PlayStation 4 (Official Thread)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

The only problem I have with your review is that you say the multiplat game you have (AC) looks better than it does on the Xbone... which you don't have.
So kind of showing your favoritism right there. :P

---

Not favoritism. I was merely stating that the best possible version visually is the PS4 1080p version. Most gamers I know prefer 1080p over 760p or even 900p (the Xbone version is actually in 900p an not 720p). Heck, I never even herd of a game that displayed in 900p until now.

It comes down to personal taste ultimately I will give you that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pl4-Ne9FpU

IGN posted a comparison video here.--->http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/22...ics-comparison

And here are some sample pics of 900p/1080p--->http://www.psu.com/forums/showthread...pics-inside%29

Yes, I know.. but that is their review of it.. not yours. :)

Many of the reviews have even gone in stating it's very hard to tell right away, and these are people paid to review such things. I'd like to see a few real world tests where they are not running HDMI captures to grab the scenes.

Just how evident would the differences be to you for instance. Given the same game running on your exact setup, and not being told or given an obvious indication which is which, how apparent would they be?

That's something I'd love to see, because I imagine that is the kind of trade off MS was banking on. Of course they should have known that they would get called on a technical level from the get go, but I don't know how finalized their specs were before they heard Sony's either.

That's actually pretty cool. I mean, releasing patches for the games to run better/higher res/ etc. Yeah, it should have been there to begin with, but at least their not leaving the gamer/consumer/whatever-pig-fuqer high and dry.

That said, maybe just me - but it seems PS4 benefits more from the 1080p res than the XbO does. Maybe a shitty scaler or what not, but increase in rendering resolution seems to make the textures pop more on the PS4. Where as on the XbO, they look pretty crisp/sharp running lower than 1080p. I've read that the upscaler on the PS4 isn't that great. But it could be some old tech AA that's just blurring too much detail. I dunno. Either way, at least they're fixing it.

EclecticGroove: Yeah, most people won't be able to tell the difference. There are some, and to those people it probably irks the shite out of them. I tend to play my PC 3D FPS games at 1280x1024 instead of 1920x1080p simply because I can run a 75hz refresh rate (I run vsync on, so higher refresh rate on dropped frames reduce 'judder'). I just crank up the AA and it looks great ( I have a 55" display BTW for my PC). There were a few games that I even bumped down to 1280x720p so I could get a perfect solid 60fps (Shadow Warrior is better played as solid 60 than not), though that's fairly rare.


I still haven't decided on what system to get his generation. So far, most of my games beaten this year have been on PC (although most are console ports or multiplatform). I'm reluctant to go with Sony, just because I've built up so much dislike for them over the years (especially when you're forced to by softs for that system, knowing their inferior to the other consoles you have). But Sony just seems to have their shit together this launch phase. And I like the idea of a console being just that; game console. MS is just fumble after fumble, after fumble. Crimson Dragon got a low score (and I was really looking forward to that game). And DR3 only got average-ish score. So that means neither systems have any titles that I want at launch now.

If the new tech for this console generation is any indication, we'll probably see more console to PC ports or PC in the multiplatform list. That's just one more reason to wait on the console, for me. The Wii U... come down in price and we'll talk.

Xbone vs PS4 AC4 comparison.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/22...ics-comparison

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

That's actually pretty cool. I mean, releasing patches for the games to run better/higher res/ etc. Yeah, it should have been there to begin with, but at least their not leaving the gamer/consumer/whatever-pig-fuqer high and dry.


Crimson Dragon got a low score (and I was really looking forward to that game). And DR3 only got average-ish score. So that means neither systems have any titles that I want at launch now.

---

Crimson Dragon was actually updated before release in response to reviews. So all current reviews are out of date and the game with likely continue to evolve with patches if people continue to voice their opinions.

hmm .....maybe I should wait on getting the PS4 until release details of this particular bundle are confirmed.
I don't have a VITA at the moment so this would be ideal for me. Apparently, price-wise the bundle will come in at the same price point of the Xbox One.



http://i40.tinypic.com/2qb86df.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

EclecticGroove: Yeah, most people won't be able to tell the difference. There are some, and to those people it probably irks the shite out of them. I tend to play my PC 3D FPS games at 1280x1024 instead of 1920x1080p simply because I can run a 75hz refresh rate (I run vsync on, so higher refresh rate on dropped frames reduce 'judder'). I just crank up the AA and it looks great ( I have a 55" display BTW for my PC). There were a few games that I even bumped down to 1280x720p so I could get a perfect solid 60fps (Shadow Warrior is better played as solid 60 than not), though that's fairly rare.

---

75hz is an odd number for an LCD/Plasma display.

I use an LG 24" (60hz) LCD monitor for my desktop. I pretty much run 1080p with all of my games on that setup. When running the Heaven 4.0 benchmark on Extreme settings, it defaults to 1600 x 900 and looks rather blurry, compared to when I set it to 1920 x 1080. Maybe it has to do with how well that monitor upscales the images to its native resolution of 1080p? I do know that when I've taken my old PC into the livingroom and played Crysis at 720p on my 52" (120hz) Samsung LCD, it had that same dull, slightly blurred look.

I guess the question is, does the PS4 take that 900p image and upscale it to 1080p, or does it output the image at 900p and require your display to do the upscaling?

I would hope that the new consoles do the same thing that all modern video cards and the Xbox 360 do, and upscale to whatever output resolution you set them to. Otherwise there would be worse things to deal with than a little bit of fuzziness.

Also, I really do think that my HD 4850 and HD 7850 upscale or otherwise anti-alias everything to such a degree that my 40" Toshiba LCD from seven feet away looks virtually identical. Screen tearing and framerate drops, or slowdown, are much more noticeable than resolution. Maybe it's the old Action junky in me, but I don't spend much time comparing the textures of the main character's jeans, but I do notice building and floor textures if they are repetitive or blurred as in most PS2/N64 games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

I would hope that the new consoles do the same thing that all modern video cards and the Xbox 360 do, and upscale to whatever output resolution you set them to. Otherwise there would be worse things to deal with than a little bit of fuzziness.

---

The PS3 usually outputs the video at 720p. I've noticed that the Xbox 360 will output the video to an upscaled 1080p and it usually looks much better because of the way it handles video output. I would hope that the PS4 outputs everything to 1080p, no matter what the actual resolution of the game is.

Quote:

---

Also, I really do think that my HD 4850 and HD 7850 upscale or otherwise anti-alias everything to such a degree that my 40" Toshiba LCD from seven feet away looks virtually identical. Screen tearing and framerate drops, or slowdown, are much more noticeable than resolution. Maybe it's the old Action junky in me, but I don't spend much time comparing the textures of the main character's jeans, but I do notice building and floor textures if they are repetitive or blurred as in most PS2/N64 games.

---

Your PC video card should output the video to whatever setting you've selected with the software/program. It's up to the display to upscale the video to its native resolution and that is where the quality of the video on-screen can be either bad or good, depending on the quality of your display's hardware. I know that my 32" HD CRT looked outstanding with the PS3 at 720p, because it was not limited to a native resolution like an LCD or Plasma is. My LCD in the livingroom was a $2000+ unit in 2009, yet it does not have the quality upscaling hardware to make a 720p signal look like it was being displayed in 1080p.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

75hz is an odd number for an LCD/Plasma display.

---

The TV is one of those 120hz varieties, but some stupid reason it doesn't allow you to access that high refresh rate (it's only for internal use and it's for making pseudo inbetween frames. I turn that shit OFF. Makes everything looks like 'video' and causes lag for games/PC. When turned off, there appears to be zero lag from PC to TV). The TV supports quite a list of resolutions and refresh rates. There's even a 1080p24hz mode too (seems useless to me, unless you have a bluray player that supports 24p output). I have two other PC running Acer monitors (21" and 23" - both LCD 1080p native) and they both have 1280x1024 75hz mode as well (res gets stretched horizontally so it fills the wide screen).

Theoretically, LCDs are capable of supporting a wide range of refresh rates. Technically, it can support multiple refresh rates at once. This is basically what G-sync is for Nvidia cards and the new monitors coming out next year that support it. My TV supports both 59.94hz and 60hz (as well as 24hz, 30hz, 70hz, and 75 hz). You can also 'overclock' your monitor/TV set. But it's a pain in the ass and reports have been made that some have been perma glitched by doing so. Normally, your PC can read back what display resolutions are available for the identified monitor and give you that list. But you can run tweak utilities that allow custom timings and such - that you force on the monitor. Trial and error to see what it supports. Most "3D" TVs can be forced to a higher refresh rate than 60hz for 1080p, even though it's not listed in the support list. That's because 3D requires twice the bandwidth anyway (which equates to twice the refresh rate, as far as internal processing goes).

Quote:

---

I use an LG 24" (60hz) LCD monitor for my desktop. I pretty much run 1080p with all of my games on that setup. When running the Heaven 4.0 benchmark on Extreme settings, it defaults to 1600 x 900 and looks rather blurry, compared to when I set it to 1920 x 1080. Maybe it has to do with how well that monitor upscales the images to its native resolution of 1080p? I do know that when I've taken my old PC into the livingroom and played Crysis at 720p on my 52" (120hz) Samsung LCD, it had that same dull, slightly blurred look.

I guess the question is, does the PS4 take that 900p image and upscale it to 1080p, or does it output the image at 900p and require your display to do the upscaling?

---

I don't own a PS3, but from what I understand it works exactly like the 360. That is to say, the game rendering engine and the HUD are two different resolutions. Usually the HUD overlay is native 1080p resolution and it's the game frame buffer that's upscaled to match it, then output to the TV. So the HUD, overlay, etc can run in whatever native res, while the game frame buffer can be scaled to whatever. Both PS4 and XbO do this for games that internally render lower than 1080p. The reason why it upscales to either 1080p or 720p, and not 900p, is because those are almost guaranteed universally supported res by almost all HD monitors and HD TV sets (and 1080i too for legacy HD sets, though not sure if the new consoles have that option). 1600x900p or custom resolutions would have a harder time with TV sets - most won't display it.

Yeah, I leave Clearframe and film stabilization on for TV and movies on my Toshiba 40" so I can get the "enhanced" framerate, but it is useless for games. How did you test whether your set supported higher than 60hz actual output? I would probably use that resolution instead for games just to get higher real framerates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

The TV is one of those 120hz varieties, but some stupid reason it doesn't allow you to access that high refresh rate (it's only for internal use and it's for making pseudo inbetween frames. I turn that shit OFF. Makes everything looks like 'video' and causes lag for games/PC. When turned off, there appears to be zero lag from PC to TV). The TV supports quite a list of resolutions and refresh rates. There's even a 1080p24hz mode too (seems useless to me, unless you have a bluray player that supports 24p output). I have two other PC running Acer monitors (21" and 23" - both LCD 1080p native) and they both have 1280x1024 75hz mode as well (res gets stretched horizontally so it fills the wide screen).

Theoretically, LCDs are capable of supporting a wide range of refresh rates. Technically, it can support multiple refresh rates at once. This is basically what G-sync is for Nvidia cards and the new monitors coming out next year that support it. My TV supports both 59.94hz and 60hz (as well as 24hz, 30hz, 70hz, and 75 hz). You can also 'overclock' your monitor/TV set. But it's a pain in the ass and reports have been made that some have been perma glitched by doing so. Normally, your PC can read back what display resolutions are available for the identified monitor and give you that list. But you can run tweak utilities that allow custom timings and such - that you force on the monitor. Trial and error to see what it supports. Most "3D" TVs can be forced to a higher refresh rate than 60hz for 1080p, even though it's not listed in the support list. That's because 3D requires twice the bandwidth anyway (which equates to twice the refresh rate, as far as internal processing goes).

---

My old IBM G78 CRT would run at 75hz, with a maximum resolution of @ 1600 x 1200.

My LCD is a Samsung LN52A630. It's very simular to the A650 in this review. It's a 120Hz (Auto Motion Plus) display that ranked very high in reviews, even being very comparable with what Pioneer had at the time. It supports 24hz for movies, but I'm not quite sure if it would support the 70hz and 75hz refresh rates. I've only used the PC port (Analog RGB) a couple of times with my laptop and my old Q9650 rig I'd built in 2010. It would be interesting to see what setting I could do with my i5-2500K/EVGA GTX 670 FTW! rig, but the last time I had connected it to this display, I'd used the HDMI port.

I run my games with Vsync enabled, and with Nvidia's Adaptive Vsync, the games run ultra smooth when the fps drops below 60fps. I get to keep my settings at 1080p, with most games set to the maximum settings. It's a win-win!

What model is your television?

Quote:

---

I don't own a PS3, but from what I understand it works exactly like the 360. That is to say, the game rendering engine and the HUD are two different resolutions. Usually the HUD overlay is native 1080p resolution and it's the game frame buffer that's upscaled to match it, then output to the TV. So the HUD, overlay, etc can run in whatever native res, while the game frame buffer can be scaled to whatever. Both PS4 and XbO do this for games that internally render lower than 1080p. The reason why it upscales to either 1080p or 720p, and not 900p, is because those are almost guaranteed universally supported res by almost all HD monitors and HD TV sets (and 1080i too for legacy HD sets, though not sure if the new consoles have that option). 1600x900p or custom resolutions would have a harder time with TV sets - most won't display it.

---

Final Fantasy XIII rendered at a higher resolution on the PS3, but it was still output @ 720p on the display. I don't recall ever seeing my Samsung LCD showing 360 games as being output as 720p, but with the PS3 it would show up at that resolution 99% of the time. PSN games and Wipeout HD show up as 1080p on the PS3 and man does Wipeout HD look excellent at that resolution.

Do you think the limited VRAM of the PS3 was the reason why most games are being output at 720p, or does the 360 just have better upscaling hardware onboard?

Working at a place that sells video games, currently I have to say that it kind of irritates me that neither company made enough consoles to meet demand. Xbox Ones and PS4s are entirely sold out, we have three different PS4 games in stock, and most of the One launch titles, but no accessories for it.

Kind of disappointing, but it happens I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Do you think the limited VRAM of the PS3 was the reason why most games are being output at 720p, or does the 360 just have better upscaling hardware onboard?

---

The Xbox 360 has a specialized scaling chip on board, which is why it will up/downscale all games to your preferred output resolution. The PS3 by default outputs to whatever resolution is set by each game. That's why you see a lot of games outputting in 720p on PS3 and only some in 1080p. The PS3 can do software-based scaling, but it only does that if you disable certain resolutions in the system settings, i.e. if your TV doesn't support those resolutions. The PS3's software-based scaling isn't all that great in quality, so it's usually better to let each game output in its default resolution and have your TV do the scaling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

My old IBM G78 CRT would run at 75hz, with a maximum resolution of @ 1600 x 1200.

My LCD is a Samsung LN52A630. It's very simular to the A650 in this review. It's a 120Hz (Auto Motion Plus) display that ranked very high in reviews, even being very comparable with what Pioneer had at the time. It supports 24hz for movies, but I'm not quite sure if it would support the 70hz and 75hz refresh rates. I've only used the PC port (Analog RGB) a couple of times with my laptop and my old Q9650 rig I'd built in 2010. It would be interesting to see what setting I could do with my i5-2500K/EVGA GTX 670 FTW! rig, but the last time I had connected it to this display, I'd used the HDMI port.

I run my games with Vsync enabled, and with Nvidia's Adaptive Vsync, the games run ultra smooth when the fps drops below 60fps. I get to keep my settings at 1080p, with most games set to the maximum settings. It's a win-win!

What model is your television?

---

NS-55L780A12. 55" 120hz LCD Insignia.

The 670 is a pretty decent card. I believe its a bit faster than my OC'd 7870. I run that and a OC'd FX-6350 @ 4.5ghz. Gonna pick up a 290 (non X version), once they get new cooler design for it (stock reference design HSF is crap for it).

Quote:

---

Final Fantasy XIII rendered at a higher resolution on the PS3, but it was still output @ 720p on the display. I don't recall ever seeing my Samsung LCD showing 360 games as being output as 720p, but with the PS3 it would show up at that resolution 99% of the time. PSN games and Wipeout HD show up as 1080p on the PS3 and man does Wipeout HD look excellent at that resolution.

Do you think the limited VRAM of the PS3 was the reason why most games are being output at 720p, or does the 360 just have better upscaling hardware onboard?

---

What Devil N said. The 360 will output to whatever resolution you set it up internally (in the OS setup side). And it has a pretty nice upscaler chip or whatever.

Quote:

---

How did you test whether your set supported higher than 60hz actual output? I would probably use that resolution instead for games just to get higher real framerates.

---

Two ways. They are listed in the resolutions+refresh modes. But also, my TV tells me what res it's running it. If I do something custom like 1280x800, it'll run in 1280x1024p75hz mode. It has a list of internal support resolutions, and odd ball resolutions get upscaled/converted by the TV set if it didn't exactly match what's on the list. The res modes off the top of my heard are: 640x480, 800x600, 1280x720, 1280x1024, and 1920x1080 (might be a few others). As in, that's what it shows the res mode the TV is in - in the INFO part/label/overlay. I.e. whatever res that doesn't fit the list, gets upscaled to the closest thing - but I can tell what mode/res it's being upscaled to.