Current Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [post GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]

Pretty damn quick. I wonder how many loading-level/game animations will ship in PS5 games and never be seen. I assume that stuff will still be in there because it just feels like an effort to remove it.

 

I think that is more representative of different modes loading different speeds.

if you look in the replies you can see the Xbox version loading just as fast.

 

I hope for "Press X to continue" prompts to become more commonplace.

I can't cite any examples off the top of my head, but there have been a few games over the years that offer some useful tips or bits of world building during loading screens, and it irritates me when I'm cut off halfway through a paragraph.

 

Good spot, it's two-player versus one player by the looks of it and if those two players are connected over the network there could be a little time for that too.

Simple. Brilliant.

 

The real war has begun. Brace yourself for the SSD war!

 

5000/40 = 125 seconds.
RDR Gamespot = 38 seconds

 

This is 131 MB/s, this the same far from 2400 MB/s. This is not something normal. This is BC nothing interesting.

 

Has anybody done BC benches on PS5 or XB1X with an external HDD? Want to see the difference. The better CPUs should already get a large chunk of the loading time down.

This is especially interesting for BC games, because of the limited SSD memory in the new consoles and large SSDs are still quite pricy (have a 8TB HDD on my xb1x filled with 5TB of games).

 

I hugely appreciate your input on these forums but please stop saying "bc nothing interesting", I plan to play plenty of current gen games on my new box and this is very interesting to me!!! I reckon BRiT feels the same as we were both eyeing up external drives for at the same reason.

DF did for Series X but I've seen no comparison of external HDD vs SSD for PS5, only internal NVME vs external SSD. On Series X the results are varied, some games are ~20-25% faster some vastly better. I eventually settled on SSD for PS5 without results because the patching can take an age on PS4 and I just assume the PS4's patching on PS5 will is vastly faster with an SSD.

 

Diminishing returns I guess. 2s or 3s, absolutely meaningless. Last gen we had difference between 40s and 45s and no body even noticed.

 

That sort of thing will take longer to get done for PS5 since it seems to support only 1 external drive at a time according to YongYea's review here. Though he did manage to try external HDDs, I don't remember his exact words, but it's somewhere around 23:15 mark.

 

I speak about BC performance. People try to forge an opinion about I/O system of the next-generation when this has nothing to do with I/O performance. This is just a problem of code not optimized well and it will be the case for at least the first or two years of next generation.

They probably optimize a bit on AC Valhalla but the result can be better. AC Odyssey loads in 30 seconds and 17 seconds for AC Valhalla from save to game. I am sure they can do better but they need to continue to rework all I/O path into the game engine.

 

So he's broadly saying external drives running the same games are both faster than PS4, which will be the CPU boost improving game loads. Interestingly, just earlier (23:01) he says RDR2 loads in 39 seconds for him on PS5, which is almost a third faster than GameSpot reported.

As I asked in an earlier post, what versions of the game and firmware are these people running? Because they will likely explain the different times people are getting, especially when running off the NVME drive. External drives, and the interfaces they use, will all introduce even more variations in load speed as noted by Richard in the DF article linked above, compared a no-name Amazon adaptor vs a Sabrent adaptor.

Conclusion:

I don't think anybody is forming a conclusion about the I/O systems of nextgen consoles based on b/c game load times; people are interested because they will be playing those games. Spider-Man loading in a few seconds speaks for itself.

 

I hope it will make third party dev push further and try to load as fast as possible on open world games.

EDIT: NBA2k21 load very fast on the three consoles PS5, Serie X and S. If people do the effort at the end of the generation we will not accept loading above 10/12 seconds.

 

Kinda curious how the Series S might stack up in terms of loading times for next gen games if only because it's going to have an advantage (at least in some cases) in the amount of game data it will have to load....

 

According to Mark Cerny, it is zero effort to extract good speed from PS5. In terms of getting things to load he's probably right but devs having package and arrange assets differently could be a lot of work.

Obviously this work will benefit the three new consoles but it may also benefit PCs running fast SSDs too. It'll be interesting to see where that cut-off is on PC and whether it needs DirectStorage to be really worthwhile. But are developers on PC really going to accommodate traditional level-based assets packs with lots of data duplication and this new asset paradigm? If so, how? Would Steam need to be updated to accommodate to installation methods? It would need a change to how patches are delivered too.

 

DMC5SE mission2 loading times


XBSX 5.35 second

 

In the certain contexts where RDNA was/is still referred as GCN Navi10, which doesn't have RPM below FP16, was GCN6 and Navi12 which has RPM for INT4/8 was GCN6_1, just like Vega10 (without) was GCN5 and Vega20 (with) GCN5_1

edit: just realized the message I was replying was already a bit old

 

When will we see direct comparison of launch games running on new consoles? Is there any embargo?

 

There may be embargos on the PS5 side since they don't launch until a couple days later.