snc
Veteran
In 2013 x one was considered very balanced
Baseless Next Generation Rumors with no Technical Merits [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
You're not going to be getting thosse very pretty games "slowly" though. You're going to get very pretty games near instantly as well, and a ridiculously huge improvement over last gen.. to the point where a few seconds difference will not matter.A couple of seconds in difference for load-time? No, but 5% or 10% (20x or 10x ) load time compared to all other options. Yes. I'd trade a 25-33% raw teraflops GPU advantage for that. GPU teraflops for the masses is well in the realm of diminishing returns. If you are so utterly focussed on teraflops, why on earth are you even gaming on a console compared to a PC?
Pretty games near-instantly vs. very pretty games slowly? I'm in camp fast. We know what SSD can (and can't) do from putting every configuration of SSD (and RAM) into already-ridiculously powerful PCs.
My point... we're likely not going to be waiting 30sec-1min+ for ANY game to load on these new consoles. So I would definitely take a GPU with 3TF more power than a faster SSD.
And besides, an SSD with "2x" the sequential Read/Write of another drive, does NOT guarantee 2x faster in any or all situations. We know what SSDs can (and can't) do in overpowered PCs... without any modification to current code to take advantage of them.. that's about it at this point.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Let's see what both PS5 and XSX actually deliver. Fast SSDs in RAID has not eliminated load times on PC.
This should not require a change to code to benefit from. It will likely require a change in how games are packages and that's on Sony's SDK to make seem-less. They delivered on how PS4 games re-packaged, noting that most games allowed you start playing before the whole game was downloaded/installed.
I personally think if the SSD solution is twice as fast (just as an example) ghat they might be able to utilise the extra speed in game design outside of just loading times.
But that would be restricted to exclusives.
Let’s just wait and see what (if any) advantages each console offers before jumping to conclusions off the info we have
Tkumpathenurpahl
Veteran
It's not really a choice though, from the perspective of Sony and MS, between 9.2TF+SuperSSD or 12TF+SSD. They've each sought to reduce/eliminate load times, and will be bringing their own solution to bear. I doubt Sony's solution, even if substantially better, is so costly that they traded in 3TF of GPU performance for it.
There's also the matter of price, and if the power split between the PS5 and XSX is to be believed, it seems likely that both companies decided on different price brackets. I'm quite confident in saying that the only way in which storage factors into this is the matter of capacity.
There's also the matter of price, and if the power split between the PS5 and XSX is to be believed, it seems likely that both companies decided on different price brackets. I'm quite confident in saying that the only way in which storage factors into this is the matter of capacity.
Tkumpathenurpahl
Veteran
Aye, I'm interested in what greater storage bandwidth might bring. Assuming it's even the case, of course. It'll be a time that it's particularly fun to be a member of this forum, since console wars aren't tolerated. Well, except for this thread, a bit. But this thread's the bastard child of a legitimate one, so there's that too.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Me too. I said as much over in this thread but it was derailed by PCMR folks who refused to accept a console could be do something faster than a PC and folks who just don't understand I/O.
Most folks-would be astonished to know that in terms of guaranteed streaming bandwidth, Switch is way ahead of PlayStation and Xbox because it's inbuilt storage is faster than the slowest HDD you might use with current consoles.
When Sony and Microsoft set out to design their nextgen boxes, neither knew the priorities of the other so it would never have been such a black and white decision. It is known that Sony is deeply invested in a multiple of techniques to improve I/O because they not only have a bunch of patents, but because Mark Cerny has specifically addressed this. Apple were the first mainstream manufacturer to switch laptop models to SSDs only but they did not stop there. They've double down on improving the base SSD tech, but also drive controllers, the filesystem and the I/O system.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tkumpathenurpahl
Veteran
Am I playing No Man's Sky?
My main complaint of current gen is not necessarily load times, though they can get on my nerves, but downloading to play times. The time it takes to just get in the game from start of download is excruciating. I've been beating the drum for years that Microsoft needs to start looking at Numecent's Cloudpaging. It uses some kind of virtual machine voodoo to make downloading apps fast. What's the point of playing different games, from say something like Game Pass, if it takes forever to even download the game? Yes, load times are important, but with games getting larger & larger I think download times are more important for the mainstream audience because we're so use to instant streaming of content. Fix the download times first & then we can talk about load times next.
Tommy McClain
Tommy McClain
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
This is a good question to ask assuming all things are equal. If they are not, then this is not a question that will produce helpful answers. Like comparing a 800hp engine in a truck to a 400hp engine in a car. You're comparing the engine, but none of the other differences.
cheapchips
Veteran
The talk about loading times is odd. If the difference with Sony's solution pays off its because of the difference it makes to streaming unique assets. If a crowd on PS5 has twice the hat variety over XSX they'll have won the generation. Hats are important in games.
If you download and play loads of games them yes, this could be an issue. For me personally I tend to put loads of hours into a few games (Battlefield, Destiny, Borderlands) so the download only affects me once. The game load time then affects me many, many times over the next couple of years. We know they’re addressing game loads with the inclusion of SSDs, hopefully they’re doing something about download. I thought MS had mentioned that you could start to play a game immediately f]after buying through Xcloud streaming while it’s downloading in the background.
SSDs could definitely impact gameplay and graphics. We’ve never put requirements around Hard drive bandwidth for PC games which is why it’s always been set to the absolute lowest denominator. The most we’ve put is required disk space.
As long as the rest of the system in balanced to take advantage of streaming bandwidth then yes; you will see an advantage for sure.
The end result will be around more dense game tiles; so for example Spider Man is 20MB today; it could be 200MB or 400MB per tile for next gen.
Or it can traverse those tiles 10-20x faster.
Any engine built in this way will impact game requirements. You’re going to need the GPU and CPU to display it all, but yea this is going to be a thing.
If AAA studios are looking to push it to the limit; nvme requirements will be a thing for PC come next gen.
As long as the rest of the system in balanced to take advantage of streaming bandwidth then yes; you will see an advantage for sure.
The end result will be around more dense game tiles; so for example Spider Man is 20MB today; it could be 200MB or 400MB per tile for next gen.
Or it can traverse those tiles 10-20x faster.
Any engine built in this way will impact game requirements. You’re going to need the GPU and CPU to display it all, but yea this is going to be a thing.
If AAA studios are looking to push it to the limit; nvme requirements will be a thing for PC come next gen.
Does anyone think 2 systems nearly identical in spec with a ~3Tf difference in power, would have a price difference of $100? Assuming xsx is $500 and ps5 is $399.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Sony and Microsoft will charge what they think the market will bear given the demand and their ability to manufacture new consoles in volume. Because the economics of consoles is not predicated on profit on the sale of the box but profitability over the lifetime of ownership, the actual cost is more a business decision than related to actual tangible costs.
9.2Tflops is only an issue because supposedly Xbox is coming in more than that. Anything in the 9-10 range was completely reasonable and expected for this gen.
In terms of relative to PC, 9.2Tflops is arguably close to high range now. With the release of Ampere it will be considered closer to mid range by the time PS5 releases but that is kinda expected for a console.
And this is with new architecture on top. When you add in the much faster CPU and SSD the leap will be substantial from anyone coming from a base PS4 (which is pretty much 90% of the PlayStation install base).
The only real downside for consumers would be if they can't differentiate at all on price. I'm skeptical they can get $100 price differential but maybe $50 and that's probably good enough.
In terms of relative to PC, 9.2Tflops is arguably close to high range now. With the release of Ampere it will be considered closer to mid range by the time PS5 releases but that is kinda expected for a console.
And this is with new architecture on top. When you add in the much faster CPU and SSD the leap will be substantial from anyone coming from a base PS4 (which is pretty much 90% of the PlayStation install base).
The only real downside for consumers would be if they can't differentiate at all on price. I'm skeptical they can get $100 price differential but maybe $50 and that's probably good enough.
It shows Proelite knew XB1 was weaker and knew MS had a different with 'richer' features.
He was just wrong on guessing the industry would prefer MS's route. When it comes to reputation in predicting next-gen, this link of yours is a plus-one for Proelite's believability.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
