PS5 will surely deliver breathtaking visuals but will it achieve true photorealism?
probably not and in the end it depends on what are our parameters for "true photorealism" for some it would probably never be achieveable while for others it would seem like we are already there.
The definition of photorealism is not confusing to be honest. Many games like Uncharted 4 come close to photo-realism but they are still ways off. This not to say the game looks bad or something. It looks pretty breathtaking but still there are ways to go before developers achieve true photorealism. I think the ps5 and the next xbox will make the line between realism and in-game graphics even thinner.
well those arent the only thing that makes photorealistic. Uncharted or other games do have amazing sceneries and characters model its far from photo real when it comes to animations/interactions/ with 3d objects or physics it all looks so unnatural. doubt if we can get to that level it isnt just about power it will need huge amount of work which may not justify for any company.
Agree with zivtheawesome... To me, none of the games mentioned are anywhere near photorealistic. They're mighty fine looking but still have a cartoon quality - and natural humans and animals will perplex processors for decades to come!
The developers themselves called Uncharted 4 hyper realism. The character models, especially close up in cutscenes, are definitely close to photorealistic, but generally the environments and saturation are going for a more fun look.
uncharted is highly stylized and looks something like a cgi generated cartoon, not real life.
Close but way off? Huh?
Until you see it on PC you won't see it on a console.
How can something "come close", and still be "a ways off"?
@Skull521 You'll see it on a PC tech demo before anything, but being honest, you'll likely see it on a first party console game before you see it on a PC game. With the exception of Crysis, nothing else on PC really competes with games that punch well above their weight like Uncharted 4 or Horizon as far as visual quality. PC certainly has potential with regard to hardware power, but it doesn't have many developers taking full advantage of that power, presumably because high end PCs are a pretty niche market.
Uncharted isn't meant to look photorealistic. It's highly stylised.
Any CG visual, even if you rendered it for weeks on farms of computers, is going to only fool you into thinking it is the real thing for so long. Video games manage to do it in spans of a few seconds, and only a select few ever reach that point. Movies can usually go in the tens of seconds before something looks off about it, and even then only a select few ever really achieve it. We're close, but even in pre-rendered visuals, we still have some room to grow.
The uncanny valley. Anyone who thinks we're already there needs to go look at a photo again.
Agreed, we are a LOOOONG way off that neither the PS5 or the X2 will achieve that either
this is true. PS3 was able to render a photoreal grey box within a grey box. Simply stunning. what is true photorealism? i could take pictures of the clouds right now with my iphone and theyd look CG. poeple want to make things perfectly photoreal, when in reality nothings perfect... or real
Drive Club looks photo real to me so it's all about tricks and talent from here on out.
Driveclub looks like film (movie) compared to GTSport/Forza that feel more like HiRes sterile computer art, if ya get my drift. DC just has not been beat yet.
At a glance ,resembling reality ,it can never be anything more,less you leave the parameter of photo realism ,as described.
You can alway deliver a true 4k Pong game with consoles as powerful as todays consoles, but why would we do that ? It depends on the game.
Depends, some games could come close but most won't. I'm more interested in seeing games that take an heavier art style cue or fantastical element into account as well as graphics. Look at Spidey or FFVIIR for instance. Or Kingdom Hearts IV will look like a damn Pixar movie(they're almost there, just some jaggies that need to be ironed out). I'd love to see more fantasy games in that vein, they could do some really timeless stuff with PS5. That's what I'm hoping the most for with PS5- fantasy games- bring em'.
I think as far as Pixar quality is concerned, I'd say that ratchet and clank ps4 comes quite close...at least the in-engine cutscenes. Gameplay, however, still has a long way to go before it reaches to that level.
true, current pixel movies has some very natural looking animations/interactions. games are not there it will take time to get that level of CGI.
On a ps4 pro on a 4K tv, I'd argue even the real time in-game visuals come quite close to Pixar films.
I think some people are missing the point of what I'm saying- I'm saying that impressive graphics alone are nice, but when adding a specific art style, whether it be Pixar, or FFVIIR's 'deformed' style that looks like the prerendered CG backgrounds from the original FFVII with a ton of extra detail, or JRPG fantasy aspects(clothing, fantastical architecture, hair, or otherwise) can really round out a style. Also Spidey's suit is easier to render than say a human face. All of these fantastical elements can make a game timeless. Personally I'd rather have that than games that aim for true realism, because not only are we far further off from it, but we get a ton of those games. I want to see the fantasy genre get bigger on PS5 is all I'm saying.
No it doesn't depend, it's just not gong to happen for quite some time. It takes hours or even days to render a single photorealistic image on a high end computer, we need to get that down to at most 1/30th of a second. To those saying some games are close now, you have really low standards for photorealism. True photorealism means you can't tell it's a not photo without extreme close examination. Here are some good examples, if you think that there are any games close to this level of realism then you need to have your eyes checked. https://www.blenderguru.com...
I dunno but I guess we will find out in at least another 2 and a half years.
Jumping the train on this whole thing are we? Gotta hype up the future consoles now rather than just wait and see where technology is in a few years and how much it costs?
What? Speculation happens on all devices. Sony has said there will be a PS5, Kaz has said they are already scouting hardware. AMD has already shown there Ryzen/Vega APU and have publicly visible timelines for there future GPU's CPU' and APU's beyond 2020. The Ryzen/Vega APU will be out later this year so it's not at all unreasonable to assume that's what will be the basis of a PS5 with a 2019-2020 timeline. Given the history AMD has with the console makers, especially since they are the only company that really provides custom all in one low power solutions aka APU's it's reasonable to assume they will be the provider.
Speculation does happen all the time. That doesn't make all forms of it worthwhile or even worth exploring years in advance when there is no costs, benchmarks, it similar data to support it. Let alone it's going to be the GPU that drives the point on things being photo realistic as that entails extremely high quality textures running in 4k.
Sigrid, the APU AMD is bringing out early next year is going to be base level current console power according to AMD. I do think they are making changes because it should have launched in January of this year so it might be a little more powerful. I also think they will incorporate things from Pro and X into that APU. The APU they launch in 2019 will be closer but at a much lower power envelope. That chip will start a debate about the need for either midrange PCs or consoles. The power on that should be closer to X or better I would think so it might come down to a $400 notebook or $400 consoles. The consoles will be more powerful but a portable device, with 5g connectivity and 8 or more teraflops on the GPU with Zen cores. That's why I believe consoles may go with Vega on GPU to keep cost down. Sony also has to get something similar to Microsoft's ability to emulate any OS. People can think BC doesn't matter but the ability to continue playing your entire collection from now on is big. There won't be an issue of a games graphics holding up with everything in 4k whether checkerboard or not. They will be playable for years to come.
Would a vampire infected with a zombie bite be able to turn a werewolf back into a human? Would a unicorn with a broken horn still be able to walk on a rainbow made by a leprechaun into Atlantis? We'll analyze this and other hypotheticals and speculations in the link below...
Nope. For true photorealism I think we are a decade (or two) off and even if the hardware can do it you gotta wonder if it's worth the development time for many a game to even try to be photorealistic. One day the limitations won't be the hardware or the screen (and thus resolution), since the display devices will have such pixel density we won't notice them anymore and the hardware is so powerful that every thing can be done. The limitations will be the developers by then or how much time and money they are willing to invest in their game...
Yes that what I've stated. Games are already astronomical budgets. Theirs only so much further we can go before it becomes unprofitable.
@solid Rendering is not the part that takes time to make, it's the design of the graphics itself that is costing lots of time and effort and no amount of tech is going to help with it...
Graphics tools to create these kinds of assets are always getting better. Probably at a faster rate than the hardware is improving to be honest. The biggest rise in high end budgets has been the need to create many more assets for games, all which have to be modeled and tweaked, and most importantly textured individually. Over time, these things will become easier, and I expect a lot of tools to make things much easier once the detail levels plateau.
@solid @rain Sure, tools get better and it will get easier. They still have to be made tho! And if games can become bigger and bigger more of them have to be made. My point is: one day when hardware is so powerful the only limitation will be how much time and money they are willing to put into it.
@Aenea Rendering takes huge amounts of time and mountains of cash. You do not even know. Post mortem of Monsters University by Pixar. Some scenes were comprised of geometry in excess of 1 billion polygons and each frame took ~49 hours to render on a server blade... WELL IT'S A GOOD THING TAHT THEY HAD OVER 400 $45,000 SERVERBLADES TO WORK WITH! If they didn't the movie would have finished rendering around the 2740 Olympic games (at which point all of our great great grandchildren would be long past dead assuming a lot of factors)! Hours per frame in this case 49 times FPS the film is 24FPS times seconds per minute times film runtime in minutes 90 was used (at this point we have the total number of hours of render time) divided by hours in a day divided by a year in this case 364.25 equals the estimated years of time to render Monsters University on a single server blade 49×24×60×90 47;24÷364.25=726 years! That doesn't cover the costs of running the server farm or cooling it nevermind the costs of employee upkeep for the few months it rendered the film... This isn't even covering the cost of actually hiring actors or artists either. JUST RENDERING A CGI MOVIE COSTS MOUNTAINS OF CASH!
If the games were built for 480p, like DVDs, we'd already have photorealism. Resolution is killing performance. I'm OK with sticking to 1080p with HDR, from now 'til forever.
No got to be least 2k to rid the picture of nasty jaggies
No, 480p would not give us photo-realism at all. until hardware is capable of real time ray-tracing you will not see anything like the real would in games. Although lighting in games has come along way in the last few year it is still very basic compared to CGI. and lets face it CGI is getting close to Real world but its still not there yet, just look ILM's best work to date in the new Starwars films. It's Fantastic! but you can still see its CGI
so, to be clear, you guys are saying this doesn't look like a photo because its less than 2k? https://lacarpa.com.mx/wp-c... what about this one? http://www.wnd.com/files/20... this one? https://media.ed.edmunds-me... After having spent a ton of time shopping for 4K tvs, im choosing to wait for the 1080 HDR tvs. 4K does nothing for me at the distance I sit from my 65 inch tv. the performance hit isnt anywhere near worth that minor of an improvement.
well we would probably be limited by transistor size first.
Those would be the specs of a PS5 if it released this year, but the PS5 is probably 2020, so of course Sony will consider much better specs by then.
Eh, not really. To get those specs in a console nowadays would likely cost $600 or more. On top of that Ryzen probably wouldn't be able to make it into a console until next year. If I had to hazard a guess: In 2 years we'll be looking at 16gb of ram, a 10-12 tflop GPU, a Ryzen processor and a 2TB harddrive. That'd be more than enough to bring in a new gen. The GPU wouldn't be a whole lot more powerful than the one in the Xbox One, but by putting in a better CPU they can free up the GPU for other things. With those specs it'd probably cost around $400-500, right in the sweet spot for a console launch.
12 TFLOPS for $399.99 in 2019-2020 is very much possible. The GTX 1080 Ti that is out now already does 12 TFLOPS. Right now, that card is super powerful, but in 2019, it's already gonna be ancient and basically junk.
@DarkZane, In 2019-2020? A 1080 ti won't even be remotely junk in 2019 or 2020. You haven no idea what you're talking about if you think it's going to be junk in 2 years. The three year old 980 isn't junk and today's cards have the benefit of a far more efficient architecture. Considering there's not likely to be a substantially better new architecture for a few years, the 1080 Ti is going to be a decent card for another three to four years. The PS4 will likely have a GPU about as powerful as a 1080 or 1080 ti, which is right in the range I said: 10-12.
I would still bet for 32 GB of RAM, and 12 Tflop GPU. Remember that the PS5 might be coming until 2020, not 2019. So, maybe things will get cheaper. Also, remember that Sony makes deals that have prices cheaper since they are sold as bulk. I remember a lot of people saying the PS4 would release in 2012. I always said it would be 2013, and I think I will be correct again.
@colonel179, RAM prices have actually DOUBLED over the past year or so, and they're not looking to drop in the near future. I doubt they'll go with much more RAM, if anything they will probably go with better RAM (maybe AMD's HBM?). In terms of the actual amount I wouldn't be shocked to see a console with just 12gb (though I think 16gb is the best bet). As it is right now 16 is almost overkill for gaming. As far as the GPU goes: As I said, 10-12 would be the sweet spot. That'll be more than enough though because the issue right now is that the CPUs in consoles are so far behind. It wouldn't be shocking to see them launch two consoles though. Resolution is almost entirely GPU bound. Hypothetically they could release a 1080p model with 6tflops, 16gb of RAM and a 1tb harddrive for $300-400 or so and a simultaneous 4K model with 14tflops, 20gb of RAM and a 2 tb harddrive for $500-$600. (Remember that in this case the 6tflops would be substantially more than what the PS4/Xbox One have, it'd be the same as what the Xbox One X has on paper, but devs would get a lot more out of it since it would be used for 1080p gaming instead of 4K.)
Not a super tech wiz, but im thinking maybe more than 10 teraflops
A) Probably won't really be feasible without significantly driving up costs. The reason the PS4 Pro and now the Xbox One X have such a huge jump over the base models of their respective consoles is because of the AMD's new Polaris GPU architecture. It'll probably be a little while before we see another major leap in that regard, so I wouldn't expect to see one before next gen comes out. Because of that you're not really going to get a whole lot of extra power without paying a premium for it. 10-12 teraflops in a $400-500 console is about what I'd expect in 2-3 years. B) It's not a huge deal anyways. A lot of CPU tasks are offloaded onto the GPU because the CPUs in current consoles are awful. Instead of making a major leap in the GPU next gen will probably make the biggest leap in the CPU, freeing up the more of the GPU. Unfortunately a lot of the GPU power will be used to hit 4K. With 10-12 teraflops not being held back by the CPU they'll probably have enough to hit 4K in today's games with a bit of power leftover, but the biggest improvement in games is going to come from using the CPU.
Myst was photorealistic on the mac 24 years ago.
Myst? Photorealistic didn't get it's start on PS1 or on PC/Mac... Lets look from 2000 and beyond... https://psmedia.playstation... http://ps2media.gamespy.com... http://totalplaystation.com... These are looking good especially for PS2 PC could do better, but not I wasn't playing many games on PC then... Here's a picture of a game I used to own for PC. http://topfullgames.com/wp-... Budgets make a difference and PS2 is where developers were spending the big bucks.
Who cares? Can I just play some fun games?
I thought many gamers were prioritising native 4K and locked 60fps for next gen consoles?
Yeah, that is what I hope. And actually would be fine with 30fps with a high quality post-processing and motion blur and super even frame-time.
I agree. Not every game needs to be 60fps.
Not really bothered. Love great graphics but also love great artistic representation. Ultimately it's gameplay that's important
They shouldn't release another console for at least 5 years.
Most console generations deliver at least a 10x+ increase in computational horsepower, at least on the GPU side of things. Assuming it's still apples to apples (FLOPS aren't everything you know), 10 TFLOPS would be a little over 2X the processing power of a PS4 Pro. That, combined with the already massive problem of diminishing returns, means games probably wouldn't take a massive visual leap forward. Sad, but that's probably the truth. The real improvement would be on the CPU side of things (animation, AI, physics, mechanical systems).
PS5 550.00 what im feeling it'll be.. i believe Sony's going to increase the Gap like the PS2 to they PS3 this time around
No idea how you're feeling that at this moment in time. Kinda like feeling that the Galaxy S12 or S13 will be 550 in 4-5 years time because of diminishing returns and cheaper components...
Hahahahaha, no. Well, look, photorealism isnt the issue, its photorealism + being interactive. We have a bit to go yet.
You guys should really read the article. It is pretty interesting, and many of you are saying things that are stated within.
Wasn't someone in the industry recently quoted as saying it would take 40 tflops?
I don't recall seeing that in my travels, but I wouldn't be shocked if the equivalent of 40TFlops using current gen architecture is needed to get there with real time rendering, newer architectures may be able to knock a quarter to half those requirements off of what is really needed. It also depends on every other part of the overall system, if you can't feed the system fast enough, then you're just wasting available GPU time. There's also the resolution factor, which eats tonnes of resources.
It's quoted in the article. You should really read it. It's pretty interesting.
No a ps5 wouldn't, but an Xbox 2 would. Maybe you people should wait and see what Sony does instead of wishing on a star.
Well I guess we can all agree that the X won't provide that. No point in buying it, may as well wait I guess.
Bigfappy trolling again. Must have nothing better to do.