Digital Foundry: Rise of the Tomb Raider PS4 Pro vs PC 4K

well you miss cows thinking ps4 pro is able to play native 4k games, you missed cows thinking ps4 been able to hold a steady 60fps despite a lower than dirt CPU ( and when you want that 60fps a decent CPU is a must )

Sure ps4 pro most likely will end up offering better detail settings than the current ps4 but 4k machine is not, 60fps machine is not and sure as hell wont persuade pc gamers to return to console as Sony put it ( considering a $250 GPU is a much better option than the Ps4 )

But @tormentos told me the PS4 Pro would have a GPU capable of trading blows with the 980 Ti. :(

@makemefamous07: I didn't know a game was considered old after being out less than a year.

Let's see a PS4 Pro vs Xbox One comparison.

@navyguy21 said:

@supergokublitz said:

@navyguy21 said:

@ProtossRushX said:

PS4 pro play it on a big 5k dollar OLED TV

PC play tomb raider with a mouse keyboard and some crap IPS monitor that has no idea what the hell its doing an cost under 1k dollars

hmmm which will i choose and i don't want to plug my tv into my PC as the response times are gonna be all over the place as well as all this other crap that PC can't handle

I agree 100%

I wish PCs had HDMI so i could play on my tv instead of this tiny monitor

your joking right???

just asking lol

Pro version looks awful.....I tested this game out on my 1080 in 4K, looks amazing.

After 2 flop dead conferences. A complacent Sony. The negative reactions from rabid Sony fans, and the look on Andrew House's subtle sullen face. I'm not surprised about the embarrassing reputation the Pro is getting. I'm mean it doesn't even have a 4K BR player and it can barely do native 4K. How IRONIC from Sony.

Not bad for a $400 console.

You need a $400-500 GPU to run 4k30 on a PC.

Edit: Damn you people are salty.

Because it's not native 4k. It's a very impressive upscaling method. On a proper 4k display the difference is going to be a lot less noticeable.

You tested the game out on a $200 more expensive GPU than the entirety of the PS4.

Think about that for a bit.

Well, you would be doing it wrong. You need to do:

Xbox One S vs. PS4 Slim

PS Pro vs. Xbox Scorpio

Keeping this textures from the original console version is disappointing.

No you don't. I expected better from you Wasdie.

party pooper

No, that would be you doing it wrong. You compare the consoles that will have the same games for the upcoming holiday season, to best provide potential consumers with the best information.

Not some fanboy parameters of fantasy land.

Xbox One S vs. PS4 Pro for 2016 for the here and now.

Well, you can feel free to your own little comparison, that is cute.

wth?

Get a BenQ or Asus, mygosh!

You payed 5k for your OLED screen like an idiot....and you forgot to get yourself a controller for your PC..

Stop trying to make this sound like a common occurence ......this is so lame.

So cute that consumers will decide which system is better for Rise of the Tomb Raider. Next year it will be too late for Scorpiohno.

LOL! Nobody cares about Rise of the Tomb Raider anymore. It's a year old now, and pretty much everyone has already played it that wanted to, ROFL. The 4 people that buy it for the PS Pro should have a good time with it though. PC still completely destroys the PS Pro version. If you were smart, you would play it on Microsoft Windows if you want the best graphics.

@Wasdie: I don't have to think about it, I know what I said. I didn't do the comparison, just saying in actual 4K the game looks great. These consoles are giving 4K a bad name.

I guess you're talking about the 1080 and 480? They can barely run the game maxed out at 4k with an average 30-33FPS, the minimum framerate is very important though, the game will easily drop to the 20s, which is nowhere near playable. Wasdie is right, if you want the game to stay above 30FPS then you'll need something in the 1070 range, which will set you back around $400-500. I paid 475 for my 1070 Phoenix and I can't even dream of getting a stable 60 without turning a lot of settings down.

@shawty_beatz said:

I guess you're talking about the 1080 and 480? They can barely run the game maxed out at 4k with an average 30-33FPS, the minimum framerate is very important though, the game will easily drop to the 20s, which is nowhere near playable. Wasdie is right, if you want the game to stay above 30FPS then you'll need something in the 1070 range, which will set you back around $400-500. I paid 475 for my 1070 Phoenix and I can't even dream of getting a stable 60 without turning a lot of settings down.

This is at Very High settings which the Pro obviously doesn't do. It mixes High and Medium with maybe a Very High somewhere. Drop the settings a notch and the 1060 will handily average 30+fps with some minor dips in the high 20's. Not to mention the PS4 version is reportedly not even native 4K.

No one cares about it anymore? I guess no one cares about Gears 4 then either, because RotTR is on 71 on Amazon.com and Gears 4 is on 67. Your near Gears is almost irrelevant as this port of your timed exclusive.

Ah yes, good point. A 1060 should easily beat the PS4 Pro in graphics and framerate then.

LOL, now Amazon counts? The last two months when the PS was leading Xbox on Amazon, and lost to the Xbox, Amazon didn't count. NOW it counts again? Someone, please help us manticores with a schedule of the goal post moving.

Yup, all the cows last year said they don't want or need TR because they had UC4, and that TR was garbage anyway and they were not buying it. Little did the cows know they would have no games for the rest of the year, so there will be 4 or 5 of them buying TR (and hiding their trophies).

@GoldenElementXL said:

Well, I'm starting to get a little skeptical...

Why.? Achieving 4K using checkerboard rendering is not exactly 4k native,but if you see the difference is do to image quality,who really expected the pro to hit 4k very high on tomb raider or any other game.

And that is high quality DF one is Very high quality which should drop more in performance,i think it look quite great.

The xbox one version is 1080p so there is no chance in hell that the PS4 version is 900p.

When Scorpio hit sub 4k as well lets with lower than 60FPS i should quote this post..lol

See that picture up there before your quote yeah that is Tomb Raider on PC on a 390X which is 5.9TF basically spot on with scorpio it can't hit 30FPS even on High,let alone very high like in DF test.

I think it looks great DF too considering the GPU it has and that is higher than 1080p is good enough.

That's amazing for a $400 box plus controller, OS and blu ray/media player. My current $350 GPU can'T do that and it includes none of what was previous stated.

@GoldenElementXL:

Pc version looks noticeably more clear. Ps4 Pro's version looks kinda fuzzy. Is that some motion blur filter like the one in Uncharted 4? It would be cool if it was, I would be willing to forgive it being less than 60 fps.

@kvally: If you were a good poster, you'd stick to the topic at hand.

Sweet dude. Thanks for sharing.

XD Upscaling

@tormentos: ah, well the question remains: whatever res and settings the PS4 has, I'll be more interested to see the comparisons between that and the Pro

Ok a $300 GPU. Happy now?

You know what the hell I was trying to say. People here get caught up on small little technicalities so damn much it's ridiculous.

Now I'm the salty one.

from up: Ps4 pro, pc 1440p, pc 4k

1. Did I ever say Amazon doesn't count? Nope, so that's irrelevant.

2. I'm a manticore as well, PS4, Xbox 360, DSiXL and a gaming PC. Don't lump me in with the die hard Sony drones.

3. It's not a goal post move, you said no one cares about it, which is factually speaking not true.

4. All the cows? Highly doubtful. Also like you said, back then they had UC4, no need for TR at that time.

Confirmed you are 10 years old..lol

Because is more than twice more powerful than the PS4 and more than 3 times more powerful than the XBOS with a 1TB HDD for the same money of a 2TB XBOS which still carry a GPU incapable of 1080p in most games and incapable of 900p even in some..

So while you downplay the PS4 Pro for not doing native 4k the xbox one can't even do 900p in games this year BF and Doom been 2 of the biggest examples this year,oh and on doom while it is almost at 720p is when it drops to 45FPS as well.

You people here will have a serious problem trying to downplay Pro while still riding that shitty XBO with its 720p games..lol

@shawty_beatz: Don't even bother dude. You can explain to everyone here that you game on all systems (I do as well) but if you aren't kissing Microsoft's ass, you are automatically a cow here. Just the way it is.

No. You should have said 200-300$ not 400-500$. We went from the price of a Pro or more expensive to 50% or 75% the price of a Pro. That's a huge difference.

1. Did you say it didn't count, ever? I have no idea.

2. My bad. As long as you don't lump me in with anything other than manticore, I won't lump you

3. You are correct, factually speaking some are

4. All cows, yes was an exaggeration. I bet it is FEW. And I know many that said they don't want TR and they are giving Square the finger

1. Well, I never said Amazon doesn't count, just because some delusional cows said it doesn't mean I have to follow that delusion.

2. Deal.

3. Agreed.

4. Well a lot of people got butthurt that it was a timed exclusive on Xbox. It's understandable though. I bet most of them are still getting it though. I haven't bought it yet myself though, I'll wait for the winter sale on Steam.

$300 is 3/4ths. A 480 isn't running this game at 30fps consistently, even with some settings turned down.

It's also ignoring the hundreds for the rest of the build that the PS4 Pro does consist of.

My point still stands. You have to pay hundreds more to get the 4k30 than you would with a PS4 Pro right now. Will that change over time? Yes, but not this year anymore.

Yeah and 3/4 is 75%...

Of course it does. It averages 31fps at max settings as posted above. Turning down things like HBAO+ which the PS4 Pro doesn't even have yields a couple of extra frames. Optimizing the settings(which is exactly what the PS4 Pro does) makes the game very playable on a RX 480 at 4K.

Also, didn't you say it wasn't even native 4K on the Pro anyway?

Again when Scorpio hit sub 4k you will be quoted for fun,and when it miss 60FPS as well,since only lemming believe that an AMD APU will have a full 8 core Zen CPU and a 6TF GPU,why in hell you think nothing was say about the CPU.?

Well Scorpio will not be 4k 60FPS either and there is evidence out there of it,a 6TF GPU is not 4k max 60FPS and probably not even medium 4k 60FPS with a low end CPU.

That GPU is also a better option than Scorpio and you don't have to wait 14 months for it,hell the RX480 OC pass 6TF.

No i told you it could do 4k mid or low,the comparison on the 980TI were bullshit argument bring by lemmings like you to downplay the benchmarks of AMD remember.?

Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....

@chikenfriedrice said:

Do you understand all that is happening on screen at once?

Hahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/dead-rising-3-is-720p-30fps-30909854/?page=1

I am telling you lemmings your hypocrisy is gold...Hahahhaaaaa

2017 can't come sooner i will have such a blast quote you lemmings damage controlling 720p games on xbox so much that you will think 100 times before you downplay checkerboard rendering on PS4 Pro...hahaha

After all that look great DR3 looked like shit was 720p and dropped to 17FPS...lol

@tormentos said:

Why.? Achieving 4K using checkerboard rendering is not exactly 4k native,but if you see the difference is do to image quality,who really expected the pro to hit 4k very high on tomb raider or any other game.

And that is high quality DF one is Very high quality which should drop more in performance,i think it look quite great.

The xbox one version is 1080p so there is no chance in hell that the PS4 version is 900p.

@adamosmaki said:

So Ps4 pro

cant hit native 4k due to its mid-range GPU ( a $200 Rx 470 is a faster GPU )

cant reach a stable 60fps due to its s***y Cpu

Cant reach very high detail levels due to lack of memory

So what exactly is the purpose of this $400 marvel ? To upscale games to 4k ?

When Scorpio hit sub 4k as well lets with lower than 60FPS i should quote this post..lol

See that picture up there before your quote yeah that is Tomb Raider on PC on a 390X which is 5.9TF basically spot on with scorpio it can't hit 30FPS even on High,let alone very high like in DF test.

I think it looks great DF too considering the GPU it has and that is higher than 1080p is good enough.

Did you see me say anything about xbox ? Did i say xbox will be able to achieve native 4k or are you imagining stuff ?

Just to let you know i actually dont believe xbox will be able to achieve native 4k neither but if MS puts a decent CPU ( as its rumoured it might actually able to achieve 1080p60 or even 1440p60 ) and let be honest a 35-40% faster GPU will lead to better detail levels compared to ps4pro

Of course i'm sure you think ps4pro and that 1,8 teraflop difference to xbox scorpio in computing power is minuscule while at the same time you think there is a world of difference between Ps4 and X1 and Sony's miracle dev will nullify that 40% computing deficit

@tormentos: I don't understand what a DR thread has to do with Pro's "4K" vs. the PC version at actual 4K....I am strictly commenting on the comparison that DF made.

If DF came out with a comparison showing a supposed 4K game on Scorpio running side by side with a PC version at 4K and the difference was as bad as what was shown with TR, I would say the same thing.

My bigger issue is these games are not even true 4K and they are selling them as such, making 4K look bad.

@mjorh said:

@ProtossRushX said:

PS4 pro play it on a big 5k dollar OLED TV

PC play tomb raider with a mouse keyboard and some crap IPS monitor that has no idea what the hell its doing an cost under 1k dollars

hmmm which will i choose and i don't want to plug my tv into my PC as the response times are gonna be all over the place as well as all this other crap that PC can't handle

Lol

Guarantee even with turned down settings, the RX 480 is going to be dropping to the teens often. Those "averages" get skewed highly in linear games due to the radical difference in amount of rendering needed to do from scene to scene.

Also if you're building a PC that's just barely capable of playing 4k just to say on internet forums you can, then you need to reevaluate your life decision.

Practically it's pointless to build a 4k rig that can barely do 4k. This is where one big difference between the PC market and home theater market differ. People are buying 4k TVs now because they are inexpensive and have very nice picture (even at 1080p). Most care little about the amount of 4k content out there now. They know they are future proofing themselves and 4k TVs are becoming the norm as prices continue to fall. Competition from the supply side of TVs is driving 4k more than consumer demand.

So now you got this 4k TV because it was a logical purchase but no content. Here comes the PS4 Pro (and soon to be Scorpio) that can take your existing games and new games on the consoles and better utilize the 4k screen that you already have. That's a bigger intensive for people to buy these devices. The actual performance and end image quality isn't as big of a deal in this situation. They don't care that it's not native 4k, it's just better than the normal PS4. It makes more sense to own one, until you realize that it doesn't have 4k blu-ray playback and then you laugh at Sony and not buy the PS4 Pro.

This is completely different than the PC market. On the PC, innovations and new tech are driven more with consumer demand. For a PC you generally build to a spec. Nobody is building a 4k capable rig, including going out of their way to buy a 4k monitor just for it, just to run at 30 FPS 4k with the settings turned down. Realistically if you're building a PC for 4k, you're not going to compromise. This is why I didn't go 4k with my new build and simply got a 1440p144hz monitor. The single GTX 1080 I wanted could not do 4k at what I would believe is acceptable quality so I went a step lower.

People buy 4k TVs because it makes sense for their budget. If they budgeted 800 and found a 4k panel at the same size as what they wanted, why wouldn't they buy it? It's just not the same mentality on the PC. PCs are expensive and generally people like to save costs wherever they can. They won't just pick up a 4k monitor because it's cheaper, they'll settle for something even less expensive because they know they don't need or won't use 4k on their PC. PC's functionality drive a different set of demands out of the device than TVs.

So really I find the whole discussion to be pointless. PC gamers are just looking for another way to jerk themselves off at how awesome their PCs are and decry the consoles as stupid and pointless, all while Sony is filling a demand that is starting to pop up. People have 4k now, they want more 4k content, so Sony is doing what they can to offer them something to better take advantage of their TV at a reasonable price. Sony is not going to make a $600 console just to run native 4k game. There is no market for that.

The part that gets me upset is when a known PC gamer like myself is replied to with "I expected better from you" just because I don't fall in line with the circlejerk. I just don't see the point in arguing over this tired shit again. I get it. You PC gamers are superior and must flaunt it at every single part. I'll be busy in the real world seeing things from a real world perspective.

The only people I see constant ragging on the PS4 Pro are PC gamers. Console gamers either think it's cool or they are going to save their money as they don't see a need to upgrade because it's not a huge leap for most (especially if they don't have a 4k TV). Console gamers finally have a little choice and me, as a PC gamer, is thrilled to finally see an incremental update to a console instead of watching them deteriorate over 6 long years. I hope they release a new, more powerful Playstation ever year and get us off of this stupid 6+ year console generation.

I would like to see the PS4 versus the PS4Pro.

It won't drop into the teens. I used a combination of High/Very High at 4K on a single 980 and the lowest I dropped to was 28. A 480 wouldn't drop into the teens let alone often. It is only marginally slower than a 980. If you OC the memory the minimum frame rates improve by a sizable amount with faster RAM.

My point was to simply say it is incorrect you need a 400-500$ CPU to match a PS4 Pro. A 200$ RX 480 will outperform it most of the time.

As for the rest of your point I never argued otherwise. I'm simply saying you can't go around claiming you need a 1080 for 4K/30fps when a 1060 is able to do it.