Playstation 5 [PS5] [Release November 12 2020]

Good shout. The options also exist on the C9 and you can enable it/disable for each HDMI port. I'd switched it off on the two ports my PS5 and Series X use.

Goodbye, irritating "The instant game response is launched" notification. I will not miss you.

 

I am thinking about switching ps5 to one of hdmi 2.0 ports in the TV. Maybe this will solve the problem...

 

I am curious why are you guys so annoyed by a few seconds of a notification to be honest

 

1. It's blinding bright
2. It covers important part of the screen (depending on the game / content)

 

Sure, but that is when my PS5 is booting or coming back from rest mode, you are not even in a game when this happens with my LG B9

 

I dont know man. Maybe your screen configuration is too bright, plus its a few seconds only when you boot up the console.
So still, I wonder

 

I switch between Xbox, pc, switch, media player. Most of the time between media player and pc/Xbox.

When switch back to the game, it's annoying

 

I blame lg setting for HDR. They put the white notification almost at max brightness. They fixed it on lg c1 tho. As the notifications now no longer white but gray IIRC.

My Xbox boots instantly. But when I'm on PS4 pro, the longer boot time does avoid the "covering gameplay" issue.

I wonder when Sony will add quick resume to PS5. It's really awesome on Xbox.

 

Does the PS5 SSD have a high enough write speed to reasonably support a quick resume like feature? Also it'd require a certain amount of storage to be reserved for this feature to work.

Funnily enough. I wish for an option on Xbox to disable quick resume on a per title and system basis. I'd much rather be able to use the currently reserved storage myself and it's not really practical when you share you console with family members. In my experience it confuses less tech savy people when QR doesn't work properly.

 

but PS5 have way faster SSD than Xbox Series, and PS5 have waaaay more reserved space than xbox series.
IIRC xbox series X reserved only around 100 GB, while PS5 reserved around 250GB.

so, i think, spec-wise, PS5 already more than good enough.

 

I've no doubt that the PS5's SSD supports fast enough read speeds, that why I explicitly mentioned "write speed". Do we have numbers for that? It makes a difference in user experience if you write a (hypothetical) 13Gig memory dump with 1GB/s, 2GB/s or 3GB/s to storage.

As for storage reservations, Xbox has a slightly larger system reservation. You'd assume that the system reservations from both parties are larger than what they actually need at the moment to allow for future features/changes. So maybe Sony planned ahead and has some of the current reservation planned for a QR like feature, if not they'll need to claim back space from the user.
- PS5: 825GB (reality ~768GB*), usable storage 667.2GB**
- XSX: 1TB (reality ~930GB*), usable storage 802GB**

Has a system ever increased a reservation in the past?

*thank to GB vs GiB
**With the latest firmware installed.

 

I think write speeds were quite slow, but that could be firmware related.

 

I kept forgetting that PS5 doesn't have 1TB disk. Btw if PS5 have slow write speed, I wonder what's the cause.

Are they using something even worse than QLC? gotta look at some tear downs and look at the scribbles on the chips

Edit: xbox series expansion card have quite slow writes https://www.storagereview.com/review/seagate-storage-expansion-card-for-xbox-series-xs-review

The internal one maybe have the full speed of 1.9GBps? https://www.westerndigital.com/products/internal-drives/pc-sn530-ssd#SDBPTPZ-1T00

 

So, reading again the first pages of this thread, with all the unsustained clocks discussions that the PS5 could hold in games, has there been a way to measure the clocks of CPU/GPU of the PS5 in games released ? would be interesting to find out if it actually runs most of the time at max clocks or not.

 

Nope. Unless you're the developer of the game or Sony, there's really no way to see the clocks. I'm not even entirely sure whether or not the developers (all or most) can see the clocks.

It's not like the PC where you have tools that'll allow you to see those things. And even if they existed, it's not like a general consumer would have access to some developer mode with which to run them or if they'd even be able to run them simultaneously with a game.

Regards,
SB

 

But I wonder if the developers should actually be able to see whats going on with the clocks to check optimisations?

 

not likely. Variable clocks are all over the place, you'd need a significant dip for a long period of time for a developer to spot and say, I think it's downclocking here. EG: the clock speed might be too small a unit to account for, since not every single cycle means computation either, cache hit/misses, latency, context switching, etc etc.

If I were to take a stab at it, they are likely just timing how long certain loops/algorithms take. And choosing the one that will be the fastest, the power and clocks are already accounted for it in there. I don't think it matters to developers if algorithms use more power and are slower, or use less power and is faster: as long as the end result for them is to choose the one that completed the fastest.

 

I thought it was confirmed by some developers that it does in fact run max clocks practically all the time but I don’t remember where I read that. Certainly developers have had little trouble getting the games to have stable performance at least.

 

that could also imply their code is not heavily optimized in terms of hitting the major parts of the gpu. If the goal here is to push the hardware to it's absolute maximum, you need higher saturation of your cycles. More saturation = more power. There should be downclocking as a result to accommodate with more bits flipping. I think today as we are still heavy on the 3D pipeline, the hardware can stay at max clocks (because the computation is moving from fixed function to the CUs to the rops. But eventually will come a day where we move to more geometry generation on the CUs, and even more compute shaders to bypass the rops, it should have some form of impact to power.

And in my own opinion, given the compromises needed to release a console chip at lower prices to mainstream audiences, the yield of those chips should be of lesser quality (thus the reason why in the old days clock speeds where fixed and redundant units placed). There needs to be a lower quality yield limit in which the code must have some form of downclocking. Otherwise yields don't make a lot of sense as a discussion point, might as well have everything running at absolutely maximum clocks, but we see that isn't the case within GPU families. Different yield quality have different ranges of clock speeds.