snc
Veteran
In 2013 x one was considered very balancedI prefer a much more balanced machine.
In 2013 x one was considered very balancedI prefer a much more balanced machine.
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.
Let's see what both PS5 and XSX actually deliver. Fast SSDs in RAID has not eliminated load times on PC.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.
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.
They won't focus on any GPU deficit, they'll focus on what (if anything) PS5 does better. The only thing that Sony have really trumpteted is the SSD. Now if this really does virtually eliminate loading times, e.g. from button press to game is 2-3 seconds, that would be huge. That's better than PC. They can charge for that if XSX is loading games in 20 seconds. I can't see haptic feedback controllers or 3D audio setting the world on fire because the actual impact is really down to individual devs to support and implement - just like DualShock 4's touchscreen which in most games is just the map button!
Aye, if the PS5 has some sort of significant superiority - such as the SSD - I have no doubt they'll do their best to make the console buying public care; enough to translate to dat dollar.
But I also wouldn't be surprised if the difference in storage solutions isn't enormous enough for the public to care - 0 seconds Vs 2 seconds, for example, probably won't sway many people - whilst the rest of the hardware is comparable to PS4Pro Vs X1X. If it's that kind of comparison, I expect a price differential. Either that, or for Sony to establish a pattern of losing their minds after every even numbered PlayStation.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.So lets ask a few questions... assume we have only 16 GB of ram.
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.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
I truly hope the games will blow me away visually and they better charge us $399 at those specs.
As for price, if the PS5 is 9.2TF whilst the XSX is 12TF, I'll expect an appropriate price differential.
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.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.
It shows Proelite knew XB1 was weaker and knew MS had a different with 'richer' features.This one aged like milk.
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.They have so much more to offer in other areas that'll make both developers and consumers make the next Xbox their platform of choice.