v_iHuGi
Banned
Nope
it´s not 7 SECONDS, it´s 3 SECONDS from the Continue button, go check yourselves at 0.35m.
Nope
This was expected. Sony first party studios will likely be the only ones to fully utilize PS5's I/O architect. We already see it with Spiderman MM (1-2 seconds from loading a save).
It’s also less than 2 (and seems to match the PS5) when choosing play now in NBA.it literally takes 3s on Assassins to go from Continue to Play go check.
Already moving goal post
So when I talked about the dream of an SSD part of the reason for that 5 gigabytes a second target was to eliminate loads, but also part of the reason for that target was streaming as in what if the SSD is so fast that as the player is turning around. It's possible to load textures for everything behind the player in that split second.
If you figure that it takes half a second to turn that's 4GB of compressed data you can load that sounds about right for next gen.
Anyway back to the hard drive another strategy for increasing effective read speed is to make big sequential chunks of data.
In the end people aren’t going to go have time to make a sandwich or smoke a carton of cigarettes while they wait for their game like we have seen in the past, looks like half the time you won’t even be able to scratch your ass.
I‘d say that’s a win for everyone. (Except people with itchy asses)
TBH, I don’t give a shit. Esports is not my thing. I guess they could introduce 2 minute intermissions, aNd they’d have to pep talk themselves there.How do you think this will effect eSports competitions? Players will no longer have time to psyche themselves out when transitioning from character-and-arena selection menus to matches.
Its almost 2 times faster to get in a game from os . Good enough imo for bothBut bu b b b b.... Sony’s magic SSD.
Yeah Xbox owners will be falling asleep bored waiting for that load time.Its almost 2 times faster to get in a game from os . Good enough imo for both
I said both are great .Yeah Xbox owners will be falling asleep bored waiting for that load time.
18-25% is the theoretical difference between the PS5 at max GPU boost clock vs the Series X at its sustained clocks. If we talk percentages, we can make differences seem much larger.That's not really close if you think about it. Shows at least 20-30% faster on the PS5 side if you look at percent differences.
Or SFS and velocity.Launch titles are not using Oodle Texture.
Exactly. 100% slower load times this generation would have been massive because load times were often over a minute. 100% slower load times when the load time is 5 seconds? Irrelevant and not even worth mentioning. I’d rather have an extra 20% of power so I can get higher resolutions and frame rate than minuscule load time differences.18-25% is the theoretical difference between the PS5 at max GPU boost clock vs the Series X at its sustained clocks. If we talk percentages, we can make differences seem much larger.
30% difference in speed when load times are 2 minutes long is a pretty big difference of 40 seconds.
30% difference in speed when load times are 10 seconds long is 3 seconds.
For me, 3 seconds isn't really worth consideration.
From the time u click the game till u play ps5 does it in half time . Not 3 seconds faster. 3 seconds is from Game menu to game save. Redless even then they r both good18-25% is the theoretical difference between the PS5 at max GPU boost clock vs the Series X at its sustained clocks. If we talk percentages, we can make differences seem much larger.
30% difference in speed when load times are 2 minutes long is a pretty big difference of 40 seconds.
30% difference in speed when load times are 10 seconds long is 3 seconds.
For me, 3 seconds isn't really worth consideration.
What?From the time u click the game till u play ps5 does it in half time . Not 3 seconds faster. 3 seconds is from Game menu to game save. Redless even then they r both good
From the article:What?
It shows how bored we really are. Most people use those loads to check phones. Now they will have no idea what is going on outside.Last gen we compared graphics... now we compare load times
The loading games, the loser shall be forever shamed for the duration of this generation of videogame consolesLet the games begin
We have to wait for a consensus of what’s going on with the load times.My friend who is a Nintendo fanboy who hates Sony is laughing his ass off at the loading times on PS5.
Definitely seems like the Xbox version is an afterthought. First the ray tracing not being in Xbox when every other game has it, now this.That DMC load time just shows dev favoritism.
Like resolution and framerate? On top of the loading times?Few months ago:
"lol it is only 2s vs 4s!!1"
- well faster ssd is actually more than loading times, streaming assets, ingame teleports, other things above loading screens
"lmao damage control!"
now:
"lol so IT IS just few seconds!! we knew!!"
- well it is not about loading screens only, streaming and...
"lol magic ssd doesnt work!! sony wasted money!"
War, war never changes
Loading speeds are the easiest thing to see and measure, so I get it why non-technical people stick into it. But it is interesting to see what kind of changes we get in things that have been limited by HDD speeds for decades Loading speeds are fast enough now, other stuff are the real meat
From the article:From the article:
Load times from os to game
devil may cry
PlayStation 5: 19.52 seconds
Xbox Series X: 41.98 seconds
Nba 2k21
PlayStation 5: 14.43 seconds
Xbox Series X: 22.81 second
Also from the article:The hell? Double the load time? It seems the Xbox Series X took a little longer checking my network environment than the PS5 (it visibly lingered on the checking network screen), and there’s an extra prompt (press A on your controller) to go through.
I'm not sure what your point is, because you're ignoring half the article and the entire summary to make it. You've taken a very specific set of numbers and recited them while ignoring the other set of numbers in the same article that paints a clearer picture. Why?Overall the Xbox Series X seems to take a little longer getting into games, but once inside the differences between the two consoles as far as loading speeds seem negligible.
Let me guess - you think that devs are going to be loading 20% of the entire game data every single second of a 10 hour game whenever you move the camera?Few months ago:
"lol it is only 2s vs 4s!!1"
- well faster ssd is actually more than loading times, streaming assets, ingame teleports, other things above loading screens
"lmao damage control!"
now:
"lol so IT IS just few seconds!! we knew!!"
- well it is not about loading screens only, streaming and...
"lol magic ssd doesnt work!! sony wasted money!"
War, war never changes
Loading speeds are the easiest thing to see and measure, so I get it why non-technical people stick into it. But it is interesting to see what kind of changes we get in things that have been limited by HDD speeds for decades Loading speeds are fast enough now, other stuff are the real meat
Ur trying to justify something.From the article:
Also from the article:
I'm not sure what your point is, because you're ignoring half the article and the entire summary to make it. You've taken a very specific set of numbers and recited them while ignoring the other set of numbers in the same article that paints a clearer picture. Why?
Let's go a step further. Does a game take longer to cold boot on the Xbox Series X than PS5? Sure looks that way, and its fair to say that Sony have done some excellent work there. Bravo. However - do we have a comparison using the quick resume feature on the Xbox Series X? If we don't, then the comparison is only comparing the PS5's best case scenario against the Xbox Series X's worst case scenario. Cold boot is the only way to play games on the PS5, but it's not the only way to play games on the Series X. If the in-game loads times are about the same, and quick resume allows me to load the game faster than the PS5, why aren't you reciting those numbers?
Definitely seems like the Xbox version is an afterthought. First the ray tracing not being in Xbox when every other game has it, now this.
Considering you're the one cherry picking numbers for some reason, it would seem the pot is calling the kettle. What am I trying to justify?Ur trying to justify something.
Sure ms can reduce that using a software feature but to compare through put of systems u need to compare how long it takes them to start storing data in ram from ssd while the said game is not in ram (cold boot). Once both are in ram ms machine can make up ground due to fatser ram bandwidth (if a game doesn't exceed 10 gb of ram used)
I m just simply comparing the cold boot times which shows ps5 just like the spec suggests has double through put advantage .
Totally agreed. PS5 SSD, while great, is over hyped. GPU advantage > SSD advantageWe know the PS5 will load faster, but the thing is that we’re at the point where even a 100% faster load time is only a few seconds, which doesn’t matter, especially with the series X’s Quick Resume. It’s not like it’s 2 minutes vs 4 minutes, it’s 7 seconds vs 14 seconds max. Both are fantastic and fast enough.
Like I have been saying for months, there comes a point where taking twice as long to load is irrelevant because 2x nothing is still nothing.
Considering you're the one cherry picking numbers for some reason, it would seem the pot is calling the kettle. What am I trying to justify?
Back to the point, if we want to compare the cold boot exclusively, of course that's fine, and that's absolutely a valuable metric to have in understanding these systems. In the post you replied to, we weren't talking cold boot numbers. You just replied and pasted them in for seemingly no reason at all. But, to be fair, in the cold boot race, based on what we have, it seems Sony is the clear winner. Hats off, here's the bottle of bubbly, enjoy the celebration.
However, for a completely fair comparison, we also need to acknowledge that the cold boot race isn't the only one being ran. Cold boot isn't how people are going to be starting the majority of their games on the Series X and Series S. Microsoft have provided an OS feature called quick resume that allows me to get from the OS - or other games - into the game potentially faster than Sony's machine can cold boot. The feature is called quick resume and it's automatic - it just works as part of the console's operations. So, that comparison is just as valuable a metric as the cold boot - and, I'd argue more so for the real world use case discussions, because every Series X owner is going to be using it for every game after the first time they start it up.
We haven’t seen that difference either. On the few games I‘ve seen it seems like engine limitations are the bottleneck. They both hang in the same spots.Loading times going down is one of the best things in next-gen (current-gen by tomorrow, I suppose?), but just like with graphics, there's diminishing returns. No one gives a crap whether a game takes 6 seconds or 8 seconds to load. No one outside the most fanatic warriors, that is.
The interesting aspect will be to see, if the faster SSD in the PS5 actually makes a tangible difference when it comes to texture quality, when compared to the XSX.
Loading times going down is one of the best things in next-gen (current-gen by tomorrow, I suppose?), but just like with graphics, there's diminishing returns. No one gives a crap whether a game takes 6 seconds or 8 seconds to load. No one outside the most fanatic warriors, that is.
The interesting aspect will be to see, if the faster SSD in the PS5 actually makes a tangible difference when it comes to texture quality, when compared to the XSX.
The basic theory of faster deliver into ram supports better assets on the platform. Ultimately devs will need to want to do it.Loading times going down is one of the best things in next-gen (current-gen by tomorrow, I suppose?), but just like with graphics, there's diminishing returns. No one gives a crap whether a game takes 6 seconds or 8 seconds to load. No one outside the most fanatic warriors, that is.
The interesting aspect will be to see, if the faster SSD in the PS5 actually makes a tangible difference when it comes to texture quality, when compared to the XSX.
The basic theory of faster deliver into ram supports better assets on the platform. Ultimately devs will need to want to do it.
SSDs are scratching the surface of how it's going to be used in next gen consoles.
Fast SSDs will be used for streaming in assets and this is going to matter down the line. Those 1-2 second different might be come a factor down the line.
I basically said the same thing and we posted like 1 second apart lol. Remember during the road to PS5 when Cerny talked about loading things as the character turns, it's likely that the PS5 SSD is only just fast enough to do that, anything that takes longer won't be able to do it in the same way.
The speed specs difference on paper is significant in regards to ability in refreshing the ram. Beyond that, the purported latency benefits via added priority channels aren’t there for fun I expect. Sony is betting the house on all this, it’s obvious. Being a glass half full guy I’m on board with their vision. Would be a shame if it goes to waste and doesn’t deliver.Yeah, but the interesting thing is if the I/O in the PS5 is "faster enough" to make a difference vs. the XSX.
Exactly. I’ll rarely need to cold boot on the series X because I can have 5 games loaded in game at once indefinitely. It’s like arguing about console cold boot times - who cares, mine cold boots once a year.I'll be using Quick Resume for what I'm actually playing, so load times become almost a non issue really.
I was told the Sony SSD would be far more performing out of thLaunch titles are not using Oodle Texture.
yup ...Exactly. I’ll rarely need to cold boot on the series X because I can have 5 games loaded in game at once indefinitely. It’s like arguing about console cold boot times - who cares, mine cold boots once a year.
Watch dogs is actually 48 seconds from boot to being able to move the character, but there are several logos and unskippable sequences, then the menu, campaign, continue etc.I'd hang on 1 more day if I were people.
The loading i saw on red gaming tech series x vid watchdogs took like 25 seconds, from memory, there or there abouts, see rgt video for actual number.
Then valhalla took about 17 on seriex x.
This was from game menu to gameplay start which is the main one for me.
The boot ones will be upto devs, some include unskippable splash screens etc.
Fairest test is pure loading from a menu to game.
This is where the advantage will shine for ps5. Not long to wait.