Support NeoGAF

[RoadHazard]

I rather wait a few more seconds for rock solid 60fps and better graphics.

"Good things come to those who wait"

It's like you guys believe XB1X games will be 4K60 while PS5 games will be 1440p with variable 40-60 framerate. This won't even remotely be the case. We're talking, if we assume all games use variable resolution to keep a solid framerate, a resolution difference of about 4.2% per axis.

You won't get better graphics AND better framerate on XB1X. You might get one or the other, to a mostly unnoticeable degree.

 

[RayHell]

Look at the SSD speed versus the GDDR6 bandwidth

Who's gonna tell him ?

edit: ok I will
GDDR6 doesn't feed itself . It's coming from data storage . The faster it comes, the less buffer you need and less VRAM you use

 

[Journey]

Who's gonna tell him ?

edit: ok I will
GDDR6 doesn't feed itself . It's coming from data storage . The faster it comes, the less buffer you need and less VRAM you use

Why would anyone want to be using less VRAM when it's 100x faster than PS5's SSD?

 

[MilkyJoe]

Who's gonna tell him ?

edit: ok I will
GDDR6 doesn't feed itself . It's coming from data storage . The faster it comes, the less buffer you need and less VRAM you use

Er you saving VRAM for a rainy day or something?

 

[Boglin]

Why would anyone want to be using less VRAM when it's 100x faster than PS5's SSD?

They mean you use less VRAM reserved for future scenes. It gives you more for your current scene.

 

[RayHell]

Er you saving VRAM for a rainy day or something?

No for better on screen textures and assets because it's not used by buffer anymore.

 

[Lort]

The less unneeded resources being loaded, the faster its done.

 

[Lort]

The answer is easy...

 

[RayHell]

Why would anyone want to be using less VRAM when it's 100x faster than PS5's SSD?

I didn't say not to use it at all, I just said not to use it as a buffer.

 

[GustavoLT]

I´ll wait for the battle on DF videos!!

 

[MrFunSocks]

A game that utilizes the PS5 SSD to its fullest would obviously face issues on XSX. We probably won't see much of that in 3rd party games though (especially since those will also be targeting HDDs for a few more years), so it will be hard to get really good comparisons of this.

And a game that utilised the Series X to its fullest would obviously face issues on PS5.

 

[RoadHazard]

And a game that utilised the Series X to its filling would obviously face issues on PS5.

Which would be solved by a very slight temporary reduction in dynamic resolution. Working around data not being there in time might not be as easy.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Which would be solved by a very slight temporary reduction in dynamic resolution. Working around data not being there in time might not be as easy.

Oh so we'll just hang wave one away but not the other will we? Lol

unless we're getting games that are terabytes in size, games aren't using 5GB/s from the SSD.

 

[RoadHazard]

Oh so we'll just hang wave one away but not the other will we? Lol

unless we're getting games that are terabytes in size, games aren't using 5GB/s from the SSD.

So you think each piece of data is only used once? Alright.

 

[Ozrimandias]

I will say more power but probably I'm gonna get a PS5 anyway, but my question is:

IS the PS5 faster than Xbox Series X? I' have not info on that. I want a proof, not a press note

 

[LittleBusters]

I will say more power but probably I'm gonna get a PS5 anyway, but my question is:

IS the PS5 faster than Xbox Series X? I' have not info on that. I want a proof, not a press note

Here's a short summary:

PS5 will have faster loading times, generally lower resolution/frame rates
XSX will have slower loading times, generally higher resolution/frame rates

Pick your poison.

 

[SplunkyMunkey]

Here's a short summary:

PS5 will have faster loading times, generally lower resolution/frame rates
XSX will have slower loading times, generally higher resolution/frame rates

Pick your poison.

Ps5 framerates will probaby be the same resolution maybe. Higher graphical assets yes

 

[Ozrimandias]

Here's a short summary:

PS5 will have faster loading times, generally lower resolution/frame rates
XSX will have slower loading times, generally higher resolution/frame rates

Pick your poison.

That is something that one can deduce from the specifications because there is no practical evidence of that, right?
I wonder that too because what is the reason that Xbox has taken the press in recent days mentioning the speed of its SSD when PlayStation is faster in that area.

 

[MrFunSocks]

So you think each piece of data is only used once? Alright.

No, but if data is going to be used over and over and over for long stretches of time it makes sense to just keep it in RAM. There's no need to be streaming literally everything in as needed just because you can. Games also generally aren't going to be displaying 5GB worth of assets on screen at once.

 

[RoadHazard]

No, but if data is going to be used over and over and over for long stretches of time it makes sense to just keep it in RAM. There's no need to be streaming literally everything in as needed just because you can. Games also generally aren't going to be displaying 5GB worth of assets on screen at once.

But if you keep data in RAM that you're gonna use again in 10 minutes that's RAM you can't use for other things RIGHT NOW. That's the point of fast SSDs, that you can load data just in time when it's needed instead of wasting half your RAM on things you might or might not need 30 seconds from now. This means more useful data in RAM, and that means more detailed worlds.

 

[MrFunSocks]

But if you keep data in RAM that you're gonna use again in 10 minutes that's RAM you can't use for other things RIGHT NOW. That's the point of fast SSDs, that you can load data just in time when it's needed instead of wasting half your RAM on things you might or might not need 30 seconds from now. This means more useful data in RAM, and that means more detailed worlds.

We're not talking 10 minutes, obviously. Do you seriously think you're going to get more detailed worlds than things like RDR2 or GTA just because you've got a faster SSD?

Like I said, if a game is 50gb, do you really think that you're going to be streaming more than 5GB of that per second at all times? 10% of the entire size of the game per second, or in cases where you think its going to be 9GB/S on PS5, 20% of the entire size of the game every second? You're dreaming.

A big chunk of that space is generally taken up by video and audio as well. These consoles also have more than enough RAM to pre-load stuff a second in advance on Xbox if necessary. It's not a problem at all.

 

[semicool]

A 17% GPU advantage won't "show" at all in most cases unless you're pixel counting still frames. It's not gonna be anywhere close the resolution differences we see between Pro and XB1X.

It's gonna be hard to notice a game loading in 8 seconds on the ps5 vs 11 seconds on the XSX, I couldn't care any less about that difference.

Whereas 3 TFs in many situations matters a hell of a lot more to me. Think of the ps5, since this is RDNA2, having a whole "extra ps4 Pro" GPU in addition to it's normal amount. Stop using flatten down percentages....it's 3 RDNA2 TFs in many cases for hell's sake. A hell of alot more noticeable and important. Anyone saying otherwise vs loading times is suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Most people are voting along "party lines" and not substantially on the OPs question if people were actually honest with themselves.

SSD voters subscribe to George Castanzas method of beating a lie detector test...."It's not a lie(talking to Jerry) if YOU(yourself) believe it to be true"

The answers to the OPs is only relevant in the sense that I suspect this is actually a psychological experiment for the OP and test to see if videogame fanboys can be honest with themselves.

 

[FrankWza]

By your logic, since you say most people have 1080p TVs, then 4k 60fps is off the table and PS5 has plenty of power for 1080p, which in that case faster SSD will be more of a benefit for these users than extra power.

Regardless, VRR is a mitigating solution for end users whereas there is no mitigating solution for slower SSD/IO stack.

good point

 

[semicool]

The 1080p TV theory is severely flawed as the ps5 will most likely render internally at the higher , 4k and whatnot , resolution and then downsample from there which will help with picture quality but perform the same if it was outputting at 4k.

 

[FrankWza]

I'm perfectly okay with tricks to hide loading times like we do now, i'm still not okay with shaky framerate.

For the draw distance i want to see something concrete in some actual games before pulling my hairs out, also it's not like sex has a slow shitty ssd incapable of doing what ps5 does, and devs always design their games for the lowest common denominator, so basically only sony ps5 exclusive are gonna fully use the ssd inside the console, 95% of third party games are gonna have the same tricks to hide loading in both console.

I don't know. It's a trick to keep you somewhat occupied but it's still load times. Might as well go back to load screen mini games. I've had an SSD since GT on ps3. Had in ps4 and ps4 pro when I upgraded. It made a huge difference in a bunch of games. From load times in games like GT and draw distance in GTA and RDR. To have a custom SSD that's supposed to be state of the art and have games built around that...sounds awesome. It's also completely unprecedented. I've seen graphic bumps before. Between what they're doing with the SSD and tempest audio, that's more in line with making new areas of the industry progress that haven't been tackled really until now. There's always going to be a console that's a bit more powerful than the other. It's been happening since the 8 bit days

 

[RoadHazard]

We're not talking 10 minutes, obviously. Do you seriously think you're going to get more detailed worlds than things like RDR2 or GTA just because you've got a faster SSD?

Not "just because" of the SSD. But in the hands of skilled developers? Yes, definitely. I expect GTA VI to have more detailed environments than GTA V.

It's gonna be hard to notice a game loading in 8 seconds on the ps5 vs 11 seconds on the XSX, I couldn't care any less about that difference.

Whereas 3 TFs in many situations matters a hell of a lot more to me. Think of the ps5, since this is RDNA2, having a whole "extra ps4 Pro" GPU in addition to it's normal amount. Stop using flatten down percentages....it's 3 RDNA2 TFs in many cases for hell's sake. A hell of alot more noticeable and important. Anyone saying otherwise vs loading times is suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Most people are voting along "party lines" and not substantially on the OPs question if people were actually honest with themselves.

SSD voters subscribe to George Castanzas method of beating a lie detector test...."It's not a lie(talking to Jerry) if YOU(yourself) believe it to be true"

The answers to the OPs is only relevant in the sense that I suspect this is actually a psychological experiment for the OP and test to see if videogame fanboys can be honest with themselves.

Is this a "PS5 is really a 9TF console" post? Lol, I thought we were over that. The actual difference is 1.8 TF.

And you don't seem to understand relative differences and why that's more relevant than absolute numbers.

 

[fallingdove]

It's gonna be hard to notice a game loading in 8 seconds on the ps5 vs 11 seconds on the XSX, I couldn't care any less about that difference.

Whereas 3 TFs in many situations matters a hell of a lot more to me. Think of the ps5, since this is RDNA2, having a whole "extra ps4 Pro" GPU in addition to it's normal amount. Stop using flatten down percentages....it's 3 RDNA2 TFs in many cases for hell's sake. A hell of alot more noticeable and important. Anyone saying otherwise vs loading times is suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Most people are voting along "party lines" and not substantially on the OPs question if people were actually honest with themselves.

SSD voters subscribe to George Castanzas method of beating a lie detector test...."It's not a lie(talking to Jerry) if YOU(yourself) believe it to be true"

The answers to the OPs is only relevant in the sense that I suspect this is actually a psychological experiment for the OP and test to see if videogame fanboys can be honest with themselves.

The "extra PS4 pro" argument doesn't work in the context of percentage difference. But more power to those that are looking for...power!!? I think that people will be surprised at how infrequently the TF differences manifest themselves.
I have a feeling that given given theoretical performance percentage differences in IO and TF between PS5 and XSX, we will more quantifiably see games and assets loading faster on the PS5 than games and assets looking better on the XSX.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Not "just because" of the SSD. But in the hands of skilled developers? Yes, definitely. I expect GTA VI to have more detailed environments than GTA V.

I expect it will too, but it wouldn't be any more detailed with a 9GB/S SSD over a 5GB/S SSD. That's my point.

 

[Lethal01]

We're not talking 10 minutes, obviously. Do you seriously think you're going to get more detailed worlds than things like RDR2 or GTA just because you've got a faster SSD?

This is what developers keep trying to explain to people who just won't listen and rather just go "HUR HURDUR DURP IT"S JUST FASTER LOAD"

 

[MrFunSocks]

This is what developers keep trying to explain to people who just won't listen and rather just go "HUR HURDUR DURP IT"S JUST FASTER LOAD"

That's great, but they're going from MB/s to 5GB/s on the Series X. On games that are <100gb, they're not going to be streaming even 5GB/s in real time. Microsofts new tech where it's not rendering obstructed triangles especially makes that unnecessary.

 

[Vaelka]

The thing is, the XSX is still going to have fast load times.
This is a little like framerate on your monitor, the difference between 30 vs 60 and 60 vs 144 is very noticable but when you go above 144 it's way less noticable and most probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
10 vs 5 secs is a lot percentage wise, but do you honestly think that you're going to notice it? And even then I really doubt the difference will even be that high, I honestly think that's an extreme example too but either way.
Point being, the jump from HDD to SSD is huge and very noticable just like 30 to 60 and 60 to 144 is.
The jump from a SSD to a faster SSD is not nearly as noticable if noticable at all.

Even as someone who thinks that graphics are severely overrated and am not impressed by graphical fidelity anymore, I am honestly a little baffled that Sony went so hard in on the SSD. It almost makes me think that they knew their console would be less powerful and it's just an attempt to salvage the situation and they know that most people are too stupid to know better.
Most people are completely tech illiterate and will just hear all of this hype about the SSD and think that it's the most incredible thing ever all they hear is '' PS5 is better '' basically.

 

[Max_Po]

isn't the whole premise of "faster loading on PS5" non sense? its the implementation like the RTX cards benefits to developers ?

SSD attached to I/O of GPU something something ?

 

[semicool]

Not "just because" of the SSD. But in the hands of skilled developers? Yes, definitely. I expect GTA VI to have more detailed environments than GTA V.



Is this a "PS5 is really a 9TF console" post? Lol, I thought we were over that. The actual difference is 1.8 TF.

And you don't seem to understand relative differences and why that's more relevant than absolute numbers.

No, the top TFs is 10.2 on the ps5 at the TOP clockspeed. We don't know how far it drops if on it's minimum clockspeed on the stated and known fact that the gpu and cpu clockspeeds are variable. It could drop to 10.1 it could drop lower, only Sony knows. I can promise I don't know, I can only guess . That the gpu on the ps5 is variable is a fact. That it can drop below that is a fact, being variable. How far, who knows? My bet is that Sony will NEVER reveal the actual minimum number for obvious reasons. Although I'm betting some hobbyist will be able to measure it eventually.

Although we don't know these specifics, we will see the relationship between these unknown specs and performance in multiplats(that push the systems) head to head between the 2 systems shortly and throughout the systems lives. In November we'll compare SSD superiority vs TF superiority

 

[Blue Spring]

Faster Loading:

More Power:

Which to choose

 

[Deleted member 471617]

More power. Faster loading times is great but waiting 10 seconds for a next gen title on XSX compared to 2 seconds on PS5 isn't a major deal at least for me anyway. Prefer the more powerful and more balanced console.

 

[LordOfChaos]

Whereas 3 TFs in many situations matters a hell of a lot more to me. Think of the ps5, since this is RDNA2, having a whole "extra ps4 Pro" GPU in addition to it's normal amount. Stop using flatten down percentages....

Because percentages are the most relevant metric

Was an 8800GTS further from an 8800GTX than a Geforce 2 to a Geforce 4? There's more flops between them. But it's the relative difference in the context of the time that matters. This stacking gamecubes stuff is just memes.

 

[devilNprada]

10 vs 5 secs is a lot percentage wise, but do you honestly think that you're going to notice it?

Fuck yeah

 

[Neo_game]

Look at the SSD speed versus the GDDR6 bandwidth

The funny thing is Microsoft is trying to sell a dud called SS as 1440P. Which has a gimped gpu and 224gb/sec for 8gb RAM. For reference current gen, PS4 has 176gb/sec Pro 218gb/sec and the X 326gb/sec. Apparently the CPU and SSD is going to make a difference according to Microsoft

 

[Bogroll]

Depends. If Ps5 is doing 1800p and pretty much locked 60fps and loads a game in 30 secs and XSX is 1 min 10 secs to load 4k and with regular drops to low 50's high 40's then PS5.
If Ps5 is 1800p struggling with framerate as above and X is 1800p or 4k with pretty much locked 60fps and 30secs load on PS5, 1 min 10 secs on XSX then I would choose XSX.
Where both perform the same but XSX may have slight graphical advantages but loading is 10 secs v 20 secs then XSX would be my choice.
I think we will see lots of toing and froing have which version comes out on top this gen.

And just as important to me is both reasonably quiet please.

 

[Bogroll]

The funny thing is Microsoft is trying to sell a dud called SS as 1440P. Which has a gimped gpu and 224gb/sec for 8gb RAM. For reference current gen, PS4 has 176gb/sec Pro 218gb/sec and the X 326gb/sec. Apparently the CPU and SSD is going to make a difference according to Microsoft

I think it will do fine @ 1080p but yeah they should market it mainly as a 1080p machine but we know how company's like to advertise the best case scenario possible.

 

[lucius]

How can I vote this until I play both systems and see some results. I would generally say slightly more power but right now I am playing The Outer Worlds on my One X and fast traveling anywhere is like over a minute it sucks when you compete more quests u really need to fast travel .

 

[MrFunSocks]

The funny thing is Microsoft is trying to sell a dud called SS as 1440P. Which has a gimped gpu and 224gb/sec for 8gb RAM. For reference current gen, PS4 has 176gb/sec Pro 218gb/sec and the X 326gb/sec. Apparently the CPU and SSD is going to make a difference according to Microsoft

The funniest thing about that is you're saying that like it doesn't make sense and MS don't know what they're talking about, when the fact is that it's all true.

 

[Riky]

I was under the impression that the RDNA2 Tflops were a lot more efficient than last gen so you can probably do quite a bit with at least an extra 1.9 Tflops?

 

[geordiemp]

I expect it will too, but it wouldn't be any more detailed with a 9GB/S SSD over a 5GB/S SSD. That's my point.

You realise the SSD speed is not the time to load into RAM speed ? There is more to fst loading than an SSD.

Go look at ps5 load times < 2 seconds, XSX > 10 seconds.

More power. Faster loading times is great but waiting 10 seconds for a next gen title on XSX compared to 2 seconds on PS5 isn't a major deal at least for me anyway. Prefer the more powerful and more balanced console.

Enjoy your ps5 then, power is more than TF, its cache speeds, internal bus speeds, cache efficiency all to feed the CUs. Which results so far do you think shows good performance balance ?

 

[Riky]

"Go look at ps5 load times < 2 seconds, XSX > 10 seconds.
"
Nobody can say that as a statement of fact as we haven't seen any actual XSX games loading at all and we haven't seen any previous gen games on PS5.

 

[Michael Hawk]

I'll take faster speeds over "more power" anyday of the week, because the "more power" on the XSX is misleading because it's not a lot "more power."

The Series X is slightly more powerful than the PS5. This is a fact. However, the difference in power isn't generational. This is, more than likely, going to lead to slightly better graphics and slightly better framerates. We're not walking into a situation where the difference in power is like the Wii to PS3. I'm unsure if it was on here or on Reeeeeeeeee, but I read a post that said the XSX has about an 18% gpu advantage over the PS5. That 18% is absolutely going to translate to slightly higher/native resolution(s) and or slightly higher/locked framerate(s), but the keyword is slightly.

That said, an 18% difference is a joke compared to like a 60% or 80% difference in power. If the XSX had the horsepower to run every game at 8K or every game at 120fps or locked at 60, then frankly, the PS5 would look like a bad choice at the same $499.99 pricepoint. But I think a lot of people are about to realize that the XSX is not going to be able to pull a rabbit out of a hat. It's a powerful console that, by all current indications, will deliver 4K games running at playable aka non-slideshowy framerates.

The irony in all of this is that first-party Xbox games on a gaming PC will look significantly better than those same games running on Xbox -- especially the (inevitable) modded Bethesda stuff. So we could see a situation where the PC version of an Xbox game looks and plays considerably better than that same game running on Xbox, introducing a feeling of "This stuff is much better elsewhere." That's not a good spot for Xbox hardware to be in.

Now the plot twist in all of this nonsense is that due to the IO + SSD in the PS5 and due to most first-party PS5 games not coming out on PC, the PS5 could, by default, offer an experience that is perceived as being generationally better than the XSX. It's kinda funny when you think about it, i.e. the less powerful console could be perceived as being significantly more powerful because it's faster than the more powerful console. In any case, I'll take games that load in 2 seconds over games that load in 10 seconds or more.

 

[turtlepowa]

I don't care for the purpose of gaming, but i would laugh my ass off if next gen loading times would be like 7 to 10 seconds instead of the expected 7 to 14.

 

[SleepySlippy]

Both will be power monsters. Even if games run at fewer fps or a few seconds later, they will be playable and enjoyable on both platforms. I feel like the question is more

• What big block of technology will look pretty beside my TV?
• What first party game do I care about?

Everything else is just more poetry.

 

[RoadHazard]

I expect it will too, but it wouldn't be any more detailed with a 9GB/S SSD over a 5GB/S SSD. That's my point.

Because it will have to run on both, of course, I agree. What I said was that a game that takes FULL advantage of the PS5 SSD could have issues on XBSX. But only exclusives will ever do that.

 

[RoadHazard]

No, the top TFs is 10.2 on the ps5 at the TOP clockspeed. We don't know how far it drops if on it's minimum clockspeed on the stated and known fact that the gpu and cpu clockspeeds are variable. It could drop to 10.1 it could drop lower, only Sony knows. I can promise I don't know, I can only guess . That the gpu on the ps5 is variable is a fact. That it can drop below that is a fact, being variable. How far, who knows? My bet is that Sony will NEVER reveal the actual minimum number for obvious reasons. Although I'm betting some hobbyist will be able to measure it eventually.

Although we don't know these specifics, we will see the relationship between these unknown specs and performance in multiplats(that push the systems) head to head between the 2 systems shortly and throughout the systems lives. In November we'll compare SSD superiority vs TF superiority

10.3. And it will spend the vast majority of the time at that, only dropping a few percent very briefly (talking milliseconds here, not like it will "lock" to a lower frequency for extended periods) in certain situations.

Either way, there's no 3TF difference. That's nothing but FUD.