Support NeoGAF

[DForce]

People laughed at me in this thread when I told them that the goal of a fast SSD wasn't to just load games, it was to stream data.



Digital Foundry talked to Bluepoint and they mentioned how the cast SSD allows them to stream in high quality textures as soon as the player turns the corner.

Time Stamped @ 18:54



Peter Dalton talks about decompression data. It was handled on the CPU side on the PS4 but now it's handled by a dedicated hardware solution.

 

[Chukhopops]

Sony hyped to eliminate load times completely. So disappointed in this gen.

I think this will never happen except maybe on specific first party games.

I also think third party devs will not care too much about reducing load times further because, let's face it, they are already really fast in the new generation. It seems unnecessary e.g. for Ubisoft to optimize the data structure of their games if fast travel already takes +/- 8s on SX and (just as an example) +/- 5s on PS5.

 

[MasterCornholio]

People laughed at me in this thread when I told them that the goal of a fast SSD wasn't to just load games, it was to stream data.



Digital Foundry talked to Bluepoint and they mentioned how the cast SSD allows them to stream in high quality textures as soon as the player turns the corner.

Time Stamped @ 18:54



Peter Dalton talks about decompression data. It was handled on the CPU side on the PS4 but now it's handled by a dedicated hardware solution.

Basically what's happening in the game.

 

[RoboFu]

why do you guys keep posting spiderman and demons souls when you know there is no comparisons on XsX?

Why not post something we know like DMC5? PS5 2s XsX 3s

Thats right where it should be based on the sepcs. its simple math. The longer the load times od XsX the faster Ps5 should be in comparison., like I expect ACV to load a lot faster on PS5 than XsX. 25-30% off 3 secs is much shorter that 25-30% of 1 min .
Lets say PS5 was straight up twice as fast as XsX. 2 x 2s is only 4s but 2 x 1 min is 2 min.

 

[MasterCornholio]

why do you guys keep posting spiderman and demons souls when you know there is no comparisons on XsX?

Why not post something we know like DMC5? PS5 2s XsX 3s

Thats right where it should be based on the sepcs. its simple math. The longer the load times od XsX the faster Ps5 should be in comparison., like I expect ACV to load a lot faster on PS5 than XsX. 25-30% off 3 secs is much shorter that 25-30% of 1 min .
Lets say PS5 was straight up twice as fast as XsX. 2 x 2s is only 4s but 2 x 1 min is 2 min.

There is a video showing loaf times to be 17 seconds on the XSX and 7 seconds on the PS5. For AC5 I mean.

XBOX SERIE X = 17 seconds


===========

PS5 = 7 seconds

 

[Warablo]

Then I'm predicting the XSX to outsell the PS5 because why would anyone buy a weaker console at the same price?

I guess no one is allowed the power narrative if it isn't Sony. Its one of the reasons why the Xbox One launch failed, but they screwed up a lot of shit then.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I guess no one is allowed the power narrative if it isn't Sony. Its one of the reasons why the Xbox One launch failed, but they screwed up a lot of shit then.

I honestly don't see either system outselling the other due to power alone. There's probably alot more factors that will end up dictating the sales of the two.

I believe that as long as there's not a massive power difference between the two the PS5 will still do extremely well.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Good stuff.

What a change, from 5400rpm hdds with up to 2 minutes of loading to this! No matter if you run green or you run blue, the change will be so massive everyone will be very happy.

 

[OmaeWaMouShindiggity]

Wake me up when either console gives me sub-1 second loading times for the majority of triple A games

 

[Shmunter]

People laughed at me in this thread when I told them that the goal of a fast SSD wasn't to just load games, it was to stream data.



Digital Foundry talked to Bluepoint and they mentioned how the cast SSD allows them to stream in high quality textures as soon as the player turns the corner.

Time Stamped @ 18:54



Peter Dalton talks about decompression data. It was handled on the CPU side on the PS4 but now it's handled by a dedicated hardware solution.

Who laughed at you? That’s the whole point of what Sony built.

 

[Grinchy]

I love how blazingly fast the actual PS5 games are. But I'm a little annoyed that a game like Monster Hunter from the previous generation loads so much slower on the PS5 than the XSX. According to this video, the PS5 is barely even faster than a PS4 Pro with an old SSD installed. I just doesn't make sense.

I hope they patch it to take better advantage of the PS5 hardware, but I know it's unlikely.

 

[DForce]

Who laughed at you? That’s the whole point of what Sony built.

The Xbox fans in this thread. lol

 

[scydrex]

The Xbox fans in this thread. lol

Exactly. I remember that very well not the names but yes it's true. When i heard Bluepoint talking about the streaming and texture i told myself what would they say now? That Bluepoint is talking trash or telling lies?

 

[Mobile Suit Gooch]

So let me get this straight, XSX loads BC games faster than PS5 bc games. but PS5 loads faster than XSX for current-gen games? IDK

 

[BadBurger]

The biggest differences are going to be in-game if those preview videos are anywhere near accurate. I don't see the Xbox Series X ever instantly or near instantly loading entire areas like I saw in Spider-Man or Ratchet and Clank. Not only is the SSD in the PS5 essentially capable of twice the raw I/O, compressed or uncompressed, but they put a lot of work into streamlining the entire I/O pipeline. We saw in the videos, even in the LittleBigPlanet one, it fundamentally changes how gaming is handled on every level due to the raw speed of things. Unless Microsoft releases a new model with that kind of SSD, storage controller, and I/O architecture, Xbox games are basically going to be like what we PC gamers with SSD's already see. Faster, but nothing special, and you stop even noticing after a week or two.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

 

[reksveks]

So we currently have

Fortnite - menu to game
Xbox 17 seconds
PS5 13 seconds (76% or 1.3x faster)

AC Valhalla - menu to game
Xbox 86 seconds
PS5 52 seconds (60% or 1.66x faster)

Based on the video in the other thread, fast travel time for AC:Valhalla seems the same

Which is slightly in-line to what we should expect from that hardware differential.

 

[mckmas8808]

So we currently have

Fortnite - menu to game
Xbox 17 seconds
PS5 13 seconds (76% or 1.3x faster)

AC Valhalla - menu to game
Xbox 86 seconds
PS5 52 seconds (60% or 1.66x faster)

Based on the video in the other thread, fast travel time for AC:Valhalla seems the same

Which is slightly in-line to what we should expect from that hardware differential.

76% faster? Isn't your math off? Isn't it 24% faster?

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

So we currently have

Fortnite - menu to game
Xbox 17 seconds
PS5 13 seconds (76% or 1.3x faster)

AC Valhalla - menu to game
Xbox 86 seconds
PS5 52 seconds (60% or 1.66x faster)

Based on the video in the other thread, fast travel time for AC:Valhalla seems the same

Which is slightly in-line to what we should expect from that hardware differential.

I’m looking for the DF and NX Gamer breakdown of Valhalla (not just for loading, for everything) as the first real comparison. DMC5 seems poorly optimized on both

 

[reksveks]

76% faster? Isn't your math off? Isn't it 24% faster?

Sorry, 76% of the Xbox time as the denominator which I have then inverted to get the 1.3x faster number. Hope that explain my thinking.

I’m looking for the DF and NX Gamer breakdown of Valhalla (not just for loading, for everything) as the first real comparison. DMC5 seems poorly optimized on both

Same, think that's either happening on the weekend or monday.

 

[MrFunSocks]

People laughed at me in this thread when I told them that the goal of a fast SSD wasn't to just load games, it was to stream data.



Digital Foundry talked to Bluepoint and they mentioned how the cast SSD allows them to stream in high quality textures as soon as the player turns the corner.

Time Stamped @ 18:54



Peter Dalton talks about decompression data. It was handled on the CPU side on the PS4 but now it's handled by a dedicated hardware solution.

You act like streaming is a new PS5 only thing lol. You're kidding yourself if you think you're getting 16GB of new data streaming constantly lol

 

[ethomaz]

The difference in loading times keep widening and it is not even 1 day after launch... next batch of games will have even bigger differences.

BC games running with PS4/PS4 Pro clocks give the impression Xbox could compete lol when the PS5 SSD was being bottlenecks by the CPU/GPU in legacy mode.

 

[Neo_game]

So we currently have

Fortnite - menu to game
Xbox 17 seconds
PS5 13 seconds (76% or 1.3x faster)

AC Valhalla - menu to game
Xbox 86 seconds
PS5 52 seconds (60% or 1.66x faster)

Based on the video in the other thread, fast travel time for AC:Valhalla seems the same

Which is slightly in-line to what we should expect from that hardware differential.

Nearly 1.5 min in SX and PS5 time is pathetic as well. Games are taking so long. The current gen X takes in comparision took 2min 52secs

 

[jaysius]

Wake me up when either console gives me sub-1 second loading times for the majority of triple A games

Ok Rip Van Winkle.

 

[MrA]

Good to see things going exactly as I expected, xbox sex with slightly higher resolution, psS with slightly better load times, one side acting like their advantage is all the rage and their disadvantage isn't a big deal. IF you want the best hardware, well, they more or less balance out, if you want the biggest hardware, that's easy, ps5

 

[DForce]

You act like streaming is a new PS5 only thing lol. You're kidding yourself if you think you're getting 16GB of new data streaming constantly lol

I'm not the one in denial. You have members of XboxGAF who thinks its just about loading into a game.

 

[sendit]

Good to see things going exactly as I expected, xbox sex with slightly higher resolution, psS with slightly better load times, one side acting like their advantage is all the rage and their disadvantage isn't a big deal. IF you want the best hardware, well, they more or less balance out, if you want the biggest hardware, that's easy, ps5

Agreed. Additionally, this is how Demon's Souls compares per platform:



Personally, I can't tell the difference.

 

[MrFunSocks]

I'm not the one in denial. You have members of XboxGAF who thinks its just about loading into a game.

And you have members of SonyGAF who think they're going to be loading 16GB/S for the entire time they're playing games.

XboxGAF is closer to correct than SonyGAF. For 99% of games the only difference will be loading into a game, like it or not. First party will be the only devs that try to use it for anything else.

 

[Kagey K]

Agreed. Additionally, this is how Demon's Souls compares per platform:



Personally, I can't tell the difference.

I can, the Few that care about Souls games yell the loudest. Meanwhile most people would rather look at nothing than play another derivative of the genre.

 

[MrFunSocks]

I honestly don't see either system outselling the other due to power alone. There's probably alot more factors that will end up dictating the sales of the two.

I believe that as long as there's not a massive power difference between the two the PS5 will still do extremely well.

The Xbox could be twice as powerful and load stuff 10x faster and it still wouldn't outsell the PS5, not sure why people still don't understand this.

The next iPhone will outsell the next Google Pixel even if it's a literal iPhone 4 repackaged. Brand name and loyalty is the biggest and most important thing brands have going for them, and Playstation is leaps and bounds ahead in that regard.

 

[DForce]

And you have members of SonyGAF who think they're going to be loading 16GB/S for the entire time they're playing games.

XboxGAF is closer to correct than SonyGAF. For 99% of games the only difference will be loading into a game, like it or not. First party will be the only devs that try to use it for anything else.

You're on full damage control.


Most developers are going to start streaming data, not just first party devs. The old method was to design games to hide loading screens.

There's no longer a need for that (for the most part) and they can request data when needed. You actually think this is will only be for first party devs.

 

[FranXico]

Launch titles are not using Oodle Texture.

And that's more relevant when streaming data, not at skipping load screens.

 

[v_iHuGi]

So we currently have

Fortnite - menu to game
Xbox 17 seconds
PS5 13 seconds (76% or 1.3x faster)

AC Valhalla - menu to game
Xbox 86 seconds
PS5 52 seconds (60% or 1.66x faster)

Based on the video in the other thread, fast travel time for AC:Valhalla seems the same

Which is slightly in-line to what we should expect from that hardware differential.

AC comparison where?

 

[MrFunSocks]

You're on full damage control.


Most developers are going to start streaming data, not just first party devs. The old method was to design games to hide loading screens.

There's no longer a need for that (for the most part) and they can request data when needed. You actually think this is will only be for first party devs.

Ok I’ll spell it out a bit simpler for my warrior friend - streaming level data in on the fly isn’t new. It’s not revolutionary. Streaming data in on the fly isn’t going to even require close to 2GB/S. You’re crazy if you think that games are going to be loading 5GB+ of data per second lol. Both consoles have more than fast enough I/O to stream assets in on the fly “instantly”. The only difference you’ll notice with third party games is load times because neither console is hamstrung by I/O speed in terms of loading game data on the fly.

 

[Connxtion]

AC: Valhalla XSX
Takes me about 13 seconds to load in to Norway from pressing (A) on the main menu to it loading gameplay. (About 6 seconds if using quick resume )

Fastravel is normally about 6 seconds, but one time it took 20 odd to load into the main base/location on Norway. I suspect that was because I had just completed a task and it was loading NPCs or a don’t know

 

[TBiddy]

Who laughed at you? That’s the whole point of what Sony built.

None outside a few of the most extreme warriors, which are probably banned by now. DForce is just being dramatic.

 

[Shane89]

• PlayStation 5: 14.43 seconds
• Xbox Series X: 22.81 seconds

I wouldn't say 'they are close'

 

[Redlight]

You're on full damage control.


Most developers are going to start streaming data, not just first party devs. The old method was to design games to hide loading screens.

There's no longer a need for that (for the most part) and they can request data when needed. You actually think this is will only be for first party devs.

Gosh, I wish MS had thought of including a fast SSD in their system.

 

[MrFunSocks]

So AC:V loading comparisons are out now, and the series X loads pretty much everything identically to the PS5 lol. No instant loading to be seen for PS5. Both take like 7-8 seconds for quick travel. Both take the same amount of time to load a save. Only difference was from cold boot, and that is only due to the Xbox having a few more non-skippable logo screens than the PS5 version.

Guess that’s what we call the Xbox “punching above its weight” - that’s the fun term we’re using now aren’t we? That Cerny Magical SSD and eliminated bottlenecks not really doing much. Maybe that was the “PS5 Surprise tm”?!

 

[plasmawave]

Sony hyped to eliminate load times completely. So disappointed in this gen.

You're using launch games as an indicator what these new machines are capable of.

 

[Connxtion]

Deadpool in BC mode on XSX takes 1.66 or there about seconds to load into gameplay

Don’t think the hitching the game has is fixed mind

 

[DForce]

None outside a few of the most extreme warriors, which are probably banned by now. DForce is just being dramatic.

You guys get so defensive. lol

 

[DForce]

Gosh, I wish MS had thought of including a fast SSD in their system.

They do

PS5 is more than 2 times faster.. I don't know why XboxGAF has a hard time accepting that.

 

[reksveks]

AC comparison where?

The other next-gen speculation thread.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

So AC:V loading comparisons are out now, and the series X loads pretty much everything identically to the PS5 lol. No instant loading to be seen for PS5. Both take like 7-8 seconds for quick travel. Both take the same amount of time to load a save. Only difference was from cold boot, and that is only due to the Xbox having a few more non-skippable logo screens than the PS5 version.

Guess that’s what we call the Xbox “punching above its weight” - that’s the fun term we’re using now aren’t we? That Cerny Magical SSD and eliminated bottlenecks not really doing much. Maybe that was the “PS5 Surprise tm”?!

You know why the xbox has those extra non-skippable logos right? because it's covering the loading, the PS5 doesn't have them because it doesn't need them.

 

[TBiddy]

You guys get so defensive. lol

Just a very low tolerance of FUD.

You know why the xbox has those extra non-skippable logos right? because it's covering the loading, the PS5 doesn't have them because it doesn't need them.

surejan.gif

 

[Grinchy]

The XSX is kicking the PS5's ass on Monster Hunter's loading times. It annoys me because it's one of the games I care most about seeing loading eliminated on. The game on a 5400RPM current gen hdd is atrocious for loading in and out of quests. Obviously the PS5 is doing better than a stock PS4 Pro, but knowing it should be much faster is annoying.

 

[Vae_Victis]

So Sony didn’t really think through BC like MS did? Loading seems to go faster on Series X even for BC games ..

The XSX is kicking the PS5's ass on Monster Hunter's loading times. It annoys me because it's one of the games I care most about seeing loading eliminated on. The game on a 5400RPM current gen hdd is atrocious for loading in and out of quests. Obviously the PS5 is doing better than a stock PS4 Pro, but knowing it should be much faster is annoying.

Backwards Compatible games on both platforms load a lot slower than native software. It's probably because the games were hard-coded to decompress data through the CPU, so the SSD is not the bottleneck in neither PS5 or XSX, but rather how quickly the CPU can decompress "the hard way" what it is being fed from the drive, as it happened last gen, bypassing all the hardware decompression units and software solutions the new consoles have.

Since XSX has a slight advantage in CPU, and possibly also due to games being programmed to begin with to run on a faster CPU on XOneX than on PS4Pro (so where/if "boost mode" on data decompression is not applicable, the emulated clocks are 2.3 vs 2.13 GHz), on average backwards compatible games show a slight edge for XSX in loading times (with a few exceptions in both directions).

 

[Vae_Victis]

So AC:V loading comparisons are out now, and the series X loads pretty much everything identically to the PS5 lol. No instant loading to be seen for PS5. Both take like 7-8 seconds for quick travel. Both take the same amount of time to load a save. Only difference was from cold boot, and that is only due to the Xbox having a few more non-skippable logo screens than the PS5 version.

Guess that’s what we call the Xbox “punching above its weight” - that’s the fun term we’re using now aren’t we? That Cerny Magical SSD and eliminated bottlenecks not really doing much. Maybe that was the “PS5 Surprise tm”?!

You have made it beyond clear by now that you only exist on this forum to be Xbox's shill-in-chief, but this one seems a bit too blatant even for you to pass as "identical".

XBOX SERIE X = 17 seconds


===========

PS5 = 7 seconds

 

[DForce]

Just a very low tolerance of FUD.

Pointing out that people are laughing is not FUD. It's funny because people are clueless as to why SSD are being used next gen. I guess you guys don't like facts very much at all.