PS5 Pro 6 months later — 3 things I love and 3 things I hate
This article is part of Tom's Guide's inaugural Gaming Week, an entire week of content dedicated to all things gaming. From insights into the latest hardware, guides to the best games you can play today, to the essential accessories we can't play without. Tom's Guide Gaming Week will guide you through the world of video games in 2025.
I've been using the PS5 Pro as my primary gaming machine for six months, which means it's time to reevaluate Sony's mid-gen refresh console and determine whether it's been a worthy update to the base PS5.
The PS5 Pro effectively does what the PS4 Pro did for supported PS4 games. PS5 Pro-enhanced titles enjoy improved performance and enhanced graphics thanks to frame-boosting tech and better ray tracing, respectively. The console also comes with a generous 2TB of storage, allowing you to store more games.
So, after using the PS5 Pro nearly every night for the past six months, do I think Sony's console is worth the $700 asking price? While the system delivers on some of its promises, its faults keep it from reaching its full potential. Here are the PS5 Pro's strengths and weaknesses, six months later.
PS5 Pro is a powerful refresh of the base PS5 hardware. It's the best way to experience the PS5's large library of must-play games and the current pinnacle of console gaming. However, the eye-watering $699 price tag makes it a machine that will only appeal to the most dedicated gamers.
The PS5 Pro has an upgraded GPU that allows the console to have enhanced ray tracing and AI-driven upscaling. This helps Sony's system deliver higher graphical fidelity and smoother performance. How does this translate into real-world use?
As I wrote in my PS5 Pro vs PS5: The 3 biggest upgrades article, supported games like Marvel's Spider-Man 2 and The Last of Us II Remastered run much smoother in their respective Fidelity Pro and Performance Pro settings. This is especially true when I enable 120Hz mode and VRR in each game. The games run at a higher frame rate but also feel more responsive. Here, the difference is very apparent.
Some unsupported PS5 and PS4 games also receive a performance boost, so long as they have uncapped frame rates. Though I wish this were the case with every game, the PS5 Pro does give some titles a nice performance boost.
The PS5 Pro also enhances the graphical quality of supported games. Generally, Fidelity Pro mode in games outputs at 4K resolution while Performance Pro upscales to 4K from 1440p. You'll also get some form of ray tracing and other graphical enhancements in both modes. Yes, you're still choosing between fidelity and performance modes in certain games, but they work better on PS5 Pro than on PS5.
I'm extremely impressed with how ray tracing looks in games like Spider-Man 2 and Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart, which are both developed by the PS5's MVP developer, Insomniac Games. I've spent a long time web-swinging through Times Square in Spider-Man and enjoying the reflections on all the glass buildings. The reflections on puddles in Ratchet & Clank also look phenomenal.
As I said before, you'll need one of the best TVs or best gaming monitors with a minimum 120Hz refresh rate that supports VRR to get the most from the PS5 Pro's AI upscaling, which Sony calls PSSR. If you have a TV or monitor with a high refresh rate, your eyes are in for a treat.
You won't need to buy one of the best PS5 internal SSDs for the PS5 Pro since the system comes with a hefty 2TB of storage.
I've been downloading games since I got a PS5 Pro and have only managed to use half of the system's storage. That's mostly because I've been downloading a lot of fighting games, so I'm sure I'd have more space if I were mostly playing games I'm reviewing. Still, it demonstrates that even if you're downloading an unusual amount of games, you won't have to worry about running out of space for a while.
Games that have been optimized for PS5 Pro look and run phenomenally. The system doesn't disappoint in that regard. Unfortunately, I wish there were more supported games.
At time of writing, there are only 55 PS5 Pro-enhanced games on the PlayStation Store. The game selection isn't exactly robust, and it doesn't help that almost all these titles are old, sometimes years old. Though newer games like Indiana Jones and the Great Circle take full advantage of the PS5 Pro's capabilities, titles like that are few and far between.
Sony mandated that all new games (at the time) had to be enhanced for the PS4 Pro. I'm not sure if the company has the same mandate for PS5 Pro, especially since brand-new games like Doom: The Dark Ages offer minimal enhancements. If Sony really wants to convince more folks to get a PS5 Pro, the company needs to step it up with new supported titles.
When testing games on a regular PS5 and PS5 Pro to see how they compare, the thing that stood out most to me was just how good PS5 games still look and run. While that's good news for PS5 owners, it somewhat diminishes the need for a PS5 Pro.
This is purely anecdotal, but I remember being more impressed with how the PS4 Pro enhanced its games. And mind you, I was impressed despite not owning a 4K TV at the time. I haven't gotten that same feeling when playing PS5 Pro games.
The fact that I review the best gaming PCs and best gaming laptops, which can outperform the PS5 Pro, might have something to do with this. Regardless, if you have a regular PS5, you'll still enjoy games that look and run great. You won't miss out if you don't own a PS5 Pro.
The PS4 Pro cost $399, which was the same price as the base PS4 at launch. That was a great price since you were effectively paying the same price for a better console. With the PS5 being $499 at launch, I hoped the PS5 Pro would have a similar price. Sadly, that isn't the case.
At $699, the PS5 Pro is Sony's most expensive console ever. And now that Sony is considering hiking the PS5's price, that price could potentially go higher. While the enhancements the system delivers are nice, they're not transformative enough for most folks to spend $699 on. There's a reason the PS5 Pro isn't selling out everywhere. It's too damn expensive!
I like the PS5 Pro for what it offers and will continue using it as my primary gaming console. Tech-wise, it's objectively the finest system Sony has released. It's certainly an indication of what we can expect from the inevitable PS6.
But despite appreciating what the PS5 Pro can do, it's hard for me to recommend it to most people. Unless by some miracle you can find the PS5 Pro at a discount, you're better off with a PS5. You're not missing out on much by not upgrading.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Digital Trends
8 hours ago
- Digital Trends
You Asked: Best soundbars for Sony TVs and which budget Samsung QD-OLED should you choose?
On today's episode of You Asked: What's the best soundbar to pair with a Sony TV? Should you consider upgrading from the LG C3? Which Samsung QD-OLED offers the best value? And what's the best big-screen TV that won't break the bank? Best Soundbars for Your Sony TV Scott S asks: I just took the plunge and purchased the 77-inch Sony A95L to replace my 10-year-old Sony TV. Question is whether a good soundbar is worth it (assuming like a Sonos Arc) considering that I live in an apartment and the TV will only be about 10 feet away from the seating area. You have mentioned the great sound quality of the TV itself. Thanks for the question, Scott, and congrats on the new TV! The A95L is one of our all-time favorites. And while it does have solid sound quality, a top-tier TV like that deserves to be paired with something to elevate the listening experience and match the superior visuals. You mention the Sonos Arc, which is a great option, as is the Sonos Arc Ultra, which improves on an already great soundbar. I'd also say the Sonos Beam is worth taking a look at. It has a more subtle look that some prefer, but still packs the goods in terms of audio quality. I don't know how much you're looking to spend, but I'd also suggest the Sony Bravia Theater Quad, since you spared no expense on the TV purchase. The Theater Quad is not cheap, but it's a perfect pairing with your Sony TV and is well suited for your apartment. Sony's 360 Spatial Mapping does a great job dialing each speaker in based on placement. Plus, with its Acoustic Center Sync feature allowing the TV audio to act as the center channel, the Theater Quad is designed to handle odd placements throughout a room to give you the best immersive audio experience for watching shows and movies. It's also one of our favorite choices for music listening. If you want a more direct head-to-head comparison of the top choices between Sonos and Sony, we did a video on that not too long ago. You can also check out our best soundbars list. Upgrades from the LG C3 and Sony A80J? Nicolas Lacroix asks: I have had the pleasure of two OLED sets for a few years now: a Sony A80J and LG C3. What would be the upgrade path in 2025? What's going to look better? I want to go a bit bigger. My current sets are 55 inches and 65 inches, respectively. I'm also a latest gen console gamer. Talk about good problems to have — needing to upgrade your two OLED TVs. In terms of taking the next steps with two of the top TV brands, both known for outstanding picture quality, here are some options in case you're leaning one way or the other. On the Sony side, look at the Bravia 8 Mark II or the A95L. Coming from an A80J, both recommended options are equipped with QD-OLED panels, offering brighter, more vibrant, and pure colors. We've raved about the A95L to no end, and the Bravia 8 Mark II should only improve on it. However, since you mentioned wanting to go bigger than your 55-inch A80J, if you're looking at 65 inches or certainly 77, the price difference between the A95L and Bravia 8 Mark II is significant. The 65-inch A95L is currently on sale for $2,900, while the Bravia 8 Mark II sits at $4,000. Also, the Bravia 8 Mark II is not available above 65 inches. So if you're planning to purchase a pair of TVs, you might want to save where you can, and I'm not sure you'll see $1,200 worth of difference. Some even rate the A95L higher than its 'successor.' When it comes to gaming, the differences are tiny. Both have the same inputs: two HDMI 2.1 ports and two HDMI 2.0. Both support 4K 120Hz gaming and VRR with virtually zero difference in input lag. As for upgrading from your LG C3, that's still a great TV and just two years old. But if you must, I'd say jump past the C-series to the LG G5 to see a real, noticeable improvement worth spending thousands of dollars on. The four-stack OLED panel significantly improves brightness and color purity, taking the G5 beyond the already excellent G4. I mention the G4 because the new G5 costs a pretty penny, and the G4 is also a notable step up from your C3, just in case you want to save a bit. Both have four HDMI 2.1 inputs, plus a full slate of gaming features like 4K high refresh rates and VRR, making them great choices for gamers wanting to connect multiple consoles and audio devices. Samsung S95C vs. S90D: Which Should You Buy? @hermievanzyl9649 asks: For the same price, is the Samsung S95C or S90D a better option to buy and why? These are both excellent TVs. As someone who has a 2023 Samsung TV as their daily driver, I've come to love it — the picture quality holds up extremely well and the user interface is just as snappy as day one. When it comes to the two you mentioned, the S90D is a little brighter than the S95C and has slightly better picture processing. That's not saying the S95C is bad — far from it. Unless you put them side by side, I don't know if you'd notice a difference, and even then it's splitting hairs. The biggest difference is the One Connect Box that comes with the S95C. It lets you connect your external devices to the box instead of directly to the TV, giving you more flexibility with your setup, especially if your TV is hard to reach or mounted to the wall. So, if you want that setup versatility, go with the S95C. If you want slightly improved image quality, go with the S90D. I'll also say — when I saw this question, I thought, 'Where are they finding the S95C for that price right now?' Sure enough, there are a few places with it under $2,000. A solid deal for a QD-OLED, even if it's a 2023 model. Best Affordable Huge TVs Worth Buying? @Pimpincrispy1978 asks: What is the most affordable 98- to 100-inch TV that is still worth buying? I'm guessing Samsung Crystal UHD is a hard no? I'm looking for another TV that I can enjoy for another 10 years or so. Hey, you said it, not me. I'm going to go with a hard pass on the Crystal UHD, especially because Samsung has that DU9000 98-inch listed for $2,500 right now. For that money, you're still getting a pretty basic LED TV with basic HDR performance. For affordability, you should check out options from TCL and Hisense. The TCL QM6K is on sale for less than that Samsung, and you're getting a Quantum Dot Mini LED panel that supports Dolby Vision, Dolby Atmos audio, and faster refresh rates. The QM7K only improves on that if you want to spend a bit more. The same goes for Hisense with the 100-inch U7 from 2024. It's on Amazon now for $1,900 and offers quantum dot color with full array local dimming, Dolby Vision and Atmos — the works. I know you're concerned with longevity, but I can't guarantee any TV will last 10 years. They should, and some will, depending on how much and how you use it. But I wouldn't pay more for a lesser TV just for a brand name.
Tom's Guide
14 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
I review gaming monitors, but I prefer playing games on my LG OLED TV — here's why
I've been a gamer for most of my life, and I've almost exclusively played games on a TV. This hasn't changed, even now that I review the best gaming monitors for a living. While these devices are specifically designed for playing games at the best possible resolution, refresh rate, and response time, I still default to playing on my current LG OLED. That's not to say I haven't seriously considered switching to a gaming monitor. Devices like the Alienware AW3425DW, LG UltraGear 32GS95UE-B, and Samsung Odyssey OLED G9 have tempted me. But while those gaming monitors offer better performance and lower response times, I'm not making the leap from TV to monitors for gaming. I currently own a 55-inch LG CX OLED TV, which I purchased back in 2020 for playing PS5 and the best PC games. Despite being outclassed by better TVs like the LG C5, this older TV still provides the bare minimum I need for gaming. This includes an OLED display, HDR10 support, 4K resolution, a 120Hz refresh rate, HDMI 2.1 support, and a 1ms response time in gaming mode. I typically get new TVs when a new gaming generation starts, so I'll likely keep this TV until the PS6 launches. I'm not writing this article to change anyone's mind. If you prefer playing games on a gaming monitor, then you're arguably getting the better overall gaming experience. However, if you're like me and like playing games on a TV, I'm here to tell you that you're not alone. Here's why I prefer playing games on my LG OLED TV. Introduced in LG's 2025 TV lineup, the new LG C5 OLED is here as the value pick of the year. Offering a slew of features, like a range of HDR certifications and gaming specs for the PS5 Pro crowd, the C5 proves a major improvement over its predecessor. 48" for $1,39655" for $1,596 65" for $2,296 77" for $3,29683" for $5,296 Gaming monitors larger than 34 inches used to be rare, but that's no longer true thanks to giants like the 45-inch LG UltraGear 45GX950A-B and the even larger 57-inch Samsung Odyssey Neo G9. That said, monitors like these are generally curved and ultrawide. These gaming monitors can make gaming feel more immersive and are also fantastic for productivity. However, they don't always make for the best gaming experience. The main issue I have with ultrawide gaming monitors is that not all games, especially console titles, support ultrawide aspect ratios. PS5 games generally have a 16:9 aspect ratio, for instance. Because of that, you'll have empty space on the sides if you're connected to a 32:9 monitor. This is also true for the majority of video content. While playing games with an ultrawide aspect ratio can be extremely immersive, that's only for select games with ultrawide support. Though I purchased and primarily use my TV for gaming, I prefer its standard 16:9 aspect ratio and flat panel since it's ideal for most games and video content. Again, ultrawide curved gaming monitors are fantastic, but they're not the best for most of the games I play. Most of the gaming monitors I've tested don't have speakers. When they do, the sound quality isn't exactly ear-pleasing. Because of that, you'd need to use one of the best gaming headsets. While I have a handful of headsets myself, I only use them when in a game chat session with friends. Most of the time, I'm getting sound from my TV's speakers. Yes, headsets deliver better sound quality and can be more immersive, but I don't enjoy wearing them for longer than two hours. Since I'm not an audiophile and don't want to wear something on my head for too long, I'm fine with my TV's speakers. If I had a gaming monitor, I'd be forced to wear a gaming headset to get better sound, or sound at all. And since I'm sure some of you will ask, I don't use one of the best soundbars since I live in an apartment and don't want to annoy my neighbors. No matter how loud I turn up my TV's speakers, they won't match a soundbar's output. I only started playing PC games around ten years ago when I purchased my first true gaming rig. Before that, I only played on gaming consoles ranging from the original NES all the way to the PS4. Sitting in front of a TV with a controller in hand is my ideal experience, so when I began playing PC games, I made sure to replicate the console experience. Right now, I have my gaming and work PC connected to my LG CX. When I want to play a PC game, I simply select my TV as a display option, fire up a game, and play using one of the best PC game controllers. While there are more steps involved than when I play on PS5 or Nintendo Switch 2, the actual act of playing PC games is effectively the same as the console experience. You might wonder what I do when I want to play RTS or MMORPGs, which have control schemes generally designed for the best gaming keyboards and best gaming mice. The answer is that I don't play those genres. Remember, I come from a console gaming background, so I didn't grow up playing games like Command & Conquer or EverQuest. And while I appreciate mouse and keyboard controls, they still feel alien to me, even for games that are designed for them. If I could only play PC games while at my desk, I wouldn't be a PC gamer. I'll explain why in a bit, but regardless, when I play games on any platform, I want to do it the way I always have — in front of my TV as if I'm playing on a console. If you're a competitive gamer, then you absolutely need a gaming monitor. That's because they offer high refresh rates for smoother gameplay and lower response times to improve (or virtually eliminate) input lag. For example, monitors like the Alienware AW2524H can achieve an absurd 500Hz refresh rate and super-low 0.5ms response time. This is something unheard of for TVs. While higher refresh rates and low response times can help some people play better, the majority of folks won't notice an appreciable difference. I'm not saying that playing a game on a 240Hz and 0.03ms capable monitor won't make a difference in gaming. If you're a professional gamer, you might be capable of discerning between 240Hz and 480Hz. That's awesome, but I'm just a normal gamer and don't have that ability. Because of that, I don't need the performance a gaming monitor provides. This is the last point, but it's actually the main reason I prefer gaming on my TV over a gaming monitor. It's also a sentiment that many of my fellow gaming friends and colleagues also share. After spending 8+ hours a day at my desk, the last thing I want to do is remain at my desk to play video games. I live in a studio apartment, so designating different 'rooms' is important, even if they're artificial separations. Sure, I only move a few feet to the right when going from my desk to my TV, but doing so tells my brain that it's time to relax. If I were to stay at my desk to play games, I'd still think I was working. That might sound weird, but if you've ever lived in a studio apartment or small space, you'll understand. I sit about eight feet away from my TV, which is a good distance that allows me to comfortably see everything without straining my eyes. When working, my eyes are about an arm's length away from my monitor(s). I don't get eye strain during a typical 8-hour work day, but my eyes definitely feel worn out when I have to work longer. I can only imagine the kind of eye strain I'd have if I also played games at my desk. There are probably things I could do to minimize this, but why do that when I can just leave my desk to play games on my TV? Playing video games on a gaming monitor is arguably the best way to do so since that's what they're designed for. As a gaming monitor reviewer, I will always recommend these devices to serious gamers. As much as I love testing gaming monitors and appreciate what they can provide, I'd still rather play on my LG OLED. Not only does it deliver everything I want/need when gaming, but it gets me away from my work desk so I can truly relax. I'm not saying I'll never switch to a gaming monitor, but for now, I'm going to continue playing games the way I always have — on my TV.
Tom's Guide
15 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
I used to think Nikons were only for grandpas — but the Z5II just converted me
Listen, I'm not a Nikon hater. In fact, I own two vintage Nikon film cameras (only one of which now works). I know as well as anyone that Nikon makes some of the best cameras, which produce lovely images. As it happens, we also use two Nikon Z7IIs for our product photography here in the Tom's Guide U.K. review studio. And that's precisely because of the imaging excellence — the 45MP sensor gives plenty of space for cropping, and Nikkor glass is sharp enough to meet professional standards. However, I've just never really felt compelled to buy a modern Nikon. I know this is subjective, but they're just, well… boring. The Z f aside, today's Nikons don't have the charm of Fujifilm, or the cool 'content creator' factor of Sony. I genuinely don't ever remember seeing a young person with a Nikon. When I think of Nikon cameras, I see the Toyota Corolla. Well made, competent at its job, prime taxi fodder. But hardly a buttock-clenching drive. A grandad car. It's really difficult to fault the Nikon Z5II, especially on value for money. While it doesn't offer some of the elite features of its bigger brother, the Z6III, there's still plenty of pro features on offer here at a surprisingly low price tag. This week, though, I may have finally shaken my Nikon prejudice. I've spent the last few days testing the Nikon Z5II for my upcoming review, and I'm really struggling to think of reasons why you wouldn't buy this camera. Maybe it's that I'm older now than I ever have been. Or maybe it's because the Z5II offers simply unbeatable value for money. We loved the Nikon Z6III when we tested it last year. It's a true professional hybrid, jam-packed full of pro features for both stills and video. I'm talking subject detection AF, 120fps drive, 6K internal RAW internal. It's a damned powerhouse. The Z5II is not that. But neither is it far off. My personal camera — currently a Fujifilm X-T5 — is used for architecture photography (my hobby) and location product photography (my work). I don't need all the features of the Z6III, but I do need beautiful images, dual card slots, IBIS, strong subject detection AF and excellent handling when shooting at pace. Like the $2,499 Z6III, the Z5II delivers all of those things, only at a much, much lower price tag of $1,699. If you're an enthusiast, semi-professional or even a pro photographer, the Z5II offers a hell of a lot for the money, and ought to be top of your shortlist. The closest non-Nikon competitor is the $2,199 Canon EOS R6 Mark II, which is very similarly specced. The Canon's AF is in a different league, but that's not to say the Z5II's is poor. And I'm not sure the delta between the two is worth the $500 Canon premium. Of course, there's the higher-res Sony A7 IV, the 33MP king of the mid-market full frame domain. But with an MSRP of $2,499, the Z5II likewise has the A7IV undercut so heavily that it's difficult to justify spending that much more for 8.5 more megapixels. Two days into testing, I took the Z5II on a press trip to Frankfurt, photographing a new product at a busy event full of other journalists and content creators. It was a bit of a scramble getting to the product, and when I did, I was usually at an odd angle. In those situations, a camera must handle intuitively — you don't have time to be messing around finding settings. The Z5II was one of the easiest cameras I've used on shoot. The grip is comfortable, the layout sensible. Almost all of the rear is remappable, and instead of locating Fn buttons along the top plate, as you'll find on many of the best mirrorless cameras, there are two Fn buttons inside the grip, near the lens — just like the Fujifilm GFX100 II. In my opinion, this is the most intuitive place to host Fn buttons, removing the need to awkwardly bend a finger up onto and across the top plate. Despite its price, the Z5II handles like a professional camera. It was an excellent compadre for on-location photography, and I've no doubt it'll excel in a studio or wedding environment too. As I mentioned above, my primary camera is the Fujifilm X-T5. It's a competent performer for work, but also serves my personal needs very well. I shoot in black and white, so a driving factor in my personal camera choices is the quality of the mono profiles. I like to see my color profile applied through the EVF while shooting, to work with contrast and shadows as I frame and expose. This is a major reason for using Fujifilm, as I've not found anything (except maybe the Leica Monochrom) that fires up my inspiration quite like Acros — high contrast, sharp shadows; for shooting a monolithic slab of concrete on a bright sunny day, there's little better. That said, using Nikon's mono profiles on a blistering sunny day in Frankfurt proved a surprising treat. The Deep Mono profile in particular, is just marvelous for architecture, with plenty of contrast. It naturally lacks the filmic quality of Acros, but only complemented Frankfurt's sleek modernist and neo-futurist architecture. Tellingly, I had my Fujifilm with me that day, but dropped it back at the hotel after seeing the Z5II's output. I got my first Fujifilm 10 years ago, and I've owned five Fujis in total. I've experimented with other cameras, but in the last few years have rarely thought about switching brands permanently, least of all to Nikon. The Z5II has me really considering what I need long term, though. For light or semi-professional work, it's a phenomenal camera for the money. There isn't anywhere else you can get a new camera with this balance of full frame goodness and pro features for just $1,699. Poignantly, the camera world is currently in the midst of debating the Fujifilm X-E5, which costs $1,699 body only. As an X-E lover, that price tag has me sorely disappointed anyway, but especially so when considering how much camera you're getting for the same money with the Z5II. Counter to my age-related jibes earlier on, I actually think the Z5II is the ideal camera for young photographers, too. Straight out of a photography course, or upgrading to your first full frame mirrorless for commissions? What an incredible investment the Z5II would make to help your career blossom. Have I just become a Nikon shooter? I'm closer to 40 than 20 now, I guess, so it would make sense.
