Nope Sony was pretty straightforward Pro is for better resolution and not for FPS. The only games running in 60fps on the pro are games thst can run in 60fps on base PS4.

  I read somewhere that the Switch would be able to run the the introduction to Destiny 2 at a targeted frame rate of 10 frames per second

The CPU from the pro is very weak so it struggles with many games.

KingofTrolls said: Mummelmann said: I remember when the PS3 was going to be 1080p and 60fps. Good times! Ridge racer 7 says hello ! xD

It's Ridge Racer! Riiiiiidge Racer!

What are you on? if you know just a little about hardware specs, you are in denial here, it's Nvidia Tegra architecture a chip from 2015 vs a jaguar from 2013 just in architecture the jaguar is a dinosaur, now the Tegra has 34.200 dmips and the dinosaur jaguar on the ps4 is 38.000 dmips but just from the architecture alone the tegra has better real performance and don't forget we are talking about an Nvidia chip vs a AMD, the real performace is always one half  better on Nvidia it's the way it always has been so there you have in real performance the NS chip is better even than the one on the pspro.

Too funny! It seems someone here is getting a little S.T.A.G.E FRIGHT at the prospect that the PS4 Pro will no longer be the most powerful console on the market in the coming months.  Come on mate... this thread has even nothing to do with Microsoft or Xbox. 

Battlefield 1 on Pro still frequently drops into the 40s though. Also, the processing load isn't quite the same as, correct me if I'm wrong, but BF1 isn't running lots of enemy AI in multiplayer like Destiny does.

Well if Destiny 2 has the same level of AI as Destiny 1 did, then the claim that it's consuming a lot of resources is laughable.  The AI in Destiny was very basic. 

Also if AI is the big draw on resources, the 4v4 should run at 60, rock solid.  That it doesn't is purely a (stupid) design choice. 

It's pretty standard for a game to run at 30fps even in situations where it could go higher; for example, Uncharted or Zelda stay at 30fps even when running down an empty corridor where the renderer could hit 60fps if it was allowed to.

They were dated when they were first included in the Xbox One and Playstation 4. :P

A modern Intel Atom with an out-of-order pipeline wipes the floor with Jaguar.

8-core Jaguar isn't weaker than Cell.

The Cell had atrocious integer performance.
And it's floating point capabilities only really shone through when doing iterative refinement. It never achieved any of it's theoretical capabilities, because... Well. It couldn't.

As you are aware game engines use a multitude of different math, it's not always going to be floating point and it certainly isn't always going to be iterative refinement, floating point.

Besides, the proof is in the games, Cell couldn't handle 64 player battlefield with all the physics and destruction, particles, reflections etc'. But Jaguar certainly can.

The Xbox 360's CPU was also nothing to write home about.
Cell and Xenon were in-order designs, just like the first generation Intel Atom.
They had minimal caches, terrible branch tree prediction, caching, prefetching, you name it... And then they used clockrates to make up for those shortfalls.

PowerPC certainly has some advantages over x86, it's generally a wider CPU architecture for starters with a heap more threads.
But it's still not going to beat a good x86 architecture, IBM hasn't the R&D of Intel remember.

The Cell and Xenon were cost sensitive designs from the outset, meant to be cheap to manufacture to fit into a cost-sensitive box... And they fit that brief extremely well. But a Core i5/i7 they are not.

Jaguar is an evolution of Bobcat.

Bobcat was able to beat Atom at it's own game, especially in lightly threaded tasks where the superior single threaded performance could shine.
Atom still won in multi-threaded scenario's thanks to Hyper Threading.

However, starting with Silvermont Intel took the Atom processor Out-of-Order, it was still only a 2-issue wide CPU architecture, but at that point it had fixed it's single threaded deficit when compared to AMD.

To put things into perspective though, we need to remember that Jaguar was the worst CPU in AMD's entire CPU lineup, with the high-end being the FX chips, which were also the worst CPU's on the market when compared to Intel.

The Cell was nothing to write home about either.

No console has really taken CPU performance seriously, most of the budget gets sunk into the GPU or gimmicks or both.

Hopefully the Playstation 5 does go with an APU, it keeps costs low, performance high for the dollar. Just hopefully the CPU doesn't end up as an afterthought, I would like to see next-gen physics already. :P

There are a few games where the Xbox One actually has better performance than the Playstation 4 version. Mostly that's chalked up to the superior CPU.

Take Battlefield 1 for instance, with drops into the mid-30's on the Playstation 4, The Xbox One I find is a more enjoyable platform to play that game on, despite it's lower framerate.

Both pale in comparison to a decent PC of course.

Anti-Aliasing should never be skimped on.

Some effects are CPU heavy though. So it can help to remove a CPU bottleneck.

The Switch's CPU clockrate is hampered at only 1Ghz. - Jaguar also has twice the cores to play with for games. Ergo it will win overall, regardless of any edge that A57 generally has architecturally.