
Red Dead Redemption’s performance on the PlayStation 3 caused meltdowns back in the day, after a fledgling Digital Foundry revealed that it had less grass on Sony’s last-gen machine. The differences between devices have been less stark this generation – even when the PlayStation 4 was comfortably on top – and that remains the case with Rockstar’s anticipated sequel.
The bottom line: Red Dead Redemption 2 is not best on the PS4 Pro – but it’s still pretty darn good. The game uses checkerboard rendering to achieve its 4K image, which resolves blurrier than the Xbox One X’s native resolution. But as is always the case with these kind of comparisons, you’re going to rely on side-by-sides and zoom to really see a difference, even if it is admittedly there.
The good news is that the standard PS4 version is decent as well. It outputs a 1080p image, and while it does suffer from framerate hiccups in dense areas, it generally performs better than its predecessor did on last-gen devices. PS4 Pro is largely locked to 30 frames-per-second, but there are moments of minor judder in populated places.
All in all it sounds like Rockstar’s done a decent job, and perhaps the biggest takeaway is that whatever console you’re playing on, you’re effectively getting the same game. There are no reductions in detail or altered assets – everyone’s receiving the same great experience. By the way, if you haven’t read our review yet, you can do so through here.
[source eurogamer.net]
Comments 67
The image quality is a bit disappointing on the PS4 Pro. We've seen much better checkerboarding solutions in other games like Horizon, so it's a bit of a bummer this isn't quite up to that same standard.
@get2sammyb i'll play devils advocate and say that is because of HZD being an ps exclusive.
also saw the video and tbh i didn't even notice the framedrops on any console in that "problematic" cutscene or saint denis.
while i can notice it in ac oddessey,so i guess noticing frame drops also depends on how pollished the game is,meaning that 28 fps does not look as bad in 1 game compared to the other right?
If people program correctly for the X it should consistently be a superior visual experience to the Pro so no surprise that Rockstar pulled it off. PS3 was worse for multiplatform in general. I'm glad they cleaned up their architecture for this generation. Good to know all versions look and play great overall!
This being native 4k on a console is very impressive
@get2sammyb but disappointing in terms of base ps4/ps4 pro or is it the game itself that looks disappointing?
Man I bought the Pro to play Spidey and this game so I'm hoping it looks amazing
It annoys me that people assume you have to zoom in to notice these details when you play on a massive (relative to PC monitors, laptop screens and/or mobile screens) - and with youtube compression too and probably not being watched at a 'native 4k' either but a downsampled 1080p version. Even with a Pro, if you upgrade to a 4k TV, the games look much sharper - even if they are only 1440p compared to the downsampled 1080p that you had with your HD TV!! DF have to zoom in because they know not everyone will be watching on a 4k TV, the same they game on and that youtube compression will soften the difference too. Take a screen shot of both and flip between them on a 4k TV and the difference will seen much bigger than it is when you are playing.
As someone with an X and a Pro, the difference is clear when playing the 'Same' game on different platforms on my 55" 4k TV. The difference is often bigger than the advantage the PS4 had over the Base XB1. It annoyed me too when people said the difference between PS4 and XB1 wasn't obvious and you had to zoom in to see the more 'blurry' details on XB1 compared to the sharper PS4 - it was VERY obvious to me when playing the same game on both platforms - Batman: Arkham Knight, the Witcher 3... Maybe I am more aware of the 'finer details which looked 'blurry' on a XB1 comparatively and unless you can see what the full 1080p looks like, then you can't compare in a real situation!
The thing is, unless you have both versions on both platforms, can compare both in your own situation on your TV, then you won't miss that bit of grass because you won't know it is missing. The most obvious is usually the overall 'sharpness' and few will be looking at 'small' details like the quantity of grass. Some don't notice the 'low res' pixelated shadows when playing because they are not looking at the 'shadows' themselves - but get a shadow wrong or worse, miss a shadow and that stands out a mile away. The brain is great at not focussing on details but also great at spotting when things aren't quite right.
As for the Chequerboard implementation, games like H:ZD were built specifically for the PS4 and probably utilise the in-built onject tracking in the Pro to deliver the 'best' PQ. This game was built for multiple platforms and probably had to build in its own solution rather than utilise a feature unique to PS4. Its a bit like how numerous 3rd party games on XB1 didn't utilise the ESRAM because it was a design feature unique to that console and would have required reworking to much of the game for that specific platform.
@BAMozzy If you can see it that's fine, but the reality is that people don't play with two television screens side-by-side running the exact same thing. Or maybe I'm in the minority here.
I would think that by now every game should run 1080p and 60fps on this generation as industry standards on every console but not, yet people expect full 4K the next generation the only thing that it change is that games are Triple digits worth of gigs😂.
I love a little bit of judder in populated places
@get2sammyb Sorry but if you don't play with two tv's next to each other, you are just a filthy casual.
Sounds like the regular PS4 is still good enough for my needs.
@Rudy_Manchego I thought as much.
Ill switch to 4k with the PS5 anyway.. Hopefully its BC
I saw a console comparation on youtube and I was very disapointed on PS4 Pro version, it looks very blurry! some people also complained regarding this. Xbox One X version looks incredible... I hate to say it but this time XBO won
Too bad only like 100k people bought the x to really care. Oh well. This matters not.
Remember when the only thing people cared about with a game was whether it was good or not? 🙄
Don't have 4K, don't want 4K, don't care about 4K. Recently bought a hefty gaming PC and didn't even bother with a 4K monitor on that. Just give me a decent game.
It is just ugly how some people want to justify their console purchase so badly.
99.90% of the people will not event see the difference between the 2 because they would have to set them up one next to the other and use damn magnifying glass or sit one meter away from BOTH TVs.
They just watch a video where they show pixel by pixel the difference and all of the sudden ALL of them are master experts in resolution etc.
Kids these days see frame rate drop from 30 to 29 on A VIDEO and start shouting like madmen. Disgusting!
I don't play my game with 300% zoom-in on my 4k tv so I'm fine with the pro
@get2sammyb My point was that you don't need 2 TV's to see the difference. The difference is obvious going from one platform to another - just like it was when I went from PS4 to XB1 (or vice versa) with the same game on the same TV. If, like me, you have both consoles connected to the same TV, then its relatively easy to see the difference by playing the same game and flicking between HDMI inputs - its even noticeable if you play the game on one system and then switch to the same game on the other using the same TV at the same seating distance - you really don't need two identical TV's side by side with a different console plugged into each and run each side by side either!! Most TV's allow you to connect multiple devices to the same TV and its easy to flick between each input. I know you probably won't own an Xbox but there are a number of us that do own both systems.
My point was also that youtube itself with the youtube compression, especially when watched on a 'small' screen and only at 1080p will make the difference appear much closer than it will when playing a game on console on your TV. You have to blow up some things to show the difference for those that are watching a compressed video at 1080p on a small screen.
@Kidfried In fairness, the difference is much more significant than the difference between an XB1 and PS4 was. 900p is around 75% the size of 1080p where as we are seeing around a 50% - sometimes more between an Xbox One X and a PS4 Pro. At least with using CB rendering techniques, it may only be 50% rendering compared to native, but it is reconstructing to the full image size which, if they used 'native' would be around 1500-1600p. 1440p (or 720p compared to full 1080p) is less than 50% the area.
There is a massive difference between Pro on X on numerous games this gen - games like Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Middle Earth: Shadow of War, Star Wars: Battlefront 2 etc but this is perhaps more so because of the implementation of the CB rendering, the temporal anti aliasing and performance compared to games like the Witcher 3 (both similar resolution - although the Pro used CB compared to the XB1X's native resolution) with similar performance.
The difference here is made more obvious because of both performance and the 'native' resolution compared to the CB rendering but the reality is some games, like Star Wars BF2, had a much bigger difference in its PQ because they both were native and the XB1X had a more than double the resolution - this is only double.
If you have a 4k TV and used to an XB1, then buying a base PS4 will be a noticeable step up, a Pro a step up again and an X a giant leap over the base Xbox console. As someone who owned both base consoles, I could see the difference on a 55" TV at normal seating distances between the games I had on both systems and now I have both a Pro and X, the difference is perhaps even more obvious - at least in most games - some not so much but that was the same between base consoles. I don't 'need' 2 TV's to see that, just the same game on both systems....
@GKO900 Frame rates don't sell a game though, but graphics do.
Is it on par with Ubisoft's open world games, like Assassins Creed Origins/Odyssey? Also, if playing on a Pro but with a 1080 screen does the game give you any options, like favouring graphics or resolution?
@LN78 Some of it is circumstantial - games I got on one system and then offered via PS+/GwG or both offered via PS+/GwG. Some games, like the Witcher 3, Rise of the Tomb Raider etc, I bought twice - because they did a complete/GotY edition and these were 'favourite' games this gen so happy to play through again - especially the Witcher 3 which can have different outcomes and it worked out only a few £'s more to buy the GotY edition than all the DLC/season pass at the time.
I have 'never' bought 2 copies of a game solely for the purpose of doing a comparison. There has always been a reason that I have ended up with both platform versions and this has provided me with the ability to do my own comparison.
The first game I was able to do this was with Batman: Arkham Knight - a game that is supposed to only have a resolution difference between both (base) consoles - but the difference was obvious from the very first moment with the rain on Batmans cloak being so much sharper and more defined than on XB1 that looked blurry and less like rain in some areas - more smudges.
I also had a number of games on both PS3/XB360 too - again not bought for comparison but either because they released GotY editions with all content (Batman again for example as well as games like RDR with the Nightmare zombies, Resident Evil 5 with the Gold edition etc) or because I wanted to play MP with friends - hence some CoD's, BF games which may have had 'extras' on one system over another and then picked up on the other when cheap to play with friends.
Having both, you can obviously compare but that is more of a 'by-product' of owning both and not something I own both or buy games to do. Owning both also means I take more interest in the differences, if any, between systems. I do tend to put more emphasis on performance as a priority over visuals, but other factors can also come into play - like bonus content, timed or otherwise, online community and friends who may buy etc. In general though, Performance will trump everything else. I don't want to play a game with the best visuals but has poor frame rate/frame pacing consistency.
@Neolit And what about a PS4 Pro supersampled down to 1080p?
Because, y'know... Horizon looks flippin' stellar.
I don't go purposely looking for this. As long as the game runs well and looks the best it can given the hardware it's running on I can accept that. Getting rid of my Xbox one X was one decision I do not regret in the slightest.
All I care about is how it will look on my 14” ‘portable’ CRT
@Neolit I am sure that the Pro and X both super-sample down and not showing the full impact that they were designed for. Both the Pro and X were really designed to be connected to 4k TV's but because there are some that haven't upgraded, will super-sample down. Its still the same rendering technique, still the same resolution and visual settings, still the same performance - its running the same but then, at the video output, super-sampled to 1080p. You can 'force' your console to super-sample if you turn the output resolution to 1080p in the settings but the game is still running exactly the same as it would if connected to a 4k TV.
It may well be interesting to see how the CB rendering combined with the temporal anti-aliasing utilised by the Pro compares to the PS4's native 1080p - whether or not that impacts on the quality when super-sampled down to the same resolution. Shrinking the size down to 25% though could also make the image look better than a native 1080p as each single pixel on a 1080p has 4 pixels to sample and thus may well not have the issues associated with CB rendering.
As for the Hardware differences, its clear the X has a big advantage - its GPU alone is like a PS4 and PS4 Pro combined in raw power terms, it has much more RAM too and a lot faster RAM so its really no surprise that games do differ as much as they do. In PC terms, you wouldn't expect a GTX970 to offer the same quality visuals at the same frame rate as a GTX1080TI offers so I really don't understand the saltiness when games look and/or run better and more powerful hardware.
If you own a PS4, then you have to settle with what that hardware offers - whether that's good enough for you or not. If not, you can upgrade to a Pro or X.
As I said in my post to @LN78 visuals are just 1 aspect to consider and not the most important aspect to me either. Much more important is the frame rate comparison and, if that is equal, then visuals may come into play. RDR2 is not something I am looking forward to playing online - didn't really enjoy the previous games online so that hasn't impacted on my decision here but if it did, friends and online experience would factor in to my decision too. Things like bonuses - whether timed or not may also factor in - having access to extra content sooner may play into my decision - not always but its one other consideration.
Waiting for the Digital Foundry comparison in which they try to convince me not to go on a date with Scarlett Johansson now because their 20x zoomed photos clearly show how her skin is 10% less smooth then it was in 2008.
No one cares about failbox.
Slight difference of graphics is not the reason to buy failbox, lol.
"PS4 Pro is largely locked to 30 frames-per-second, but there are moments of minor judder in populated places".
This is not true. Digital Foundry says that the game runs around the mid-20s fps on all consoles (except on Xbox One X where it holds performance very well at all times but during one single cut-scene) and those drops are not "just in populated places" but almost everywhere except empty areas with no NPCs as shown in the video. It occasionally runs at 30 fps on PS4 and Pro but it's not the norm but the exception unless you are running around in circles through empty areas. And it's not "minor judder" what is shown in the video either.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-red-dead-redemption-2-face-off
@Neolit They both supersample to 1080p but performance doesn't change.
@Paranoimia No, I don’t think that ever happened honestly.
"Red Dead Redemption 2 targets 30 frames per second, frame-pacing is consistent on all platforms, but there's a clear difference in performance in the game's busiest areas, with the enhanced consoles clearly running more smoothly."
"The base consoles both perform well in the wilderness, but performance is more variable in urban areas with the densest areas hitting the low 20s on both base consoles".
Basically my base PS4 will suffer only in the densest sections of urban areas; it doesn't sound so bad if I consider there's a world falling apart right behind my door...
@BlueOcean When did they said it runs in the middle 20s when they clearly stated that it is only for the BASE consoles?
I watched the video and they said that on the PRO it is a little under the 30fps mark NOT in the mid 20s.
"PlayStation 4 Pro is the next most stable platform, delivering entirely consistent performance in the wilderness but again, dropping frames in towns and cities."
"Meanwhile, the base consoles both perform well in the wilderness, but performance is more variable in urban areas with the densest areas hitting the low 20s on both base consoles."
I mean, come on.
@Zuljaras If you watch the full video you'll see that Pro is the second best-performing but it's not consistently hitting 30 fps except a few times in empty areas. Every time there is action or NPCs the frame drops. The video says it all. Also the article:
Once again, top of the pile is Xbox One X. Bar one cutscene that strangely runs slower on X than any other platform, Microsoft's enhanced machine delivers a nigh-on locked 30fps with only very minor dips in performance in the most detailed city areas.
PlayStation 4 Pro is the next most stable platform, delivering entirely consistent performance in the wilderness but again, dropping frames in towns and cities. However, it's clearly not as stable as the X. For example, there are frame-rate dips in Valentine - a smaller town - while the Microsoft machine is basically flawless. Meanwhile, the base consoles both perform well in the wilderness, but performance is more variable in urban areas with the densest areas hitting the low 20s on both base consoles. In these areas, the standard Xbox One seems to have a small advantage over the PlayStation 4, suggesting that we may be hitting CPU limits (where the Microsoft machine has a frequency advantage). This may also explain why Pro is smoother, and how X offers up the most consistent experience of the bunch.
But really, to see this phenomenal game at its absolute best, Xbox One X is the platform of choice - and by quite a considerable margin.
This is PushSquare's interpretation:
"PS4 Pro is largely locked to 30 frames-per-second, but there are moments of minor judder in populated places". It only takes to watch the video to know that this is false. Just watch it and see for yourself.
https://youtu.be/_mTIPXwcDGQ
@BlueOcean I have watched the whole video. 2-3 frame dips on occasions. I am not going to argue with you because I just saw your posting history. You clearly have some issues with the console "war" in general.
Everyone knows that the X is more powerful than the Pro. But for me it is not a deal breaker and I am sure it is also NOT for many other gamers. I used to analyse the games instead of actually playing them. It was a mistake.
I am sure that many people will enjoy the game to the fullest even on the trashy original Xbox One.
@Zuljaras You are the one acting like a fanboy, I have both consoles and I don't try to offend you like you do.
Now, put your glasses on and watch it again. Around minute 20 the Pro is running under 30 consistently, it's not 2 frames dips occasionally but you can see the line below the 30 fps most of the time. The Pro doesn't run "locked to 30 frames-per-second". It's only consistent when there is nothing happening and, surprise, that happens on Xbox One S and PS4 too.
Another proof, minute 24, you see all platforms but X struggling and then you see a section where PS4 is doing fine (as does Pro) because NPCs disappear.
The conclusion is that the game only performs smoothly on Xbox One X no matter how much sugarcoating you want to use and only the biggest fanboys can't see that.
@BlueOcean Bloodborne has no 4K, no 60fps, no whatever makes you feel good still I'd never exchange it with all the wonderful Microsoft exclusives. Just enjoy RDR2 on your console we all know it's the most powerful around!
@andreoni79 Good for you, I will keep enjoying both consoles with the best possible version every time.
I thought that we would discuss the video, not Sony's exclusives. What Bloodborne has to do with this Digital Foundry video?
@BlueOcean Enjoy your version then. But you just sound arrogant. I guess that your obsession is to have the best of the best of the best version of the game and count the little frames when you play just so you don't pop a vein and bleed out.
The Pushsquare article already said that the Xbox One X is the best version. People just stated that differences are not so important and DF videos are... meh. Than you arrived here, just to remember the XB1X version is the better... Then I remembered you that gaming is not just a matter of tech specs, otherwise any 60 fps 4K would be better than Bloodborne.
@Zuljaras You call me names and I am the arrogant? LOL You are so self-entitled to judge others, but do it with yourself too. I agree with other users here and I respect all point of views but I can't agree with anyone that is lying about facts or using personal attacks to divert attention. The game is not out yet so we haven't played it, but the video is there for everyone to see that there is only one version that performs consistently.
@andreoni79 This is an article about a DF video. This video doesn't talk about Pro only, if that was the case this article wouldn't even exist. It compares visuals and performance of Red Dead Redemption 2 on all consoles and only one runs at 30 fps all the time, the others drop frames every time something happens on screen. The comparison with Bloodborne is poor because that game only runs on PS4 and Pro so we could compare PS4 and Pro only and for some people Bloodborne is a technical mess and for others like you is worth playing in spite of technical issues.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bloodborne/comments/7qurt9/very_disappointing_performance_on_ps4_pro/
In short, we are just discussing how a certain game performs, it doesn't mean that people won't enjoy it with worse performance on Pro, PS4, Xbox One S, or even Switch. Good for everyone that has a good time no matter what.
@BlueOcean I called you names? I guess I am not the one that needs glasses The one and only name call was "fanboy" and it came from you. Everything else came after that.
Anyway enjoy your amazing, BEST, perfect, JUST way too good over the others version. "I am having the best way to enjoy something over the others and I must tell them the FACTS" is how you will be remembered. Just a thought.
@Zuljaras I know that you are being sarcastic but enjoy your version you too, it seems to be a great game, probably one of the best games ever.
@get2sammyb Horizon and Spiderman seem to have the best checkerboarding on the Pro from what I've played with God of War not too far behind.
In any case I have and X and a Pro but I'll still buy this for my PS4 because I prefer the controller and I can't be bothered plugging the X back in.
@BlueOcean Too bad I have to enjoy it later because I have so much to play before that. But it is definitely a must buy.
@Zuljaras Oh well, me too. So many games and so little time to play them. It's definitely worth buying (on whatever console), agreed. It looks more appealing than GTA. Glad we could sort out our differences, in between.
@LN78 @BAMozzy On PS4 pro You can actually compare base PS4 to PS4 pro by turning off boost mode on the PS4 pro and setting output to 1080p only. I inadvertently did this as 4k on my old TV sucks and I was playing around with the settings to get the most from my setup.
With certain games like Yakuza it's better to avoid 4k and play at 1080p with boost mode on rather than at 1080p without boost mode. The stutter, dropped frames etc become a thing of the past and there's no benefit playing at 4k due to Yakuzas native output. So from that standpoint I totally understand why quality of life improvements to frame rate and judder help as personally there's no way I would play with boost mode off.
Also the size of TVs now are like 48-55 inch standard. On my 43 inch TV the jump from 1080p to 1440p was extremely noticeable in games like infamous but from 1440 - 4k I cant really see as big a difference. So I think that's a factor too.
@BlueOcean Yes. In the end only the games matter If I could I would even play it on the Switch at 480p without shadows
@Zuljaras And it would run at 10 fps in towns...
@estebantedesco
YouTube looks blurry?
Damn
@BlueOcean Glorious 10fps not normal 10fps. There is a difference!
@AdamNovice True, but in my opinion 4K is not that big of a difference to HD like when they jump from 420 to 720 and then 1080, I don't really care for graphics if it's HD I worry more about the Gigs the games are taking for 4K and in my opinion it's not worth losing so much space for so little difference, but that's just me
@Zuljaras And dynamic scaling down to 320p like Doom and The Wolfenstein II. But it would be amazing and mind-blowing because it would be running on Switch.
Imagine this game in 320p... The lampposts would be 10x2 pixels.
@Steel76
'the PS4 fanboys was giving Xbox a hard time for the worse performance. But now'
Do you mean here?
Are you feeling bad that most ps gamers don't care?
God i forgot grass gate!!! The puddle gate of the last generation 😂
@GKO900 Can't disagree one bit, I honestly feel there's a race to the ceiling in terms of graphically fidelity but also a race to the bottom with sale culture and companies wanting to sell everything through subscriptions, it seems unsustainable for me.
It's also a catch twenty two cos while I want games with rock solid frame rates (either 30 or 60) I see games like Horizon Zero Dawn often and I'm still blown away by how amazing it looks.
@BAMozzy just curious - do you buy two versions of each game just to compare?
@themcnoisy That only works for some games - mostly the older games that were released before the Pro enabled super-sampling. Games like H:ZD, God of War, Spider-Man etc all run at their 'Pro' settings whether you have it set to 1080p, boost mode on/off or 2160p because they automatically recognise its on a Pro and super-sample down to 1080p. Some of the early 'pro' games, before super sampling would run at PS4 level (although these are the exception not the rule) if you set it to 1080p - I believe the Last Guardian was one for example.
Anyway, nice to see you around again
@hi_drnick Already answered that in post #29!!!
@Steel76
Diminishing returns 😉
@themcnoisy
Infamous runs at 1800p
@BrettAwesome It looks Bloomington brilliant whatever it is.
I’m pretty sure R* will be getting the majority of its sales from the PlayStation side of things, regardless how it looks or plays. Next gen is almost here, so there’s that as well.
@themcnoisy
It sure does 🙂
@AFCC The game for me is a huge letdown. Why does Rockstar need to start with it being winter out everything just looks like crap. Another complaint on Rockstar games taking to long to get any excitement and don't know how start a game with a bang to get your blood pumping. I've already played an hour or so and have already put the game on the shelf and will be going back to Fist of the North Star.
@LN78 I actually played another 7 hours and still couldn't get into it. So, I used EB Games customer satisfactory guarantee and returned it and picked up Nickelodeon Kart Racers and paid more on my Tetris Effect pre-order. Would have been nice if they started with a train robbery or a showdown at dusk. As for the snow effects. Snow doesn't look anything like that when a horse walks through it like that and yes I've done it while hunting with my cousin in all different types of snow and it has never looked like that ever.
@Mr_PlayStation the game starts slow yes! But I find the early missions pretty cool...EARLY SPOILERS DON'T READ FURTHER saving Marston was pretty effing dope!
Also the snow effects and vistas are GORGEOUS!
But hey I hope you give the game a chance later
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...