Sony: PS4 Pro’s 4K Gaming Is Not Misleading

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
What do you say to that? I would think it is, considering that the majority of “4K titles” will merely be upscales. That’s like selling a “4K” Blu-ray player that can’t actually play UHD discs and only blows up 1080p video.

In all the excitement about the PlayStation 4 Pro announcement, one detail was a matter of some debate: “4K Gaming”. While Sony repeatedly emphasized the 4K capabilities of the system, most games don’t actually render 4K resolutions. Instead, they upscale your standard images to a level that fits higher-end 4K TVs. Depending on who you ask, that’s an important distinction which changes the nature of the conversation about this console, but Sony executive Andrew House disagrees. “I would say the majority [of games] will be upscaled – at least based on the game portfolio I have seen to date,” House told Digital Spy when asked whether native 4K games would be available for the PS4 Pro.
 
Isn't this what we do with all our games when we set a low poly game to 4k on our PC so that it doesn't look as blocky?
 
funkydmunky said:
Only fanboi's were actually expecting 4K gaming. Anyone with a half understanding of hardware would know this.
Click to expand...
Looking back on the first Xbox, it was also underpowered to support 1080i gaming, but a half dozen boxed titles managed to support it.

With more flexible scaling on the PS4, I think more games will manage something between 1080p and 4k quality on the new hardware. And there will probably be some titles that do actually support 4k, or something near it, but nothing with full-blown modern graphic effects.

tl;dr yes, the PS4 isn't going to support 4k gaming at max settings in graphically demanding games, but it will probably support quality better than 1080p in a significant number of titles (i.e. more than a few over the next year).
 
Megalith said:
What do you say to that? I would think it is, considering that the majority of “4K titles” will merely be upscales. That’s like selling a “4K” Blu-ray player that can’t actually play UHD discs and only blows up 1080p video.
Click to expand...

Old blu-ray players literally cannot play the new UHD discs, not even if they tried, because the recording specifications are different (old blu-rays are 25GB per layer, UHD discs are 33GB per layer, so none of the old BR players can play them). It'll be like putting the older blu-ray discs into DVD drives. You won't even get blown up 1080p videos.

If UHD disc analogy is used, then the comparison would be "PS Pro will refuse to boot up or run when attached to a screen that isn't 4k".
 
I fail to see the issue. Unless you are sitting too close to your TV or you have robot-like vision, there is very little perceptible difference (and I speak from direct experience) between 1080 and 4K. It is just a needless waste of resources.

4K has basically become the new dick size contest created by a bunch of dupes trying to psychologically justify being suckered into spending $2000 on video cards.
 
damicatz said:
I fail to see the issue. Unless you are sitting too close to your TV or you have robot-like vision, there is very little perceptible difference (and I speak from direct experience) between 1080 and 4K. It is just a needless waste of resources.

4K has basically become the new dick size contest created by a bunch of dupes trying to psychologically justify being suckered into spending $2000 on video cards.
Click to expand...

Well screw you! I'm going to get myself an 8K tv and surpass you, so there! :p
 
I don't understand the PS4 Pro or the new Xbox One as far as 4k goes. If both are only upscaling I don't see the point. If you have a 4k TV it would be capable of upscaling any way, right?

Then Sony doesn't even put a UHD disc player on their's and Xbox One can't bitstream. Both half-assed.
 
damicatz said:
I fail to see the issue. Unless you are sitting too close to your TV or you have robot-like vision, there is very little perceptible difference (and I speak from direct experience) between 1080 and 4K. It is just a needless waste of resources.

4K has basically become the new dick size contest created by a bunch of dupes trying to psychologically justify being suckered into spending $2000 on video cards.
Click to expand...

I guess I have robot vision, hot damn! And I wear glasses too that makes me a friggin cyborg.
 
damicatz said:
I fail to see the issue. Unless you are sitting too close to your TV or you have robot-like vision, there is very little perceptible difference (and I speak from direct experience) between 1080 and 4K. It is just a needless waste of resources.

4K has basically become the new dick size contest created by a bunch of dupes trying to psychologically justify being suckered into spending $2000 on video cards.
Click to expand...

ymmv i suppose but i went from a 30" 25x16 to a 39" 4k and my first impression was ehh. then i upgraded to a 50" 4k that can do 60hz and it was...whoa.
 
damicatz said:
I fail to see the issue. Unless you are sitting too close to your TV or you have robot-like vision, there is very little perceptible difference (and I speak from direct experience) between 1080 and 4K. It is just a needless waste of resources.

4K has basically become the new dick size contest created by a bunch of dupes trying to psychologically justify being suckered into spending $2000 on video cards.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? I have a new UHD Blu-ray player Philips BDP7501, my 4k TV is the 50" Vizio M series 2015. And the new 4K movies are outstanding, HUGE difference. I assume the games should be the same.
 
htpc_user said:
I don't understand the PS4 Pro or the new Xbox One as far as 4k goes. If both are only upscaling I don't see the point. If you have a 4k TV it would be capable of upscaling any way, right?

Then Sony doesn't even put a UHD disc player on their's and Xbox One can't bitstream. Both half-assed.
Click to expand...
I believe 4k is being used in part as a marketing gimmick.
One could probably argue that 1080p upscales to 4k better than 900p, but its still upscaling at the end of the day.

These hardware refresh was probably meant to address the shortcomings of the previous hardware spec, where they struggled to even achieve 30 fps at sub 1080p res. But marketing wise, it sounds nicer calling them 4k upgrade rather than saying we've finally have a 1080p console.
 
rennyf77 said:
ymmv i suppose but i went from a 30" 25x16 to a 39" 4k and my first impression was ehh. then i upgraded to a 50" 4k that can do 60hz and it was...whoa.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the point of 4k. At smaller screen sizes it's pretty much pointless but once you move to larger screens you can definitely see the difference. 1080p always looked pretty blocky on the really large TV's (48"+) on display at Best Buy but the new 4k screens of that size look pretty amazing.
 
damicatz said:
I fail to see the issue. Unless you are sitting too close to your TV or you have robot-like vision, there is very little perceptible difference (and I speak from direct experience) between 1080 and 4K. It is just a needless waste of resources.
Click to expand...

People said the same thing about 1080p. The difference isn't as noticable with 4k unless the screen is 40"+, but it's there. I'll be upgrading my home theater whenever 4k projectors are more affordable.
 
rennyf77 said:
ymmv i suppose but i went from a 30" 25x16 to a 39" 4k and my first impression was ehh. then i upgraded to a 50" 4k that can do 60hz and it was...whoa.
Click to expand...
exactly , but thats true when ur using ur tv as a pc monitor and sitting up close , but for consoles most people will not be sitting close to their tv's .
 
The PS4 Pro is more like the real 1080P console. 4K, ye not in this world. The extra 512MB they use on the Pro, that the regular could have gotten as well. isn't going to do anything when trying with 4K.
 
damicatz said:
I fail to see the issue. Unless you are sitting too close to your TV or you have robot-like vision, there is very little perceptible difference (and I speak from direct experience) between 1080 and 4K. It is just a needless waste of resources.

4K has basically become the new dick size contest created by a bunch of dupes trying to psychologically justify being suckered into spending $2000 on video cards.
Click to expand...

I don't want to sound rude, but.......I have a 65" curved 4k TV and it's night and day from my old 1080p set. I mean come on dude, even 1440p is very noticeable. When going from 1080p to 1440p when playing The Witcher 3, there is a big difference, especially with aliasing and flickering in and around tree foliage and grass. It's just cleaner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
"Hey it's cool new tech we here at Sony like to think of it as reverse dynamic super resolution (or VSR if that's your thing)."
 
damicatz said:
I fail to see the issue. Unless you are sitting too close to your TV or you have robot-like vision, there is very little perceptible difference (and I speak from direct experience) between 1080 and 4K. It is just a needless waste of resources.

4K has basically become the new dick size contest created by a bunch of dupes trying to psychologically justify being suckered into spending $2000 on video cards.
Click to expand...

Kyle has a 4k display, as do many others on this forum. There is a difference. It's an obvious one.
 
damicatz said:
I fail to see the issue. Unless you are sitting too close to your TV or you have robot-like vision, there is very little perceptible difference (and I speak from direct experience) between 1080 and 4K. It is just a needless waste of resources.

4K has basically become the new dick size contest created by a bunch of dupes trying to psychologically justify being suckered into spending $2000 on video cards.
Click to expand...

So not to pick on you specifically, but I have a friend, who has always said he cannot tell the difference between 1080p, and 1440p/4k, and says that he can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. I always thought he was just the kind of person that had low standards, you know the guys who would tell you that battlefield 3 looks just as good on the 360; until I found out that he has 20/40 vision and just refuses to wear corrective lenses. Now 20/40 is good enough for driving, and doing most jobs, and moving through life in general without any issues but even that small difference will dramatically affect your ability to perceive small details, and I honestly suspect a lot of the people who cannot see the difference in 4k (at a reasonable screen size ofc people claiming 4k res looks better on a phone screen are in fact cyborgs, or insane) fall into a similar category as my friend, where they need some sort of vision correction but are either unaware or simply refuses to wear glasses.




Mind you this is different than just feeling that 1080p is high enough quality, and that the price difference isn't justified. That is a completely understandable argument. But saying that the difference doesn't exist is somewhat nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
SilverSliver said:
Kyle has a 4k display, as do many others on this forum. There is a difference. It's an obvious one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it can't possibly be clouded by the thousands you have invested in the setup. It is just not that much of a difference at the distance that most PC gamers sit.
 
funkydmunky said:
Only fanboi's were actually expecting 4K gaming. Anyone with a half understanding of hardware would know this.
Click to expand...

Sadly how many people that buy consoles for games really get this? I have to imagine a lot of people are going to get duped.
 
XvMMvX said:
Yeah, it can't possibly be clouded by the thousands you have invested in the setup. It is just not that much of a difference at the distance that most PC gamers sit.
Click to expand...
I don't even have 4k capable hardware and can see how bad 1080p looks like on a 47" tv some 3m away when playing ps3 1080p games. Heck, it looks bad when playing 1080p pc games with no aa. The devil's in the details - while the whole picture looks sort of ok, the biggest issue is the way thin objects look (wires, fences etc). AA helps it a little, but thin objects still look bad. Things get worse when projected on a 100" screen.
Now, I inderstand that 4k is starting to show diminishing returns, especially on smaller screens (below 50"), but it's still a welcome upgrade. It's still not as stupid as 1440p on smartphone screens...
 
kinjo said:
So not to pick on you specifically, but I have a friend, who has always said he cannot tell the difference between 1080p, and 1440p/4k, and says that he can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. I always thought he was just the kind of person that had low standards, you know the guys who would tell you that battlefield 3 looks just as good on the 360; until I found out that he has 20/40 vision and just refuses to wear corrective lenses. Now 20/40 is good enough for driving, and doing most jobs, and moving through life in general without any issues but even that small difference will dramatically affect your ability to perceive small details, and I honestly suspect a lot of the people who cannot see the difference in 4k (at a reasonable screen size ofc people claiming 4k res looks better on a phone screen are in fact cyborgs, or insane) fall into a similar category as my friend, where they need some sort of vision correction but are either unaware or simply refuses to wear glasses.




Mind you this is different than just feeling that 1080p is high enough quality, and that the price difference isn't justified. That is a completely understandable argument. But saying that the difference doesn't exist is somewhat nonsensical.
Click to expand...

I didn't say there isn't a difference, I said there is very little perceptible difference. Vision correction isn't an issue, I did my comparison sitting right in front of the TV (two feet) by comparing HD and UHD streams from Amazon. The difference is not very perceptible and you really have to be paying more attention to the pixels than to what is actually going on in the show to notice anything.
 
dewbak75 said:
Have ANY games announced that they will run at native 4K on the PS4Pro?
Click to expand...
The last of us remastered will run at native 4k. And there were a few others too. I'm sure by the time PS4 pro is available there will be even more.

Of course the console can run games at 4k. But that is very subjective. Just like how an older pc from say 2009 can run games in 4k. As long as it's old games or even more recent games but just with low settings. Not like the amount of pixels it can push is the sole determining factor when it comes to graphics fidelity.

It's just not the way it works. Their 4k gaming claim is totally legit. But the raw resolution is not what determines true graphics capability.
 
tnaik said:
exactly , but thats true when ur using ur tv as a pc monitor and sitting up close , but for consoles most people will not be sitting close to their tv's .
Click to expand...

im not sitting close to the monitor. i haven't gamed using mouse and keyboard for almost 7 years.
 
Of course it's misleading. It's not real 4k. Using hardware and software tricks to try and recreate a higher res image than it actually is, does not count. It's not 4k and doesn't come close to the clarity and quality of actual 4k real time rendering. (Which still even then, leaves the aliasing problem. It doesn't disappear with higher resoluion displays. Not until we get into 8k+ displays with very very high PPI.)

Pushing 4k is a mistake. You finally have a console that might be palpably possible of hitting 1080p60 (If they were designed around hitting that 60FPS target no matter what. MGSV is great example here. Timothy Lottes: Thinking "Clearly" About 4K )and not allowed to render less than 1080p. And you waste it pushing the same shit we've been stuck with for the last decade with 1080p TVs. Instead of 1080p (If it had HDR as well)where the benefit is much greater for more stable framerates. Massively improved image quality thanks to better AA and other improved graphical areas with the much larger rendering budget possible.

Remember when we were promised 1080p games a decade ago? 10 years later, consoles still aren't always hitting 1080p.

HDR 1080p TVs should've been the next thing. Not 4k, when it's clearly not anywhere near ready, and the majority of content will always be 2k or less. (Add in that a large portion of people only stream video content. They aren't even getting 2kBD quality in terms of compression. And many 4k BDs are upscaled, they benefit more from better compression and HDR. Which would be just as beneficial at 2k) The upscaling ratio from 1080p to 4k compared to 720p to 1080p is almost twice as great. It would be like trying to play PSVita games on a 1080pTV if they were displayed straight from 540p rather than to 720p first and then to 1080p.
Ex upscales with basic linear.
http://u.cubeupload.com/MrBonk/386960x5441920x1088line.jpg
http://u.cubeupload.com/MrBonk/960x5441920x1088line.jpg
http://u.cubeupload.com/MrBonk/570960x5441920x1088line.jpg
http://u.cubeupload.com/MrBonk/e2d960x5441920x1088line.jpg
http://u.cubeupload.com/MrBonk/46f960x5441920x1088line.jpg
http://u.cubeupload.com/MrBonk/fec960x5441920x1088line.jpg

That's probably half the reason here. Their TV industry counterparts are pushing 4k and realize 1080p with the crappy level of IQ they already have upscaled won't look that good. So they are using PS4p to try and get that upscaling ratio closer to 720p to 1080p levels so it looks less like ass. And at the event, that was part of what they were doing. Toggling the 1080p render to their slightly higher res render and that's what they were trying to impress people with. Less shitty upscaling.

960x540 (2x2) =1920x1080 = 4x resolution, looks like ass.
1280x720 (1.5x1.5) = 1920x1080 = 2.25x resolution, looks less like ass.
1920x1080 (2x2) = 3840x2160 = 4x resolution looks like ass.
2560x1440 (1.5x1.5) = 3840x2160 =2.25x resolution. Looks less like ass, and this is the minimum they are really looking for. In the leaked slides they acknowledge as much. Anything higher than 1440p will get you slightly better upscaling than PS3/360 to 1080p. Clearly the original PS4 couldn't do that, so they needed something that could, while also providing the power that PSVR actually needs for a decent experience without crippling the visuals more than they have to.

In the leaked slides you also will have seen them mention 3200x1800 as a target resolution. This has a specific purpose as well, in terms of resolution ratios, 3200x1800 is to 3840x2160 as 1600x900 is to 1920x1080
1600x900 (1.2x1.2)=1920x1080=1.44x resolution
3200x1800 (1.2x1.2)=3840x2160=1.44x resolution.


A native res image with better AA will always look better than a higher res display running sub native resolution with poorer AAupscaled. Just look at the pixel quality of any 3D animation on 2k bluray. And now imagine games coming closer to having as crisp and clean of IQ as that. (Which is entirely possible at 2k, and by better AA, I mean better than what 99.99% of developers actually implement into the game. Very few games have decent AA built in, and the ones that do have SSAA built in. It's poor quality basic OGSSAA that is a waste of rendering resources. EG: ROTT,Frosbite engine games,UE4 resolution scale,etc. None of those can match the quality of even basic OGSSAA with a good quality resolve filter like the adjustable width Gaussian one used in DSR or the Lanczos and Bicubic functions available in GeDoSaTo. Best approach is a hybrid one. OGSSAA can be viable, but not by itself. SGSSAA is really the cream of the crop of Perf/quality when it comes to SSAA. GitHub - GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs/SSAA11: AMD supersample anti-aliasing (SSAA) sample based on DirectX 11 AMD has their own version of it available for use in Forward+ engines. There is a binary demo, try it out. The results are great for what are not ideal inputs and considering it does Auto-lod adjustment which adds a bit of alisaing)

To that point let's use these upscaling ratios as an example to the above claim that a native res image with good AA will look better than an upscaled one at higher res.
Here's their baseline 2.25x resolution upscale target, imagine if you will the 720p image with mediocre or no AA is 1440p to 2160p and the 1080p image with good AA is native akin to 2160p native .
Left 4 Dead 2 AA : Screenshot Comparison

And then the same for the 1.44x resolution upscale target (900p to 1080p | 1800p to 2160p)
Strider : Screenshot Comparison

Here's how good Bloodborne looks with better IQ and CA removed just with a basic OGSSAA marketing bullshot that doesn't even really use that high of a resolution.
http://u.cubeupload.com/MrBonk/bloodborneoverviewre.jpg
Or Horizon Zero Dawn's official 4k screenshots straight from Sony (Which look rough at 4k resolution) downsampled to 1080p with a Bicubic resolve. (Basically just OGSSAA+whatever PPAA they use. Though the result in real time should look better than this if they use a good resolve. Because this was upscaled to 4k first from whatever sub native resolution they use)
http://u.cubeupload.com/MrBonk/HorizonZeroDawnScree.jpg
http://u.cubeupload.com/MrBonk/HorizonZ1080p2160041.jpg
http://u.cubeupload.com/MrBonk/1080pHorizonZeroDawn.jpg

Compared to 1080p native shots from before PS4P
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/632/21898162763_da2cfe4b6f_o.jpg
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/599/22519352905_52e5e78a20_o.jpg
http://www.lightninggamingnews.com/...ero-Dawn-Gameplay-walkthrough-screenshots.jpg
Fine detail is aliased and fuzzy.

Would you rather have the same resolution but better image quality?(If we had 1080p HDR TVs, it most certainly would also contribute) Or higher resolution but softer images and artifacts thanks to CBR and other iffy temporal sampling methods to try and make aliasing look better;but come with their own set of artifacts alongside it;?

Or would you rather have better performance and potentially 60FPS at the native resolution of the display you already have? (Of which there have been few console games doing so in the last decade).

These are similar choices to what you might get with many PS4P titles, but Sony and the TV industry are pushing you towards the worst option of these 3 in order to push their 4k TV sales and agenda. They have all but obliterated any mid to high end 1080p TVs from their yearly lineups.


I remember when people thought they couldn't see aliasing when 1080p was new. 4k with mediocre AA will look better than 1080p with mediocre AA. But not by much. But native 4k with mediocre AA would still look miles better than sub native 4k with mediocre AA.
I'd be less critical if it was actually native 4k rendering without tricks to create a pseudo 4k image.

Even without good AA. Native res rendering at all is an improvement over poor quality sub native stuff (Just compare a PS3/360 game upscaled to your 1080p set to the same game at 1080p native). And they can't do that with AAA games and 4k.
 
Last edited:
homernoy said:
I don't want to sound rude, but.......I have a 65" curved 4k TV and it's night and day from my old 1080p set. I mean come on dude, even 1440p is very noticeable. When going from 1080p to 1440p when playing The Witcher 3, there is a big difference, especially with aliasing and flickering in and around tree foliage and grass. It's just cleaner.
Click to expand...

Exactly, even on a 27" 4k is sharper, you can't see the pixels where as on 1080 you can at viewing distances.
1440p has made me see 1080p as peasantish every damn time, especially if it's a game or similar where viewing element size/denisty is same. It's nearly 2x the resolution with 1440p alone...
 
damicatz said:
I didn't say there isn't a difference, I said there is very little perceptible difference. Vision correction isn't an issue, I did my comparison sitting right in front of the TV (two feet) by comparing HD and UHD streams from Amazon. The difference is not very perceptible and you really have to be paying more attention to the pixels than to what is actually going on in the show to notice anything.
Click to expand...

You used streaming video to tell you that there is hardly a difference? lol

The difference between 1080p and native 4k in a game like Witcher 3 is stunning. I quit playing W3 because I don't have the hardware to run it well at 4k and I just couldn't stand to look at it at 1080p after I saw it at in high-res. Even small things like rain during a storm; at 1080p it's an ugly jagged line while at 4k it's completely smooth. And that's with a 55" TV that is considered to have one of the best upscalers (Sony Bravia). It's caused me to put off my GPU upgrade until I can get a reasonably cheap card that can do 4k well.
 
Bankie said:
You used streaming video to tell you that there is hardly a difference? lol

The difference between 1080p and native 4k in a game like Witcher 3 is stunning. I quit playing W3 because I don't have the hardware to run it well at 4k and I just couldn't stand to look at it at 1080p after I saw it at in high-res. Even small things like rain during a storm; at 1080p it's an ugly jagged line while at 4k it's completely smooth. And that's with a 55" TV that is considered to have one of the best upscalers (Sony Bravia). It's caused me to put off my GPU upgrade until I can get a reasonably cheap card that can do 4k well.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I just bought a Sony X800D 49" and its my PC monitor on my desk. Witcher 3 looks phenomenal in 4k native Max settings with no AA. So does GTA V. The difference is night and day over my 1080p 47" Sony
 
gulguran said:
Sadly how many people that buy consoles for games really get this? I have to imagine a lot of people are going to get duped.
Click to expand...
THIS!

4k isn't ready for prime time for the masses. I wonder how many grumpy ps4-neo and xbox-one scorpio owners are going to be out there. Supposedly the xbox-one variant is supposed to perform a bit better but i'm very skeptical given how much graphical power is needed to actually keep even have 30fps at 4k.
 
Bankie said:
You used streaming video to tell you that there is hardly a difference? lol

The difference between 1080p and native 4k in a game like Witcher 3 is stunning. I quit playing W3 because I don't have the hardware to run it well at 4k and I just couldn't stand to look at it at 1080p after I saw it at in high-res. Even small things like rain during a storm; at 1080p it's an ugly jagged line while at 4k it's completely smooth. And that's with a 55" TV that is considered to have one of the best upscalers (Sony Bravia). It's caused me to put off my GPU upgrade until I can get a reasonably cheap card that can do 4k well.
Click to expand...

Then you are just spoiled. I play all my games at 540P upscaled to 720P and have the time of my life. Extra resolution wouldn't make my games more fun it's just extra icing. It's a shame you let graphics get in your way of enjoying a great game.
 
kinjo said:
So not to pick on you specifically, but I have a friend, who has always said he cannot tell the difference between 1080p, and 1440p/4k, and says that he can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. I always thought he was just the kind of person that had low standards, you know the guys who would tell you that battlefield 3 looks just as good on the 360; until I found out that he has 20/40 vision and just refuses to wear corrective lenses. Now 20/40 is good enough for driving, and doing most jobs, and moving through life in general without any issues but even that small difference will dramatically affect your ability to perceive small details, and I honestly suspect a lot of the people who cannot see the difference in 4k (at a reasonable screen size ofc people claiming 4k res looks better on a phone screen are in fact cyborgs, or insane) fall into a similar category as my friend, where they need some sort of vision correction but are either unaware or simply refuses to wear glasses.




Mind you this is different than just feeling that 1080p is high enough quality, and that the price difference isn't justified. That is a completely understandable argument. But saying that the difference doesn't exist is somewhat nonsensical.
Click to expand...
I have 20/60 vision with extreme astigmatism in my left eye and I can still see the huge difference between 1080p and 4K without my glasses...
 
ZodaEX said:
Then you are just spoiled. I play all my games at 540P upscaled to 720P and have the time of my life. Extra resolution wouldn't make my games more fun it's just extra icing. It's a shame you let graphics get in your way of enjoying a great game.
Click to expand...

whaaa. this thread is about whether one can distinguish the difference between 1080p and 4k. its nice that you enjoy your setup but it has no bearing on the discussion. considering you took the time to post an attack at bankie you must notice the difference, too.
 
rennyf77 said:
whaaa. this thread is about whether one can distinguish the difference between 1080p and 4k. its nice that you enjoy your setup but it has no bearing on the discussion. considering you took the time to post an attack at bankie you must notice the difference, too.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We could play the 'spoiled' game all the way down to people are spoiled who have running water but the point of topic is 4k gaming. I would personally love to try it out, i myself haven't played a game at that level yet. My budget hasn't allowed it so far but that may be changing in the next year or two of development/cost reductions.
 
homernoy said:
Sony has always been so full of shit. I'll never forget buying a PS2 with the promise of 'Toy Story' like graphics. That was a straight out lie.

Sony set to unveil PlayStation 2 - Mar. 1, 1999
Click to expand...

Even Nvidia has been guilty of that, multiple times.

I honestly think 4K gaming caught them off guard, similar to how Microsoft was thrown off by Sony going with DDR4 memory for the PS4. The fact that even the 4K link in the OS basically is broken at the moment shows that they threw it in last minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top