• 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.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Faster loading times on Scarlett/PS5 will be dependent on optimisation and developer priorities (AI, Gfx, physics, HFR)

demigod

Member
Apr 17, 2007
7,046
2,989
1,280
You saw the ps5 Spiderman ssd demo whereby the ps4 was stuck waiting to load assets when they speed up the game... Framerate isn't just a processing issue it's majorly a bandwidth issue from storage to ram to processing
Sadly a lot of people do know what they talk about as they have pc's and experience with different types of hardware. And nothing in the PS5 showcased has been seen as something impressive even remotely. It just seems like people underestimate on how fast SSD sata 3 drives are.

Want to see how shit a 5400 rpm drive is that the PS4 and PS4 pro uses? and how it weights up against PC's?

Well here you go, u also need to keep into account that harddrives are far slower by the fact that it also has to deal with the following which ssd don't have to deal with.

1) It has to start spinning to even be able to do stuff which adds a lot of downtime with it 4-10 seconds.
2) it gets slower and slower the more is on it to the point it can even run at half the speed.

Here's your PS4 and pro harddrive:

40 bucks price as of today as consumer for me



Now here's a Sata 3 SSD at max speed available.

Price ~70-50 bucks, depends on the speed u go for.



Here's a nvme drive that i bought a few months ago for 120 bucks.



Maximum gainable through Pci-e 4.0 = 5000/5000 from what i read, don't think any is available at that speed. mine SSD was the fastest a few months ago for sure.
PCI-3 = 4000/4000 ( i could be wrong here and its 3500/3500, but who cares )
Sata 3 = 2009 tech that does 600/600
Sata 2 = 2004 tech that does 300/300 ( ps4 featured )
Sata 1 = 2000 tech that does 150/150 read and write
Ps4 = 60/60 and thats rounded up what it pushes out.

Maybe this give you a idea on how utter and utter shit the PS4 storage is even against a base sata 3 ssd. They only went towards sata 2 because sata 1 wasn't a thing anymore that was ps2 area tech basically.

Now look at the spiderman demo.



So lets say that's 10 times the increase won't you say over the PS4?

Now look at that sata 3 ssd and compare it to the PS4 pro drive. that's 10x the increase, but that sata 3 ssd would be way more faster anyway because no wait for spinning up which can take up anywhere from 4 to 10 seconds depend on the age of that drive i guess. And instant access towards the data.

For some reason they didn't push that clearly into that demonstration, because they probably wanted raw performance difference when it's already spinning or maybe the PS4 pro has that thing spin 24/7 anyway when its on. Unless it goes into standby. So yea that could be reason for it.

Why sata 3 ssd tech even more?

- Cheap, money can be spend elsewhere.
- Gigantic performance increase already.
- Easy to upgrade for people as it has a laptop hdd design and shell
- Allows for USB storage drives that people are used towards to extend the space on the PS4 = less cost for sony as they can drop a lower sized drive into the box and give people the option to upgrade

Nvme makes no sense.

To give you a idea how less of a sense it makes, i got these drives in my PC.

1x 5400 rpm drive whatever size ( dunno why its still in there but oh well )
4x 2-3tb each 7200 rpm drives ( backup data for games etc )
2x 512gb sata 3 ssd's evo samsungs 860 and the one above it whatever they are
1x 256 gb ssd evo samsung sata 3 ( that ran on my old setup on sata 2 controller so half speed )
1x 128gb ssd sata 3 evo, holds my windows.
1x nvme 512gb pci-e 3 3500/3xxx evo 970 plus

So basically i got a lot of experience with harddrives myself.

The difference from 7200 rpm > sata 2 ( 300/300 ) ssd was day and night, speed was practically massive increase wise.
sata 2 ( 300/300 ) > sata 3 ( 550/550 ) didn't notice much until games started to hickup on even sata 2, bdo for example. Less microstutters and more smooth
sata 3 ( 550/550 ) > pci-3 ( 3500/3xxx ) didn't notice much difference, its there but not much of a improvement really, mostly hammered by hardware and connections wait time.

So yea.

Unless they announce something with actually data to support there claim and proof with it, that its going to be faster then anything PC has. Because that could also be complete and utter PR talk by saying we load stuff in differently way that's more optimized like what they did with the SOC bullshit and there PS4.

Cerny has a history of this PR talk nonsense and game devs like the witcher 3 can join him on that front which ended up facepalming pretty hard reality showed up.

Sony aren't idiots they like there PR nonsense, it drives there buyers base, that's why they came out with a interview that was full of garbage like 8k 120fps and his funny act about PC with SSD's where so slow it takes 15 seconds to load a excel or word sheet, while my entire pc boots faster then that. :messenger_ok:

But that's for another day or else this never ends.

You wanna give some quotes of Cerny's PR Kenpachii? It's quite funny you 2 are still going about this, I guess ya'll missed the Samsung Fast Game Loading slide. Time to eat crow.

 

Rolling_Start

Member
Jul 25, 2019
362
488
280
You wanna give some quotes of Cerny's PR Kenpachii? It's quite funny you 2 are still going about this, I guess ya'll missed the Samsung Fast Game Loading slide. Time to eat crow.

Wrong crow, bro.

Samsung could be doing something totally custom, or might just be doing a tweaked version of something they have planned for their nvme ssd lines.

Thing is, even if this is the case, there might still be a slightly optimised ssd solution!
 

demigod

Member
Apr 17, 2007
7,046
2,989
1,280
Wrong crow, bro.

Samsung could be doing something totally custom, or might just be doing a tweaked version of something they have planned for their nvme ssd lines.

Thing is, even if this is the case, there might still be a slightly optimised ssd solution!
The point still stands, it's OPTIMIZED, just like what Sony are doing. This is not your typical SSD/NVME on PC like they're touting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
42,368
5,137
1,665
Sadly a lot of people do know what they talk about as they have pc's and experience with different types of hardware. And nothing in the PS5 showcased has been seen as something impressive even remotely. It just seems like people underestimate on how fast SSD sata 3 drives are.

Want to see how shit a 5400 rpm drive is that the PS4 and PS4 pro uses? and how it weights up against PC's?

Well here you go, u also need to keep into account that harddrives are far slower by the fact that it also has to deal with the following which ssd don't have to deal with.

1) It has to start spinning to even be able to do stuff which adds a lot of downtime with it 4-10 seconds.
2) it gets slower and slower the more is on it to the point it can even run at half the speed.

Here's your PS4 and pro harddrive:

40 bucks price as of today as consumer for me



Now here's a Sata 3 SSD at max speed available.

Price ~70-50 bucks, depends on the speed u go for.



Here's a nvme drive that i bought a few months ago for 120 bucks.



Maximum gainable through Pci-e 4.0 = 5000/5000 from what i read, don't think any is available at that speed. mine SSD was the fastest a few months ago for sure.
PCI-3 = 4000/4000 ( i could be wrong here and its 3500/3500, but who cares )
Sata 3 = 2009 tech that does 600/600
Sata 2 = 2004 tech that does 300/300 ( ps4 featured )
Sata 1 = 2000 tech that does 150/150 read and write
Ps4 = 60/60 and thats rounded up what it pushes out.

Maybe this give you a idea on how utter and utter shit the PS4 storage is even against a base sata 3 ssd. They only went towards sata 2 because sata 1 wasn't a thing anymore that was ps2 area tech basically.

Now look at the spiderman demo.



So lets say that's 10 times the increase won't you say over the PS4?

Now look at that sata 3 ssd and compare it to the PS4 pro drive. that's 10x the increase, but that sata 3 ssd would be way more faster anyway because no wait for spinning up which can take up anywhere from 4 to 10 seconds depend on the age of that drive i guess. And instant access towards the data.

For some reason they didn't push that clearly into that demonstration, because they probably wanted raw performance difference when it's already spinning or maybe the PS4 pro has that thing spin 24/7 anyway when its on. Unless it goes into standby. So yea that could be reason for it.

Why sata 3 ssd tech even more?

- Cheap, money can be spend elsewhere.
- Gigantic performance increase already.
- Easy to upgrade for people as it has a laptop hdd design and shell
- Allows for USB storage drives that people are used towards to extend the space on the PS4 = less cost for sony as they can drop a lower sized drive into the box and give people the option to upgrade

Nvme makes no sense.

To give you a idea how less of a sense it makes, i got these drives in my PC.

1x 5400 rpm drive whatever size ( dunno why its still in there but oh well )
4x 2-3tb each 7200 rpm drives ( backup data for games etc )
2x 512gb sata 3 ssd's evo samsungs 860 and the one above it whatever they are
1x 256 gb ssd evo samsung sata 3 ( that ran on my old setup on sata 2 controller so half speed )
1x 128gb ssd sata 3 evo, holds my windows.
1x nvme 512gb pci-e 3 3500/3xxx evo 970 plus

So basically i got a lot of experience with harddrives myself.

The difference from 7200 rpm > sata 2 ( 300/300 ) ssd was day and night, speed was practically massive increase wise.
sata 2 ( 300/300 ) > sata 3 ( 550/550 ) didn't notice much until games started to hickup on even sata 2, bdo for example. Less microstutters and more smooth
sata 3 ( 550/550 ) > pci-3 ( 3500/3xxx ) didn't notice much difference, its there but not much of a improvement really, mostly hammered by hardware and connections wait time.

So yea.

Unless they announce something with actually data to support there claim and proof with it, that its going to be faster then anything PC has. Because that could also be complete and utter PR talk by saying we load stuff in differently way that's more optimized like what they did with the SOC bullshit and there PS4.


Cerny has a history of this PR talk nonsense and game devs like the witcher 3 can join him on that front which ended up facepalming pretty hard reality showed up.

Sony aren't idiots they like there PR nonsense, it drives there buyers base, that's why they came out with a interview that was full of garbage like 8k 120fps and his funny act about PC with SSD's where so slow it takes 15 seconds to load a excel or word sheet, while my entire pc boots faster then that. :messenger_ok:

But that's for another day or else this never ends.
Your post was great until the bolded. What PR speak? Rumor is the SSD in the PS5 maybe PCIe-4 and like you said it can get 5GB/s instead of 3.5 GB/s. That's the "faster than PC" stuff right there.
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
I...definitely want 60fps in every game. When I play on PC I usually play at 144 fps...120fps minimum. The difference is night and day. If I'm spending another 500 bucks on a game, I feel at the very least 60fps should be standard for everything but the most graphically intense games. On those games there should be options to lower graphic fidelity in order to achieve a solid 60 fps experience.
So stick with your pc and get a supercomputer if u can and leave console gaming cause it's not for you, in consoles we demand exceptional stories, ease of gameplay and better graphics in every new generation and frame rates aren't our sole concern!
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Doctor Van Nostrand

psorcerer

Member
May 1, 2012
452
329
505
Because you have to allocate memory for the object in question and run any pre-spawn setup code that it requires. Game objects aren't ready-to-go as soon as you fetch their binary representation from disk.

What exactly gets instantiated and initialized depends on the object. It could be something simple like a crate with rigidbody physics that has to register its collision component with the physics sim and fetch asset references for its visual element, or something more complex like a player character with a deeply-nested internal hierarchy. Mesh, camera rig, attached objects like weapons, all their associated variable settings, etc.

Since that stuff isn't free, lot of games 'pool' a pre-set amount of common instances in memory (ex. bullet projectiles) and reset their internal state instead of deleting and re-allocating them. That still costs time, but you can hide it in an initial loading screen and keep the objects outside the map (or outside the sim entirely, depending on the engine) until they're needed.
Hmm. It means that game snapshot is unserializable. Which is kinda bad programming.
Not to mention that the total size of game logic-related assets should be pretty small.
Otherwise you're doing it wrong.
If the memory layout on disk is exactly like your initial game snapshot I don't see why you shouldn't load it as is.
 

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,772
1,932
475
So stick with your pc and get a supercomputer if u can and leave console gaming cause it's not for you, in consoles we demand exceptional stories, ease of gameplay and better graphics in every new generation and frame rates aren't our sole concern!
I game on console and pc pretty much equally nowadays. I dont think i should be moved into one space or the other because of my preferred fps for next gen consoles. Im not asking for 144 fps on console, i dont really care if it never reach 120 fps. 60 fps is not much to ask for considering the tech going into these systems. I dont think we have to sacrifice graphic fidelity for 60fps next gen. We can have both.

Edit:
Evil Jigsaah says...who the fuck are you to tell me whats for me and what's not.
 
Last edited:

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
I game on console and pc pretty much equally nowadays. I dont think i should be moved into one space or the other because of my preferred fps for next gen consoles. Im not asking for 144 fps on console, i dont really care if it never reach 120 fps. 60 fps is not much to ask for considering the tech going into these systems. I dont think we have to sacrifice graphic fidelity for 60fps next gen. We can have both.

Edit:
Evil Jigsaah says...who the fuck are you to tell me whats for me and what's not.
You won't get 60 FPS standard you won't ever get it unless you create it urself on a pc because in games whether pc console or supercomputer whatever the medium the goal is to get it running at 24 FPS the rest is a gift I can assure your even if this was the year 3000 console games will still be in the 20-60 FPS range because you don't need and I repeat you don't need to create a game forcibly at 60fps it's silly and stupid to demand 60, you don't play games to look at framerates you play games to simply enjoy the story and game, I find people crying about frame rates silly
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Doctor Van Nostrand

VFXVeteran

Industry Professional (Vetted)
Nov 5, 2019
326
253
465
You won't get 60 FPS standard you won't ever get it unless you create it urself on a pc because in games whether pc console or supercomputer whatever the medium the goal is to get it running at 24 FPS the rest is a gift I can assure your even if this was the year 3000 console games will still be in the 20-60 FPS range because you don't need and I repeat you don't need to create a game forcibly at 60fps it's silly and stupid to demand 60, you don't play games to look at framerates you play games to simply enjoy the story and game, I find people crying about frame rates silly
I wouldn't say 24fps. That's way too low for a good experience. 30FPS though is acceptable if it's a constant.
 

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,772
1,932
475
You won't get 60 FPS standard you won't ever get it unless you create it urself on a pc because in games whether pc console or supercomputer whatever the medium the goal is to get it running at 24 FPS the rest is a gift I can assure your even if this was the year 3000 console games will still be in the 20-60 FPS range because you don't need and I repeat you don't need to create a game forcibly at 60fps it's silly and stupid to demand 60, you don't play games to look at framerates you play games to simply enjoy the story and game, I find people crying about frame rates silly
Ok you have got to be trolling me. There's is no way you actually believe this.
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
Ok you have got to be trolling me. There's is no way you actually believe this.
Who's trolling here is you, because the fact remains consoles today still have multitudes of games on 30 FPS that go below to 20fps and that is fact Ur dillusion of 60fps constant is a wet dream!
 

Shifty

Member
Sep 25, 2015
8,154
7,417
755
the planet Thra
Hmm. It means that game snapshot is unserializable. Which is kinda bad programming.
Not to mention that the total size of game logic-related assets should be pretty small.
Otherwise you're doing it wrong.
If the memory layout on disk is exactly like your initial game snapshot I don't see why you shouldn't load it as is.
I see what you're getting at- in an ideal scenario you'd have the serialized data contain engine-managed references to pre-initialized assets to cut down on any re-plumbing like restoring pointers to other entities or allocating new RAM to be filled with various data. All dependencies would already be ready, so the object's data could be put in its respective model and be ready to go immediately.

So, sure. In the optimal case you design your systems to avoid incurring extra setup time on load, and direct storage-to-RAM access would be a huge benefit.
Not every game or engine is going to be optimized to that degree though, particularly when you start moving away from AAA-tier software that has built-in asset management and baking processes.

Ok you have got to be trolling me. There's is no way you actually believe this.
Who's trolling here is you, because the fact remains consoles today still have multitudes of games on 30 FPS that go below to 20fps and that is fact Ur dillusion of 60fps constant is a wet dream!
What we have here is failure to separate what's technically possible (and desirable from a design standpoint) from what's business possible, with a healthy dose of confirmation bias thrown in there for that "you don't need more than <low number> FPS" flavour.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ar¢tos and Jigsaah

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,772
1,932
475
Chaps, I’ll spare you the suspense.

Next gen console games will look a bit better but still play at 30fps.
If the X can do 4k 60fps right now in first party games, you're telling me that next gen with navi and a greatly increased CPU can't do the same just in more games?
 

psorcerer

Member
May 1, 2012
452
329
505
If the X can do 4k 60fps right now in first party games, you're telling me that next gen with navi and a greatly increased CPU can't do the same just in more games?
30 fps target is not a technical decision
You can always do 300fps and Quake 2 graphics.
 

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,772
1,932
475
30 fps target is not a technical decision
You can always do 300fps and Quake 2 graphics.
Ok so your assumption then is that, for console...developers will always choose resolution or graphic fidelity over fps?

So where are these crystal balls everybody seems to be picking up?
 

psorcerer

Member
May 1, 2012
452
329
505
Ok so your assumption then is that, for console...developers will always choose resolution or graphic fidelity over fps?
I'm sure that in any double-blind test normal people will never tell a difference between 30 and 60 fps.
Therefore unless 60 fps is critically needed for the gameplay (ex. fighting games where each frame counts) production team will never want to ship worse looking game with higher fps.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Doctor Van Nostrand

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,772
1,932
475
I'm sure that in any double-blind test normal people will never tell a difference between 30 and 60 fps.
Therefore unless 60 fps is critically needed for the gameplay (ex. fighting games where each frame counts) production team will never want to ship worse looking game with higher fps.
So what, you're saying I'm superhuman? I'm flattered.
 

KlickKlack

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
311
305
275
I...definitely want 60fps in every game. When I play on PC I usually play at 144 fps...120fps minimum. .

lol...120fps minimum
really?
then you are playing only indie and AA games?

or modern AAA games in 1080p in low settings... that means in ps4 quality...

i see... pc masterrace 😂
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
1,741
2,588
475
People need to chillax on next gen framerate. 60 will be the baseline or my name ain’t Shmunter. 120+ will likely remain the domain of the pc.

However, next gen AAA games will raise the bar, meaning 120 even on pc will likely be something reserved for the future.
 

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,772
1,932
475
lol...120fps minimum
really?
then you are playing only indie and AA games?

or modern AAA games in 1080p in low settings... that means in ps4 quality...

i see... pc masterrace 😂
I do play 1080p. But ive been able to play plenty of games at 120-144 fps on high to ultra settings. Have you ever played on pc?
 

Monkeygourmet

Neo Member
Jul 8, 2019
20
63
115
30fps can be fine if frame pacing / screen tear isn’t an issue.

I recall Batman Arkham Knight being 1080p / 30fps on the base PS4 and that felt very smooth (to me).

Yet something like Bloodborne, due to its frame pacing seemed much more erratic and jittery.

I would always take 60fps if it’s an option so I hope for a 1440p high settings 60fps mode and a 4K ‘bells and whistles’ 30fps mode to become a standard option in most games.

It would be nice if the PS5 can run all the PS4 titles at 4K / 60fps also.
 

Ogbert

Member
Feb 21, 2018
1,163
2,404
415
If the X can do 4k 60fps right now in first party games, you're telling me that next gen with navi and a greatly increased CPU can't do the same just in more games?
Apologies, I was being glib, but I do think 30fps will still be the norm. Console developers tend to chase graphical and resolution unicorns (so, raytracing next gen), rather than frames.

As you say, those specs could deliver 60fps with cut back graphical fidelity. I just don’t think developers will take that option.
 

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
2,673
2,261
555
Your post was great until the bolded. What PR speak? Rumor is the SSD in the PS5 maybe PCIe-4 and like you said it can get 5GB/s instead of 3.5 GB/s. That's the "faster than PC" stuff right there.
I based this of wired interview.

His demonstration of the PS5 loading speed does not align with with nvme drives. It aligns with Sata 3 drives.

If that 5000/5000 is true or at least 5000 read, then the loading time would be far lower. 8 > 0,8 = ssd sata 3. and 0.8 > 0.1 = 5k nvme drive.

At some point spending more on faster hard drives seems kinda useless to me. Money better spend elsewhere or not spend at all.
 
Last edited:

Ar¢tos

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,634
2,983
625
39
Portugal
People need to accept that Graphics sell, Framerate doesn't.
98% (throwing a number out) of gamers are un-informed casuals, and don't care or even understand Framerates. So games are made to please them, not the other 2%.
Out of the 100m ps4s, how many of them have GAF, Era, etc accounts? I'm sure the answer won't even reach double digits in percentage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: demigod

psorcerer

Member
May 1, 2012
452
329
505
If that 5000/5000 is true or at least 5000 read, then the loading time would be far lower. 8 > 0,8 = ssd sata 3. and 0.8 > 0.1 = 5k nvme drive.
Game load speed does not depend on bandwidth linearly. And they obviously used a logical sata interface, nobody would rewrite the game and low level APIs just for that demonstration.
 

LordOfChaos

Member
Mar 31, 2014
9,253
1,359
735
"We game developers can make 60fps games even on PS1!"





I don't know how this part is still misunderstood, every console generation comes with a leap in power and as always framerate is a developer choice depending on where they want to spend the extra power. Will the PS5 and Scarlett be able to run games of *current* levels of complexity easily at and over 60fps? Yes, but next gen games may use the power elsewhere, always a developer choice.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
1,741
2,588
475
People need to accept that Graphics sell, Framerate doesn't.
98% (throwing a number out) of gamers are un-informed casuals, and don't care or even understand Framerates. So games are made to please them, not the other 2%.
Out of the 100m ps4s, how many of them have GAF, Era, etc accounts? I'm sure the answer won't even reach double digits in percentage.
I would agree with framerate not mattering as much as fidelity of gfx not too long ago. But I think with the advent of 60fps online videos people can see a difference, even if not knowing why. Let’s face it, written reviews aren’t as popular as they used to be, it’s all video reviews these days.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ar¢tos
Jan 29, 2019
1,375
897
310
And what's the reason?
Bloat
Development time
Loading times not necessarily a project goal or a performance metric

So on and so forth, if you have to pick between some nice in game features and an improved loading time what will you take?

Obviously, everything else being equal, the same game will load much faster on the new consoles, as it has been for any disk based consoles since they exist (the PS4 has a faster drive than the PS3, it has a faster drive than the PS2, which has a faster disk drive than the PS1 that has a much faster drive than the Sega CD... which was faster than the Famicom disk system). Which is not to say loading times remained equal or worse over time, but it's not a given, sometimes it's just a matter of how the data is stored.

The improvement I see happening is that game devs will be able to make great looking open worlds that move fast... which will cost a lot of money since they will have to design exponentially larger worlds for us to play in! so more micro transactions? maybe toll boots on highways? ... I hope nobody from EA is reading this, I may have given them some idea on how to make their games more immersive.

But think about it, let's say the next Red Dead game, or the next GTA games has its expansions released as in game "cities" that you have to pay a toll to get in, maybe it wouldn't be so bad? Assuming it would be handled well...
 

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
10,036
3,707
835
SSD storage will benefit every game. Not every game will load in one second like that Spider-Man demo did (or whatever that was) but it’s safe to say that gone are the ways of waiting 45 seconds+ for next-gen equivalent of games like Witcher 3, TLOU, etc
Fuckign Witcher 3 and those long ass wait times after I died due to getting ambushed by wolves.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: VFXVeteran

psorcerer

Member
May 1, 2012
452
329
505
Bloat
Development time
Loading times not necessarily a project goal or a performance metric
I'm not sure what do you mean?
Unless your game fits perfectly into RAM and never needs to stream some stuff from storage you need to take a great care of "loading times".
And it will manifest itself in: framerate dips, stutters, low LoDs, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma
Jan 29, 2019
1,375
897
310
I'm not sure what do you mean?
Unless your game fits perfectly into RAM and never needs to stream some stuff from storage you need to take a great care of "loading times".
And it will manifest itself in: framerate dips, stutters, low LoDs, etc.
I am fairly sure most games on the PS4 would fit inside the 8GB of RAM the machine has (most games aren't AAA).

You don't have to execute everything that is in memory at any given time, so it shouldn't affect performance that your game fits in RAM, in fact if your game is small enough you should not load it all at once, this would make the initial load a bit too long for no good reason, you will want to swap assets anyway a game like Overcooked is 2.82GB, a relatively simple indie game, it loads all the time., small chunks as needed.
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
I would agree with framerate not mattering as much as fidelity of gfx not too long ago. But I think with the advent of 60fps online videos people can see a difference, even if not knowing why. Let’s face it, written reviews aren’t as popular as they used to be, it’s all video reviews these days.
Nope I know alot of people I play games with who don't care about FPS they just plug a game in and marvel at the graphics, they can tell a clear game at 1080p or a PS3 game from a PS4 game but frame rate is the least of their concern they don't care and don't even want to know about it, it's only when u come online or in neogaf where people shout about it.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Doctor Van Nostrand

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
1,741
2,588
475
Nope I know alot of people I play games with who don't care about FPS they just plug a game in and marvel at the graphics, they can tell a clear game at 1080p or a PS3 game from a PS4 game but frame rate is the least of their concern they don't care and don't even want to know about it, it's only when u come online or in neogaf where people shout about it.
I find similar. But it’s due to not having an interest in why one thing looks better than the other. Framerate is about clarity as much as resolution and assets. Temporal resolution is about feeding your eyes detail over time vs a static shot, it’s of huge significance but too difficult to convey to a layman.
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
I find similar. But it’s due to not having an interest in why one thing looks better than the other. Framerate is about clarity as much as resolution and assets. Temporal resolution is about feeding your eyes detail over time vs a static shot, it’s of huge significance but too difficult to convey to a layman.
If framerate was 14fps then it'll be a concern since the norm is 30 FPS then nobody really cares I for one couldn't tell a 30fps to a 60fps game until I started pc gaming then got to know what those terms mean,

90 percent of gamers worldwide don't buy a ps5 to see faster frame rates and 90 percent of gamers worldwide don't even have a 4k TV all they know is that a ps5 is better than a PS4 and comes with more impressive graphics, this has always been the norm, since games where pixelated to boxy 3d to PS3 power to ps4s 8gb to nextgens SSD and more memory.

And this will always exist imagine if Ur the head of a games company doing a reveal on e3 or playstation event, people worldwide watching it aren't there to see frame rates they simply want to see how spectacular the game looks!
 
Last edited:
Jan 29, 2019
1,375
897
310
lol...120fps minimum
really?
then you are playing only indie and AA games?

or modern AAA games in 1080p in low settings... that means in ps4 quality...

i see... pc masterrace 😂
You don't need top of the line hardware to run games at high FPS (100+) at 1080p, assuming you are willing to sacrifice graphics details.

Heck, a 550$ PC will run many games at 100+FPS at High settings, or pretty much all games at 100+FPS at Medium details if you game at 1080p (Ryzen 5 2600+rx590 with 16GB or DDR4 3200 RAM and a 512GB SSD + cheapo case and MB) with black Friday sales prices... I build it on newegg, in case you wonder, it's even a decent 1440p gaming rig.

Some people could probably get something equivalent at a lower price.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
1,741
2,588
475
If framerate was 14fps then it'll be a concern since the norm is 30 FPS then nobody really cares I for one couldn't tell a 30fps to a 60fps game until I started pc gaming then got to know what those terms mean,

90 percent of gamers worldwide don't buy a ps5 to see faster frame rates and 90 percent of gamers worldwide don't even have a 4k TV all they know is that a ps5 is better than a PS4 and comes with more impressive graphics, this has always been the norm, since games where pixelated to boxy 3d to PS3 power to ps4s 8gb to nextgens SSD and more memory.

And this will always exist imagine if Ur the head of a games company doing a reveal on e3 or playstation event, people worldwide watching it aren't there to see frame rates they simply want to see how spectacular the game looks!
The same game side by side at 30 and 60. These plebs would choose the 60. it’s part of the many things that make a game stand out. you’re arguing as if it has no relevance whatsoever.
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
The same game side by side at 30 and 60. These plebs would choose the 60. it’s part of the many things that make a game stand out. you’re arguing as if it has no relevance whatsoever.
So go and take all 90 percent of gamers worldwide and arrange two TVs side by side and tell them to decide, Ur argument is silly point is not about 60 FPS being better point is from retail to gameplay 90 percent of people don't give a flying fuck!
 

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,772
1,932
475
So go and take all 90 percent of gamers worldwide and arrange two TVs side by side and tell them to decide, Ur argument is silly point is not about 60 FPS being better point is from retail to gameplay 90 percent of people don't give a flying fuck!

I can't believe this thread is still going. Here's some tinder for the flame I guess...

90% of people who use percentages to prove their point have done absolutely 0% math to come up with that figure.

Also even if true...90% of people don't care because they don't know what their missing.

Shower me with your rebuttals and REEEEEEs!
 

Ogbert

Member
Feb 21, 2018
1,163
2,404
415
point is from retail to gameplay 90 percent of people don't give a flying fuck!
Actually, it's because 90% of console gamers have been trained to expect 30fps.

Drop Mario to 30fps and everyone would notice, because the game *feels* different. Likewise, 60fps feels better - it is smoother and more responsive. Console gamers don't demand it because they've never really had it.
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
Actually, it's because 90% of console gamers have been trained to expect 30fps.

Drop Mario to 30fps and everyone would notice, because the game *feels* different. Likewise, 60fps feels better - it is smoother and more responsive. Console gamers don't demand it because they've never really had it.
Listen boss I grew up in Africa 18 years and nobody I repeat nofucking body knew what a framerate was they knew when it stutters or when it's slow or when it loads but 30 FPS was god and they never knew about it, literally nobody gives a fuck it's only people online or neogaf who talk about 30 Vs 60 and soon enough you'll be fighting for 60 Vs 120 it's bull fucking shit bull fucking fucking cow dung!
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Ogbert

Rolling_Start

Member
Jul 25, 2019
362
488
280
Take a look here (https://www.testufo.com/) on a 60 hz device ideally with a big screen to see how easy it can be to see the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.

Now, a number of things can affect the degree to which you can notice frame rate differences - such as camera* and object speed, destructiveness of motion blur solution (i.e. smearing the shit out of anything moving), response time of the panel etc - but the truth is that side by side just about anyone with eyes can see the difference under the right circumstances.

How much that actually matters to someone, how easily they can tell, and the impact on gameplay depends on the person, the game, the control method and the display device though. And even someone who doesn't know what a "frame rate" is will ask what the fuck is going on if you toggle motion interpolation when they're watching Lord of the Rings (more than pure frame rate is probably having an effect here but it's the major part of it).

Gameplay is and will remain the biggest part of chasing higher frame rates, but it can also have an impact on immersion and emotional engagement**. I feel this is often overlooked by programmers looking only at the maths, or consumers programmed to initially reject anything other than 24 or 30 fps fictional portrayals on screen (there's a kind of psychological link that developed I'm sure).

I think the odds of getting a greater proportion of 60 fps games are good, though it will continue to be selected on a game by game basis. Fortunately, various forms of temporal reprojection allow for rendering budgets from multiple frame to be stitched together to create frames closer in quality to those normally associated with 30 fps, but at 60. Temporal reprojection will only improve over time.

*VR and "fast twitch" mouse look really, really benefit from frame rates higher than 30 and even 60 fps, though for different reasons.

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
Take a look here (https://www.testufo.com/) on a 60 hz device ideally with a big screen to see how easy it can be to see the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.

Now, a number of things can affect the degree to which you can notice frame rate differences - such as camera* and object speed, destructiveness of motion blur solution (i.e. smearing the shit out of anything moving), response time of the panel etc - but the truth is that side by side just about anyone with eyes can see the difference under the right circumstances.

How much that actually matters to someone, how easily they can tell, and the impact on gameplay depends on the person, the game, the control method and the display device though. And even someone who doesn't know what a "frame rate" is will ask what the fuck is going on if you toggle motion interpolation when they're watching Lord of the Rings (more than pure frame rate is probably having an effect here but it's the major part of it).

Gameplay is and will remain the biggest part of chasing higher frame rates, but it can also have an impact on immersion and emotional engagement**. I feel this is often overlooked by programmers looking only at the maths, or consumers programmed to initially reject anything other than 24 or 30 fps fictional portrayals on screen (there's a kind of psychological link that developed I'm sure).

I think the odds of getting a greater proportion of 60 fps games are good, though it will continue to be selected on a game by game basis. Fortunately, various forms of temporal reprojection allow for rendering budgets from multiple frame to be stitched together to create frames closer in quality to those normally associated with 30 fps, but at 60. Temporal reprojection will only improve over time.

*VR and "fast twitch" mouse look really, really benefit from frame rates higher than 30 and even 60 fps, though for different reasons.

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan
Its a good showcase ofcourse 30 and 60 are different but that's not how it translates to playing a video game 90 percent of people don't care they don't give a fuck I'm sorry! But it's just the way it is. People don't give a fuck if god of war splinter cell or metal gear is 30 FPS or 2000 FPS asking as it's not 10 FPS. They don't care it's just online crybabies and computer enthusiasts who cry for 60 FPS and the extra pixels,

90 percent of gamers just want to plug a game put a disc in and play they don't want to know what a pixel is!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chunk Loves Sloth