Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Various] Playstation VR Reviews
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Various] Playstation VR Reviews - Page 6  

post #51 of 100
PS4 = 1.84 teraflops, X-bone = 1.24 teraflops, 290X @ 1080 = 6 teraflops = Subjective.. I guess PS4 Pro and Scorpio's performance advantage over the standard versions will be will be subjective too? rolleyes.gif

Not matter how many straw-mans are used to turn objective numbers into subjective experiences, doesn't change the fact that even these reviewers (who imo have been very generous to PSVR because of its price ) have experienced nausea and some have complained that they were actually ill. Tracking has been one of the biggest problems for VR to solve (which is a large part of why the Rift and Vive are so expensive) and is a major player in motion-sickness, coupled with the PS4's challenge in doing high framerates, and i can see a lot of consumers who fell for these reviews getting put off VR..

It's inexcusable for reviewers to ignore PSVR's tracking performance because it's cheaper.. A major part in why it's cheaper is because its tracking is cheap. I think there's a reason Sony left certain titles out of the "review bundles". People hyped for Resident Evil on PSVR better invest in a bucket.

They cut serious corners to get it to it's price point, which i think is a mistake. This first iteration isn't going to be mainstream no matter what, and even if it was priced the same as the Rift it would still decimate it in sales.

The enthusiasts who are going to buy this would of bought it for $200 more anyway, and most likely are the types who would pick up a PS4 Pro. The actual headset looks pretty great (ergonomically, screen, etc.), but they shouldn't of skimped on such an important aspect when so much rides on this first-impression.
Edited by GorillaSceptre - 10/6/16 at 12:09pm
post #52 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

So basically me saying a Pentium 4 is under powered is subjective. Got it.

Actually, that sentence is not only subjective, but it's also meaningless. It lacks context. What is it under-powered relative to? Oops, did I just say "relative?" Yes, without context, it's indeed subjective.

If you said that the Pentium 4 is underpowered compared to, say, your i7, then you're on the track towards objectivity, but the statement still lacks context. Underpowered for what? Writing emails? Crysis? Given the sitation, I know the context of course, but now do you get it? Further, is that a relevent comparision? Sure, maybe - the two CPUs could be compared running the same software under the same conditions for the most part. It would basically be apples-to-apples. This is not the case when comparing a console's raw power with any given PC's raw power, and this is primarily due to differences in software and development.

Going back to my 2 original points for commenting on this thread:

1. The statement "PS4 is underpowered" is subjective as it lacks context and relevency.
2. The software is still different and still makes a huge difference, regardless of architecture similarities or raw performance. Different pros/cons will be taken advantage of on unified hardware, while brute force and inefficiency by genericising hardware utilization on PC.
Edited by Tempest2000 - 10/6/16 at 12:53pm
post #53 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempest2000 View Post

Actually, that sentence is not only subjective, but it's also meaningless. It lacks context. What is it under-powered relative to? Oops, did I just say "relative?" Yes, without context, it's indeed subjective.

If you said that the Pentium 4 is underpowered compared to, say, your i7, then you're on the track towards objectivity, but the statement still lacks context. Underpowered for what? Writing emails? Crysis? Given the sitation, I know the context of course, but now do you get it? Further, is that a relevent comparision? Sure, maybe - the two CPUs could be compared running the same software under the same conditions for the most part. It would basically be apples-to-apples. This is not the case when comparing a console's raw power with any given PC's raw power, and this is primarily due to differences in software and development.

Going back to my 2 original points for commenting on this thread:

1. The statement "PS4 is underpowered" is subjective as it lacks context and relevency.
2. The software is still different and still makes a huge difference, regardless of architecture similarities or raw performance. Different pros/cons will be taken advantage of on unified hardware, while brute force and inefficiency by genericising hardware utilization on PC.

Fine. The PS4 is relatively underpowered compared with the task of providing adequate framerates for a proper VR experience. It is subjectively too weak to run modern games at full settings and thus compromises must be made. You're getting worse frame rates, worse graphics and worse tracking than you would be with other options, and those things that make them worse means that they aren't as good as more expensive, nicer systems. The fact those more expensive, nicer systems lack any meaningful content or "killer apps" and also cause nausea/VR sickness does not speak well for the PSVR moving forward, given its lack of hardware muscle.
post #54 of 100
rolleyes.gif
post #55 of 100
I will wait for content first...like Elder Scrolls VI VR😁
post #56 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artev View Post

I don't understand why you're arguing with someone who is right and who has only spoken to clear and obvious facts.


2 guys without any knowledge on the subject and 0 proving ability decide to go all out against proven result and call themselves "right" because you declared your baseless fantasies as "clear obvious facts", this is hilarious and sad at same time. lachen.gif



Quote:
Originally Posted by Artev View Post

The PS4 is underpowered. The games are neutered to run at 30fps on the console, imagine how much will be cut back to hit 60/120 fps. The PS4 just doesn't have the juice. If it did, there would be no reason at all for Sony to make the new version of the PS4 that is much more powerful. I just can't imagine why you're acting defensive about this

I think that's your main problem, you imaging too much and doesn't care to validate your imagination to reality, driveclub VR for example confirmed by digital foundry and other VR critics to be the most immersive VR driving game out there compare to OR and vive, doesn't matter how expensive your PC is, and every PSVR games operates at 60fps(reproject to 120fps) or 90fps, something keep most PC gamers out of the picture.

Looks like you two are more interested to slam the mid console gen upgrade than focus on topic, this is PSVR thread remember? if you wish, feel free to find your console nemesis in other threads

And your self proclaimed "clear and obvious facts" and "power theory" hold as little weight as doomsday prophecy.
Edited by CryphicKing - 10/6/16 at 6:03pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 5820K beast mode Asrock X99 Extreme6 Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 gaming Vengeance 16G DDR4 2800Mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
seagate 1T SSHD Windows 7 Pro Acer 32" 4k UHD monitor  
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 5820K beast mode Asrock X99 Extreme6 Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 gaming Vengeance 16G DDR4 2800Mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
seagate 1T SSHD Windows 7 Pro Acer 32" 4k UHD monitor  
  hide details  
post #57 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

Obviously you think you are above everyone here because you may have a background in development but this does not change the simple fact that the CPU even used as efficiently as possible is still extremely under powered. I'm not sure what there is to argue here.
.

not really, I let you know my tech background simply because you challenged me and assumed I know as little as you did. I was merely suggest that you really should just leave the "power" part to engine's back end engineers to worry about and let yourself worry about the result


Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post


If no one should worry about cpu power in modern gaming then why was my 4790k a big upgrade over my fx-9590? Next you are going to tell me the developers using Sony's Jaguar cpu are so talented they will make it perform faster than a 4.7ghz/5ghz FX 8 core..


Again, you need to get your head straight, I never said or compared CPU "power" in desktop environment, I tried to enlighten you that desktop CPU power is not the same as CPUs powers required in SOC instruction specific environment, just as Xeon's server side power is hardly relevant to desktop hardware. desktop CPUs especially intel's are designed for multi propose for professionals from all fields, gaming is one of the many things in their targeted consumer range.

if you must, this guy has a very informative education material on console's hardware architecture compare to PC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dor46KKh9h4

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

I've got an A8-6410, aka a 2.4ghz Puma quadcore, the successor to the desktop jaguar cpu's. Aside from the gpu portion being far weaker than what is in the cpu and having four less cores it is clocked 800mhz higher. It is not fast. It can play the same games ps4 does fine at 30fps if it wasn't for the weak gpu portion. This is not a mystery, however it is still weak. Like I've said, even maximizing this cpu's potential still equates to a cpu far weaker than any half decent desktop quad core even with the bloat of your typical OS and background processes. Even on api's that are not like vulkan or dx12.


FYI, All console games were operated at either 30fps or 60fps since Dreamcast era, other than pulling frame rate/pixel number you barely understand, you really need to learn how to get comparable variables before make the comparison. Just because crazy taxi on dreamcast runs 60fps on dreamcast, does that make DC's GPU superior to a GTX970?

Games' visual presentation evolved from gen to gen because we are hungry for latest & baddest rendering tricks, mostly recycle from century old hollywood, defend the mere pixel count or fps target without ovehaul all aspect of rendering than every game will be boring looking 1080/60fps low quality titles(they still exist on all platform)

Your A8-6410 runs games "as good as PS4" claim is quickly destroyed by a quick benchmark search, it never had a chance to handle 360 games in similar visual present and performance.


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-deus-ex-mankind-divided-face-off


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-forza-horizon-3-face-off

"As it stands, it should be possible for users to reach 1080p60 on a wide range of graphics cards, while GTX 950 and equivalent hardware is capable of 30fps gameplay at console-equivalent settings.
"

"While 30fps is the best choice for those with older Intel i5s and GTX 970-level hardware, you can push higher with adaptive sync displays and frame-rate limiters."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post


I don't see the world in 60fps emulated to 120fps. Higher actual frame rates matter to me. Even if using the oculus the fps drops below 90fps for a moment it ruins it.
Not entirely true at all. This is a very common misconception. Unlike the PC benchmarks which are often run in ultra settings the consoles if converted to pc settings are often using much lower details. AF is almost always lower which makes already often low res textures look like mud as one example. A 2500k and AMD 7970 (both from 2011) will easily match the ps4 and xbone graphics settings for the rest of those consoles life spans. Scropio and ps4pro will are outdated before they hit the shelves and I'm fully confident my pc with 2013 hardware will hang with them at the same settings with no issue as well. I've been on 4k with this 290x for near two years now. Matching the same frame rates and settings of the current systems is a joke.

The last thing consumers care about is "what you see" from something you've never seen before, I already told you the asynchronous device is there to enhance experience not to power it to real 120fps,in the end of day, no consumer would even ask what this little box does. if all PSVR products feel like 60-120fps with no unpleasant slow down , then the product will sell self, PSVR's end user experience determinate its demand, and its going the exact opposite way as your "grand predtion" this is a reality and you need to accept and let it go.

Also, I think most people prefer semi-scientifically conducted test method such as benchmark both console and PC side to side rather than day dream and empy bold claim
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-deus-ex-mankind-divided-face-off
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

Thank you for the link I will read over it. However, see above, emulated 120fps is still not the same regardless of how smooth it maybe perceived. I do not want emulation.
Completely irrelevant. This isn't ps3 vs pc. The hardware architectures are closer than they have ever been. And when it comes to heavy lifting and needing brute power the weight lifter will always win. Cpu's aren't mma fighters, you either have the power to run something or you don't.

Again, it's never about what you want, if the experience feels like 120fps, then so be it, no one will ask how it was it will sell, 60fps-90fps is hardly unacceptable for VR, and every PSVR title will continue opereates at 60fps-120fps) or 90fps regardless what your prosudo power science theory is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

You need to get off your high horse. Your background in developing free dime a dozen games on android does not qualify you as someone who can speak as if they are building games on DX12 let alone the consoles as well. You keep talking how these architectures are so different yet again, they are truly not far off.

Actually any C++ guy can switch field easily without much effort(android is Java's playground) as we are always multi-language/multi-framework ready, I don't mean to be rude to anyone but reading someone with 0 hr training or have 0 related education trying to explain about how 3D rendering works is really a pain in my eye socket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

And the fact that 30fps is not the same as 30fps on a console is laughable. What is possinly different about 30fps w/ vsync on a console vs 30fps w/ vsync on a pc.

You know, most people still prefer CGI like visual presentation at 1080P in steady frame rate than playing goat simulator at 4k/120fps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

Having seen the crap that comes out of Hollywood it scares me that you are impressed because some random artists have touched ps4 games. That doesn't make them any more impressive in anyway when it comes to the actual engine in play and the techniques used. Crysis 3 is 3 years old now and nothing on ps4 tops it from a technical standpoint. I'm not talking artistic, I'm talking technical. Artistic is subjective.


too lazy to explain how material/texture works in game development and why UC4/the order's material work is amazing without comparison, as for cyrsis3, well crysis1-3 used to be my top bae, but its flat out direct lighting is really dated since 2014, I have hard time to find a game on PS4 that doesn't look better than Crysis3.
Edited by CryphicKing - 10/6/16 at 6:00pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 5820K beast mode Asrock X99 Extreme6 Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 gaming Vengeance 16G DDR4 2800Mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
seagate 1T SSHD Windows 7 Pro Acer 32" 4k UHD monitor  
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 5820K beast mode Asrock X99 Extreme6 Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 gaming Vengeance 16G DDR4 2800Mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
seagate 1T SSHD Windows 7 Pro Acer 32" 4k UHD monitor  
  hide details  
post #58 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by CryphicKing View Post

Your A8-6410 runs games "as good as PS4" claim is quickly destroyed by a quick benchmark search, it never had a chance to handle 360 games in similar visual present and performance. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-deus-ex-mankind-divided-face-off

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-forza-horizon-3-face-off

So you post a random benchmark and two links that have nothing to do with it for what reason now? And not only that, but cat 12.2 drivers? That driver is from 2012.... literally. Secondly, considering my a8-6410 is a laptop apu with a 15w tdp I fail to see how the benchmark with zero details on the cards used, processor used, in fact, zero details at all, has anything to do with.

On top of that the gpu portion of this chip is limited to single channel memory and anemic. At best they were paired with a dedicated r5 230m which is still far weaker than what is in the ps4 but plenty capable for any game on 360 or ps3. You can not get the 6410 paired with a ps4 class gpu so your benchmark, whatever it's from is completely pointless.

But here you go... I introduce to you the AM1 kabini processor, the 5350. The predecessor to the puma cpu in my laptop. It's clocked at 2.05ghz vs my puma's 2.4ghz and look at that, paired with a gtx770 it manages to do remotely ok squeeking over 30fps in bf4, under 30fps in sleeping dogs, under 20fps in CoH and in a best case, tomb raider & bioshock, pulling 49-53fps average.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8067/amd-am1-kabini-part-2-athlon-53505150-and-sempron-38502650-tested/9

Now do the math here - since these are all clearly ps4 era games what happens when you add 400mhz to the same cpu? Yea, a 800mhz faster cpu over what is in the ps4. I'm not arguing that a 15w tdp apu is competing with the ps4 as a whole, I'm arguing that the cpu side of the apu is very similar in power to the cpu side of the ps4. Again, 8 cores at 1.6ghz is not going to be much faster than 4 cores at 2.4ghz when it's the same architecture. Having 100% more cores with a 50% decrease in clock speed will yield an improvement when titles are perfectly scaled across all cores but you should know as well as any that it rarely happens that way in games due to the nature of most engines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CryphicKing View Post

I have hard time to find a game on PS4 that doesn't look better than Crysis3.

And that's when I exit stage left. Not going to bother with the rest of your post. It's a shame you claim to have so much knowledge but not enough to keep your clear bias in check.
Edited by SoloCamo - 10/6/16 at 6:31pm
The Struggle (4k)
(20 items)
 
File Server
(12 items)
 
Lenovo G50-45
(6 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Athlon II X2 250u Nvidia 6150SE  2gb DDR3 1066mhz Windows 10 Home 64 bit 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
AMD A8-6410 AMD R5 Crucial Ballistix 8GB DDR3L 1866 CAS10 Crucial BX100 250gb 
Optical DriveOS
DVD Windows 10 Home 
  hide details  
The Struggle (4k)
(20 items)
 
File Server
(12 items)
 
Lenovo G50-45
(6 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Athlon II X2 250u Nvidia 6150SE  2gb DDR3 1066mhz Windows 10 Home 64 bit 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
AMD A8-6410 AMD R5 Crucial Ballistix 8GB DDR3L 1866 CAS10 Crucial BX100 250gb 
Optical DriveOS
DVD Windows 10 Home 
  hide details  
post #59 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CryphicKing View Post

I have hard time to find a game on PS4 that doesn't look better than Crysis3.

And that's when I exit stage left. Not going to bother with the rest of your post. It's a shame you claim to have so much knowledge but not enough to keep your clear bias in check.

The most shameful thing in threads like this is the number of people who act like "Everything Ultra" is the most important aspect of PC gaming, as though "fun" is measured by the amount of silicon plugged into your motherboard.

In terms of gameplay there is practically nothing being done on high end PC's that can't be done on the baseline, regular old PS4.
The mouse and keyboard are the most important pieces of hardware plugged into your PC right now, those are the things that matter, your graphics hardware is almost totally irrelevant to the experience.

"Ultra" settings exist for future compatibility and for those few people with the ambition or desire to try and achieve it. No one produces a PC game thinking to themselves "man, I hope people upgrade their GPU for this, running this title at anything less than "Everything Ultra" would really compromise the experience."
That would be utterly ludicrous.

If something is fun, it's fun almost regardless of the hardware you have.

Thus Nintendo stopped giving their consoles significant graphical upgrades a decade ago. They looked at the gameplay designs they intended on producing and said "better hardware provides minimal benefits".
And to this day they've stuck with that philosophy.

There is no reason to think that the PS4 GPU will have any affect on the amount of fun people have playing PSVR, especially given that the best experiences to be had on PC are still not graphically intensive at all.
It's going to be many years before a VR game does anything that actually requires a PC.
post #60 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post

The most shameful thing in threads like this is the number of people who act like "Everything Ultra" is the most important aspect of PC gaming, as though "fun" is measured by the amount of silicon plugged into your motherboard.

In terms of gameplay there is practically nothing being done on high end PC's that can't be done on the baseline, regular old PS4.
The mouse and keyboard are the most important pieces of hardware plugged into your PC right now, those are the things that matter, your graphics hardware is almost totally irrelevant to the experience.

"Ultra" settings exist for future compatibility and for those few people with the ambition or desire to try and achieve it. No one produces a PC game thinking to themselves "man, I hope people upgrade their GPU for this, running this title at anything less than "Everything Ultra" would really compromise the experience."
That would be utterly ludicrous.

If something is fun, it's fun almost regardless of the hardware you have.

Thus Nintendo stopped giving their consoles significant graphical upgrades a decade ago. They looked at the gameplay designs they intended on producing and said "better hardware provides minimal benefits".
And to this day they've stuck with that philosophy.

There is no reason to think that the PS4 GPU will have any affect on the amount of fun people have playing PSVR, especially given that the best experiences to be had on PC are still not graphically intensive at all.
It's going to be many years before a VR game does anything that actually requires a PC.

ok fine. this is a reasonable counter argument and I respect your position.

PSVR may end up being very fun if the right content comes out for it and it plays to the system's strengths.

HOWEVER, there's no way graphically it will be able to compete with the PC offerings due to hardware limitations. I concede that limitation does not stop people from making great gaming experiences with PSVR
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Various] Playstation VR Reviews