[DF] Can the Slowest PS5 SSD Upgrade Run Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart?

3liteDragon

3liteDragon

Member

The PS5 System Software has been updated to support ALL PCIe Gen 4.0 x4 NVMe drives, so with the help of Fidler_2K from the DF Supporter Program, we tracked down the absolute slowest drive - the WD SN750 SE - and stacked it up against the console's internal SSD and the Mark Cerny-approved max spec WD SN850. Can a bargain basement, spec-deficient drive cut it out against the best of the best? The results are surprising.
Click to expand...
 
iu
 
I watched the video, so the magic SSD needed for Ratchet and Clank was only a marketing thingy? The load times are similar in the tests and the gameplay looks the same
 
So basically it means there's more room for improvement for future games.

I distinctly remember Insomniac devs telling them that they had a problem with SSD speed. Not with it not being not fast enough but that their game engine couldn't fully utilize the speed. I dunno if he's telling the truth but the results shown here seems to confirm it a little.

edit: yeah, they really did say that the engine couldn't keep up with the SSD speed. Here is the interview.

 
Last edited:
TL;DW: Yes. There's barely a difference.

Would be interesting to know what the real bottom is. 2500 MB/s? 2000? 1500? Sadly nobody can really test it.
 
Last edited:
Mister Wolf said:
I would like to know how much data a second R&C really needs. I think it would be quite telling if there were a way to test SATA drives.
Click to expand...
Bernd Lauert said:
TL;DW: Yes. There's barely a difference.

Would be interesting to know what the real bottom is. 2500 MB/s? 2000? 1500? Sadly nobody can really test it.
Click to expand...
Looking at the game, the amount of data it's pulling in is probably in the GB/s range but nowhere near 5.5GB/s. My guess would be 1-2GB/s, which means a decent PCIe 3.0 drive can probably run the game, pure speculation on my part.
 
Last edited:
"Behind the scenes, there's so much to peel back about the SSD and the I/O around it," he says. "We're just scratching the surface of it. As a developer, that will be really cool to see how it turns out."
 
Aside from a couple times writing to the slow WD750 took forever (like 9x longer than writing to the 850), everything else from gameplay, frame rate hitches, and loading times were basically a wash between the WD750, WD850 and PS5's internal SSD.

In other words, the WD750 3.2gb/s SSD is just as good as the internal SSD.

If you look closely at the gameplay triple comparison, there are times the WD drives frame rates are a bit better than PS5's for a fraction of a second.

For all you PC gamers who'd chime in once in a while in an SSD thread saying your PC's slower SSD could probably do R&C's time warping tunnels. You're right. A PC 3.2gb/s SSD did it fine.
 
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige said:
Aside from a couple times writing to the slow WD750 took forever (like 9x longer than writing to the 850), everything else from gameplay, frame rate hitches, and loading times were basically a wash between the WD750, WD850 and PS5's internal SSD.

In other words, the WD750 3.2gb/s SSD is just as good as the internal SSD.

If you look closely at the gameplay triple comparison, there are times the WD drives frame rates are a bit better than PS5's for a fraction of a second.
Click to expand...
I personally still wouldn't buy a slow SSD for the PS5. Maybe two, three years from now Sony releases games which actually use 5500 MB/S of bandwidth, and then if you cheaped out on the SSD you're out of luck.
 
Just like that the comment section of the video is already full of clueless people making fun of PS5's I/O-SSD tech and Cerny. Mission accomplished i guess. If i were Cerny i would post an a mini article explaining the reasons. But knowing that Sony don't seem to care about its hardware reputation to the slightest degree this gen, i see this possiblity as low.
 
Lysandros said:
Just like that the comment section of the video is already full of clueless people making fun of PS5's I/O-SSD tech and Cerny. Mission accomplished i guess. If i were Cerny i would post an a mini article explaining the reasons. But knowing that Sony don't seem to care about its hardware reputation to the slightest degree this gen, i see this possiblity as low.
Click to expand...
What reasons? 🤣 i would like to see your posts in the first reveal trailer of r&c 🤷‍♂️
 
Bernd Lauert said:
I personally still wouldn't buy a slow SSD for the PS5. Maybe two, three years from now Sony releases games which actually use 5500 MB/S of bandwidth, and then if you cheaped out on the SSD you're out of luck.
Click to expand...
Thats true.

But at this point with R&C being the focal point of SSD, it looks like a 3.2gb/s PC SSD handles loading and streaming data perfectly fine. And it was the crappiest SSD they could find that supports the specs. You never know, if there was a compatible card running at 2 gb/s R&C might still work just as well. Nobody knows the absolute bottom requirement.

Just to show how odd it can be, in some of those loading comparisons, the 750 did just as well or even a touch better in a few examples than the internal. It was such an even-steven comparison, all 3 were basically just as good except for a few weird loading issues with the 750 which took forever, but then another game was some reason fast like the other SSDs.
 
Is there such a thing as a SATA to NVME convertor so you could plug in something even slower? It would be an interesting test.
 
Let's just pretend that the hardware decompressor, coprocessors, SRAM, coherency engine and Cache Scrubbers don't exist and the external SSD isn't connected to them. That's the right thing to do.
 
Last edited:
So which is incorrect the box label saying its 3200mb/s or PS5s OS saying its like 5000mb/s?
 
Lysandros said:
Just like that the comment section of the video is already full of clueless people making fun of PS5's I/O-SSD tech and Cerny. Mission accomplished i guess. If i were Cerny i would post an a mini article explaining the reasons. But knowing that Sony don't seem to care about its hardware reputation to the slightest degree this gen, i see this possiblity as low.
Click to expand...
Maybe you could do it, I assume you are not one of the clueless people?
 
Bernd Lauert said:
It's the one game that pushes streaming speed tbh. Next up is... idk, Spiderman 2? We'll be waiting a loooong time.
Click to expand...
I stand by my doubt that one game at the beginning of the cycle is good reason to install below expansions below spec. I find it incredibly unbelievable that Sony is recommending the minimum speed for the heck of it. They don't even have a propriety expansion to profit from.
 
I wonder why are they recommending faster SSD when slower pcie gen 4 are good enough. If only 5-10 games need faster SSD I am not sure it will be worth it
 
People probably cannot fathom how much data is 5.5GB/s of sustained bandwidth.

Let's just say that in last gen you have barely 30MB/s with a lot of overhead and slow CPU, not the mention seek times.

By the way, some background info Direct Storage coupled with RTX3090 (sorry I don't do pleb GPUs) is a real deal, but PS5 ASIC is still faster.
And yes I am dev. And yes NDA.

But brighter future ahead.
 
Last edited:
Not very surprised by the results tbh, a game developed before specs were finalized. I'm more surprised that the speed test of the drive was completely off.

As Richard is saying dedicated decompression pulls the heaviest weight and it will take a while before devs will maximize the potential by utilizing it to the fullest.
 
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige said:
Thats true.

But at this point with R&C being the focal point of SSD, it looks like a 3.2gb/s PC SSD handles loading and streaming data perfectly fine. And it was the crappiest SSD they could find that supports the specs. You never know, if there was a compatible card running at 2 gb/s R&C might still work just as well. Nobody knows the absolute bottom requirement.

Just to show how odd it can be, in some of those loading comparisons, the 750 did just as well or even a touch better in a few examples than the internal. It was such an even-steven comparison, all 3 were basically just as good except for a few weird loading issues with the 750 which took forever, but then another game was some reason fast like the other SSDs.
Click to expand...

These added drives still need to use the I/O complex, so i wouldn't say it would be completely the same performance without I/O complex.

This is only good news for future PS5 games. A lot of headroom for bigger titles.
 
Last edited:
I've said from the start, ratchet and crank is more coding than hardware.. you can easily see where the tricks and loading are hidden.
 
RoboFu said:
I've said from the start, ratchet and crank is more coding than hardware.. you can easily see where the tricks and loading are hidden.
Click to expand...
There are no hiding loading screens other than a white flash in Blizar Prime.
 
Doesn't surprise me that people are ignoring the last part of the video. This has been known for a while.
 
NickFire said:
I stand by my doubt that one game at the beginning of the cycle is good reason to install below expansions below spec. I find it incredibly unbelievable that Sony is recommending the minimum speed for the heck of it. They don't even have a propriety expansion to profit from.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think anyone buying a compatible SSD will be fine. If the 5.5gb/s was that important, they wouldnt let people install slower SSDs. They'd just make it mandatory 5.5 or more. And wouldnt say "recommended 5.5"

I see this example like PC games min and reco specs. But in this case, the min and reco specs lead the same quality and performance.
 
Last edited:
Lysandros said:
Let's just pretend that hardware decompressor, coprocessors, SRAM, coherency engine and Cache Scrubbers don't exist and the site external SSD isn't connected to them. That's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
That's not the point. The point is that Sony couldve gone with a cheaper and slower SSD to reduce costs or maybe apply those cost savings into a more powerful GPU or a bigger SSD.

Because right now, it's a waste of money. They have essentially spent extra money on something that will not be utilized by 99% of devs. And the 1% who are utilizing it, are not even close to maxing it out as this Ratchet test shows.

99% of the devs are going to fully max out the 10 tflops GPU. It's not that hard. You push resolution and pixels and some GPU heavy RT effects and you hit the GPU bottleneck. No one at the moment seems to be maxing out this SSD. I/O seems to be more than capable on its own. What Cerny has done is deliver a weaker console at the expense of this fancy SSD that no one seems to give a shit about at the moment. Literally one studio has taken advantage of it, and they are 2.2 GBps away from maxing it out. The rest of their own studios are busy doing cross gen games.

Maybe in 2 years when Spiderman comes out and does something fancy with the PS5 SSD speeds of 5.5 GBps we can say that it was a good choice to prioritize SSD speeds over SSD size and faster GPU. But if we have to wait 3 years to see what this fancy SSD can do then maybe they shouldve stuck in their mid gen console instead.
 
"My take on the results is that we should not be expecting to see the SSD pushed to its limits in first-gen PlayStation 5 titles."

First-gen ok. What about next? That's why Richard recommend to buy using the recommendations ( >= 5.5GB/s read)

www.eurogamer.net

Can the slowest PS5 NVMe upgrade run Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart?

Sony's latest system software update for PlayStation 5 went live last week, bringing with it the ability for all users …
www.eurogamer.net www.eurogamer.net
 
Last edited:
SlimySnake said:
That's not the point. The point is that Sony couldve gone with a cheaper and slower SSD to reduce costs or maybe apply those cost savings into a more powerful GPU or a bigger SSD.

Because right now, it's a waste of money. They have essentially spent extra money on something that will not be utilized by 99% of devs. And the 1% who are utilizing it, are not even close to maxing it out as this Ratchet test shows.

99% of the devs are going to fully max out the 10 tflops GPU. It's not that hard. You push resolution and pixels and some GPU heavy RT effects and you hit the GPU bottleneck. No one at the moment seems to be maxing out this SSD. I/O seems to be more than capable on its own. What Cerny has done is deliver a weaker console at the expense of this fancy SSD that no one seems to give a shit about at the moment. Literally one studio has taken advantage of it, and they are 2.2 GBps away from maxing it out. The rest of their own studios are busy doing cross gen games.

Maybe in 2 years when Spiderman comes out and does something fancy with the PS5 SSD speeds of 5.5 GBps we can say that it was a good choice to prioritize SSD speeds over SSD size and faster GPU. But if we have to wait 3 years to see what this fancy SSD can do then maybe they shouldve stuck in their mid gen console instead.
Click to expand...
How much did their SSD cost?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PS5 Pro Enhanced - Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart
49
4K
asdasdasdbb replied
DF - Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart PS5 Pro vs PS5 Image Quality Face-Off
8 9 10 11 12
575
35K
Kangx replied
DF: Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart PS5 Pro vs PS5 Image Quality Face Off
Analysis 
3
1K
XXL replied
Besides AstroBot and Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart, what games use the dual sense features the best?
35
2K
Justin9mm replied
Digital Foundry - Upscaling Face-Off: PS5 Pro PSSR vs PC DLSS/FSR 3.1 in Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart
7 8 9 10 11
513
31K
PaintTinJr replied
Top Bottom