nVidia's Teraflops isn't representative of AMD's Teraflops.

Nor is it representative of any kind of rendering resolution.

I disagree.

Competition is a great thing... And Microsoft has pushed innovation in the console market, which cannot be understated, many of the features you enjoy on <insert console here> was thanks to Microsoft pushing it.

Have they been perfect? Heck no. But you cannot understate the positive influence they have done for the entire market... Without them, the PS4 might have cost $1000 and Sony might have told you to get another job to pay for it.

And the same works in reverse as well, Sony and Nintendo have been extremely positive influences on the entire market and helped drive innovation, without them it wouldn't be where it is today.

I'm not suggesting anyone to stop paying for PS+? And you are side-stepping half the issue here anyway, the fact it can be seen as a negative and it does have negative aspects. (Money is better in our pockets at the end of the day.)

But you know, not everyone is in the same financial position as us and has the disposable income either.

If u wanna simulate and imagine the look of HDR, just look at this image

and now imagine looking at it IRL

so bright u could barely look, thats HDR

A damn shame Forza Horizon 3 doesnt have HDR on PC though, just got the game for $20 for my living room pc, hopefully it's patched in sometime.

The settings on that Gears 4 demo are set to Ultra at 15:55, that's not 1:1 indeed

The PS4 Pro can do Native 4K as well. The problem is what do you have to sacrifice to make it do native, thats the same as the Scorpio as well, they'll have to make the games at 30FPs only and obviously scale back some stuff, because otherwise its wont be able to do native easily, because even 6TF isnt really enough to do native on *all* games.

This whole thing about ps plus being a negative is hilarious to me. I've subbed to the service since they launched it and when it was optional. It's the ultimate service of it's type. A must for gamers who want to play a wide variety of games at little cost.

4k/very high resolution > anti-aliasing; high texture detail; extra lighting/shadow effects... always!!!

A lot depends on texture detail and added effects, they use a lot of horsepower.

Just so we are clear... You do understand the difference between HDR lighting in-engine and HDR supported by a display, right?
Games started using HDR over a decade ago.

I'm assuming upscaled 4K, not powerful enough for native 4K, for AAA games that is.

And images with native 4k and built from the scratch with these PP effects in mind look a lot better than this, which is quite something. I does look fantastic for a console, I' actually considering getting a Pro, I'll finally have some more use of my new TV then, even if it's only upscaled.

I'm not sure why you're asking me that question, but yes I do. And no, FH3 PC version doesn't have HDR function. A massive oversight considering people will use it on 4k hdr tv's. HDR being in Half life 2(like the only game before) was pretty useless when you don't have a display that can show HDR. It was just a fancy name for a lighting effect and adjusted colors, you can see what it did on a SDR screen. But you can't see the expanded colors of HDR on a SDR screen.

The only notable difference is actually the sounds of people being blown away like the video in the OP...