By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Why does PS4 Pro not have an option for 60fps?

 

Which do you prefer for Pro?

1080p60fps with a lot better graphics 118 81.38%
 
2K60fps with better graphics 12 8.28%
 
4K30fps upscaled with better graphics 7 4.83%
 
4K60fps upscaled with similar graphics 8 5.52%
 
Total:145
OttoniBastos on 09 September 2016
Slimebeast said:
OttoniBastos said:

Depends of the algorithmic complexity of the task, but even if we assume that is always just linear,double the framerate -> double the amount of data  to process on the cpu in the same time frame,thus,double the clock is needed(assuming the IPC is the same of course)

This is not correct.

It depends on the type of tasks.

Graphics, such as painting the geometry, shaders and polygons are heavily GPU dependent. A twice as fast GPU can render images roughly twice as fast, but the increased amount of draw calls required to do that by the CPU only increases the CPU load by 10% or so in a typical graphics intensive game, because most of the CPU tasks remain unchanged, such as calculations for AI, physics, scripts, user input etc.

So the PS4 Pro is perfectly balanced if the games remain within the same generation so to speak. It's designed so that you can double the framerate or resolution or other tasks that the GPU handles such as better lighting, anti-aliasing, filtering, shadows, post processing visual effects, but not for more complex physics (think Battlefield and it's destruction, which is calculated by the CPU) or AI and world systems (think all the behaviour, interaction and position of units in an RTS, or all the world simulation, stats and items that are handled by the CPU in Skyrim).

We were talking about CPU tasks specifically.What you said about GPU task is right just not what we were talking.

PS4 PRO GPU allows better resolution and graphics but the 30% improvement on CPU won't be enough to push physics and AI calculation enough.As i said they could make workarounds to compensate that(GPGPU comes to mind) but that would require some extra care(time,money and effort) that devs are not willing to do for a console(The reason they love consoles is because they only need to optimize to one spec)



Around the Network
Slimebeast on 09 September 2016
OttoniBastos said:
Slimebeast said:

This is not correct.

It depends on the type of tasks.

Graphics, such as painting the geometry, shaders and polygons are heavily GPU dependent. A twice as fast GPU can render images roughly twice as fast, but the increased amount of draw calls required to do that by the CPU only increases the CPU load by 10% or so in a typical graphics intensive game, because most of the CPU tasks remain unchanged, such as calculations for AI, physics, scripts, user input etc.

So the PS4 Pro is perfectly balanced if the games remain within the same generation so to speak. It's designed so that you can double the framerate or resolution or other tasks that the GPU handles such as better lighting, anti-aliasing, filtering, shadows, post processing visual effects, but not for more complex physics (think Battlefield and it's destruction, which is calculated by the CPU) or AI and world systems (think all the behaviour, interaction and position of units in an RTS, or all the world simulation, stats and items that are handled by the CPU in Skyrim).

We were talking about CPU tasks specifically.What you said about GPU task is right just not what we were talking.

PS4 PRO GPU allows better resolution and graphics but the 30% improvement on CPU won't be enough to push physics and AI calculation enough.As i said they could make workarounds to compensate that(GPGPU comes to mind) but that would require some extra care(time,money and effort) that devs are not willing to do for a console(The reason they love consoles is because they only need to optimize to one spec)

No. You specifically claimed that a doubled framerate requires a double the CPU power.

"This 30% improvement is not enough to allow twice the physics/AI calculations per second.(which is required to have twice the framerate)"
"double the framerate -> double the amount of data  to process on the cpu in the same time frame,thus,double the clock is needed"

But it's simply not correct.

Physics and AI scripts aren't tied to framerate in modern games, but graphics are.
(physics can be synced with framerate like in Dark Souls 2, but it's a different thing)

The CPU uses the same amount of calculations for the physics and the AI no matter if the framerate is 30 or 60.

If want to run Witcher 3 in 60fps instead of 30fps, I need roughly twice the GPU power, but only about 10% more CPU power (and the extra 10% are for the increased amount of draw calls for to the GPU, not to calculate extra physics or AI).



OttoniBastos on 09 September 2016

.

Last edited by OttoniBastos - on 05 July 2018

Intrinsic on 09 September 2016
Zkuq said:

Does the workload of the CPU increase linearly with framerate though? If you (want to) double the framerate, is the workload of the CPU also doubled or is it less (and if it is, how much less)? I'm talking about a vague 'typical game' here. At first glance I would imagine the CPU doesn't get that much more work to do if the framerate is simply increased, because game logic should still be able to run at the same pace as before (at least ideally). I don't doubt what you said, I just want to understand better how big of a difference a framerate increase makes for the CPU.

No it doesnt, but that doesnt mean there is enougj headroom for the CPU to manage doiblong the framerate.

In an over simplistic way of lookong at things, there are basically frame based tasks, input based tasks and system based tasks for the CPU to do. All arranged in order of complexity. 

Look at it this way, if a game is already using 100% of the CPU to hit 30fps, Then doubling the framerate could require that that CPU works at around 130-150%. Or you know; you get a more powerful CPU to do just that. But a game that is already internally averaging around 45-50fps, with a 30-50% boost in cpu power can hit 60fps as long as the GPU is not a bottleneck. 



Slimebeast on 09 September 2016
OttoniBastos said:
Slimebeast said:

No. You specifically claimed that a doubled framerate requires a double the CPU power.

"This 30% improvement is not enough to allow twice the physics/AI calculations per second.(which is required to have twice the framerate)"
"double the framerate -> double the amount of data  to process on the cpu in the same time frame,thus,double the clock is needed"

But it's simply not correct.

Physics and AI scripts aren't tied to framerate in modern games, but graphics are.¹

The CPU uses the same amount of calculations for the physics and the AI no matter if the framerate is 30 or 60.²

If want to run Witcher 3 in 60fps instead of 30fps, I need x2 the GPU power, but only 10% more CPU power (andf the extra 10% are for the increased amount of draw calls for to the GPU, not to calculate extra physics or AI).³

 

¹ Tell that to japanese developers

² Only if the game is calculating AI and physics once per second which is not what happens.

³ That is because as i said,developers  can compensate cpu weakness with GPU IF THEY ARE WILLING TO DO(spent time and money with it).Also,only 10% extra cpu to double the framerate? This is only possible if the game was not using the CPU full power in the first place(e.g. Having the best i5 of the market). 

You don't agree with me? fine! Lets watch how many PS4pro games will run with double framerate in comparison with OGPS4.

I updated my post a little, but as for 1, it's only that some developers (like From) sync the physics with framerate, but still, even physics is only a part of what the CPU does. There's still the overall world simulation, AI and user input, heavy CPU tasks that remain unchanged despite an increase in framerate.

2. No. The Japanese devs are a freak exception when it comes to physics, but like I say in above, physics are still only a part of CPU tasks in gaming. Usually the AI and physics are independent of framerate and have their specific locked frequency of updating, and any CPU overhead gets unutilized.

3. I'm not talking about GPU compute (GPU doing CPU tasks). This is very minor in modern gaming.
I'm not talking about the best i5. This has been shown time and time again in PC website tests, that most modern games are heavily GPU bound in typical gaming settings (1080p and up and), switching to a powerful CPU has little effect on framerate while changing GPU has almost a linear relationship.

It will be interesting to see how many developers opt for a 60fps option. I think one problem is that devs demand a locked framerate and if the game runs an unstable 50-65fps they won't allow that option sadly.

But according to your logic even Tomb Raider's 45fps should be impossible since the PS4 Pro CPU is far from 50% faster.



Around the Network
Zkuq on 09 September 2016
OttoniBastos said:

We were talking about CPU tasks specifically.What you said about GPU task is right just not what we were talking.

The context was still running a game, including rendering.

OttoniBastos said:
Slimebeast said:

Physics and AI scripts aren't tied to framerate in modern games, but graphics are.¹

¹ Tell that to japanese developers

And Bethesda... It's still a good point though.

Intrinsic said:
Zkuq said:

Does the workload of the CPU increase linearly with framerate though? If you (want to) double the framerate, is the workload of the CPU also doubled or is it less (and if it is, how much less)? I'm talking about a vague 'typical game' here. At first glance I would imagine the CPU doesn't get that much more work to do if the framerate is simply increased, because game logic should still be able to run at the same pace as before (at least ideally). I don't doubt what you said, I just want to understand better how big of a difference a framerate increase makes for the CPU.

No it doesnt, but that doesnt mean there is enougj headroom for the CPU to manage doiblong the framerate.

In an over simplistic way of lookong at things, there are basically frame based tasks, input based tasks and system based tasks for the CPU to do. All arranged in order of complexity. 

Look at it this way, if a game is already using 100% of the CPU to hit 30fps, Then doubling the framerate could require that that CPU works at around 130-150%. Or you know; you get a more powerful CPU to do just that. But a game that is already internally averaging around 45-50fps, with a 30-50% boost in cpu power can hit 60fps as long as the GPU is not a bottleneck. 

Thanks, that's a good point I forgot about. However, it's not all black and white with that either. A lot of games are locked to 30 FPS to keep the framerate stable, and I bet most of the time they could probably run at a higher framerate. Because the devs are going to be targeting 30 FPS anyway, they might not focus so much on optimizing the game because it already runs at 30 FPS, but if they're going to be targeting 60 FPS in the future, they might do those optimizations. It's probably not feasible for all games, but some games could definitely benefit from that, I imagine.



Intrinsic on 09 September 2016
Zkuq said:

Thanks, that's a good point I forgot about. However, it's not all black and white with that either. A lot of games are locked to 30 FPS to keep the framerate stable, and I bet most of the time they could probably run at a higher framerate. Because the devs are going to be targeting 30 FPS anyway, they might not focus so much on optimizing the game because it already runs at 30 FPS, but if they're going to be targeting 60 FPS in the future, they might do those optimizations. It's probably not feasible for all games, but some games could definitely benefit from that, I imagine.

Yes you are right. And believe me, if you see a game tat is locled at 30fps most kf the time, then jist kmow that it could be running at 40-45/50fps most of the time too. So yes. that 30fps lock is usually for stability. 

But 60fps just isn't easy, and as twisted as this may sound I think devs have realized that it's easier to sell a 30fps game thanks to all the eye candy than be chasing 60fps. 



Zkuq on 09 September 2016
Intrinsic said:
Zkuq said:

Thanks, that's a good point I forgot about. However, it's not all black and white with that either. A lot of games are locked to 30 FPS to keep the framerate stable, and I bet most of the time they could probably run at a higher framerate. Because the devs are going to be targeting 30 FPS anyway, they might not focus so much on optimizing the game because it already runs at 30 FPS, but if they're going to be targeting 60 FPS in the future, they might do those optimizations. It's probably not feasible for all games, but some games could definitely benefit from that, I imagine.

Yes you are right. And believe me, if you see a game tat is locled at 30fps most kf the time, then jist kmow that it could be running at 40-45/50fps most of the time too. So yes. that 30fps lock is usually for stability. 

But 60fps just isn't easy, and as twisted as this may sound I think devs have realized that it's easier to sell a 30fps game thanks to all the eye candy than be chasing 60fps. 

Yeah... That's pretty sad, I think, but apparently we just have to live with it. Well, console gamers at least. At least on PC it's usually not much of a problem fortunately.



mjk45 on 09 September 2016
Soundwave said:
GOWTLOZ said:
The PS4 Pro should have had a better CPU. It will be outdated next year when Scorpio launches with better specs, which was a huge selling point for PS4 over XB1. Sony have started to make bad choices again with their hardware.

Agreed. I think they should've waited and used better hardware. 4K adoption is still very low and the PS4 was selling just fine, they should have waited a bit longer to where they could improve CPU performance, bump GPU performance even further, and have UHD disc support for a better 4K experience. 

That sounds like the PS5.



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

Mummelmann on 09 September 2016

Uh, OP, that's quite obvious, it's because 60 fps is less cinematic.