And what's the reason?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Faster loading times on Scarlett/PS5 will be dependent on optimisation and developer priorities (AI, Gfx, physics, HFR)
- Thread starter Shangounchained
- Start date
And what's the reason?
Id expect the load to be quite fast if it is not instant, after all the max data the initial state can be is the size of the RAM. So if the SSD is 3GB/s and the ram is 24GB it'd only take 8 seconds to fill it all. Thats assuming the SSD is as fast as or faster then a NVMe drive and the ram size is 24GB.
This also assumes not much time is spent generating data to the HDD or on CPU time.
This also assumes not much time is spent generating data to the HDD or on CPU time.
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
I remember loading games via tape on the Zx spectrum and the MSX, THAT was slow.it's 2019 and people think this is slow,people today have no idea what it means by slow, this is extreme fast loading to me I have absolutely no problem with it.
I just don't think next gen will have 2min loading times like some titles this gen.
Even if devs don't bother maxing the reading speed, it will always be faster, and with SSD as a standard its even easier to hide loadings.
It can be 2x faster if data is compressed on disk.
Aren't most graphics assets already stored compressed?.
Not all. Only textures. And even there you can do things. Like mipmaps on the fly.
Breaking News! Water Is Wet!
All he is saying is that devs could push the limits & make it slow by loading more data.
But on the other hand games will come on 100GB disc so it's not going to be much more data to load next gen vs this gen so if the SSD is 4GB/s - 8GB/s & the RAM is 16GB - 24GB a dev would really have to go out of their way to make the loading slow.
8GB/s SSD could fill 24GB of RAM in 3 seconds if there is no decompressing & just moving data from the SSD to RAM but on the other hand with a fast SSD some data don't even have to be loaded at all because it can be streamed.
All he is saying is that devs could push the limits & make it slow by loading more data.
But on the other hand games will come on 100GB disc so it's not going to be much more data to load next gen vs this gen so if the SSD is 4GB/s - 8GB/s & the RAM is 16GB - 24GB a dev would really have to go out of their way to make the loading slow.
8GB/s SSD could fill 24GB of RAM in 3 seconds if there is no decompressing & just moving data from the SSD to RAM but on the other hand with a fast SSD some data don't even have to be loaded at all because it can be streamed.
Kenpachii
Member
All kinds of reasons
Higher price consumer and for company itself which can also put them in a worse spot against competition.
Users not being able to extent and replace with usb drives or replacing them in the box itself which will result in them having to opt for high capacity base model which will cost money even more.
Nobody that's going too optimize for it as people will simple build games around the weakest dominator.
First party devs will build there games around limitations on that box no matter what. Faster or slower ssd doesn't matter to them.
What's the point in pushing anything faster then a normal SSD in that box, i couldn't see it.
Games will be far over 100gb, those games will be heavily compressed of those blu-ray discs are going to sit at 100gb cap.
Games already are pushing on PC towards 150+ gb on newer titles. Add 4k textures and 4k video's into that mix and what sony advertises with 8k, yea good luck with 100gb blu-ray discs. Aspect super long install times.
I think the biggest difference will be the latency and not the speed, making random reads much faster.
I swear this is a reason for the instant load / faster load scenario and not the opposite. If Sony does this right it should be 99.99% transparent to the programmer to get to 99.99% of the speed. You don't need reprogram a game for it run faster on a SSD it just happens, same with a NVMe SSD. So if developers develop a game with a 1GB/s SSD in mind then a 4GB/s will load 4x as faster data wise.
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
SSD implies less duplicate data, so game sizes don't have to be necessarily bigger. Pc games have to work on normal HDD, so there is a lot of dupe data.
Also, with SSD , a simple door opening animation is enough to hide the loading of the same data that would take 3min to load on a HDD. Devs just need to be clever.
Also, with SSD , a simple door opening animation is enough to hide the loading of the same data that would take 3min to load on a HDD. Devs just need to be clever.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make games will still be in the 100GB rang which was my point of saying the disc will be 100GB . even if the games was 500GBs you wouldn't have to load it all into the RAM at the same time before you can start playing.
Shangounchained
Banned
Coming on 100gb discs doesnt mean 1 disc could be 2 or more if call of duty needed 172gb install on pc today and rdr2 on PS4 needed 150 try to imagine how much space a ps5 exclusive or a triple a game for instance gta6 will take on a next gen console with all the expensive assets onboard! Assets will look like they came straight from zbrush!
So the summary is: to not piss off PC users.
Not buying it.
Console users don't care about which drive is inside and if it can be changed.
People even buy iphones with non removable battery.
Shangounchained
Banned
Remember the ps5 is pushing 24gb of data 672gb/s at 28-30 FPS this is too fast for any ssd the Apu will be busy asking for data every Pico second to keep the frames stable, I'd like to see how the do the data capping with the ssd installs or the rumoured catridges!
But how about open world games what if I load a specific area in next gens version of Spiderman or GTA 6and take a plane to fly somewhere else and haven't installed that part yet?
Ar¢tos
Member
But since you can have the SP installed separately from the MP or vice versa, it will make less difference next-gen.
You are assuming that 24gb of data need to be replaced every second, which is wrong.
You are assuming that open world games are flat with no obstructions to line of sight in any circumstance, which is also wrong.
Buildings, mountains, trees, canyons, clouds, so much that can hide the loading of assets.
Shangounchained
Banned
24 GB at 672gb/s 28-30 FPS next gen remember 30 frames a second that's the CPU asking for data 30x in one second and the GPU asking for vram 30x in one second 24gb needed 30x in one secodn, think about it let's say I'm flying over gta6 from scenery to scenery if Spiderman a PS4 title took a second a game that only uses 5.5gb of ram what will a game that uses 20gb take, let's wait n see
Shangounchained
Banned
U said I can install a part of the game for instance I can install a city in GTA and start playing then what happens if I took a jet and moved to a city I haven't installed yet this data capping works well with generic games not so well with open world games and bringing the old tricks back of using buildings and blocking views is silly and simply proves my point.
And yes for a title to push ps5 and it's 24gb to its knees, that's 672gb/s divide by 28fps you'll have 24gb per frame that's if u push it all at a stable frame rate and really milked the ps5 of its power same way with Spiderman or current games running at 30 FPS on consoles they push all that 5gb available for gaming every second on average and that's how u get beautiful games like rdr2 Spiderman god of war n so forth!
I agree with you. Take a PS4 checkerboard 4K game, have enough more gpu to hit 1800p msaa or 4K and use the rest of the power for a more seamless experience.
Even if you are just using the standard API in the way that the platform vendor provides you can focus your development on loading performance. For example DOA4 on 360. That game looks great, has a great frame rate, and loads really well. Just having the same ram size, processor, and storage bandwidth for all hardware you target allows you to refactor the assets such that the game is responsive and you aren’t looking at a loading screen for more than 5 seconds.
Why not both gif
I had a 286. PC gaming was fun and had a lot of loading for sure. Worse with cd rom games.it's 2019 and people think this is slow,
To pretend console gaming on the Atari and NES weren’t vastly vastly superior on the loading time front is disingenuous. I know we aren’t getting cartridge speeds back, I think most gamers had that expectation tempered with the Switch release.
For myself:
I do believe (maybe foolishly) in the marketing tale Cerny has pitched that multiple developers have wanted an SSD or similar speed bump in IO. If a developer wanted to tell the sequel to something like Spider-Man, going from a 40 second loading screen to a 5 second one would be a real treat. The GPU fill rate on the next gen console is still going to be higher. A lot of the texture assets of current games look great at higher resolution
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The simple analogy is that buying a faster car isn't necessarily going to get you to work quicker if you are regularly held back by speed limits and congestion on the route. What it does mean though is that you can take alternate longer routes and get there in around the same time.
ANIMAL1975
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Sounds like Remedy is assuming without any dev kits.
KlickKlack
Banned
lolRemedy developers clears the elephant in the room about loading times.....
PS5's SSD may benefit PS4 games the most
Beefier next-gen textures and effects may curb the PS5's blazing-fast speed.www.tweaktown.com
.... all this speed only noticeable on old gen games.... all this hype was in real only PR speak?
30 fps confirmed.... console must be under 10TF... he clearly speaks about compromises, stronger PS5 console [>10TF] must be possible to make good graphics + 60 fps.....
where are 8K 120 fps comedians?
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
that's exactly what it is.
ssd will improve performance for sure but it's not gonna be a huge change. we've been using ssds on PC for over a decade.
Shifty
Member
Memory and speed are not linked in the way you seem to think they are. It isn't that simple.I'm not click baiting and I've posted the important thing
Basically with any computer, the more data you have the slower you can't have both you can't push ps5 to the limits and have it load instantly
The runtime performance impact of filling up RAM with large datasets is dependent on the acceleration structures and algorithms used to store and access them. Memory is just a place to put stuff- the code that fetches that stuff is the part that will cost computation time, and it can vary from finger-snap instant to multiple seconds depending on how optimized it is for the use-case.
This has nothing to do with the faster I/O afforded by the new SSD, nor the framerate, AI, environmental complexity, or other runtime elements mentioned in the thread title. Those things aren't running at load-time unless the game is streaming in an open-world or other 'seamless' gameplay scenario, and will be throttled as necessary in such a situation to prevent performance from taking a dive while the CPU does extra work.
The only gain from the SSD in this situation is the obvious one: Disk I/O finishing faster, meaning shorter load screens and less Mass Effect-style elevators designed to stall the player while loading happens. The CPU and GPU are going to decide the quantity and quality of stuff that actually exists in the game world.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And nothing has been developed to take advantage of said SSDs. You still have duplicated and over compressed content due to those nagging 5400’s.
Star Citizen would be the first to venture into that arena on the PC. And it is doing things mechanicals and other games designed around mechanics are not doing.
Mass Shift
Member
ALL I can say is that there is going to be some major egg on the face if all of these claims of blazing load times turn out to have been disingenuous.
GermanZepp
Member
It's fine. Now developers will have that option. Some of them are going to take advantage of it, some of them maybe not. Its going to be a feature. And a thing that maybe some games are gonna be designed around. If the game i'm making has no loading times i'm going to make sure everyone knows about it. Edit: i expect racing, fighting ,sports and indie games to take more noticeable advantage of it.
Last edited:
Shmunter
Member
Streaming is not exclusive to open world. Many games stream assets and geometry within a level although maybe that’s what you mean by ‘seamless' gameplay scenario
Last edited:
Shangounchained
Banned
Bullcrap
Shangounchained
Banned
Depends a game like FIFA doesn't need alot of loading time because it simply loads all the assets on a scene the teams the ball the pitch and so forth but a racing game doesn't load all the track it simply streams the assets as you drive and most racing games are 60fps so to stream expensive nextgen assets each frame as you race at 200mph will surely need faster loading
Breakfast at Noon
Member
remember Killzone? booting that game up was the fastest thing ever.
SleepDoctor
Banned
So Remedy wanted to piss in Sony's cereal lol.
You'd have to be clueless if you expected next gen 4k/60fps and instant loading tho. I don't care for the latter as long as we get the former on every game.
You'd have to be clueless if you expected next gen 4k/60fps and instant loading tho. I don't care for the latter as long as we get the former on every game.
EverydayBeast
thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
I think developers have a good sample size of 4K, SSD with PC, so I expect developers to figure out PS5 pretty quickly, SONY can win with the PS5 with whatever hardware just as long as good games are involved, which Microsoft can't do.
Shifty
Member
I'm not saying that the load times aren't going to be fast, just that an SSD isn't going to magically increase performance for non-disk tasks.
Some folks do seem to be seeing it as the second coming of Secret Sauce Jesus though
It is, yeah. Bolting pieces of level onto eachother as the player goes through, rather than loading it all at once.
Since loading that stuff is an I/O bound task that will block a CPU thread until it completes (and will take an unknown amount of time to complete), games 'time-slice' it, or run it on another thread to prevent the main game thread from stalling and dropping frames.
You pay a load time penalty for that, partly from the CPU not throwing everything it has at the loading process, but primarily from time spent waiting on disk I/O. That's what an SSD will improve.
Prove it
Ten monopoly bucks says my decade plus of game programming experience beats your selectively-quoted paragraph. AMA.
Last edited:
reconminicon
Banned
Remember the PS4 promise of "no splash screens - straight in the game" 
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Remember the PS4 promise of "no splash screens - straight in the game"
No, do you have a link?
Ar¢tos
Member
KZ SF allowed that if you joined a game straight from the XMB.Remember the PS4 promise of "no splash screens - straight in the game"
Sony said that doing it required a crazy amount of burocracy so they gave up, it wasn't worth the trouble.
Shangounchained
Banned
Your 10 years of game programming isn't going to make next gens ssd faster or bend physics whether you've programmed for 10 years or 1000 computers will always be slower when overloaded with alot of data so your programming experience doesn't mean anything!I'm not saying that the load times aren't going to be fast, just that an SSD isn't going to magically increase performance for non-disk tasks.
Some folks do seem to be seeing it as the second coming of Secret Sauce Jesus though
It is, yeah. Bolting pieces of level onto eachother as the player goes through, rather than loading it all at once.
Since loading that stuff is an I/O bound task that will block a CPU thread until it completes (and will take an unknown amount of time to complete), games 'time-slice' it, or run it on another thread to prevent the main game thread from stalling and dropping frames.
You pay a load time penalty for that, partly from the CPU not throwing everything it has at the loading process, but primarily from time spent waiting on disk I/O. That's what an SSD will improve.
Prove it
Ten monopoly bucks says my decade plus of game programming experience beats your selectively-quoted paragraph. AMA.
Shangounchained
Banned
Nope we need games that look far better than current games playing a next gen game that looks like current with a longer view distance and framerate is putting make up on a frog it's shit
bilderberg
Member
Because what you can do at 60, you can do double at 30. This will never change.
That's not what he said at all. A super fast SSD still has value if it lets devs load more data. Would you really want devs to just focus on loading times at the expense of games' going forward essentially being how they're now? Sony demo'd this tech on an already existing ps4 game, Spiderman, of course games on ps5 are going to be a generation ahead in terms of demand. Unless you just want a ps5 version of Spiderman to just be the ps4 version, minus load times. Most people probably don't though.
Last edited:
Otterz4Life
Member
So, like every other console ever made then?
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll