The game is rendered at a lower resolution, this saves a lot of resources. This isn’t a linear thing, lowering the resolution reduces the performance needed by a lot more than you would think. Not just in processing power but also bandwidth and memory requirements. Then dedicated AI cores or even special AI scaler chips get used to upscale the image back to the requested resolution. This is a fixed cost and can be done with little power since the components are designed to do this task.
My TV for example has an AI scaler chip which is pretty nice (especially after tuning) for showing old content on a large high res screen. For games applying AI up scaling to old textures also does wonders.
Now even though this gets the AI label slapped on, this is nothing like the LMMs such as chat GPT. These are expert systems trained and designed to do exactly one thing. This is the good kind of AI that’s actually useful instead of the BS AI like LLMs. Now these systems have their limitations, but for games the trade off between details and framerate can be worth it. Especially if our bad eyes and mediocre screens wouldn’t really show the difference anyways.
The game is rendered at a lower resolution, this saves a lot of resources.
Then dedicated AI cores or even special AI scaler chips get used to upscale the image back to the requested resolution.
I get that much. Or at least, I get that’s the intention.
This is a fixed cost and can be done with little power since the components are designed to do this task.
This us the part I struggle to believe/understand. I’m roughly aware of how resource intensive upscaling is on locally hosted models. The necessary tech/resources to do that to 4k+ in real time (120+ fps) seems at least equivalent, if not more expensive, to just rendering it that way in the first place. Are these “scaler chips” really that much more advanced/efficient?
Further questions aside, I appreciate the explanation. Thanks!
Rendering a 3D scene is much more intensive and complicated than a simple scaler. The scaler isn’t advanced at all, it’s actually very simple. And it can’t be compared with running a large model locally. These are expert systems, not large models. They are very good at one thing and can do only that thing.
Like I said the cost is fixed, so if the scaler can handle 1080p at 120fps to upscale to 2K, then it can always handle that. It doesn’t matter how complex or simple the image is, it will always use the same amount of power. It reads the image, does the calculation and outputs the resulting image.
Rendering a 3D scene is much much more complex and power intensive. The amount of power highly depends on the complexity of the scene and there is a lot more involved. It needs the gpu, cpu, memory and even sometimes storage, plus all the bandwidth and latency in between.
Upscaling isn’t like that, it’s a lot more simple. So if the hardware is there, like the AI cores on a gpu or the dedicated upscaler chip, it will always work. And since that hardware will normally not be heavily used, the rest of the components are still available for the game. A dedicated scaler is the most efficient, but the cores on the gpu aren’t bad either. That’s why something like DLSS doesn’t just work on any hardware, it needs specialized components. And different generations and parts have different limitations.
Say your system can render a game at 1080p at a good solid 120fps. But you have a 2K monitor, so you want the game to run at 2K. This requires a lot more from the system, so the computer struggles to run the game at 60 fps and has annoying dips in demanding parts. With upscaling you run the game at 1080p at 120fps and the upscaler takes that image stream and converts it into 2K at a smooth 120fps. Now the scaler may not get all the details right, like running native 2K and it may make some small mistakes. But our eyes are pretty bad and if we’re playing games our brains aren’t looking for those details, but are instead focused on gameplay. So the output is probably pretty good and unless you were to compare it with 2K native side by side, probably you won’t even notice the difference. So it’s a way of having that excellent performance, without shelling out a 1000 bucks for better hardware.
There are limitations of course. Not all games conform to what the scaler is good at. It usually does well with realistic scenes, but can struggle with more abstract stuff. It can get annoying halos and weird artifacts. There are also limitations to what bandwidth it can push, so for example not all gpus can do 4K at a high framerate. If the game uses the AI cores as well for other stuff, that can become an issue. If the difference in resolution is too much, that becomes very noticeable and unplayable. Often there’s also the option to use previous frames to generate intermediate frames, to boost the framerate with little cost. In my experience this doesn’t work well and just makes the game feel like it’s ghosting and smearing.
But when used properly, it can give a nice boost basically for free. I have even seen it used where the game could be run at a lower quality at the native resolution and high framerate, but looked better at a lower resolution with a higher quality setting and then upscaled. The extra effects outweighed the small loss of fidelity.
It started as good tech to make GPUs last longer, but now is a crutch that even top notch hardware like a 4090 needs to actually achieve playable performance with ray tracing at high resolutions. And that hardware is already way overpriced, imagine the price of something that could do it natively.
So far I’ve traded in all my Playstations for the latest versions. But this price-hike and no disc-drive are a dealbreaker. Guess I’m going for a new gaming PC and a Steam Deck now. Too bad Sony, you messed up.
Not really on topic, but AI upscaling is no joke. It’s actually very useful and saves alot processing power. Same with the extra fps, making a 30fps into a 60fps with ease.
FSR doesn’t use AI hardware. The original comment is overselling it a bit, but something AI-driven like DLSS does offer substantial (if slightly blurry) framerate gains.
No game should be running down at 60fps these days, especially with any sort of upscaling. Native performance should be the only measured metric, no need for shortcuts when hardware is as good as it is.
This generation is already pretty weak, and it was hard to justify the original PS5 which, after a whopping four years, still has too few exclusive titles to justify the increased price point. Now they are asking for $700 (and they increased the controller’s price, too), but there’s still too few next gen titles, and it doesn’t even come with basic features like a disc tray and a vertical mount. Not even a better form factor, it’s the same old ugly case, but somehow bigger.
The only premium thing about this thing is the price tag. $700 dollars but €800, because apparently they are dominating the European market so much that they don’t even have to try to sell it at an honest price point. With all those money you can just buy a PC. I honestly don’t think that many people who are interested in the console market (which, historically, has always been a “low budget” entry into modern gaming) would be willing to spend so much money on one.
I guess we circled back to the PS3 era, when Sony got drunk with overconfidence. Only, this time they’ll get away with it because their main competitor is somehow even more incompetent than them. I wonder if the handheld PC market will pose a threat to their dominance in the future - at the moment, it’s a very small niche.
It’s just so sad. I remember back when the PS4 Pro came out and you could trade in your old PS4 for a little on top to get a Pro at GameStop. It was a night and day difference going from a base PS4 to a Pro - and merely for the price of the console, 3 random games off a list of curated games, two controllers, iirc, and 100€. It was straight gas for me.
Paying 300€ on top - realistically even more because you’re not gonna sell a used PS5 for 500€ nowadays - plus the money for a disc drive and a vertical stand would set you back like 900-1000€. Completely out of their minds
The PS5 is already a very powerful piece of hardware that most devs aren’t making full use of. I honestly can’t see any justification in a hardware upgrade other than some Sony execs thinking it’ll be the end of the world if they don’t put out something new to make some profit line continue to go up.
They need to pump out more games to justify this. I see no reason to upgrade as mine already sits and collects dust. The controller is super awesome tho, use it all the time for my PC.
I pretty much only use mine to play the exclusives since I don’t have a good PC and watch films on 4K blu-rays. My Series X gets far more use (more storage, more games in my library since I’ve been using Xbox since the 360 and a more comfortable controller).
If you pay for the discs, you can’t use the discs on future generations. Right? Ps4 can’t read ps3 or ps2 discs. Xbox one can read xbox and 360 discs, but they limit it to only specific games. So in general, you have to buy it once again on their online store, if its available at all.
Yeah, idk why Ps4 has no backwards compatibility. PS3 (fat) was backwards compatible with PS 1+2, and PS5 is backwards compatible for PS4. I didn’t buy a PS4 for that exact reason, and was lucky enough to get my hands on a PS5 during launch to play all the PS4 games I missed.
With all the niche Japanese games I like slowly coming to PC, I probably won’t buy a new console ever again. (As an aside, if anyone has a spare fat PS3 they’re willing to sell for parts…)
I agree. One of the few reasons I still stuck to consoles is because I could buy the physical games and have it on my shelf forever. That’s going the way of the dinosaurs, and while I love that things are more accessible via Steam or whatever, I can’t let my friends borrow my games, or pass it along to someone else to enjoy if I didn’t like a game as much.
I also just love collecting and displaying game cases and steelbooks and stuff. That’s rarely a thing anymore, either.
The lack of backwards comparability is because of the large difference in architecture.
The PS2 was a128 bit custom processor, the PS3 had PS2 hardware in the original fat versions to achieve backwards compatibility, it was dropped to reduce the price.
The PS3 was a 64 bit (I think) custom PowerPC processor.
With the PS4 Sony switched to x86_64 processors making the console essentially a PC with bespoke custom hardware. The PS5 is the same but better speced components as the tech moved on. That’s why the PS4 & 5 are compatible, they are essentially using the same architecture.
Microsoft is a similar story but they went all in on emulation of their old consoles which is why only certain games are allowed, they only allow the ones tested to work with the emulator.
The PS3 was a 64 bit (I think) custom PowerPC processor.
Thanks for jogging my memory, I completely forgot how different the PS3 architecture is compared to the other PlayStations and also the 360. Same reason why emulation for it is so hard (and why MGS4 has no modern ports 🥲)
The PS3 fat could only read PS2 disks because it had stripped down PS2 hardware included. It was effectively a PS2/3 combined. This was part of what drove the cost up, so they gutted that hardware from the slim.
PS4s can’t read PS3 disks because the PS3 used a bespoke PowerPC based chipset that was a colossal pain in the ass to develop for. So for the PS4 to have backwards compatibility, they would have had to either A, include PS3 hardware in the PS4 (expensive) or B, create an efficient software translation layer/built in emulator (see “pain in the ass”).
From what I have heard, they smartened up with the PS5. It’s basically just a faster PS4. At it’s core, it’s based on very similar hardware, so it’s easy to make PS4 games run without issue, but the boost in performance allows games designed specifically to take advantage of it.
It did when the ps5 first came out. $500 for it was a steal back then. I wanted to build a PC at the time but due to the crazy GPU prices and low stock for other parts I decided it was best to wait. Got a ps5 instead (was also hard to get as well) and thought it was absolutely worth the price for the experience it offered. Just built the pc I wanted last fall shortly after prices started dropping. First time ever I made a good choice.
Yeah, after that time I really didn’t think consoles would be as much as a midrange PC. And yet, here we are. Feels like Sony’s back to late PS2 era levels of hubris now.
Even at the time it came out you could have built a pc with an RTX 3060 for that price, which would outperform the PS5 by a big margin and have a way bigger game library
Depending on how much you care about visuals, yeah.
A decent GPU will often be the price of an entire console. That said, even if you go with high-end hardware I found that eventually the cost will make up for itself for not having to pay for PSN to make use of and play on the internet. Or the fact that games are very often priced up to 50% more on the PS store than those on PC because there are no competing stores.
You absolutely will not get anything that runs even remotely decently with ray tracing on in any recent title.
For the fair comparison you’re only allowed to buy new, not used parts. So, for 700$ you won’t even be able to put together a decent system with a 3070 in it.
“Oh but i don’t care about ray tracing” – nice copium.
I got a cheaper AMD GPU specifically because I do not give a fuck about ray tracing. Also just look at the steamdeck, you can get great performance for very cheap nowadays. It might not be as powerful or nice as a PS5 Pro, but the $700 computer has many advantages in its favor
This is dense. The base PS5 for a good portion of is life provided an unbeatable price to performance value. For a long time you’d be taking about $600 for just the GPU.
They’ve sold 60M units. This crap has been parroted by fanboys on both sides since the 80s.
We use our PS5 daily to both play games and watch media. It’s invaluable in our household. Using a PC for all that just seems to unnecessarily annoying, convoluted, and uncomfy. Sure, you could use a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard to use it off the sofa but the sheer simplicity of just using a controller to do anything is just awesome. Not even touching upon not needing to do maintenance to the PC, buying newer components once older ones get inevitably obsolete etc etc.
For me personally, the PS5 has been a hit since day one. And yea, its price was a little steep upfront, but it’s been very much worth the money over the past four years. I don’t get people who unapologetically bash consoles from a sense of superiority. I thought we were past this lol
People get real mad when I tell them it’s cheaper because I can rent and resell games. Just yelling no way it’s cheaper because you’re spending $60/ yr for online. It’s become an identity for them.
Big concern of mine. Was a huge concern when steam ruined it on PC 20 years ago. Game fly if you are in the states is worth it’s weight in gold. I played at least $2000 worth of games last year for about $300.
I have a few of these running HoloISO running around the house to stream graphic intense games from my main rig and to run smaller games locally. Runs fine with a 680m iGPU and I never have to leave the room I’m in (garage included) to play games if I want.
It cost more than a console, but far less than the 5 consoles I’d have to put out for that kind of convenience.
That’s actually why I went with the Xbox this cycle. I got a series x for the large TV and a $200 (on sale) series S for the smaller one (although we usually just use a computer monitor and play side by side on the couch).
$200 extra for reflections between cars in GT7 or slightly better shadow resolution is not worth it IMO.
My PS5 already collects dust as it is, since there are next to no games that actually make use of its hardware that I cannot already buy on PC to run at higher settings.
theverge.com
Najnowsze