• Kushan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    I think you just need to look at the PS5 Pro as proof that more GPU power doesn’t translate linearly to better picture quality.

    The PS5 Pro has a 67% beefier GPU than the standard PS5 - with a price to match - yet can anyone say the end result is 67% better? Is it even 10% better?

    We’ve been hitting diminishing returns on raw rasterising for years now, a different approach is definitely needed.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah, although I am always reluctant to quantify visual quality like that. What is “65% better” in terms of a game playing smoothly or looking good?

      The PS5 Pro reveal was a disaster, partially because if you’re trying to demonstrate how much nicer a higher resolution, higher framerate experience is, a heavily compressed, low bitrate Youtube video that most people are going to watch at 1080p or lower is not going to do it. I have no doubt that you can tell how much smoother or less aliased an image is on the Pro. But that doesn’t meant the returns scale linearly, you’re right about that. I can tell a 4K picture from a 1080p one, but I can REALLY tell a 480p image from a 1080p one. And it’s one thing to add soft shadows to a picture and another to add textures to a flat polygon.

      If anything, gaming as hobby has been a tech thing for so long that we’re not ready to have shift to being limited by money and artistic quality rather than processing power. Arguably this entire conversation is pointless in that the best looking game of 2024 is Thank Goodness You’re Here, and it’s not even close.