but why make that comparison if psvr has it's own processor? we already know how the ps4 measures up to a computer by the games.

He meant that that vr on the PS4 was comparable to a PC about 60% more powerful because of the low level access that developers have to the PS4. He refereed to something called 'system hooks' and how they really streamline the process.

Dr. marks explained it based on 3rd party middleware tools and the performance they gave him.

moldy...

Who told you psvr has its own processor? All the work is being done by the ps4. It arm chair analysts on here hearing rumors and hoping psvr would skyrocket in price saying that erroneous bs. Psvr has a box that only handles 3d audio and streaming the image from psvr to the tv.

It's more powerful than a pc with similar specs running vr because of asynchronous reprojection. Watch the video.

More efficient sir.

@Wallstreet37

something has to make the games go to 120fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

Exactly, it is all about optimization...other devs are trying to hit a moving target while devs working w/ PSVR benefit from the fixed specs & capabilities of the unit. Pretty sure this has rang true for quite a while now across even traditional forms of gaming.

@Mike

If you don't have a tri-SLI Titan setup with a 120 Hz three-monitor and 4K setup, you're nothing more than a pretender.

@moldybread

Why do you need to make games output to 120fps?

Normally when you look at the specs of a monitor or TV you are more interested in Hertz not frames per second.

A quick rule of thumb: If you have a TV/Monitor that has a refresh rate of say 120Hz it can normally display up to 120fps. There are other factors involved as well but lets keep this simple.

If you have a monitor that is rated at 60Hz (the de-facto standard) the maximum frame rate you can display from a graphics card is 60 fps. Now say the PS4 can only output a maximum of 60 fps to the PSVR which has a refresh rate of 120Hz you will still get 60 fps or a frame every 1/60 second however you will also get an additional frame per 1/60 of a second which actually assists in making the picture that much crisper especially during rapid movement of the image.

Do a search on "frame rate to hz" for more information.

lol nitus10 hz means cycles per second. FPS is hertz except tvs have refresh rates and games have frames.

Wow this is some seriously juicy and somewhat hard to believe info right there...but it kinda makes sense since on the ps4 you have almost no OS/API overhead to drag you down.

I need some of that cool aid Richard Marks been drinking, because the PS4 doesn't have enough power even if you double the processing power. Talking about 60% when you need several hundred percent is just disingenuous.

... and then we get the report from a reddit developer (supposedly) that claims the PS4 is comparable to a GeForce GTX 970. Furthermore, he claims there are no artifacts with reprojection, which is impossible. The whole downside to reprojection is the artifacts. If you can just perturb an image and get a different angle without artifacts, why even bother with re-rendering the frame.

So much BS.

I wonder how much people actually clicked on the article or just read the headline and saw RED, Argggg... Attack!!!!

I'm amazed at how many people like to think they're experts, just cause you own a PC and do all your own upgrades doesn't make you an expert. Reading up on how the tech works, without real world experience, doesn't make you an expert. Watching fights and actually being in a fight are two completely different things.

The calculation should be 1.86x1.6 (PS4+60%) = 2.9Tflops. This is just shy of a 970 but is incredibly impressive still. But to be frank it just boils down to the PS4 being a dedicated machine where there are no wildcards because all is known. A 970 should blow the PS4 away in theory, but the nature of the PC means that their is some built in latency.
Imagine how crazy you would go if you had to absolutely maximize every potential PC combo with the OS and whatever apps are loaded. Its not feasible. So the greatest asset to developing for PC is the raw power advantage.

Streamlined hardware, less OS overhead and a more direct API mean that it already has a lower target minimum spec than its PC counterparts; that minimum further decreases with the use of reprojection and the particular type of screen Sony has implemented (OLED with RGB subpixels is inherently less prone to the 'screen door' effect).

Would you say that Ace Combat is a simple game on rails? With simple graphics and limited game play?

I'm not much for speculation and playing guessing games on whether the psvr with have enough power. But I do know one thing, that if Ace Combat is any indication of some of the games, then I will at least be happy with it.

I'll reply to myself as N4G's moronic messaging system doesn't let me reply to others! Let's make some comparisons.

Vive and Oculus 's refresh rate is a native 90Hz, whilst the PSVR can technically reach 120Hz, they will mostly be converting a 60Hz signal to 90Hz, they recently gave that as an option, unless the game looks very basic then expect all developers to take that option. Native 90HZ looks a lot better than 60Hz converted to 90 or even 120Hz, that is just a fact.

The Vive and Oculus use two oled pentile 1080x1200p screens whilst the PSVR uses a single 1920x1080p oled rgb display split in half which gives 960x1080p per eye. Sony has to use the higher pixel density of an rgb display considering they are only using one screen, they have to magnify a smaller surface area to fit a players fov, overall this will look inferior.

The Vive's and Oculus' fov is 110, whilst the PSVR's is 100, fov is crucial to presence, those extra 10 degrees go a long way tbh.

The minimum specs needed to run the Vive and Oculus are massively more powerful than the PS4, simple physics tell us that the kinds of graphics and experiences possible on PC VR will trounce anything on the PSVR. Of course a similarly powerful PC to a PS4 will always be outperformed, but we are talking about a PC that is a couple of generations ahead. Compromises on the PSVR will come, mark my words.

If you really think the demo Sony showed of Ace Combat will look that good in the PSVR headset then you must be incredibly gullible. I'll believe it when I see it personally. Sony have been too dishonest in this regard for me to take them at their words.

There is a ton of other tech in the Vive and Oculus Rift that make them a much higher quality product tbh but I'll put that in a response if anyone's interested.

Well death...if you're factoring in health insurance ,plane flights,dinner meals,sick leave,etc then yes gamers are in for an expensive device price come March.

None of the components are expensive. The plastic, the LEDs, the foam, the breakout box, the HDMI out which cellphones and tablets have. The sub pixel screen is the only difference between cellphone screens. The tech is not that far in component price to the PS vita. And vita came out at $249-$299.

It won't be expensive. And PS4 is doing the work as Dr Marks states it does. Developers are just saying it's better than mid range PCs at certain tasks but can handle VR.

Imagine a PS4 running a game at 120 frames per second, now imagine all of the other demands of VR, how would that game look? Technically the PSVR can output up to 120Hz but if the developer wants it to look better than a PS3 game then they will instead convert native 60Hz (still very demanding) to 90Hz or 120Hz, don't expect native 120Hz ever unless the game is really basic looking. Don't even expect 60Hz converted to 120Hz very often, it's just too demanding.

Keep in mind the way Sony are converting a 60Hz signal to 90Hz or 120Hz gives nowhere near the level of smoothness as the Vive's or Oculus's native 90Hz signal. It's like upscaling 720p to 1080p compared to native 1080p.