Really if you go with those two points then it's very easy to just stamp it down that PC gaming isn't ever viable, because factoring in the hardware cost somehow means it's never worth it, not if a console can emulate fraction of it. Same could be said for anything even remotely expensive in this world.

We all know how a $400 PC runs, and we know how one runs at native 4k. I don't think we need to use that last point at all really because we already know the results. Gaming with a higher build will show results, but as usualw e have to fctor in price so it's never going to be worth it at all is it?.

I could've also said that the obsession with resolution is stupid if they're still using the same low quality assets. I thought my first comment was nicer and more ambiguous.

I'm waiting for the full test that includes framerate. If that also didn't improve it's a failure all around and shows what we're in for in other "pro versions" of other games.

I'm judging this on a game to game basis and I advise everyone else to do the same.

The checkerboard upscale in essence is something like MKX's 1360x1080 yet alternating each frame to get a better result.
You can view it as rendering 1920x2160 then 3840x1080 alternating. The advantage of checkerboard is that you have more samples to use, essentially every 2 frames you have all 3840x2160 samples to work with, while 1440p or straight 2600x2160 upscale will always miss the extra information.

Compared to 1080, checkerboard falls close to 764p. It would be an improvement over 720p upscale, maybe not over 900p unless the game is pretty slow, for example Trine could very well benefit from a lower pixelcount checkerboard approach over 900p. Plus if the checkerboard solution allows for 60fps, then that's the way to go.

i'm more interested in max details 1080p locked 30 fps PS4Pro version...

So much for 'Magic Sauce'.

Pro is a better 1080p machine than PS4/XBO, it shouldn't need to resort to using the same assets just to hit higher resolution.

They should really just hone in on 60 fps experience and best graphical quality they can muster with that hardware.

Well I like that Rise of the Tomb Raider is trying to please everybody.

PS4 Pro users can get a better visuals and frame rate at 1080p. While those who wants a sharper image on their 4K TV can have that too.

But a game like Horizon doesn't appear to be doing much for Pro users with 1080p. That is just gonna downscale the 4K image for a clearner image. Which is nice, but I want 60 fps.

Why didnt they use the better textures the PC version has? that the question.
If they had I bet the graphics compairsion would be much closer.

Yh for the mist part it does soind the exact same. Take same taps from nearby oixels then use thst to guesstimate the created pixel. I feel it comes down to two things though, how many taps/samples are taken from the adjoining pixels and how many oixels are natively being rendered. I want to believe that however Sony is doing theirs is such that if it was just done in software on the GPU it would have taken up too many resources. Hence needed dedicated hardware.... so that has to be better right?

Ah well I'm no expert on the technique or why exactly it's different and required it's own patent lol.

Of course it's worth it. Value issubjective first and fore most so to make any value proposition fair you need to level the playing field. 

It makes zero sense pissing on something that costs a third of somwthing else and saying it doesn't perform as well but yet ignore the cost of the items. That's like saying, a Honda is slow because it can't do a sub 10 second mile like an Enzo Ferrari but yet forget to mention that the Enzo cost significantly more than the honda. 

For those that want the bleeding edge in tech and are willing to pay for it, there will always be value in what they get them, but when those people say things like.... "that's such a joke my 1080 can run circles around the PS4pro.... Don't you think it makes sense to also point out that said 1080 is just a GPU and cost more than the entire PS4pro? Isn't that a very very very important part of the argument?

I domt have anything against PC comparisons, but an analysis to show just how much more powerful one is over the other isn't an analysis..... to be fair here is what they should always do. And this is taking what you said into account to. The bolded part. 

• Find what combination of settings the game runningon PC will have that best matches the output and IQ of the PS4pro.
• Then tell us how much more or less it costs to build a PC that can give you PS4pro level performance. 

Simple. Memory quantity and memory bandwidth. 

At least thats my guess.