tldr bigger focus on upscaling and data compression, which seems to be what everybody else is doing too
More expensive hardware for shittier graphics. Got it.
Yeah, not sure if “use upscaling, raytracing and compress a little more” counts as “rethinking”
I think calculating the rays in a different way does constitute as rethinking the pipeline, especially when we consider that path tracing is one of the most computationally heavy processes in computer graphics. In fact path tracing is so heavy we don’t even do full path tracing (as in we don’t calculate all the possible rays), we essentially cheat by calculating a handful of rays and then sending it through a denoiser (which is why it takes a second to calculate the shadow of your character). There’s a lot of performance to be found in raytracing and if they’ve found some then that’s a pretty big deal.
I do know all of this, it’s just dedicated hardware for a step we’re currently simulating in shaders. Dedicated hardware that if I’m not mistaken exists on NVIDIA graphics cards already.
That’s an added capability, not a rethinking. But it will enable raytracing in a way that is far less expensive.
Again? Didn’t they learn with the PS3?
The PS3 was revolutionary just difficult to shift to programming.
That said a industry in saturated to declining stages of life should probably not make their product less accessible to those giving it value.
Everyone still tried to make it work on PS3, I cant imagine that drive will be there for the ps6 era.
The PS3 was the last ‘great’ console from Sony before their wholesale switch to PC architecture with a custom software layer.
I choose to die on this hill. 😅
Ps4 and ps5 are not pc architectures though. It has a x86/x64 cpu, yes, but that doesnt make it pc architecture. Afaik the ps4/5 does not have a bios, pch, ddr ram controller etc etc
Every modern bootable device has a BIOS, as they are required for hardware initialisation before handover to an OS - which for the PS4 is called Orbis OS, and is based off FreeBSD 9. Which is a UNIX OS for desktop PCs.
While the PS4 does have a unified memory interface, which is very rare for common desktop PCs - they do exist, such as every single Apple Silicon Mac.
The PS4 and PS5 are just a very heavily locked down PCs, featuring AMD APUs not too dissimilar to what can be found in Ryzen notebooks, Steam Deck or ROG Ally, running proprietary operating systems with heavy encryption to try and prevent 1:1 emulation (think Hackintosh).
Youre thinking of bootrom. Embedded devices use bootroms because they dont need the flexability of a bios. It means that on power on, the cpu is powered on and its bootrom starts running code thats burned inside the cpu.
This is different from a bios, that is code separate from the cpu and tells the cpu what to execute and where in memory it is.
The os has nothing to do with bios too. Bios has to do with how the system powers up and starts the cpu, not the os and related stuff.Literal dictionary definition of a BIOS:
Note the part regarding enabling a computer to start the OS. But regardless, this point is largely moot as we are just arguing semantics.
No the PS4 doesn’t run a PC-style AMI/Phoenix BIOS, but instead a secure chain of Boot ROM to bootloaders - however, so do Macs, which are PCs.
Dumps of these console boot ROMs and loaders - at least in emulation circles - tend to be colloquially referred to as a BIOS, as it constitutes a System that handles Basic Input and Output.
It even putting this one point aside, it runs an AMD-designed x86-64 APU, that was available to purchase for PCs (AM1 socket) albeit with a reduced power GPU.
It runs GDDR5 unified memory like a modern iMac, or Steam Deck.
It natively runs a UNIX-derived OS, again like an iMac, or Linux on the Steam Deck.
Let’s just face facts, the PS4 & 5 are just iMacs in drag 😉
It’s my understanding that the ps4 (and presumably the ps5) use bsd as a base operating system. BIOS or no, it’s a Unix system running on an x86_64 architecture.
Sure, but the wii’s coprocessor’s os was also unix/bsd based and that was nowhere near pc hardware. Actually, a few embedded devices (cheap routers, cheap toys,… ) use bsd (while they should run linux hehe) and are nowhere near pc architecture :p.
What makes a pc a pc is the actual hardware layout, hardware connections internally and how it boots. Im looking deep into ps4 and i can see why people call it a pc, but its a huge misnomer. If a ps4 is a pc, a raspberry pi( or any random sbc ) is also a pc because it has a usb or sata controller, cpu and pci bus while it has no pch/fch, no pc bios (which i can accept to not be relevant) or any of the pc hardware you cant think off ( spoiler, its a lot more ).
Hell, pc’s dont even have a southbridge anymore. We have the pch which is directly connected to the cpu over a bus that is nowhere near the old northbridge/southbridge design…
If this is the case, then we can throw out many things that actually are computers as well, including anything that isn’t strictly a desktop matching very specific parameters - systems like Fugaku (arm with a hybrid os) or Frontier don’t count because of their slingshot network etc etc.
It just feels like a slippery slope to start discounting things like this.
Fugaku is not a pc. Its a computer, but not a pc. Its a supercomputer :)
Its a slippery slope, yes, but its one that separates a personal computer from any other device that just happens to compute something.
I get the point though, what makes the arm ampere system a pc and the phone in your hand not? It both has a arm cpu and hardware connections after all :)
Same arguments count towards the playstation or other consoles
It absolutely was, but thats in spite of choosing to launch it on an immature architecture with no developer tooling, not because of it. Imagine what it could have been if it wasn’t so hard to use!
We don’t even need to imagine, necessarily! The quality of games released towards the tail-end of its life cycle speaks volumes: Uncharted 2&3, The Last of Us, God of War 3, Metal Gear Solid 4 etc.
I don’t think there was anything actually wrong with the architecture per se, but rather just the lack of proper documentation and tools set potential developers back significantly.
It was definitely hubris on Sony’s part, thinking that they could do whatever they wanted given the prior success of both the PlayStation and PS2 consoles prior.
Those PS3 launch stumbles definitely were a wake-up call, however I do believe that because it was largely the US/Western arm of SCEI that lead the ‘rescue’ - they ended up wrestling control away from the JP arm, ultimately causing the PS4/5 to end up so risk adverse and largely unremarkable as a result.
Great, more blurry textures.
Ugh games of this era are gonna age like milk with this forced upscaling shite
Forced upscaling and blurry TAA is compensating for the fact that they can’t push graphics much further on the hardware we have. The current hardware progression has stagnated, combined with the fact that we are seeing more diminishing returns in graphics as they improve, requiring more power to deliver less of a noticeable difference.
But it doesn’t mean these games won’t look great when you disable the fakeness and run it with brute force GPU power 10 years from now.
I honestly think the current graphics we can achive are fine and where the true improvements should come from are better animation and actually good art direction.
I think the primary reason for the GPU stagnation has been the AI / GPU compute bubble over the past 5 years.
So much on-die space has been diverted away from raw rasterisation power towards CUDA, that it has artificially held back GPU progress.
When we do see the current AI bubble burst (and it does feel like we’re fast approaching that point, due to all the recent incestuous business dealings), hopefully we can see some innovation return to the sector.
Pc gaming can achieve 1080p@120 or more without much effort…
I’m no expert on the matter, but I know this yt channel argues that the technology is already available. The thing is, big players like unreal engine devs make sub-optimal decisions when implementing these new features, leaving a lot of games being blurry and/or mal-ajusted simply by not knowing any better. Of course, art direction will always be important for a games graphics, but when the vast majority of tools available make things look bad by default, it makes sense that people will assume a better result is just not available yet.
That’s the guy who’s asking for a million dollars to “fix” unreal engine 5 despite having 0 programming experience and sends out dcma strikes for any videos that call him out on it, lol
Idk his render pipeline breakdown videos seem fairly in-depth. Is it just mumbo-jumbo? I saw some discussion where some devs seemed to acknowledge the perspective but say basically past 10 years of graphics make non-deferred render pipelines utterly unfeasible and thus MSAA, not to mention the issues that TAA “solves” like particularly fine geometry (see guitar strings in TLOUpt.2) or shimmering on stuff that can’t be optimized e.g. hair.
Frankly though I think in practice the difference between graphics in 2015 and 2025 is negligible compared to the difference between TAA (or DLAA/FSR/XeSS/FXAA/SMAA) and x4 MSAA. The only that comes even close is Path Tracing in CP2077.
I agree he seems like a sketchy af grifter, but I’ve not seen a single good rebuttal of his actual points, and even if he was a grifter, that doesn’t invalidate what he’s saying.
That Half-Life Alyx render in flatscreen with MSAA looks better than practically any game I’ve seen.
We don’t even need better graphics. What they’re capable of now is already more than we really need.
I want better/easier tools available for devs.
I just want better games, that arent focused on turned me into a cash generator for piece of shit companies. I just want to have fun again.
Ps6 will have 2 games, Ps7 will have one game, by the Ps7 there will be no games.
