Sony PS5 SSD 'Twice As Fast' As Xbox Series X SSD, Report Claims

Now people are expecting maxed out PCIe 4.0 speeds. :-S I bet it won't even max PCIe 3.0 speeds. This is beyond mental and not even needed. Hope Sony finally clears this up. With full software and hardware optimisation, they'd probably get what they wanted from a SATA 3 connection.

They patented a method of loading with SSDs. They don't need mental speeds. Unlike the PC which loads at specific times which is slower, this will load constantly. PC games load fast enough the old fashioned way on SATA 3 with SSDs or 5200 RPM HDDs, or a combination of the two (Intel Rapid Storage Technology), imagine if they were constantly loading too.

You guys have a crazy idea of what you think is needed.

They don't have room in the budget for this. So you guys say it'll have 2070 Super performance and now with an expensive SSD?

"Compile shaders at runtime" don't occur for game consoles, hence game companies can ship precompiled shaders programs.

Review

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-playstation-4-hack-confirmed-watch-the-linux-demo

On top of that, it seems that despite the actual hardware using a SATA interface, the PS4 itself appears to communicate with the hard drive via USB - a curious state of affairs. The Blu-ray drive does use the SATA AHCI standard

PS4's HDD connected to the SATA-to-USB bridge. LOL Sony has redefined "low end". LOL

That was my point. Which from everything that I have read, seen, and heard it appears that they are. I realize it will (if the rumored leaks are even true only be second to a small handful of seconds at most in most cases on the XSX). I'm just saying if there is an option on the PS5 to only match make with others on PS5 that's the way I'll be going. Now if their is a way to connect to anyone with a XSX or those that have a SSD (not even sure if they can do that) then I will pick that instead.

My bottom line is that I don't care if it bothers other people or the wider audience.. the whole speed thing is the main selling point of these consoles. Limiting that to cater to others that don't have the ability or chose not to upgrade is not something I want to deal with on my new console, or I don't see much of a point in upgrading. To me the new games you can only play on the new consoles is the point of consoles... why have consoles otherwise? What good is the extra speed if it isn't utilized? I realize it would still work on campaigns/single player, but how do they accommodate to make the experience fair across the family of consoles while still utilizing the SSD to its fullest? What is the point if companies like MS are trying to integrate them into one platform for the most part? If I was looking for that experience I would have switched to PC years ago, especially since you can get all Xbox games on PC now, and you can play with a m/kb on console now anyways...

To me it seems like clear positioning that MS is planning to exit the console world or at the very least start making console/PC hybrids (which actually sounds kind of cool and if anyone could pull it off it's them as long as they keep making software). The fact that they aren't pushing for a high initial attachment rate like SONY shows that their plans are radically different. Perhaps this isn't such a bad thing.. as long as SONY and Nintendo keep doing what they have always done, but it is still troubling to me as a long time console player who prefers that experience and doesn't want to see the two merge completely.

I like the fact that when I am playing on a console that things are for the most part an even playing field with everyone playing on similar hardware and peripherals... which is why I also hated the mid gen half step consoles and m/kb support on games. I just feel like the two should be separate by default unless people choose otherwise... Being paired by what you are using is fine to me too though. As long as people get paired with m/kb if that is what they are using or controllers if they are using those. As long as they give the option to keep cross play and/or playing devices separate to allow for more fair competition then I'm fine with it.

I truly hope that MS brings some good exclusives to the MS family, because the whole no exclusives on XSX... well PS5 is probably going to be the go to for online gaming (in most cases) unless MS has a console that is majorly more powerful, and even then I don't know if it matters.

I'm not hating though... These are legitimate concerns. I'll get an XSX if I'm proven wrong before launch, or after they get console exclusives. I get the whole "play across a family of consoles" idea. I mean it does work better for MS knowing they aren't going into next gen with as much momentum as SONY, and probably not looking to compete on a head to head level. I'm cool with that. However, I'm going to need a reason to upgrade. Money isn't the issue, and YES I do play on everything and always have. I played my Xbox One X this morning and then went and played my Switch for a bit, and now I'm on my PC and phone... Guess I could get on my Stadia, but it has been even more terrible than I imagined to this point.

That is far from the point. I don't know about others, or if you are even talking to me or me as part of a group, but it will matter with online multiplayer. People on Xbox's older consoles will drag the load times and inability to play online multiplayer games down to the slowest loading console which will make less people want to get an XSX that mostly play online, and for those that are on the PS5 to not play cross console.

People can think that won't happen all they want, but Xbox's biggest audience has been the online multiplayer fanbase. If they think they can get a better and faster experience somewhere else then they will go to the competition.

Unless the XSX is massively more powered it won't matter to most people. They will want to play online the way they can get into games the fastest with the least amount of downtime.

Literally most sources say the series X has either a superior SSD or on on par with the PS5. If anything so if nothing else, the consoles will be on the same level in the load times department. No need to get hyped about it.

Yes, PC gamers have been effected by it, but those that don't own SSD's (hell even those that do) wouldn't know the difference, or simply don't care while playing online (because that's just the way it is). If you are playing on PC against a player with a potato rig while playing an online game you have to wait for the slowest person/people and the slowest loading PC's before you can get in the game.

You don't think it would make a difference if everyone in the game was playing on a SSD with a game built around taking advantage of knowing everyone will load in much faster and there is no accommodating for slower hardware and technology?

If everyone in the room has a SSD made for the sole purpose of gaming and there isn't anything else holding back the amount of time to load (other than differences in internet speed) I don't see how anyone can say it won't make a difference. I can just about guarantee you it will.

Most online shooters and sports games that are on console that I play can take up to a minute or two loading between games and getting into games. If everyone loads in faster why wouldn't they get in faster if the game isn't waiting on anyone else?

The difference between a normal HD and SSD is pretty big. Why do you think the benefits wouldn't carry over to custom architecture built around the fact that they know everyone will have the faster loading technology and nobody in the room holding it back... you're only as strong as your weakest link when it comes to that aspect regardless of how you look at it.

Even if it only saves a minute here or a minute there, it makes a difference in getting in another game or two if you don't have much time.

If I'm wrong about my thoughts I would like to know why.

@thatdbfan: who said I was hyped?

@WitIsWisdom has created this alternate reality in which gamers with superior machines are severely hampered by folks with weaker machines in multiplayer games despite it not being a problem in PC gaming or have been recorded as being a problem. I have yet to see any examples of multiplayer game in which the person on the stronger machine is being held back by folks on a weaker machine. This is sky is falling logic at the moment.

Psh so it loads a couple seconds less big deal

Yeah open your eyes,MS hasn't say 12TF at all never,yet all lemmings speak as if the machine is 12TF.

So yeah everyone believes what it wants to.

Thats cool and all, but super SSD speed is not a huge deal to me because I'll be having external storage eventually. The size of 4k games means that a 1 or 2TB SSD is going to fill up super fast.

The PlayStation 4 Pro's I/O currently is about 50MB/s, the Spider-Man demo loads in 8.10 seconds. With the PS5 SSD it loads in 0.83 seconds. Well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is a 9.75x uptick in read speed which equates to 500-550MB/s a second.

Don't believe the hype.

Where are you getting this information?

The stock harddrive in the PS4 Pro the 5400 rpm(HGST) averages around 65mb/s on average it gets as low as 35mb/s with mixed loads.

Sorry about that. I should have been more specific. Where did you get the information about Spiderman's load times on the PS5 SSD? Was it based on the leaked video?

@Pedro:

Im thinking its that showcase Sony had, giving an example of loading times differences with spiderman game.

I guess this makes a difference if developers use the SSD as virtual RAM.

However, in most other cases, it won't matter at all. Seems the consoles are rumored to have plenty of hardware RAM.

Look at how long it takes to load Monster Hunter World on the PS4. I'm using a 7200 RPM HDD and my load times are way faster than the PS4s and closer to the SSDs. I guess having a crap CPU too really doesn't help the consoles either in dealing with load times.

I never said or acted as though the sky is falling. You are making more out of this than I am, while also changing the narrative. This isn't about any kind of power difference, this is regarding the loading times between a HD and a SSD. In most cases it takes 1.5 to 5 times as long to load games on the HD compared to the SSD.

For those that don't care that's cool and all, but when one of the biggest (if not the biggest) selling points of next gen consoles has been the speed of load times.. yeah it matters, at least to me. Multiplayer online games are more of an issue to me than single player, but it applies to either scenario.

I'm definitely not saying its the end of the world for those without it, I'm just saying that if I have the option I will choose the features of the next gen console, because I sort of thought that was the point of the new consoles in the first place (or at least a large portion)... unless I missed something.

The points you are making is about an argument we had in the past and I'm taking a wait and see approach on that front because it has me a little skeptical to say the least.. that doesn't mean they can't pull some magic and make it work though.

@kazhirai:

Yeah because a demo tell the whole story.

You are jumping the gun.

@Zero_epyon: A counter-argument from https://www.gizchina.com/2020/01/14/microsoft-xbox-series-x-will-use-groupe-controlled-pcie-4-0-ssd/

According to Digitimes, Qunlian has become the supply chain of Microsoft Xbox Series X, providing SSD for it. This is almost certainly the PCIe 4.0 version. According to reports, the new master PCIe 4.0 SSD will reach a speed of 7GB / s, which is very beneficial for the host.

1. X1X GPU doesn't have PC RX-470/RX-480/RX-570/RX-580 memory bandwidth gimped Polaris raster IPC.

2. XSX's 2X over X1X GPU context is "when doing the math".

At 1172Mhz clock speed, RDNA's 64 ROPS coupled with 4MB L2 cache and eight triangle inputs per cycle is already 2X over X1X version's 32 ROPS coupled with 2MB render cache and four triangle inputs per cycle.

That's not factoring 1700Mhz clock speed nor any geometry input/ROPS scaling.

Yes it was based upon the leaked video.

Great nothing you say there adress my point period.

MS has not claim 12TF in any instance not ONCE that is what people assumed because of the 2X claim,which is just as bland as the 4X claim they also made until they clarify it was CPU based.

They are playing with words,if the xbox Series X end up been less than 12TF people should not cry about it,because MS never claimed that.

This isn't a issue even remotely. Connection are the main issue when it comes to online playing that's what's the main issue.

Online games on PC barely saturate hard drives even remotely that require wait times for players. It's all about connections and ping that comes into place.

@NoodleFighter:

If they use it for ram purposes game will die instantly so ain't happening.

Virtual ram is already used in consoles and pc since forever.

SSDs so fast games will run in 5D.

I have addressed your point with MS's XSX GPU being 2X over X1X GPU "when doing the math".

1. XSX's chip area size can support RDNA GPU larger than NAVI 10

XSX's ~400 mm2 chip size

251 mm2 NAVI 10 with 40 CU and I/O.

Mobile Ryzen 4000's 8 core Zen v2 with 8 MB L3 cache and it's I/O is about 70 mm2. Game consoles don't need external PEG 16X lanes.

I'm not factoring RDNA 2's 7nm+ EUV's 20 percent density improvements.

2. XSX's case is larger than X1X's case hence XSX's cooling solution is larger. Assumes X1X's vapor cooling tech is used but with a larger scale.