Faster loading (ps5) vs more power (xsx) ?

Faster loading (ps5) vs more power (xsx)

  • Faster loading ps5

    Votes: 245 45.1%

  • More power xsx

    Votes: 298 54.9%
  • Total voters
    543
I remember back on the original PlayStation, where the Nintendo 64's cartridges loaded pretty quickly, while several games on the PS1 had much longer load times. I wasn't phased. I've said it before: player's don't mind loading screens as long as the game that loads is worth the wait. I'll take more power over marginally faster load times. 5 seconds on the Xbox versus 2 seconds on the PS5 isn't really worth a 20% power difference to me. If we were talking 2 minutes on the Xbox versus 2 seconds on the PS5, well, then you've got something to consider. But, we're not.
 
loktaiextatus said:
And I never argued a power advantage to be nullified. I argued (per the thread) that I think the bigger difference could be in I/O. or rather- if I have to vote that I vote for I/O and
I will believe in MS's exclusive ML Upscaling about as soon as that POWA OF DA CLOUD kicks in from 2013.
Click to expand...
Cool, in the mean time I'll listen to the people that make the consoles. If PS5 has ML upscaling....awesome, but I'm not going to just assume it when they haven't spoken of it. When ps4 pro had checkerboarding acceleration they sure mentioned it.
 
LittleBusters said:
Now suddenly I'm hearing that TF don't matter, PS5 games that run 1440p/60fps will look gorgeous and better than XSX games at 4K/60fps, because Sony has all the talent.
Click to expand...

Thats not new, thats what people have been saying ever since the ONE X came out and we have God of war, horizon zero dawn, last of us 2, etc doing exactly that.

Its a 50% increase from PS4 pro to the One X and Im sorry but considering that- the 15 percent jump between these consoles- I will believe in a big difference when I see it.

I own both the current consoles Ive mentioned, I dont hate on XBOX, I love my one X, I wouldnt part with it, I love gamepass and even without it I would keep it to play
blue dragon and lost odyssey and just generally because I like the thing. Im not trying to dig Sony out of a hole.
 
ZehDon said:
I remember back on the original PlayStation, where the Nintendo 64's cartridges loaded pretty quickly, while several games on the PS1 had much longer load times. I wasn't phased. I've said it before: player's don't mind loading screens as long as the game that loads is worth the wait. I'll take a marginal power diff over a much faster load times. 5 seconds on the Xbox versus 2 seconds on the PS5 isn't really worth a 20% power difference to me. If we were talking 2 minutes on the Xbox versus 2 seconds on the PS5, well, then you've got something to consider. But, we're not.
Click to expand...

Fixed
 
ZehDon said:
I remember back on the original PlayStation, where the Nintendo 64's cartridges loaded pretty quickly, while several games on the PS1 had much longer load times. I wasn't phased. I've said it before: player's don't mind loading screens as long as the game that loads is worth the wait. I'll take more power over marginally faster load times. 5 seconds on the Xbox versus 2 seconds on the PS5 isn't really worth a 20% power difference to me. If we were talking 2 minutes on the Xbox versus 2 seconds on the PS5, well, then you've got something to consider. But, we're not.
Click to expand...

The N64 had more power too. The games are what you wanted to wait for right? Alright then, the argument moves to games. We're talking about I/O vs a 15 percent increase.

If I go back in time and add 15 percent to the PS2 you would probably not even notice. But today we'll let DF whip us into a frenzy about it. But if you go back and look at 2 disk systems and one loads a game in 30 seconds and the other sits there for a minute, you'll notice it, even today.
 
Branthrax said:
More power is the obvious answer, no ones going to even notice 5 seconds vs 10. 60fps at 4K vs unstable 60fps at 4K, yes.
Click to expand...

Unstable 60fps can be mitigated by VRR. If you look at arstechnica loading tests you see for example RDR loading in 68 seconds. I'm assuming these loads are purely dependant on raw speed of the SSD. PS5 would do that in 34 sec. That is significant.
 
loktaiextatus said:
Projection is a hell of a drug my friend. You're the one who showed up during as discussion in progress to weigh in and white knight for the Xbox. God forbid I not respect
60 vs 69 FPS difference in compute power.

Please point out my "made up things" while we discuss how we will lose 33% of our framerate to downclocking.
Click to expand...

Lol in all this back now forth you've yet to make one salient , data driven point lmao literally none. Just all conjecture from a rabid Plastic Box worshipper.

The Series X is more powerful, and we haven't even gotten to the architecture efficiencies that still haven't been confirmed to be in PS5.

None of this is to say that PS5 won't be great it will, but its the TECHNICALLY inferior console.
 
Loading.

Bottleneck issues gone and asset streaming will be crazy. No more texture pop in or loading screens. I don't really think the difference in 1 or 2 tflops is going to really do much for most games. And is it possible the XSX has bottlenecks that make the streaming a bit worse?
 
Xbox Series X should in theory be able to push more pixels as well as frame rates. However I'm not sure we'll ever see it manifest. The difference between the two consoles is less than 20%, which is incredibly low.

With that being said Playstation 5 should in theory be able to have shorter loading times as well as higher quality assets. Playstation 5's SSD is something like 120% faster (if not more) than the one found in the Xbox Series X.

I would chose PS5 any day of the week. 1440p upscaling, 60FPS, Ray Tracing and higher quality assets is the way to go in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Doubt anyone would truthfully vote faster loading over more power if those were the only factors.

#denialispowerful
#cognitivedissonance
 
Last edited:
I mean for PS fans the only good thing about the PS5 maybe having 2 or 3 seconds shorter loading times is that's an extra 2 or 3 seconds to look at the picture quality and wonder why you didn't get the superior XSX instead.
 
I took loading. I honestly was pretty happy with last gen graphics, just want better frame rates. I wasn't happy with the terrible load times.
 
Passive_Bob said:
Xbox Series X should in theory be able to push more pixels as well as frame rates. However I'm not sure we'll ever see it manifest. The difference between the two consoles is less than 20%, which is incredibly low.

With that being said Playstation 5 should in theory be able to have shorter loading times as well as higher quality assets. Playstation 5's SSD is something like 120% faster (if not more) than the one found in the Xbox Series X.

I would chose PS5 any day of the week. 1440p upscaling, 60FPS, Ray Tracing and higher quality assets is the way to go in my opinion.
Click to expand...
No it cant have higher quality assets if amount of available ram is same. Its also worth that loading times so far have been 6 times faster at best despite ssd being over 20 times faster on read speeds alone without even touching massively faster seek times.
 
BlitzerRadic said:
Unstable 60fps can be mitigated by VRR. If you look at arstechnica loading tests you see for example RDR loading in 68 seconds. I'm assuming these loads are purely dependant on raw speed of the SSD. PS5 would do that in 34 sec. That is significant.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume that? It only took 20 seconds longer on the xbox one x using an external SSD. The series X SSD has almost 5 times the throughput and isn't being gimped by a USB connection.

The arstechnica loading tests only confirm my suspicion that max throughput has little to nothing to do with overall load times. I don't know enough about game development to know what is taking up the bulk of that 68 seconds, but if it is CPU/GPU calculations I wouldn't be surprised if games actually load slower on the PS5.
 
Last edited:
I suppose I don't understand those going after a "stronger" console. Just go after the one that has the exclusives and games you care about most and be done with it. Have there ever been consumers that go after the strongest console? Honest question. I've personally only ever known people that went for the systems by the companies they loved, or the system that housed a specific exclusive that was currently out, or ones that would come in the future.

Because, I mean, if you're all about strength, why not just go PC?
 
DaleinCalgary said:
depends on how much that power is and what is done with it.
Click to expand...
2-3 Teraflops more depending on the situation, it's used for videogame graphics rendering, physics, ai upscaling etc.....vs loading a game in 8 seconds instead of 10......wait......I thought all this was known?
 
Last edited:
wordslaughter said:
So you have decided the difference between the two will be less than 5%? And specifically chose a framerate range that noone would care about anyway? OK. That's not disingenuous of you at all /s.

And while you may be right that most PC gamers wouldn't UPGRADE their GPU from 10 to 12TFLOPS that's NOT the same thing as saying you wouldn't be able to see the difference in performance between them.

Also the difference is 12.2 TFLOPS locked and sustained compared to "boosting up to" 10.2 TFLOPS for unknown amounts of time "when conditions allow." The devil is in the details.
Click to expand...

tenor.gif
 
how do we know ps5 is faster loading?

are there receipts? or just special ssd sauce threads?

if they'd release em to some reviewers... but it seems like its not ready.
 
Last edited:
MiguelItUp said:
Because, I mean, if you're all about strength, why not just go PC?
Click to expand...
Some people don't want to drop that much money on a PC or just plain out can't. If the person doesn't care about Sony exclusives and plays all the normal 3rd-party games, it makes sense for them to go for power so they can get the best experience with said games. But yeah brand loyalty is a strong drug.
 
I choose faster loading because I think it is more noticeable. Some games running at say 20% less pixels is pretty much impossible to notice.

RayHell said:
Faster SSD cause you're reducing VRAM buffer and have more space left for better textures and models.
Click to expand...

According to Sony only 1sec of gameplay data needs to held on RAM. On PS4 it had to stay for 30secs. We have to wait and see if this makes a difference. RAM, BW is the main problem for these consoles and SSD, i/o upgrade is the best feature.
 
I think you'll be hard pressed to find many third party games which fully take advantage of the SSD advantage Sony is offering. On the other end, the large majority will perform slightly better with Series X's specs.
 
iJudged said:
no, more tflps higher res, higher fps, more details, etc...faster loading is well, faster loading due to a faster SSD. Clocks vs SSD speed.

edit: due not dye

another edit: people seem to be going with "meh it's only 2 tflps, we won't see the difference". If it was less then 1 tflps I would agree, but with around 2 tflp diff, you will see the diff, wether that'd be the resolution bump, steadier fr or just overall a better looking game, it will be noticeable.

when xbone and ps4 first came out, the diff in tflops was what, 1.84 vs 1.31 and you could SEE the diff, I remember because Xbox fanboys were getting demolished day in and day out, and that's what, half a flop? People are quick to forget or just play ignorant because their bellowed etc etc
Click to expand...
Well that was a 29% increase in speed, so that's a large increase. It's less of a difference this time around. Might not be as noticable.
 
MrFunSocks said:
But when you say "cutting loading times in half, being able to stream an area twice as quickly" we're talking milliseconds if it's something that affects the game design. It won't make any difference as both are fast enough for that. The Unreal 5 demo wasn't even maxing out a regular SSD, let alone the Series X's I/O system.
Click to expand...
You got any links about them not even needing regular ssd speeds?
 
Let's say it's 15sec vs 30 secs. And let's say it's 60fps vs 55fps or 4k vs 1440p. Power wins everytime. Imagine playing a 10 hour game, that power difference will be a constant reminder whereas that small advantage in loading will be forgotten once u play
 
Also let's be honest, Sonys first party devs are going to do great things with that hardware. Breathtaking imagery, as they always do. That's fine if you only play first party.

I'm genuinely curious to see if MS's new studios can do the same tbh.
 
Nerd Strangler said:
Why would you assume that? It only took 20 seconds longer on the xbox one x using an external SSD. The series X SSD has almost 5 times the throughput and isn't being gimped by a USB connection.

The arstechnica loading tests only confirm my suspicion that max throughput has little to nothing to do with overall load times. I don't know enough about game development to know what is taking up the bulk of that 68 seconds, but if it is CPU/GPU calculations I wouldn't be surprised if games actually load slower on the PS5.
Click to expand...

Games load slower on PS5? I'll take that bet any day for any amount lol.
 
Assasins greed is reported to be 4k 60 fps on both consoles? If you need an 800 zoom magnification to tell the difference then its a no-brainer.

all that is left is the load times, 5 vs 10, 10 vs 20 which do you prefer?
 
BlitzerRadic said:
Games load slower on PS5? I'll take that bet any day for any amount lol.
Click to expand...
Backward compatible games aren't using the newer APIs available and might have inherent bottlenecks in how they do their loading, so there might be some weird corner cases that could be slightly slower if they are relying on cpu to do a lot of management. Any games using the newer interfaces should be faster on PS5 though, for sure.
 
cyber69 said:
A nothing comment
Click to expand...
Fixed.

loktaiextatus said:
The N64 had more power too. The games are what you wanted to wait for right? Alright then, the argument moves to games. We're talking about I/O vs a 15 percent increase. If I go back in time and add 15 percent to the PS2 you would probably not even notice. But today we'll let DF whip us into a frenzy about it. But if you go back and look at 2 disk systems and one loads a game in 30 seconds and the other sits there for a minute, you'll notice it, even today.
Click to expand...
Heh - nope. We're talking a 20% power difference in typical rendering and 40% additional HART cores. You're hand-waving hardware differences away because their inconsistent to your narrative. I bought an OG Xbox because games looked and ran better. I didn't want Assassins Creed: Black Flag in 900p when I could have it at 1080p, so I bought a PS4. Attempting to dismiss visual assessments as some kind of objective position, like your DF smear, is a non-starter here, friend. Is faster loading times nice? It sure is. But, are Bloodbourne's 50 second loading times going to stop it from being NeoGAF's game of the generation? Not likely. People won't care as long as the game that loads is worth the wait.
Using Bloodborne as the example, if someone offered me Bloodborne with zero frame pacing issues and 50 second loading times, or Bloodborne with frame pacing issues and 25 second loading times, I'll take the smoother performance every day of the week without a second thought.
 
BlitzerRadic said:
Sure lets bet then. 6 month ban.
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying I wanted to bet, I'm not doubting XSX will be slower than PS5 in load times. I just am amazed at all this talk like everyone absolutely knows already that it's going to be 50%+ faster when their hasn't been any tests.
 
tapUout said:
Let's say it's 15sec vs 30 secs. And let's say it's 60fps vs 55fps or 4k vs 1440p. Power wins everytime. Imagine playing a 10 hour game, that power difference will be a constant reminder whereas that small advantage in loading will be forgotten once u play
Click to expand...

TBH we do not know what to expect from loading as well as performance. But 4K vs 1440P is suppose to be the difference between SX and SS. Hellbalde 2 in-engine trailer was running at 74% of 4K (3840x1608) and nobody knew it unless they count the pixels.
 
I'll take faster loading in a heart beat. Tekken 7 and Street Fighter V load too damn long. I don't want to see any more of that. If the games look slightly worse but load a lot quicker hook me up. I'll be damned if I'm going back to the Neo Geo CD era of loading.
 
Uh, that's a tough one. A few seconds faster loading vs. hours of gaming with (possible) advantages. Wow, that's soooo hard, but i guess i'll take more power.
 
The thing with faster loading, both XsX and PS5 are a once in a generation technological leap.

The QoL between last gen systems and new gen, is YUGE, that the difference between XsX and PS5 are insignificant comparatively.

Whereas the power leap is more traditional, and whatever difference is more felt. 🤷‍♀️
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

China has developed a Bismuth-based chip which could power future PCs and electronics - it's faster and more efficient
News 
9
823
64gigabyteram replied
  • Locked
Gears Collection Announcement In June For PC/XSX/PS5
5
767
CyberCali replied
NX Gamer: Monster Hunter Wilds - PS5 Pro vs PS5 vs PC vs Xbox Series X|S Performance Review
2
78
6K
DanielG165 replied
FF7R Intergrade PS5 vs Switch 2 comparison video
2 3 4
156
1K
Deerock71 replied
Skyrim SE vs Anniversary edition for PS5?
18
1K
Panajev2001a replied
Top Bottom