Sony: It Will Take 'Some Time' Before PS5 Is Revealed

[Ronin]

With Microsoft officially revealing Project Scorpio as the Xbox One X, many are now wondering when Sony will announce the PlayStation 5. Sony Interactive Entertainment America CEO Shawn Layden has confirmed plans for the PlayStation 5.


The regular PlayStation 4 and the PS4 Pro both share the same library of games, but the latter is capable of delivering better graphical performance. Games are labeled “PS4 Pro Enhanced” if they have been optimized to run in 4K. Layden said that the standard PS4 has no real disadvantages, and the PS4 Pro is only for those who want and can take advantage of its 4K gaming capabilities.

The CEO was then asked if Sony was going to rely on the PlayStation 5 to deliver games that are not playable on the standard PS4. Layden responded by saying, “Yes. It will probably be some time.”

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/sony-apos-time-apos-ps5-102811901.html

 

[BigRedRage]

I would imagine if they do a whole new ecosystem instead of incremental upgrades like the one x and ps4 pro, itll be another 4 years.

If they just keep upgrading hardware and making everything backward compatible, 2 years.

At some point the games will be too large and powerful for the current generation systems though. I think we see more of a 3 versions of each console cycle moving forward than indefinite console upgrades.

 

[Ronin]

PlayStation 5 To Launch in 2019?

Sony has already confirmed it is developing the PlayStation 5, and now an analyst predicts the PS5 will have a 2019 release date. Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter also says the PS5 will be backwards compatible with the PlayStation 4 and will be capable of native 4K gaming.


As for the capabilities of the PlayStation 5, Pachter believes it will be another half step forwards from the capabilities of the PS4 Pro. For him, that means that the PS5 will “surely” support native 4K gaming, possibly at 240 frames-per-second.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/playstation-5-launch-2019-160249414.html

 

[CardsFan88]

I would imagine if they do a whole new ecosystem instead of incremental upgrades like the one x and ps4 pro, itll be another 4 years.

If they just keep upgrading hardware and making everything backward compatible, 2 years.

At some point the games will be too large and powerful for the current generation systems though. I think we see more of a 3 versions of each console cycle moving forward than indefinite console upgrades.

They really need to wait until they can get a decent CPU in it. The PS4 Pro and X1X are severely bottlenecked because of it. They are wasting like half their power and are losing about 30-50 FPS because of it.


Here's a good article. I attached an image where they took about 15 games or so and benchmarked them with the same GPU a GTX 1080 but with different CPU's. The stuff in the consoles would likely be around that A10-7890k and definitely far below the FX 8370 which runs at 4ghz+boost to even higher and is far better then whats in the consoles.

Of course this was also at higher settings then you'll see in consoles.

http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-review/

You must be registered for see images attach

Another good article is right here.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...e-game-changer-for-next-gen-console-in-theory

Take The Witcher 3, for example. It's a title very much based on current-gen constraints, targeting 30Hz on consoles - a frame-rate objective it generally managed to hit after several patches. In general gameplay in the open world, our Ryzen candidate hits 100-120fps once GPU limits are effectively removed. In our CPU-busting Novigrad City benchmark, we're still at 80 to 90fps or thereabouts.

Just Cause 3? The same kind of physics work that bludgeons the console Jaguar cores into submission occupies an area between 55 to 80fps. It's a transformative experience, and it's identical to the kind of frame-rates we get from Assassin's Creed Unity in its busiest, most NPC-heavy scenes - and this title is important, in our view. It was a first-gen try-out of a new level of world simulation: flawed and limited in some respects but a genuine attempt to kick off a generational leap in world fidelity. There's a strong argument that owing to console hardware constraints, we never got to see where further iterations of that technology would have led us.

But looking back to GTA4 and its massive generational leap over prior series entries, what more could Rockstar produce with Ryzen given the remarkable results the firm achieved with the heavier CPU bias in last-gen designs? Given the ability to ramp up simulation, maybe the deluge of Ubisoft open worlds would be significantly better, as well as bigger and prettier, than their last-gen counterparts. From our perspective, while the teraflop race is likely to define the expected power level of the true next-gen consoles, it's actually the CPU that may prove to have the most meaningful impact on the scope of the gameplay experiences we get from the new hardware.

Personally I think they can sit back having 8GB's of memory on the base units and with Pro and X1X out there to delay a PS5/X2 until they can make sure the CPU tech is there.

Meanwhile the GPU tech will be humming along anyways, so every year or so they wait could yield another 1-2 TFlops at the same price point for the GPU.

For people who don't know we already have 14 and 15 Tflop Nvidia cards equivalent to like 17-19 TFlop AMD parts... and Volta is not too far off.


Right now Sony is selling something like 1/4 or 1/5th of their units as Pro models (not bad considering they're selling about 20 million regular PS4's a year) and it'll be interesting to see what X1X sells at $499.

Another good thing they should wait for is HDMI 2.1. Variable Refresh rate is included. Basically it's G-Sync/Freesync built in. This makes things smoother when framerate is jumping around.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-hdmi-2-1-specifications-revealed

However, it's the reveal of a 'Game Mode VRR' specification that is of most interest to us. It's new HDMI functionality that closely mirrors the G-Sync and FreeSync technologies available for PC monitors, described as offering a "variable refresh rate, which enables a 3D graphics processor to display the image at the moment it is rendered for more fluid and better detailed gameplay, and for reducing lag, stutter and frame-tearing". The HDMI forum says that the technology will work for both PC and game consoles.

Game Mode VRR could - in theory - see the complete elimination of screen-tear from console video gaming without the judder associated with traditional v-sync, and could also allow developers to target arbitrary frame-rates as performance targets as opposed to the standard 30fps or 60fps (though we wouldn't expect to see this occur too often as older screens will still be the main target). Although it is an HDMI 2.1 feature, the new 48G cable isn't required for today's resolutions - and in theory, this element of the protocol could be retrofitted to existing consoles paired with HDMI 2.1 screens (as we've seen in the past with PS3 3D and PS4 HDR support added to existing consoles via firmware updates). Of course, support in new screens will depend upon manufacturers fully supporting the HDMI 2.1 spec.

4ktv's have been as cheap as $249, and I saw $269 for a 39" as far back as summer of 2014. 4ktv prices are dropping like a rock. 4ktv prices are about 5 years cheaper then 1080p was.

2020-2021 makes more sense overall.

Of course the world economic situation can change plans too. Sony and MS wanted consoles earlier then 2013, but the 2008 crash delayed those plans quite a bit even though the original plan likely was for 2010-2011. They just couldn't do it. There is very much a shot that could happen again. It's looking very likely that something isn't too far ahead of us.

 

[BigRedRage]

I noticed a lot of the cheap 4k don't have hdr. Oled and qled are still quite expensive

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[CardsFan88]

I noticed a lot of the cheap 4k don't have hdr. Oled and qled are still quite expensive

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

True, but you don't need HDR, and HDR is quickly being adopted into pretty much every 4k.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/tcl-55-...c-range-roku-tv-black/5878705.p?skuId=5878705

So even right now you have 55" HDR, Dolby Vision, 4:4:4 color for $599 at Best Buy. Input lag about 15ms is very nice for a tv. Perfectly acceptable for PC gaming as well.

In a few years hopefully the 4k/120 start coming out.

Here's a good thread about this particular TCL 4k HDR TV.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1397451

 

[BigRedRage]

True, but you don't need HDR, and HDR is quickly being adopted into pretty much every 4k.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/tcl-55-...c-range-roku-tv-black/5878705.p?skuId=5878705

So even right now you have 55" HDR, Dolby Vision, 4:4:4 color for $599 at Best Buy. Input lag about 15ms is very nice for a tv. Perfectly acceptable for PC gaming as well.

In a few years hopefully the 4k/120 start coming out.

Here's a good thread about this particular TCL 4k HDR TV.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1397451

From what I read 4k is almost unnoticeable but hdr makes a big difference. That it is the noticeable leap from 1080p, not the 4k

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Covert Rain]

From what I read 4k is almost unnoticeable but hdr makes a big difference. That it is the noticeable leap from 1080p, not the 4k

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Simply not true. 4K is definitely noticeable but not until you get larger than 55 inches. Also, HDR or Dolby Vision is a must. I have 4K discs and HDR it noticeably better. Dolby Vision is even better IMO.

 

[BigRedRage]

Simply not true. 4K is definitely noticeable but not until you get larger than 55 inches. Also, HDR or Dolby Vision is a must. I have 4K discs and HDR it noticeably better. Dolby Vision is even better IMO.

I left out the over 55" part but even that a read only matters if you are close. Either way I grabbed a 55" hdr 4k a while back

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Covert Rain]

I left out the over 55" part but even that a read only matters if you are close. Either way I grabbed a 55" hdr 4k a while back

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Still disagree. It's noticeable. Not like when we all went from VHS to DVD type difference but noticeable. I do wish though we had skipped 4K and went to 8K or 10K or whatever is next. I have seen a demo of 8K and that was amazing.

 

[BigRedRage]

Still disagree. It's noticeable. Not like when we all went from VHS to DVD type difference but noticeable. I do wish though we had skipped 4K and went to 8K or 10K or whatever is next. I have seen a demo of 8K and that was amazing.

I'm just quoting CNET research, I haven't really tested the difference without HDR. My only 4k does have HDR and it does make a big difference vs my 1080p. Not huge, but noticeably more vibrant and colorful.

 

[CardsFan88]

I'm just quoting CNET research, I haven't really tested the difference without HDR. My only 4k does have HDR and it does make a big difference vs my 1080p. Not huge, but noticeably more vibrant and colorful.

4k is definitely noticeable, especially in gaming even without HDR. It's so much cleaner. Playing games at 4k then switching to 1080 you see quite a difference. Also many games don't support HDR yet.

What they generally are talking about 'not that noticeable' is a bit off. It depends on the situation, usage, and person by person.

Mostly what they are talking about is watching movies. I don't have a 4k bluray player (but do have some discs lol) so I can't comment 1st hand, but supposedly there isn't a huge difference without HDR.

At this time, gaming is the vast majority of 4k content available for 4ktv's. You can basically play anything in 4k. Even with 4k blu rays you have to wonder if it's really 4k.

Here's a good site to check, or rather to be aware of as there are multiple sites to check on this matter.
http://realorfake4k.com/

Many 4k blurays aren't actually 4k. So you also have to make sure the people reviewing and trying to tell the difference are actually using a native 4k or higher source. Many aren't. Many are 2k, 2.5k upscaled to 4k.

But there's also streaming. If you compare a 4k stream to a 1080p blu ray, the 1080p bluray might actually have a higher bit rate. So 4k streaming is kind of a waste. You'll get the higher resolution, but at a sub par bit rate. Hopefully this improves over time.

Gaming is completely different. It's so obvious even without HDR.

Of course screen size and viewing distance makes an impact, but the whole you don't see any benefit of 1080p under 40" and 4k under 55" is mostly bs. Just look at your cell phone with a ~4-6 inch screen. Various resolution difference are completely noticeable. It's more about sweet spot. That at those screen sizes, you start to see the full benefit. But you of course can see and notice a benefit even at further distances or smaller screen sizes. It's a sliding scale more of a cutoff point.

Also of course, your mileage may vary based on eyesight.

My 4k doesn't have HDR, but it does have a native 120hz screen, so I can choose to play at 4k/60 or 1080/120. I love high framerate. 30 FPS games are a chore for me. Very hard for me to play them. Especially if they dip from 30. Like GTA V on PS4. Fun game, but it was consistently frustrating. Finally got around to picking it up on PC during this year's Steam Summer Sale for another play through and eventually some mods, and it simply is 1000x better on at 100-120FPS rather then 25-30.

So yeah, I'm still incredibly happy even without HDR. Obviously I would love to have it, but the 55" Vizio P series 120hz at 1080p and 4k/60 non-HDR is great for my needs. I can hold out until the format wars calm down, standards set like VRR, and 4k/120 hits the scene. (I do have a feeling OLED is going to be expensive for awhile so probably all of that and NOT OLED)