Support NeoGAF

[Ascend]

The console wars have become quite petty when we are comparing loading times to measure the size of our digital carrots.

 

[Knitted Knight]

None of the architecture, additional hardware and decompression methods for the I/O and so on and so forth are being utilized. It's merely loading the games based upon the raw speed of the drives themselves. For elongated loading tasks, file transfers, long winded writing operations etc, an SSD will fall to its sustained read/write capability.

We have no idea whether or not the hardware decompression block or any other cog within the I/O is being leveraged by either company for BC. Everything at this point is speculation. Not to mention, again, from the SSD to what you see on screen that data has to go through various routing pipes....

Microsoft's setup is designed around sustained operation, Sony has not talked about the sustained capability of their drive. They've merely discussed its top end peak figures which are not a good indicator of average operation. They've been silent about their sustained metrics, not one mention of them, ever.

Microsoft has also been silent on their sustained metrics. Where have you gotten "sustained metrics" from MS?
MS has published, as far as I'm aware, only its raw I/O throughput of 2.4 GB/s - nothing more, nothing less.

What you're seeing is the identical scenario to slapping an SSD in your PC. The games aren't coded for them, there's no special decompression or intermediary hardware for extenuating I/O transfers of data. They rest on the laurels of their capabilities as hardware and hardware alone. Microsoft put in a drive with better sustained capabilities, this isn't some mystery. There's not a case to solve here, it is what it is.

There is all types of intermediary layers between the SSD and what you experience as the final result..... starting with the command/set of instructions to feed data from storage to RAM etc etc etc... (without even using the dedicated hardware decompression blocks).. so again.... stick to what you really wanted to argue in the first place.... "load times" - if so which?

 

[Bo_Hazem]

You guys are really pulling at straws here. Jesus. It's obvious that the SSDs aren't the same between the X and the S because they're different sizes. However, the performance is the same.

Very few of a device model have the exact same storage in them. They have whatever is available in the supply chain at the time. If MS relied on one vendor for things like NAND chips, they'd never launch a machine in any significant quantity.

Much ado about nothing.

I cant believe this is a 7 page topic?
Wtf were you all expecting? SS/SX has SSD that works as what MS promised. What is the issue here with WD & Phison being their suppliers?

This thread is technically talking about MS saying PCIe 4.0 SSD and people found PCIe 3.0 SSD. In other words, lying/misleading and a law suit should be in place.

 

[DynamiteCop!]

We have no idea whether or not the hardware decompression blocks/or whether any part of the I/O is being leveraged by either for BC (for Sony or MS). Everything at this point is speculation. Not to mention, again, from the SSD to what you see on screen that data has to go through various routing pipes....



Microsoft has also been silent on their sustained metrics. Where have you gotten sustained metrics from MS?
MS has published, as far as I'm aware, only its raw I/O throughput of 2.4 GB/s - nothing more, nothing less.



There is all types of intermediary layers inbetween the SSD and what you experience as the final result..... starting with the command/set of instructions to feed data from storage to RAM etc etc etc... (without even using the dedicated hardware decompression blocks).. so again.... stick to what you really wanted to argue in the first place.... "load times" - if so which?

Microsoft's only metric has been sustained speed and operation. It's literally everything they've touted since the beginning.

"The custom SSD is designed around "sustained performance" and not "peak performance", according to Microsoft. "Many PC SSDs 'fade' in performance terms as they heat up - and similar to the CPU and GPU clocks"

Xbox Series X SSD Is Designed For "Consistent, Sustained Performance"

Microsoft has dived deep into the Velocity Arcitecture of Xbox Series X. At the heart of everything is the new SSD that powers Xbox Series X.

respawnfirst.com

Xbox Series SSD hard drive storage explained, from Storage Expansion Cards to speed and size

Everything we know about Xbox Series X and S's SSD hard drive solution - from faster loading speeds, to the launch Xbox SSD size and how Storage Expansion Cards

www.eurogamer.net

A Primer on the Simple and Custom Storage Options Available for Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S at Launch - Xbox Wire

For Xbox players, backwards compatibility and Xbox Game Pass have made it possible for us all to have libraries of games at our fingertips at the beginning of the new console generation. One of the promises of Xbox Series X|S is the ability to play four generations of games: favorites, those...

news.xbox.com

 

[Shmunter]

It makes perfect sense, you not understanding it is neither here nor there.

None of the architecture, additional hardware and decompression methods for the I/O and so on and so forth are being utilized. It's merely loading the games based upon the raw speed of the drives themselves. For elongated loading tasks, file transfers, long winded writing operations etc, an SSD will fall to its sustained read/write capability.

Microsoft's setup is designed around sustained operation, Sony has not talked about the sustained capability of their drive. They've merely discussed its top end peak figures which are not a good indicator of average operation. They've been silent about their sustained metrics, not one mention of them, ever.

What you're seeing is the identical scenario to slapping an SSD in your PC. The games aren't coded for them, there's no special decompression or intermediary hardware for extenuating I/O transfers of data. They rest on the laurels of their capabilities as hardware and hardware alone. Microsoft put in a drive with better sustained capabilities, this isn't some mystery. There's not a case to solve here, it is what it is.

So a next gen game like Miles filling ~16gig in 2 seconds means nothing, but a Backwards Compatible game that may have wrappers, emulators, throttled profiles wrapped around it doing god knows what is indicative of raw hardware performance?

Ladies and gentlemen Don't Do Logic like DynamiteFlop does!

 

[DynamiteCop!]

So a next gen game like Miles filling ~16gig in 2 seconds means nothing, but a Backwards Compatible game that may have wrappers, emulators, throttled profiles wrapped around it doing god knows what is indicative of raw hardware performance?

Ladies and gentlemen Don't Do Logic like DynamiteFlop does!

You actually think the loading is taking place from when you press X lol? It's pre-caching the load scenarios upon startup.

 

[Shmunter]

You actually think the loading is taking place from when you press X lol? It's pre-caching the load scenarios upon startup.

Sort of like the almost instant fast travel - the PS5 reads your mind and pre-caches the fast travel point for you. Sheesh.

MS have been working on BC for over a gen now, and have really done an excellent job in their BC software including the BC loading. Hats of to them. Sony BC is not an indicator of Sony lying about their i/o solution, and indeed PS5 software re-enforces their technology promise.

Get a hold of yourself before people report you for obvious trolling.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

So a next gen game like Miles filling ~16gig in 2 seconds means nothing, but a Backwards Compatible game that may have wrappers, emulators, throttled profiles wrapped around it doing god knows what is indicative of raw hardware performance?

Ladies and gentlemen Don't Do Logic like DynamiteFlop does!

Get your facts straight, 1.3sec.

 

[Knitted Knight]

Microsoft's only metric has been sustained speed and operation. It's literally everything they've touted since the beginning.

"The custom SSD is designed around "sustained performance" and not "peak performance", according to Microsoft. "Many PC SSDs 'fade' in performance terms as they heat up - and similar to the CPU and GPU clocks"

What are the "sustained metrics" from MS's SSD? How do they differ from Sony's SSD? How are they manifesting themselves that you believe prove one piece of hardware to be superior to the other?

Simple questions that you keep avoiding. Just answer that... or continue to dodge it. I'll be waiting until you're ready to admit you're talking BS with no proof.......

The other trolls simple said "load times are better cause BC load times duh duh"....and stick to their little BC islands. They weren't quite stupid to claim Sony's SSD read/write speeds are marketing fluff with no backup. You're trying to bite way more than you should.

 

[longdi]

This thread is technically talking about MS saying PCIe 4.0 SSD and people found PCIe 3.0 SSD. In other words, lying/misleading and a law suit should be in place.

If you look at the SS/XS rated specs, even PCIe 3x4 is too much for it.
The interface of SS/XS is probably pcie4 but the flash controller on the ssd may not be.
It doesnt matter either way.
There is no benefit of having a pcie4 flash controller for MS targetted performance, except for higher, wasteful power consumption of a faster controller that is not needed!

 

[Bo_Hazem]

If you look at the SS/XS rated specs, even PCIe 3x4 is too much for it.
The interface of SS/XS is probably pcie4 but the flash controller on the ssd may not be.
It doesnt matter either way.
There is no benefit of having a pcie4 flash controller for MS targetted performance, except for higher, wasteful power consumption of a faster controller that is not needed!

 

[DynamiteCop!]

What are the "sustained metrics" from MS's SSD? How do they differ from Sony's SSD? How are they manifesting themselves that you believe prove one piece of hardware to be superior to the other?

Simple questions that you keep avoiding. Just answer that... or continue to dodge it. I'll be waiting until you're ready to admit you're talking BS with no proof.......

The other trolls simple said "load times are better cause BC load times duh duh"....and stick to their little BC islands. They weren't quite stupid to claim Sony's SSD read/write speeds are marketing fluff with no backup. You're trying to bite way more than you should.

You guys act far too defensive for people who can't even keep up with the overtones of the conversation.

No one said their read and write speeds are marketing fluff, you don't seem to understand that there are random read/write speeds and then sustained speeds. Random read/write is the initial loading capability of the drive, its ability to parse small amounts of data in a near instant. Sustained speed is what the drive falls to when undergoing large data loads.

Sony's entire angle has been the peak speed of their drive, how fast it can be. They've neglected to ever talk about their sustained speeds however. There are drives which can hit peaks in the upwards of 5,000 - 7,000 MB/s but their sustained capability for large data clusters is 1,800 - 2,800 MB/s.

What's happening with these BC games is fallback onto the lone capability of the drives themselves. Microsoft's goal with their drive was its ability to have a consistent and sustained speed under any load scenario. So given load situations where large amounts of unconfigured data are being partitioned such as the loading of legacy game code it shouldn't be a surprise that it's doing better than Sony's drive. This is what it is intended to excel at.

It's falls under the same veil of operation as file transfer, this is where sustained speeds are key. The overall point is while Sony's drive is created to hit higher highs than Microsoft's drive with random read/write; their sustained speeds are not as good as Microsoft's. Each drive has a tradeoff, and they went two very different directions with the same technology.

There's no need to be up in arms.

 

[Neo_game]

Why are you still going on with the 2.4gb/sec sustained. No manufacture can guarantee it. We know now that it is WD SN520 m.2 2230.

 

[DynamiteCop!]

Why are you still going on with the 2.4gb/sec sustained. No manufacture can guarantee it. We know now that it is WD SN520 m.2 2230.

Do you know that these drives are not unmodified?

 

[KingT731]

Spawn Wave made a tear down too if anyone's interested.

Video is now private.

 

[Knitted Knight]

You guys act far too defensive for people who can't even keep up with the overtones of the conversation.

No one said their read and write speeds are marketing fluff, you don't seem to understand that there are random read/write speeds and then sustained speeds. Random read/write is the initial loading capability of the drive, its ability to parse small amounts of data in a near instant. Sustained speed is what the drive falls to when undergoing large data loads.

Sony's entire angle has been the peak speed of their drive, how fast it can be. They've neglected to ever talk about their sustained speeds however. There are drives which can hit peaks in the upwards of 5,000 - 7,000 MB/s but their sustained capability for large data clusters is 1,800 - 2,800 MB/s.

What's happening with these BC games is fallback onto the lone capability of the drives themselves. Microsoft's goal with their drive was its ability to have a consistent and sustained speed under any load scenario. So given load situations where large amounts of unconfigured data are being partitioned such as the loading of legacy game code it shouldn't be a surprise that it's doing better than Sony's drive. This is what it is intended to excel at.

It's falls under the same veil of operation as file transfer, this is where sustained speeds are key. The overall point is while Sony's drive is created to hit higher highs than Microsoft's drive with random read/write; their sustained speeds are not as good as Microsoft's. Each drive has a tradeoff, and they went two very different directions with the same technology.

There's no need to be up in arms.

Lol so it's me that doesn't understand. Quite a turn of events.... I understand trolling when I see it very well. I doubt it's genuine delusion or ignorance. Maybe it's a mix... maybe.

Your response increased quite in size yet it did not answer the following:

What are the "sustained metrics" from MS's SSD you're talking about? How do they differ from Sony's "sustained" SSD metrics? What are they... quote the numbers that prove your claim.

How are those metrics manifesting themselves that prove one piece of hardware (in this case MS SSD) is superior to the other?

(which btw, if you can't answer the first question, you can't answer the second question with certainty). It's a solid trap.

Here is what you claimed to refresh your memory:

Microsoft's drive appears to have better sustained metrics than Sony's.

Sony's may peak higher in random read/write but its sustained operation is inferior.

I already responded in earlier posts to the illogical babble you're reposting. You have no idea what's going on and whether or not MS or Sony are leveraging their hardware/software to decrease load times (in whatever it's you have yet to explicitly specify proves your point - which I'm assuming is BC, but lets pretend I'm not going to assume it's BC until you bite that bullet in print yourself). Why should I assume when you stay vague right?

 

[DynamiteCop!]

Lol so it's me that doesn't understand. Quite a turn of events.... I understand trolling when I see it very well. I doubt it's genuine delusion or ignorance. Maybe it's a mix... maybe.

Your response increased quite in size yet it did not answer the following:

What are the "sustained metrics" from MS's SSD you're talking about? How do they differ from Sony's "sustained" SSD metrics? What are they... quote the numbers that prove your claim.

How are are those metrics manifesting themselves that prove one piece of hardware (in this case the SSDs) is superior to the other?

Here is what you claimed to refresh your memory:



I already responded in earlier posts to the illogical babble you're reposting. You have no idea what's going on and whether or not MS or Sony are leveraging their hardware/software to decrease load times (in whatever it's you have yet to explicitly specify proves your point - which I'm assuming is BC, but lets pretend I'm not going to assume it's BC until you bite that bullet in print).

Higher sustained capability equals faster loading time in large form legacy code. Do you need a graph? This is beyond simple to understand.

If Microsoft's sustained speed is indeed 2.4 GB/s then given the results of Sony's drive in these same titles it appears their sustained speed is roughly 1.9 GB/s.

There's very little else that needs to be said or explained. What are you not getting here?

 

[Redlight]

uh , no he didn’t. He said “Based on the performance we are seeing in comparing games between both consoles” what performance is he referring to if not BC? That’s all that been compared.
Then he said “Still we need to see a next gen game optimized for both to see what the performance is really like.” Which clearly means console exclusives. Any more tips on comprehension?

I wish I did have more comprehension tips for you, you may need to consult a professional? His post is in two easy-to-read parts.

Based on the performance we are seeing in comparing games between both consoles. I don't have an issue with this. Still we need to see a next gen game optimized for both to see what the performance is really like.

Your reply...

They compared next gen games load times between consoles?

He never claimed they had.

oldergamer 's post seems to be in two easy-to-decipher parts, here's my take...

"Based on the performance we are seeing in comparing games between both consoles."
Speed comparisons on games we have seen (BC) are excellent on Series X, indicating that the SSD performs surprisingly well, even in head-to-head comparisons of the same games.

"Still we need to see a next gen game optimized for both to see what the performance is really like."
We have to wait to see next-gen comparisons of the same game on both platforms to see what the differences really are.

Is it really that hard?

 

[quest]

Higher sustained capability equals faster loading time in large form legacy code. Do you need a graph? This is beyond simple to understand.

If Microsoft's sustained speed is indeed 2.4 GB/s then given the results of Sony's drive in these same titles it appears their sustained speed is roughly 1.9 GB/s.

There's very little else that needs to be said or explained. What are you not getting here?

It looks like the hardware io does a lot of the heavy lifting for Sony. The whole it just works we know now is not true. The SSD is nice but the hardware io is the magic behind the curtain.

 

[FrankWza]

I wish I did have more comprehension tips for you, you may need to consult a professional? His post is in two easy-to-read parts.


Your reply...


He never claimed they had.

oldergamer 's post seems to be in two easy-to-decipher parts, here's my take...

"Based on the performance we are seeing in comparing games between both consoles."
Speed comparisons on games we have seen (BC) are excellent on Series X, indicating that the SSD performs surprisingly well, even in head-to-head comparisons of the same games.

"Still we need to see a next gen game optimized for both to see what the performance is really like."
We have to wait to see next-gen comparisons of the same game on both platforms to see what the differences really are.

Is it really that hard?

I’m quoting this before you can edit. Hahahahaha oh man.

 

[KingT731]

oldergamer 's post seems to be in two easy-to-decipher parts, here's my take...

"Based on the performance we are seeing in comparing games between both consoles."
Speed comparisons on games we have seen (BC) are excellent on Series X, indicating that the SSD performs surprisingly well, even in head-to-head comparisons of the same games.

"Still we need to see a next gen game optimized for both to see what the performance is really like."
We have to wait to see next-gen comparisons of the same game on both platforms to see what the differences really are.

Is it really that hard?

It looks like the hardware io does a lot of the heavy lifting for Sony. The whole it just works we know now is not true. The SSD is nice but the hardware io is the magic behind the curtain.

I think may people are confusing why the games are loading faster on the XBX. Part of it is the SSDs on both consoles (you can see even in unpatched games the games would load faster to varying degrees regardless) the other part are the clock speeds being used by each console for BC. Idk why this point seems to be some point of contention when it has been explained by the system engineers on both sides.

 

[Neo_game]

Do you know that these drives are not unmodified?

They claimed it to be a custom pcie gen 4 nvme ssd but the on the tear down I think there is no indication of it

 

[sinnergy]

Get your facts straight, 1.3sec.

But you don’t know if it fill 16 gigs or 4 or 8 , on initial load ? Why would you always need to fill 16 gigs ? If you can stream in data later? Like in every open world game ..

We do t have these metrics ...

 

[itsjustJEFF]

I mean, they're technically not lying since it's reaching the speed, right? It achieves it. I don't understand the technicalities of it, but if it performs like they said it would... doesn't that matter more?

Also, we still holding up the load times of BC games up on a pedestal as the "next gen SSD speed" true test... instead of games made for the next-gen platforms? Like AC Valhalla, or Astro, or Spiderman, or Yakuza, or WatchDogs? Well, i guess a win is a win. You gotta get it when you can, especially if you petty AF.

 

[Knitted Knight]

Higher sustained capability equals faster loading time in large form legacy code. Do you need a graph? This is beyond simple to understand.

I understand what the word sustained means very well. You're the one jumping through hoops in your wording to be purposefully vague when called out on BS. Am I to assume when you say "legacy code" that what you mean is Backward compatibility games? Yes or No? for example....the Xbox Series X U.I has "legacy code". Why is specificity so hard eh?

If Microsoft's sustained speed is indeed 2.4 GB/s then given the results of Sony's drive in these same titles it appears their sustained speed is roughly 1.9 GB/s.

Now we arrive into the obvious traps you've been avoiding. You start the sentence with an "IF", meaning, you have no idea if the 2.4 GB/s metric given by MS is a sustained metric or a theoretical maximum. Likewise if using the same logic, Sony's provided metric of 5.5 GB/s could be a sustained or a theoretical maximum. So in effect, you're trafficking with speculation, and drawing a conclusion based on such an unproven speculation - whether a metric provided by MS is sustained or not (and whether Sony's is sustained or not.... suggesting Sony's misleading because "legacy code" proves it). You're merely supporting your arguments with tons of conjecture (keeping the "proof" vague for effect). In other words, you're making shit up.

If you weren't trolling you would know that's PS5's "sustained" speed has been disclosed already: Typical 8-9GB/s (Compressed) way back when the system specs were revealed. There are much higher numbers floating in rumors of benchmarks out there using Oodle. This is bound to improve overtime too.

You could watch Cerny's Road to PS5 or NxGamer's video on SSD's if genuinely ignorant on the subject but you're clearly not.

So we arrive to the initial point I made... you have 0 idea of what you're talking about - just spreading FUD.

As for the "supporting evidence" on a busted up point... I will await clarification on that "legacy code" (just for the fun of it).

 

[BluRayHiDef]

What I'd like to know is why is it marketed as Gen. 4 and why does it have a Gen. 4 controller if the marketed/ known speed of its SSD is well below Gen. 4 speeds anyway? 2.5GB/s is well below Gen. 4 speeds of 5GB/s and higher; 2.5GB/s isn't even the maximum speed of Gen. 3.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

But you don’t know if it fill 16 gigs or 4 or 8 , on initial load ? Why would you always need to fill 16 gigs ? If you can stream in data later? Like in every open world game ..

We do t have these metrics ...

Didn’t suggest so, and for PS5 it should not need to if it’s a first party game that’s fully optimized for PS5 streaming prowess.

 

[TBiddy]

it’s as custom as an off the rack suit. I believe you’re looking for the word, altered to fit. It’s part of their word trickery and shenanigans. Like the whole full rdna word play. It’s a pattern.

It's a custom SSD. Why are people acting so concerned?

What I'd like to know is why is it marketed as Gen. 4 and why does it have a Gen. 4 controller if the marketed/ known speed of its SSD is well below Gen. 4 speeds anyway? 2.5GB/s is well below Gen. 4 speeds of 5GB/s and higher; 2.5GB/s isn't even the maximum speed of Gen. 3.

It's not marketed as Gen4.

 

[BluRayHiDef]

It's not marketed as Gen4.

1. Yes, it is. Link.

2. Why does it use a Gen. 4 controller?

 

[Bittermich]

What performance? We haven't compared a single actual game which would leverage the I/O of either console yet. We literally have seen nothing, but we will this week.

Fun fact: waking up the console from standby takes 10 seconds less on Xbox compared to PS5. Should give us an indication on how the difference will be. Can’t wait for the release so that we can compare.

 

[TBiddy]

1. Yes, it is. Link.

2. Why does it use a Gen. 4 controller?

A random support-site does not equal "marketed". The official specs look like this:

The Gen4 controller was explained earlier by no other than our very own Bo_Hazem .

 

[Panajev2001a]

If Microsoft's sustained speed is indeed 2.4 GB/s then given the results of Sony's drive in these same titles it appears their sustained speed is roughly 1.9 GB/s.

Yup, no other possible explanation they sold you an advertised 5.5 GB/s drive with an expensive custom I/O solution and dedicated RAM that can sustain only 1.9 GB/s ... the fact that it is the most reasonable explanation based on BC titles is hilarious and telling.

 

[BlueXImpulse]

Fun fact: waking up the console from standby takes 10 seconds less on Xbox compared to PS5. Should give us an indication on how the difference will be. Can’t wait for the release so that we can compare.

Yeah, I'm personally very excited. I'll tag you when the comparisons go up!

 

[Bo_Hazem]

A random support-site does not equal "marketed". The official specs look like this:

The Gen4 controller was explained earlier by no other than our very own Bo_Hazem .

Yes, the Phison controller apparently is only in XSS internal and the external SSD (expansion). The internal XSX SSD uses that PCIe 3.0 controller as it seems.

 

[DynamiteCop!]

Yup, no other possible explanation they sold you an advertised 5.5 GB/s drive with an expensive custom I/O solution and dedicated RAM that can sustain only 1.9 GB/s ... the fact that it is the most reasonable explanation based on BC titles is hilarious and telling.

1.9 GB/s is still even now a formidable sustained speed, it's by no means slow. It's all about how your priorities are partitioned and the intention of the drive you're using.

Believe it or not Microsoft can have a drive with better sustained speeds at the cost of peak speeds while Sony can have a drive with better peak speeds at the cost of sustained speeds.

Not exactly revelatory.

 

[v_iHuGi]

This was known since forever, 2.4gb/s Raw Speed was never going to be PCIE 4.0.

Series SSD will get old really fast in next gen games but I guess is a BC only Console so you'll be fine don't worry.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

TBiddy It's only Xbox Series X that is using PCIe 3.0 off the shelf SSD through 2x PCIe 4.0 lanes.

PC SN530 NVMe SSD | Western Digital Store

The Western Digital PC SN530 NVMe™ SSD is designed for a multitude of applications that require both high performance and low power. The device is not only capable of more than three times the read speed over SATA SSDs, but further optimizes the low power consumption level to a mere 5mW...

www.westerndigital.com

You may go back to page 6 to keep up with all the details there. XSS and Expandable SSD seem to be PCIe 4.0 according to that known Phison controller.

 

[DynamiteCop!]

This was known since forever, 2.4gb/s Raw Speed was never going to be PCIE 4.0.

Series SSD will get old really fast in next gen games but I guess is a BC only Console so you'll be fine don't worry.

 

[Panajev2001a]

1.9 GB/s is still even now a formidable sustained speed, it's by no means slow. It's all about how your priorities are partitioned and the intention of the drive you're using.

Believe it or not Microsoft can have a drive with better sustained speeds at the cost of peak speeds while Sony can have a drive with better peak speeds at the cost of sustained speeds.

Not exactly revelatory.

convenient that the argument you are making has one advertising its sustained speed (near the top end of what the actual physical drive they put in the XSX can do) with a design that relies far less on an end to end bespoke HW I/O solution while the other advertises bandwidth that is supposedly almost 3x higher than its sustained speed :lol ... and curiously the misleading inefficient one (that wasted millions on the custom SSD tech) is Sony... .

I guess they spent all that money to pay off devs not to complain about being sold so much snake oil.

 

[DynamiteCop!]

convenient that the argument you are making has one advertising its sustained speed (near the top end of what the actual physical drive they put in the XSX can do) with a design that relies far less on an end to end bespoke HW I/O solution while the other advertises bandwidth that is supposedly almost 3x higher than its sustained speed :lol ... and curiously the misleading inefficient one (that wasted millions on the custom SSD tech) is Sony... .

I guess they spent all that money to pay off devs not to complain about being sold so much snake oil.

I really have no interest in anything you're saying, not going to lie. It's just contrarianism for contraries sake.

 

[prinz_valium]

This thread is technically talking about MS saying PCIe 4.0 SSD and people found PCIe 3.0 SSD. In other words, lying/misleading and a law suit should be in place.

It's not a PCIe 3.0 SSD.
The SSD named in the OP is not the one in the XSX


The console uses a CH SN530
The one being listed on WD is a PC SN530

 

[reksveks]

Anyone on the net tried upgrading it yet?

 

[MastaKiiLA]

Seems like a non-issue. So long as the drive meets the spec the devs were given, then I don't see the problem. They're the one affected by any deviations from spec, not us.

 

[Garani]

Yup, no other possible explanation they sold you an advertised 5.5 GB/s drive with an expensive custom I/O solution and dedicated RAM that can sustain only 1.9 GB/s ... the fact that it is the most reasonable explanation based on BC titles is hilarious and telling.

It has been said it already: for BC you have to compare same architecture and generation.

Yes, the Phison controller apparently is only in XSS internal and the external SSD (expansion). The internal XSX SSD uses that PCIe 3.0 controller as it seems.

By the way, that off the shelf part was the reason why they did not show the drive until now.

 

[PaintTinJr]

You actually think the loading is taking place from when you press X lol? It's pre-caching the load scenarios upon startup.

Even if that were true - and I suspect it will be true in situations where it can be done on both next-gen consoles - the comparative performance makes it a moot point, no?

For me, my take on this is that they use a gen 4 controller because of the latency being lower than gen 3 when looking into PCIE specs for Nvidia RTX IO - which is apparently the same tech. If Microsoft's revision upgrades for this gen are the same as the 360 gen - a console that didn't have hdmi at launch to name just one major oversight - then I suspect at some point both the internal and external SSDs will be a minimum requirement for some games that really push loading, similar to the Rage issue on the 360 arcade, and a new XsX revision will just have newer gen4(or latter) drives and controllers, as though it was never an issue.

 

[reksveks]

Anyone on the net tried upgrading it yet?

There isn't a lot of M.2 2230 drives out there based of the following:

Hard Drives & SSDs Solid State Drives (SSD) with Interface: M.2 (PCIe), Form factor: M.2 2230 Price Comparison Skinflint UK

compare prices and read user reviews for Hard Drives & SSDs Solid State Drives (SSD) with Interface: M.2 (PCIe), Form factor: M.2 2230

skinflint.co.uk

 

[ToadMan]

What are the "sustained metrics" from MS's SSD? How do they differ from Sony's SSD? How are they manifesting themselves that you believe prove one piece of hardware to be superior to the other?

Simple questions that you keep avoiding. Just answer that... or continue to dodge it. I'll be waiting until you're ready to admit you're talking BS with no proof.......

The other trolls simple said "load times are better cause BC load times duh duh"....and stick to their little BC islands. They weren't quite stupid to claim Sony's SSD read/write speeds are marketing fluff with no backup. You're trying to bite way more than you should.

Not sure if you genuinely care but since the SN530 is an off the shelf drive you can go take a look at it’s sustained performance

https://www.notebookcheck.net/WDC-PC-SN530-SDBPNPZ-1T00-SSD-Benchmarks.476624.0.html

Summary - it never gets above 2Gb/s in sequential read tests.

Actually there’s even a handy user manual for it

https://downloads.sandisk.com/downloads/um/pcsn530-pm.pdf

Its an average off the shelf (non-customised) drive all in all - there’s a picture and pin out of the SSD in the document and it’s identical to the pics from the tear down.

There’s a 400TBW life warranty. Over 5 years that would be writing 200gb per day. That’s the WD warranty though - not sure what MS will offer - but at least it’s easy to replace if desired.

Curious if we’ll ever get this kind of info from the PS5 since that is a custom solution unavailable in any off the shelf configuration.

 

[Larvana]

This thread is technically talking about MS saying PCIe 4.0 SSD and people found PCIe 3.0 SSD. In other words, lying/misleading and a law suit should be in place.

Law suit hahahaha, funny guy.

 

[Panajev2001a]

It has been said it already: for BC you have to compare same architecture and generation.

I know that , that was the joke I think .

 

[Garani]

I know that , that was the joke I think .

Sorry, I didn't pick it up. My bad!