Next-Generation NVMe SSD and I/O Technology [PC, PS5, XBSX|S]

[BRiT]

So if there is a poorly optimized game the 2:1 ratio would not be relevant?

Not if the time breakdown comes down to something like the following, where even with 2x slower I/O only ads 10% time (110% vs 100%).

90% CPU
10% IO

Even with the following ratio, you're looking at most 50% more, not 100% more (150% vs 100% and not 200% vs 100%)

50% CPU
50% IO

 

[mpg1]

I could still see a scenario where we get a game that is rushed or is poorly optimised and uses large amounts of data that could give us a loading time gap. Especially if PS5 ends up being the lead development platform for that game.

Like Final Fantasy or something.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

It's likely Sony have a quick resume.

I don't think it's just about filling memory, due to world building etc...

I still think we're going to be looking not at 6 seconds and 3 seconds, but at least 9 seconds and 6 seconds. IMO that's in the realm of "nobody cares". If it's more like 10 seconds and 13 seconds as I suspect, it will be in the realm of "nobody even notices".

We have some evidence of unoptimized Xbox games now that suggest that CPU is a major factor at least for previous gen games.

For instance, load times of 60 seconds on 8 GB of data on XSX. That's a lot of CPU thrashing.

CPU is still going to be a thing IMO.

 

[Lalaland]

I'm going to say we'll to wait at least one dev cycle on the new platforms to be able to definitively say MS or Sony have identified the key bottlenecks here, early titles at least are likely to favour the platform with highest raw b/w numbers but the gains from implementing better storage APIs are nothing to sniff at if harder to realise.

I'd push back on the idea that 2-3 seconds doesn't count for end users, in a world of 30s vs 27s it's functionally immaterial but in 9s vs 6s race that's a 50% longer wait on the 9s platform. Most users will never notice on account of only playing on a single platform but if a narrative develops amongst those with multiple platforms that "it's just faster on X, sure it's not much better than Y on the numbers but it just feels faster on X".

It's hard to parse out how much of the Xbox One S dashboard stickiness is I/O vs lord knows what else but I'm looking forward to seeing how much faster that is on Series X because hatred for the feel of X1S dashboard is one of the reasons I mostly use it as a media player even with Game Pass

 

[mpg1]

Comparison of Monster Hunter World loading time across Xbox One, Xbox One X, Series X:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1313502341316870144

 

[BRiT]

I have no idea how anyone can game on original launch model 2013 consoles.

 

[AzBat]

I have no idea how anyone can game on original launch model 2013 consoles.

Kids. My 25yr old & 6yr old don't care. Though I do use a 1S in my bedroom a lot more lately. Will be nice to get the 1X in there when the Series X replaces it in the living room.

Remember if you only play 1 game & use Netflix it has a quick resume that works pretty good switching between the 2.

Tommy McClain

 

[Johnny Awesome]

It's interesting. I only game on my original launch X One. Still going strong after 7 years. I only have my 75" 1080 p TV, but I still think games look pretty nice on it. Recently finished Hellblade and working on Wasteland 3 right now and it seems fine to me, but I'm not comparing it to anything really.

I have an XSX ordered and I'll likely upgrade to 4K 120hz next year some time.

 

[milk]

yeah, it is not like we didn't see instant respawn in the past. Works quite well if the game is build for something like that.
A limited "arena", you can't see things in the distant (because of the level architecture) and where it would be possible .... fog.

I really don't know why people now a stressing that instant respawn thing? This was never unusual only some games load a complete other world state while others don't reset anything (expect for the characters life).
Loading screens from a closed game to start menu and from there loading a previous saved game, those times are interesting. Everything there in around 10s is more than acceptable. Just don't want to wait minutes until a savegame is loaded any longer.

And what most people forget, there is more than just loading the data. Worlds must be build by the CPU, NPCs (and their actions) placed, objects set, ...
Load times in games with procedurally generated content, won't load that much faster, only because of bigger CPU (and here and there a bit because of the better IO). People are just expecting to much from the IO.
It is good that the IO is no longer THE bottleneck but somehow people seem to think that a game is like a video file, that must just get decoded and displayed on the screen.

Technically, even an open world game can perfectly well have instant respawn going across the map if needed be without any load times if the dev actally engineers its engine to support it and takes the memory hit to make it possible.

Just set a portion of ram as "respawn area cache" and eat up the ramifications that has in graphics across the game. Its valuing user experience/quality of life and gameplay flow over "OMG look how Hi-Res these textures are".

I remember seeing ND claim to do that with their Uncharted games and that still didn't stop them from looking gorgeous. Admitedly linearity makes that easier, but its still a bold tradeoff thay chose to take and stuck to. Remember PS3 had 512Mbs of Ram. Ouch.

Even if the world is proceduraly generated on the CPU, one can cache the checkpointed area in ram so it does not have to be re-generated again.

There are smart tradeoffs one can make to keep that cache low. I've seen many games with near instant quick respawn where textures are at lower-mips when gameplay restarts. Leads me to assume they are doing exactly what I just said, but only keeping lower LODs in that cache to make it small. All higher LODs end up loading back up in a few seconds. (With next gen SSDs, it should take a few frames)

Its all on devs for chosing shiny graphics over playability and on the buying public for supporting and rewarding these choices.

SSD will make all that even cheaper now though, so now they have no damn excuse.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I have no idea how anyone can game on original launch model 2013 consoles.

You should play Ghost of Tsushima on original PS4 .. 7.26 secs. That's on a 5400rpm drive too.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I have no idea how anyone can game on original launch model 2013 consoles.

Because the massive, massive majority of consoles gamers want to play games and are less fussed about frame rates, resolutions and load times. You and I, and many others in this forum, are not average gamers. We're a vocal but statistically insignificant round-error number so we should be grateful at all that both Microsoft and Sony designed to drag tech forward significantly in every area.

 

[Nisaaru]

Because the massive, massive majority of consoles gamers want to play games and are less fussed about frame rates, resolutions and load times. You and I, and many others in this forum, are not average gamers. We're a vocal but statistically insignificant round-error number so we should be grateful at all that both Microsoft and Sony designed to drag tech forward significantly in every area.

In case of load times I disagree. No gamer enjoys wasting time in load screens and the more that's part of the "experience" the more it matters like it is for games like Destiny or some large sandbox/RPGs.

 

[Silenti]

Because the massive, massive majority of consoles gamers want to play games and are less fussed about frame rates, resolutions and load times. You and I, and many others in this forum, are not average gamers. We're a vocal but statistically insignificant round-error number so we should be grateful at all that both Microsoft and Sony designed to drag tech forward significantly in every area.

Ahh, but are you not an influencer.......?

 

[dobwal]

Technically, even an open world game can perfectly well have instant respawn going across the map if needed be without any load times if the dev actally engineers its engine to support it and takes the memory hit to make it possible.

Just set a portion of ram as "respawn area cache" and eat up the ramifications that has in graphics across the game. Its valuing user experience/quality of life and gameplay flow over "OMG look how Hi-Res these textures are".

I remember seeing ND claim to do that with their Uncharted games and that still didn't stop them from looking gorgeous. Admitedly linearity makes that easier, but its still a bold tradeoff thay chose to take and stuck to. Remember PS3 had 512Mbs of Ram. Ouch.

Even if the world is proceduraly generated on the CPU, one can cache the checkpointed area in ram so it does not have to be re-generated again.

There are smart tradeoffs one can make to keep that cache low. I've seen many games with near instant quick respawn where textures are at lower-mips when gameplay restarts. Leads me to assume they are doing exactly what I just said, but only keeping lower LODs in that cache to make it small. All higher LODs end up loading back up in a few seconds. (With next gen SSDs, it should take a few frames)

Its all on devs for chosing shiny graphics over playability and on the buying public for supporting and rewarding these choices.

SSD will make all that even cheaper now though, so now they have no damn excuse.

Instant respawn with open world games isn’t a technical issue. GTA 5 respawns took some time because slow motion death mechanic and respawning at a hospital but online didn’t function like that. You die and simply respawned somewhere near by to eliminate spawn camping. It wasnt instant but it wasn’t long either AFAIK.

Long respawns are associated more with mission and level restart where the entire game state has to be reset.

I don’t recall that being a memory issue since I don’t remember a game with respawn times being dependent on how far into a level or mission a gamer traveled.

I do remember being frustrated with some games where dying was too easy and going, “I only went five steps before I was obliterated why is it taking so long to reload!!!?”

 

[Silenti]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1313905133705736194

Wasn't sure if this belonged here or in the Xbox specific thread. Eh, post em all. The mods will know their own.

 

[Strange]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1313905133705736194

Wasn't sure if this belonged here or in the Xbox specific thread. Eh, post em all. The mods will know their own.

Not to be picky but he only said multiple options and different form factors and different sizes.
Nowhere does he mention other companies, and I would think Seagate wouldn't be very happy with that.

 

[Jay]

Not to be picky but he only said multiple options and different form factors and different sizes.
Nowhere does he mention other companies, and I would think Seagate wouldn't be very happy with that.

Pretty sure they have said so, maybe from the blog posts these quotes was from?
It's more so about when they'll open up to others than if they will.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

In case of load times I disagree. No gamer enjoys wasting time in load screens and the more that's part of the "experience" the more it matters like it is for games like Destiny or some large sandbox/RPGs.

It's not whether people enjoy long load times (or lower frame rates or resolutions) but whether or not they're willing to pay more to improve them. And the answer to that is a resounding no.

 

[Nisaaru]

It's not whether people enjoy long load times (or lower frame rates or resolutions) but whether or not they're willing to pay more to improve them. And the answer to that is a resounding no.

A lot Destiny gamers bought SSDs to speed up menu transactions and activity loading times and use Vault Managers to speed up all gear operations.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

A lot Destiny gamers bought SSDs to speed up menu transactions and activity loading times and use Vault Managers to speed up all gear operations.

How many? I.e. what size of the market are we talking?