Shrinking CoD games is the least of Activision's worries at the moment.
Next-Generation NVMe SSD and I/O Technology [PC, PS5, XBSX|S]
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
Shrinking CoD games is the least of Activision's worries at the moment.
This is logic. I was thinking the gap is too big, maybe this is a package problem with Xbox Series X and Series S version.
You can download the series x version put it on an HDD go to your xb1 and it is still playable without an extra download. So it is the same package just that the series x gets a few more with higher res content. So it is still using the same packaging pipeline.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Yes, Kraken doesn't have that level of compression advantage over e.g. zlib and even if the Series consoles were getting decompressed data the difference shouldn't be that big.
So Sony have now released their recommended specs for SSD expansion on the PS5 and it turns out they only recommend a 5500MB/s drive. Using drives at this speed resulted in loading times indistinguishable from the internal SDD in R&C.
https://wccftech.com/playstation-5-load-times-gen4-ssds-on-par/
So it seems the predictions about the custom controller with additional priority channels pushing requirements up into the 6-7GB/s range have not come to pass. Good news for anyone wanting to match PS5 performance on the PC side.
https://wccftech.com/playstation-5-load-times-gen4-ssds-on-par/
So it seems the predictions about the custom controller with additional priority channels pushing requirements up into the 6-7GB/s range have not come to pass. Good news for anyone wanting to match PS5 performance on the PC side.
That is the minimum required for comparable performance. I'm pretty sure Sony's first-party games (future-wise) will be pushing the boundaries of their custom SSD/IO tech. R&C: RA isn't the end-all on judging future performance...
That is the minimum required for comparable performance. I'm pretty sure Sony's first-party games (future-wise) will be pushing the boundaries of their custom SSD/IO tech. R&C: RA isn't the end-all on judging future performance...
That's yet to be seen but R&C is clearly pushing the IO capacilities hard. If they're seeing no difference then I think it's safe to say you don't need a 7GB/s SDD to simply match PS5 performance in the vast majority of cases.
Of course, we're still in the first generation of software/games, just coming off the last. Let's revisit this in the future.
Sony would be in some trouble if the SSDs they recommend today don't work throughout the entire generation properly..
They do work! Will work! But there is no guarantee on future performance. 5500MB/s is the bare recommendation for serviceable performance for a non-standard feature that most PS5 owners will probably skip on.
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/support/hardware/ps5-install-m2-ssd/
No guarantees on performance. Just a baseline that 5500MB/s should suffice better than lower SSD speeds.
Last edited:
Should we not read this as an indirect indication that the dev documentation says they have 5500MB/s to consume.
The internal drive may be more but has OS and services overhead to also handle.
Riddlewire
Regular
Other than Sony 1st party, I would imagine most games will be designed around "slower drives" anyway, since they will be multi-platform games and fully functional on Xbox Series consoles.
That doesn't mean the PS5 SSD wouldn't benefit in such a scenario, though.
This is underselling the current situation. We have test evidence proving that arguably the most stressful next gen only game on the PS5's IO capabilities available today is performing indistinguishably from the internal drive on a 5,500MB/s drive. We know R&C is pushing the IO hard from Insomniacs own accounts - they spent a good deal of time optimising performance to get the load times down as low as they could, and we all know how good they are at this.
Sony are confident enough in the test to make their recommendation of a 5500MB/s drive on the basis of it, a recommendation that third party vendors are now using to sell drives to the public so it's not something Sony will have done lightly even with that disclaimer you linked. If they thought there was a reasonable likelihood that future games would require more (clearly having taken Insomniacs input who should have an idea of whether or not they left any performance optimisations on the table that wouldn't translate to an external drive) then they would have uplifted the recommendation accordingly.
As it stands right now, and with no evidence that this is likely to change, if you want to match the PS5's IO performance, it seems you can do so with a 5,500MB/s drive. That's highly relevant as many were claiming you would need something faster. If and when any new evidence to the contrary is presented in the future, we can of course revisit the matter.
The thing is, now that Sony have made the 5,500MB/s recommendation and thus lots of gamers will go out and buy external drives based on that, then even if it were possible to make further IO optimisations on the internal drive that wouldn't transfer to those external drives (and that's a big if) then what incentive does any developer have to find them now? Because in doing so they would know they would be giving users who bought officially recommended external drives as subpar experience in their game on those drives. The bad publicity that could bring is unlikely to be worth the extra few fractions of a second such optimisations could bring to users who are running the game from the internal drive. Better to design your game around the limits of the external drive if indeed that's any different to the internal drive, which the current evidence suggests it's not anyway.
I really don't think that the SSDs of the current gen is a limiting factor in any scenario other than loading screens. And in those it is most times still the CPU that limits. It just doesn't make much sense from a certain point to really have much more bandwidth. You just load the differences and here it is most times the SSD size that limits first. Not so much changes from frame to frame that we really need so much bandwidth.
The next really meaningful step would be that SSDs get as fast as main memory, but I don't think that will happen so soon. Than and only than many more thinks can change from a design perspective. Until that point we still need cached textures etc for the next few frames. The faster SSDs just allow to reduce the cache size.
But I don't think there will be much difference between the current gen consoles in that regard. Sony went the way of massive bandwidth and Ms the way of big bandwidth and optimization of what really is needed to load.
The only think we can tell from those new beta update of Sony is, that now 5.5gb/s is enough. So this amount is still reduced by their over the top controller logic but should be still more than enough for this generation.
Ye knew it, hype never is that nice after the facts. Anyway, seems with a 7300mb/s nvme before DS/RTX IO you'd be quite much ahead of the PS5's SSD (unfair i know but still).
It won’t match it, your link even says as much - it’s 10-15% slower…it will work which is great it just won’t be quite as smooth or fast.
You've misread the link. This is what they said:
"The Gen4 drives we tried that met the recommended specs gave results almost indistinguishable from the internal SSD. "
"We tried some below-spec Gen4 M.2 drives as well and saw up to 15% slower loading in the most SSD-stressing areas of the game."
Similar threads
