Ignore

Fine. The response is as follows.

What if a game on the PS4 is built completely in FP16 or double precision? Your flops as you state them aren't an accurate representation as it is not being used.

Not to mention that you excluded the Render Output Pipelines, Texture Mapping Units, Geometry units, Caches, various fixed-function units, Bandwidth and Memory amount... They all play a role at running a game at a higher resolution you know.

Not to mention that AMD and nVidia engineer their GPU's so that the performance hit from running at a higher resolution tends not to be a linear decrease, so you cannot just double your flops and expect double the resolution.

So I shall ask again, Can you explain to me how your flops is somehow tied to a specific resolution?

Do you have any reason to believe that, or is it just a gut feeling?

If Drive Club can run at 60 fps with a few less cars and toned down weather in VR at 1.84tf, why would more than double that not be enough for native 90fps with all effects.

Scorpio will need more power since, although Occulus Rift and Vive have fewer subpixels, (pentile displays) they do have higher greyscale resolution, 1.25 times. Plus those two run at 90hz. Reprojecting 45fps is a bit on the low side, no choice but to always render at 90fps native while psvr has the choice between 60 reprojected to 120, 90 and 120 native.

Simplified math makes a 90fps OR game 1.25 pixels x 1.5 frames more work to render than a 60fps psvr game. or 7.9tf vs 4.2tf
It's not a straight equation in reality ofcourse yet it seems the pro actually has more room for better assets due to how psvr is engineered to work.

No one said X flops is tied to a specific resolution, I think thats your own asserstion. I made a generic statement regarding Scorpio's 6Tflops of compute power being drained by native 4k resolution demands & not leaving a lot of room to accomodate whatever PS5 sets as the graphical standards. If you just wanted to say flops alone are not a linear and accurate portrayal of a system capabilities, you could've saved a lot of time lol. Its called laymen. No one component will give you an accurate depiction of a systems performance benchmarks, but to pretend a zero correlation between AMD flops and the surrouding GPU components and overall performance, seems a bit disingenious, no? I mean even with more efficient achitecture Vega will offer over polaris, where are Scorpio's known specs going to offer a highly disproportionate difference suggested by the 30-40% tflop difference between it and Neo? Extrapolating on Teraflops performance here seems logical. 

I think the point you are missing is that not all "flops" are created equal.

For instance... Polaris derived Radeon 480 has roughly 5 Teraflops of single precision floating point performance...
The Pascal derived Geforce 1060 however has roughly 3.8 Teraflops of single precision floating point performance...

Guess which is faster in the majority of today's games, even at higher resolutions? The Geforce is.

If you were to compare the Radeon 5870 at 2.7 Teraflops, you will get less performance than a Radeon 7870 at 1.8 Teraflops.

Take the Radeon 390 and compare it to the Radeon 480, the 480 has slightly more "Flops" and a newer GPU architecture (GCN 4.0 vs GCN 2.0) the Radeon 390 is often faster, especially at higher resolutions.

As for your claim of Vega being more efficient than Polaris, do you have a source to back that up? As far as we know, Vega is derived from the same architecture as Polaris, which is Graphics Core Next 4.0.

So no. Extrapolating anything based on flops is far from logical, we could be looking at vastly different GPU's in the way they are laid out and that means different performance characteristics or we could be looking at identical parts but with differing clock rates.


Because... And I quote:

You seem to be under the assumption you can assign flops in some manner to bolster resolution?

But I shall throw my question out a 3rd time, Can you explain to me how your flops is somehow tied to a specific resolution?

all this talk on the internet about resolution, fps, people discuss with each other how different games are if they have 10000001 pixels instead of 10000000 and I'm here, playing ff9 for the first time on my ps1 and get blown away because how awesome it looks.

To be fair Final Fantasy 9 looked amazing back in the day. Same wen't for Final Fantasy 8... Looked even better on PC though. :P

More on the Gut feeling but we will see.  I would love to try Drive Club in VR to see the difference between the regular game and how smooth it is.  From some videos I have seen it runs and looks good so you may be correct in your analysis.