1000°

Rise of the Tomb Raider 4K Screenshot Comparison: Native Maxed PC vs PS4Pro

After the PS4 Pro announcement, it's time to compare Rise of the Tomb Raider 4K running on a native PC with maxed settings and on the new console.

Read Full Story >>
wccftech.com
KaiPow3169d ago

It's still quite impressive running on a machine that costs less than just a solid GPU.

Alexious3169d ago

Absolutely. There are differences, but they're fairly minor and probably hard to notice during gameplay.

Though a powerful enough PC could run it at 60FPS or more, while PS4 Pro will be limited at 30.

Eonjay3169d ago

Yeah it looks fantastic but lets be serious about the cost of a 'powerful enough PC'. Its weird because you would hear about PC gamers playing in 4k but I don't think anyone really was able to understand the cost of achieving this res at 60 FPS. So then this machine, the Pro, even upscaling with this much fidelity at 4k for $399 is unbelievable.

starrman19853169d ago (Edited 3169d ago )

I'd say they are actually quite noticeable, but as KaiPow said - you're spending a LOT more to get a PC up to those visuals.

For the disagrees - I get that they both look great, but look at the blood textures on her arm, they look much flatter on the PS4 Pro. The textures on the artefact type thing on the right, where the light reflects off, you can see a lot more of the texture. The dynamic range of the lighting down her arm (that might be different monitor settings though) also the colours look a lot richer, but again that could be monitor settings. I just think the differences are definitely noticeable but I'm not trying to discredit the Pro. If someone said to me you can get game quality like the left image for £350 and quality like the right for £1200 - I'd take the left.

2pacalypsenow3169d ago (Edited 3169d ago )

To run this game at a solid 60fps in 4k Maxed out you would need 2 1080 SLI that's over $1200 just in video cards. I think the majority of gamers will be fine with 30fps for $399

MadLad3169d ago

@2pacalypsenow

It really depends on where your standards lie.
I honestly can't stand gaming at 30fps.

I know people claim it's just fine and that it's perfectly playable ...
But that's just it ... it's just "playable".

Lowest common denominator doesn't work for me anymore.

Erik73573169d ago (Edited 3169d ago )

You can't even truly see the differences though how can you say that?4k native will blow you away if your were seeing it in action on pc for a game like this. Everything is unbelievably sharp and you can see things from like a mile away it's crazy.

3169d ago
Tech53169d ago

GTX 1060 Ultra settings (including Textures) 1440p uncapped performance.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

$259.99 GPU

Unspoken3169d ago

30 fps is last gen. Actually it was the gen before that. We used to have 60 fps games when CRT and tube television was the norm. Then 3D hit main stream and we accepted the lowest minimum standard to be playable.

We need to push hardware engineers and devs to hit the 60 fps sweet spot. We still have a ways to go before we see fluid gameplay at 120hz and 144hz but if we keep accepting the cinematic experience of the weaker hardware with no way to adjust it to achieve higher frame rates, then it will continue to look like a slide show that is just barely playable.

At $399, this is the sweet spot for midrange all in one compromise though I'd rather spend a couple extra hundred on an upgradable machine and play at any resolution and settings I choose. Paying 800 to 1K+ isn't reasonable but the modular design of the PC is what allows it to be attractive because you can spread the cost out as well as the ownership.

You can now attain ridiculously low power number's in small form factor PCs, and that trickles down to consoles, but at what cost. As consumers, let's get that 60 fps box checked so we can push other boundries.

Death3169d ago

It's ironic to see some people that still refuse to believe games upscaled from 900p to 1080p count, yet they absolutely believe upscaling from 1080p to 4K is a viable option.

If you are a PC gamer looking to game in native 4K, the GTX1070 is a great card for the cost of a PS4 Pro. I don't see many PC gamers jumping to a console for the same price as a midline GPU today. Keep in mind new GPU's released annually and the performance increase is huge. I'm not sure the theoretical PC gamers on a console budget exist. PC gaming is a completely different animal.

XanderZane3168d ago

@bruce755
Yes, but this is upscaled 4K running at 30fs. On PC it would be native 4K running at 30 or 60fps. XBox One upscaled all their games that weren't 1080P to 1080P and they looked beautiful as well. Yet fanboys screamed they weren't native 1080P and didn't look as good. The same could be said for this game as well. It won't look or run as good as a native 4K version. This is the cheap way of doing 4K on game consoles, even though it works. I just find it funny that everyone is now "accepting upscaling resolution" now that it's on the PS4. No one was accepting it on the XB1 however. So many hypocrites.

Yes, the game still looks great, but it's been said many times, before it was on the PS4. Without any upscaling.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3168d ago
MadLad3169d ago (Edited 3169d ago )

There are GPU's in the 200 - 250 range that hugely outperform today's consoles.
Yes, that's only one part. And yes, to build a modern gaming PC is more expensive than to simply purchase a console; at least when you're talking purely the cost of the hardware itself.
But let's be real here. We are long past the days where you need a $400+ GPU to be handling high performance gaming.

Scatpants3169d ago

$250 cards would struggle at 4k

Bladesfist3168d ago

@Scatpants So will the PS4 Pro and the Scorpio and High End GPUs. Everything struggles at 4k.

MadLad3168d ago

@Scatpants

I said literally nothing about 4K. I said that cards between 200 - $250 seriously outperform consoles in today's market. Why should we bring 4K into a comparison of consoles that sometimes don't even hit 1080p?

Erik73573169d ago (Edited 3169d ago )

To me its not impressive. To me it's just "you get what you pay for".

Even then this image does not do justice with just how amazing native 4k looks.

Hoffmann3169d ago

You have folders on a pc tho :P

mark3214uk3169d ago

question is, is that 1080p up scaled to 2160p or 1440p up scaled to 2160p?

either way that rendering algorithm there using is amazing to make it look pretty much the same as native 4k

3169d ago
kaizokuspy3169d ago

All I see in native is slightly better blood, rocks in the back look a tad sharper, lighting is slightly more luminescent, and obviously more foliage. Coming from someone who knows nothing about 4k, or pc gaming, ps4 pro still looks pretty amazing to me. I can't denied native looks better, but still, I'm impressed considering just 2 years ago I was still only using an x360 before getting a ps4

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3168d ago
Imp0ssibl33169d ago

PS4 Pro is a beast. Yes, Scorpio will be more powerful...Of course, it launches a year later.
I want to play games on my 4K HDR TV now.

SweatyFlorida3169d ago (Edited 3169d ago )

You're exactly who they are targeting. It's weird people saying "what's the point of this console", it's quite literally a (relatively) cheap option that can run games better and make them look good in 4k/hdr displays, all while still providing a sizeable benefit for 1080p owners with enhanced graphics/fps. All before the holidays of THIS YEAR.

People expecting the console to render all games natively at 4k, yet still cost $399, are delusional. But as we've already seen, it will have some games that can do natively, maybe not the biggest and newest blockbusters, but I can expect some nice looking indies or smaller titles (among a few outliers like remasters) being native 4k for crisp graphics and color.

respekanize913169d ago

paddling in the same boat with you my friend...OG PS4 off to the bedroom you go.

boodi3168d ago

@impossible
'nuf said

3168d ago
Aurenar3169d ago

Crystal Dynamics works very well. But I will play in my PS4 "standard". I'm not a Pro :p

ftwrthtx3169d ago

But how will next weeks update with HDR support for the current PS4's improve the graphics? If Sony made it look too good, they may have shot themselves in the foot.

starrman19853169d ago

HDR doesn't really improve the graphics as such, it's more the colours. You get a much higher dynamic range, so blacks will be blacker, things like sun rises etc will look beautiful because you'll see things how your eyes might rather than a lens.

Alexious3169d ago

It will only work for those who have an HDR display, anyway.

Tobsesan3169d ago

It won't even work on the standard PS4 how its supposed to. For the HDR 10 you need HDMI 2.0 to get its full potential.

Christopher3169d ago

The HDR patch will probably only affect 1% of PS4 owners now. And, then, not that much. It's like getting that free air freshener when you go to get your car washed. It's nice, but you were there to get a car washed primarily and that air freshener will be dead in a few days.

Roronoa04113169d ago

the downplaying is amazing…I guess its pointless to get an XB1S right now because 4K and HDR will only effect the 1%… got it.

Christopher3169d ago

@roronoa0411: If that's the only reason, yes. Mass majority of people don't have 4k TVs/monitors, let alone HDR capable ones. The selling point of this by both companies is ahead of itself.

Xb1ps43168d ago (Edited 3168d ago )

The mass don't own lamberginis either so I guess they should just stop making them...

This whole mentality of "I'm not ready" so everyone needs to wait needs to stop.. why shouldn't I be able to game in 4k because you don't have a 4k tv!?!?

And I'll take that free air freshener... thank you very much...

You see it as sony and ms as being ahead of itself and I see it as you're behind screaming and yelling wait for me, I'm not ready....

Christopher3168d ago (Edited 3168d ago )

***The mass don't own lamberginis either so I guess they should just stop making them... ***

And how many Lambergini commercials do you see compared to the marketing of HDR? The point here isn't if it should be there, the point is if it should be a key marketing point when it doesn't affect that many people.

***You see it as sony and ms as being ahead of itself and I see it as you're behind screaming and yelling wait for me, I'm not ready....***

No, I see it as them marketing something to people who don't have it yet and likely won't for about 5 year instead of other features that they do have and can be utilized now.

Xb1ps43168d ago

No the point here is the technology is moving forward... And it shouldn't stop because it's only going to serve 1% of the ppl at the moment.. And the point of marketing is to try and Convince ppl to move on to new technolog, now if you can afford it or not is a whole different story and my point is the ppl that can afford it should not be held back.

So you are basically saying... Screw us that have 4K tv with hdr because you won't get one for another 5 yrs, kind of selfish don't you think? Especially when you consider the fact that 4K tv is getting more affordable in a rapid pace much quicker than when hd was introduced...

And by the way HDR iS not the oonly selling point. if what you have is a 1080p tv you will see benefits too and if it's not enough of a benefit for you then wait those 5 yrs I'm sure we will at least hear something about a ps5 by the..

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3168d ago
StormLegend3169d ago (Edited 3169d ago )

The rock wall looks more detailed on the PS4 Pro. Lara has more blood on the PC version.

starrman19853169d ago

If you mean the one in the distance, that's just the depth of field setting, it's probably toned down for the Pro - which to be honest I don't know why as it it uses up very little resources!

Maxor3168d ago

Because it's the PC that image will have more blood/details regardless of what resolution it is. There will be more blood even it's in 1080p or even 900p. The 4K comparison here is pointless. The PC uses superior lighting and shaders to achieve a better image quality that the PS4 simply do not have the horse power to push.

The point this shit site was trying to make is the comparison between upscaled and native 4K. A task they failed miserably at.

Show all comments (105)
200°

30 Years Ago, Sega Took Its Biggest Gamble With Saturn And Failed

"That’s not how you launch a system".

Read Full Story >>
timeextension.com
1d 5h ago
thorstein1d 15h ago

The Dreamcast was the biggest gamble and way ahead of its time.

OtterX1d 15h ago

I wish we lived in the Alternate Timeline where Sega was still a dominant force in the console space and it hadn't been Microsoft.

Deeeeznuuuts13h ago

I've always said this, would much prefer SEGA, such a shame.

blacktiger6h ago

this was all part of the plan to give Microsoft the spot

chicken_in_the_corn6h ago

Would be interesting to see what they would do for a modern console.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 6h ago
darthv721d 13h ago

Saturn was a fantastic piece of kit... they just went a little too ambitious with its dual CPU setup. which turned a lot of developers off (at the time). The homebrew community have done some amazing work many years later, thanks to multichip experience. It is still the best platform for arcade fighters and shmups of all time. Dreamcast is a close 2nd though.

Profchaos1d 2h ago

Yeah it was a interesting decision especially when looking at how dual CPU is considered a root cause of why the Jaguar was a failure.

Also the hardware rendered four sided polygons where the standard was three if they kept with triangle polygons I feel the systems development would have been easier to work with and we would have seen more third party ports in the west.

I think it was a victim of its time more than anything it saw huge success in Japan but the leadership and internal turmoil in the west meant games were not getting localised along with a focus on arcade like games were the PlayStation and later the N64 were pushing more in depth experiences over coin munching high score driven games.

Knightofelemia1d 11h ago

I still enjoy my Saturn it was the first console I mowed lawns for and saved up for to purchase. I went so far as to purchase a used Saturn to run off an SD card. I even have a second Dreamcast modded to run off an SD card as well.

Show all comments (26)
70°

NES Games That Hold Up Brilliantly

Unlike most SNL special guests from the 00s, a lot of NES games just do not age.

Read Full Story >>
culturedvultures.com
90°

How Sony Fixed Their PS3 Launch Mistakes

This is the story of how the creators of the all-time best selling console almost crippled its own successor’s early life.

Read Full Story >>
culturedvultures.com
ABizzel13d ago

They retired Ken Kutaragi, moved away from overly expensive custom hardware, and went with more traditional hardware available to the market and listened to developer needs.

Profchaos2d ago

It's true but also PlayStation publicly came out and stated third party wasn't important to them.

ironic that what worked for them the previous generation caused them significant pain in the subsequent one.

The PS2 was actually a significant challenge to develop for far worse than the PS1 ever was but the competition at the time was struggling so much they couldn't make up the ground Dreamcast had a stigma of being a last gen console by the time the PS2 came around and looked inferior compared to games like grab Turismo 3, the GameCube and Xbox were still a ways away and PlayStation had the reputation as being the place to play it was a perfect storm for them and the GTA games not coming to Dreamcast and Sony's embrace really helped.

Third party basically drove PlayStation yi success over more capable consoles Xbox may have looked better at the time but it didn't have GTA 3, vc, Sa or the stories games the mainline entries didn't hit the Xbox until many years after being on PlayStation.

Then the PS3 with it's cell architecture ramped it up again and just hurt Devs they didn't focus on the GPU as much as they should have and they didn't realise their deals they made with IBM could have resulted in the cell architecture being shared with Microsoft which it was and it did help them develop the 360

But really the 90s and 2000s were a wild time for game consoles now it's a little boring it's all off the shelf components and everything is mostly the same

gunnerforlife2d ago

After losing so many 3rd party exclusives, they buckled down and concentrated on amazing first party games! God of war 3, Killzone 2, resistance, uncharted, the last of us, MgS4, little big planet, demon souls and so many more games!! They won the gamers back by playing smart! Even though the media and all big gaming websites from ign, gamespot, kotaku etc were all against it!! I had fun with ps2, but it's ps3 where I really grew up and had the time of my life.

BlackCountryBob1d 21h ago

It’s weird to look back on how even today the games media narrative was stuck in 2006 to say it was overpriced and had no games which was outsold by 360 (all incorrect).

In many ways, it’s similar to how the Xbox One was never really able to move past the launch even though after a year or so it was an entirely different proposition (but Microsoft didn’t do nearly as good a job as Sony did to recover IMO).

gunnerforlife1d 3h ago

I'm glad it received the hate from western media! It humbled them quite a lot and forced them to buckle down and concentrate where it mattered most! Games games games!! And they learned a lot from their mistakes with ps3 and they made one of the greatest consoles ever in ps4!!

So true! Where Sony realised their mistakes and corrected everything, MS were either too arrogant to change course or just didn't have the tools/capabilities to correct course and get back to basics! Games games games! Which is sad because with no rival, Sony this generation has stagnated a lot!! This generation is a write off in my books!!!

OhReginald1d 16h ago

I was committed to that whole generation. What turned Ps3 around from being a failure to a success was in 2009 with the releases of the first ps3 slim model with a cheaper price tag, the kevin butler marketing campaign, and a ton of 1st party AAA games that were critically acclaimed and loved by the fans like Uncharted 2 (this was a bigger deal than the first game), Killzone 2 (91 on metacritic), inFamous, LittleBigPlanet (a serious threat to mario at the time), Demon's Souls( it was very niche but the word of mouth and gamespots goty award helped it and helped ps3). The big game everyone that bought a ps3 was waiting for was mgs4 in 2008 and GT5 in 2010. Anyways I think the ps3 was way ahead of its time with the games I mentioned above and breakout hits like the last of us.