

Not yet man...Sure you´ll see movies or the PS4 is going to be capable for movies...but games at 4K? No. Buy a PS4 and the 4K TV too. If you can...

 

[Samus]

And one thing more, why show 4k gt5 now if its not a teaze for what is coming?

I find the 4k demo a proof that pd is going for this.... or can anyone say why they do it

They did it with prologue in 2008 and it didn't mean GT5 was going to be 4k, nothing has changed with this display. As Foxiol says, it's just a high profile platform for Sony to show off 4k tech.

 

[Mulan]

Ok, a bit drunk yesterday
All i know is price drops really fast. A 70" LCD Samsung was around 50.000$ 4 years ago.
Today you get a much better 3D LED/LCD for around 4000$.
I see the same thing happening with 4K regarding pricedrop and screensize gets bigger.
Regarding 4K PS4...i dont know what will be but i still see it as possible
And dont forget Sony TV helmets....(like google glasses or VR helmet) you get a huge screen for little money.

 

[thelvynau]

Ok, a bit drunk yesterday
All i know is price drops really fast. A 70" LCD Samsung was around 50.000$ 4 years ago.
Today you get a much better 3D LED/LCD for around 4000$.
I see the same thing happening with 4K regarding pricedrop and screensize gets bigger.
Regarding 4K PS4...i dont know what will be but i still see it as possible
And dont forget Sony TV helmets....(like google glasses or VR helmet) you get a huge screen for little money.

Your talking 4 years for the price drop on the tv 4k being affordable in 4 years? Who knows.

But 4k on ps4 highly unlikely.

 

[Youngun]

This seems like this arguement which NO-ONE knows about, no-one works in sony, has spy shots or an inside guy. Its logical arguement, rumors and speculation. But 4k wouldnt be illogical for PS4. 10 years ago, they were pushing everyone to 3D with TVs, Blurays and PS3. They want something new to push, and 4D would be stupid. People keep saying Chips atm are expensive for 4k gaming but thats consumer prices, Sony may have future "cheaper" chips already, as sony arent the only ones that think ahead in terms of tech, thier Cell chip for one. All companys involved around the Tech industry need to have a game plan for the future as its ever growing so......again, no one knows if theres a cheaper 4k chip round the corner. PS4 isnt in prduction or some employee (soon to be ex employee when he does) hasnt taken any pics of it and leaked them so sony may have not selected a chip or asked for a few protos that may be exclusive to the PS4.

Im all for it, 5 years down the line, i dont want to buy a seperate 4k Player. £500 is ok for me as long as it will last the 8-10 years ill have it. I watch movies, and with fibre-optic, 4k streaming could also be possible. To me, its not about the 4k gaming but the smoothness that 1080p gaming could be but still having that ability to play 4k films.

p.s. that graph on the last page seems made up, yes different manufacturers sugguest minimum viewing distance but i could still see the differece between 480p, 720p and 1080p on a 40" tv at 10' away. I can still see the pixels at certain distances, so if 4k reduces that affect then when a 40" goes below 1000, im buying one of them too.

Edit. ill just add Panasonic, LG, Toshiba, Sharp, Samsung and Sony have all created 4k tvs which are for sale. Panasonic have created a 20" TV plus an 8K 145" OLED TV (mainly for showing off)

 

[Mulan]

not to forget sony gamestreaming service coming. that may help getting 4k too since most of the job will be done on servers.
sony has so many other things that benfit to get 4k out that money lost on ps4 is easily gotten back from other places.

 

[thelvynau]

not to forget sony gamestreaming service coming. that may help getting 4k too since most of the job will be done on servers.
sony has so many other things that benfit to get 4k out that money lost on ps4 is easily gotten back from other places.

Interesting I wonder if the worlds internet speeds are ready for streaming games.

 

[sneakypete123]

Interesting I wonder if the worlds internet speeds are ready for streaming games.

Nope, I live in the sticks and get 6meg download and under 1 meg upload and Im lucky to get that as people half a mile up the road struggle to get 1.5- 2 download speed

The phone exchange is 3 doors down from me so maybe thats a factor? But I dont know enough about it to be sure.

 

[Mulan]

i have fiber and many have highspeed internet connections in sweden. but we dont know requirements yet for sonys streamservice other than its supposed to let you play on different devices like phones, pads and so on.

 

[Samus]

People keep saying Chips atm are expensive for 4k gaming but thats consumer prices, Sony may have future "cheaper" chips already, as sony arent the only ones that think ahead in terms of tech, thier Cell chip for one. Who knows if theres a cheaper 4k chip round the corner.

How can they have future graphics cards that are much cheaper, they don't produce GPUs, Nvidia and AMD do, primarily. If the top end production model they produce costs £330 (Let's assume £200 to companies) and CAN'T do 4k gaming at reasonable levels what makes you think Sony can rock up and say "Hey, make us a GPU capable of 4k gaming but we need it to cost £100 to us"?

PS4 isnt in prduction or some employee (soon to be ex employee when he does) hasnt taken any pics of it and leaked them so sony may have not selected a chip or asked for a few protos that may be exclusive to the PS4.

Of course PS4 is in development, they have to select the hardware long before it goes into production. They can't just make it off the shelf in five minutes like a PC can. That's why console hardware is always old when it comes out.

 

[Tornado]

not to forget sony gamestreaming service coming. that may help getting 4k too since most of the job will be done on servers.
sony has so many other things that benfit to get 4k out that money lost on ps4 is easily gotten back from other places.

Stop making stuff up. They bought a cloud gaming startup company. There are any number of reasons they could have bought it. That doesn't mean Sony is going to rollout a major streaming service for games, and it sure as hell has nothing to do with 4k.

 

[Samus]

It's also utter madness to think Sony would take a loss on the PS4 as they did PS3. Not a chance.