Well, here we are. 6 years after my prediction. I was going for 12-14 teraflops of the old architecture. Well, It´s 10, but performance wise, a 8 TF 5700 is faster than a near 13 Teraflops VEGA 64. In that sense, even though the Xbox is faster, the PS5 achieved a little more than what I thought with a 10 TF RDNA2 GPU
kind of sad that we have only 16 GB of RAM, but understanding memory as a hole, That 16 GB can be filled much much faster than before with that amazing I/O subsistem. So those 16 will behave like we have more RAM.
3D sound is a nice upgrade too.
And jumping from a jaguar core to a Zen 2 3.5 Ghz core, well, it´s almost the same as the xbox CPU.
So Sony established a base from which it can grow.
They have the CPU, The sound, and the I/O for the future. Replacing only the GPU side, with a wider one, they can make a PS5 pro easily. And they can sell the PS5 now for less than the xbox if they want to.
So despite the xbox is 15-20% faster gpu wise, I think the ps5 is good enough to compete being the games what´s more important. Microsoft is still showing minecraft and they always have the same halo, gears, forza thing. They need to get more creative. The senua game looks awesome but the gameplay of the 1st is not that great despite great art and design. They designed a better machine than I thought they would in 2014.
I recognize that I would have prefered a faster GPU than what Microsoft has, but it´s not bad at all for 4k console gaming.

Edit: Oh I forgot. what I don´t like is an SSD with only 825 GB of storage. I mean, how many 150 GB games can we put there? 5 and the machine is full. Hate that.  

I'm not sure if a suitable equivalent exists on the market as of now. Cerny said that "At the time of my Wired interview, the ones on PC had 3.5 GB/s". And that the ones they're testing these days "come in at 4 or 5 GB/s".
The one you linked seems to be "4950MB/s read, 4250MB/s"?

Not only that but he said that a commercial M2 drive would require "a little more speed to make up for the issues that arise from the different approach". 
Referring to how the commercial drive would only have 2 true priority levels, while the one in PS5 will have 6.
It would also need to physically fit in the PS5, since there's no standard for the height of the drive.

So it sounds like we'll need to wait and see which drive they say will work properly.

From what he said a PCI4.0 7Gb/s would be needed to match because of the controllers and priority layers.

During the last 6 months or so he was adamant that the SDD in PS5 wouldn't be something faster than on PC (at the time). But that isn't really much important.

Thanks to the instant seek time of these SSDs, games will not be that big. Do you see those 150GB type games? most of those adjust assets duplicated on the HDD to allow quicker access and ultimately faster reads.

But uh, sub 1TB SSD sucks though. Its even suckier is that unless sony actually releases some branded SSDs, we won't be able to buy compatible SSDs for it till sometime next year because what's on the market now isn't as fast. Samsung would probably have a 7GB/s SSD though, but that would probably cost as much as the PS5.

After reading all this carry on across different threads all I have to say is just do it no more maybe's, get your ass over to xbox and to all those who somehow seem aggrieved by his stance my advice is you have made your point and unless your masochistic and gain pleasure from banging your head against his wall get over it.

Sony's original claim was for 5.5GB/s of real-world throughput.
7GB/s would need to be verified by actual real-world benchmarks... Or Sony is leveraging compression to achieve such a throughput, which the PC can technically do as well.

Or they are just bullshitting to big-note themselves, not the first time console manufacturers have done that. - How did those extra ACE units go? Or the Cell? Or the Playstation Optical Laser? Can go on...

PC has had faster SSD's before Cerny made that "dodgy" claim.
PC can RAID. Nor did Cerny mention form factor or pricing or so forth.

The one I linked to... Actually does 5.22GB/s. Are we really splitting hairs over 0.28GB/s?


Besides, my point of contention isn't with Cerny... It's with the Poster making a blind general statement that PC SSD's cannot match the Playstation 5's when the PC does in-fact have SSD's that wipe the floor with what the Playstation 5 has.

Well. "He" needs to backup that assertion with evidence.

Because a real-world benchmark with real-world performance numbers is real-world speed and thus already accounts for "issues" due to the different approach.

And no... It doesn't need to fit into the PS5, we are talking SSD speed comparisons here, not fitting a PC drive into a PS5.

Besides... You also have drives like the Kioxia SSD's which can do 6.9GB/s...
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15537/kioxia-releases-first-pcie-40-ssds-cm6-cd6

You can double that to 13.8GB/s easily enough via RAID.

And if you don't like that brand... The Samsung PM1725a will deliver over 6GB/s of sequential reads.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15491/enterprise-nvme-hynix-samsung-dapustor-dera/6

I can keep going... But I think I have made my point. :P

Good news. That's possible on PC.

RAID is possible even in notebooks. So... You are clasping at straws there.

Would they though? I know it happened on optical disks, but pretty sure it didn't happen on the mechanical ones.

Sony's original claim was for 5.5GB/s of real-world throughput.
7GB/s would need to be verified by actual real-world benchmarks... Or Sony is leveraging compression to achieve such a throughput, which the PC can technically do as well.

Or they are just bullshitting to big-note themselves, not the first time console manufacturers have done that. - How did those extra ACE units go? Or the Cell? Or the Playstation Optical Laser? Can go on...