Xbox Series X/S expandable storage is expensive....

[kirby007]

Pemalite said:

smroadkill15 said:

Damn that is a shit ton of storage, but I get the, everything installed part. I filled up 95% of mine before I realized I needed to start deleting games. Now I manage my storage and delete stuff if I haven't played it in awhile. 

Btw, thank for what you do. Where do you fight fires at? 

Definitely is allot... And ironically need more! I think I may keep the Series X as a Series X only gaming device and use my Xbox One X for Xbox One and older titles, not sure yet.

Based in South Australia, but have deployed to the United States and Europe a few times... And obviously assist wherever needed across Australia, plus do vertical rescue, marine rescue, road crash rescue, confined space, rescue from heights, hazmat and all the fun stuff.
Although deploying is out of the question during the COVID era, can't even go interstate, let alone overseas.

Been a few times where I have come home covered in someone elses blood... And the only thing you want at that point is shower, food and video games.

eva01beserk said:

Na you missed much more. Its why I said wach the presentation cuz I wont be able to explain as well but Ill give it a shot.

Let's cut through some of the bullshit here.

eva01beserk said:

Like the 4 extra PCIE4.0 lanes straight from the apu to the SSD

* The Playstation 5 has 4x PCI-E 4.0 lanes to the SSD. Not 8. It's identical to the Xbox Series X on this front.

eva01beserk said:

allowing it to skip the ram, the xbox has no such things.

* The Xbox Series X SSD can bypass Ram and stream data direct from SSD to the APU as well.

eva01beserk said:

having 12 chanel memory vs the xbox 8 or 4(we still dont know, its most likely 8).

* The memory channel count is ultimately redundant, it's just a silly marketing point and you fell for it. - You have two ways to you can increase bandwidth, faster memory chips or more memory chips. - Sony took the "more memory chips" route to solving the bandwidth problem.

eva01beserk said:

The soc dedicted to handle data wich the ps5 has an equivalent of 9 ryzen cores while the xbox has a 4 cores equivalent.

Absolute rubbish.
The Xbox Series X has hardware accellerated compression/decompression.

No. The fixed function blocks that aid this are *not* equivalent to a Ryzen CPU core... They are fixed function, not flexible x86 processing cores.

eva01beserk said:

Cerny mentioned that there are other bottlenecks that limit data transfer speed so hdd's and sdd's dont run at their full speed all the time and the ps5 has hardware and software for that. The xbox only has sotware.

There are certainly a ton of bottlenecks that can limit data transfer rates such as scheduling for example.

I would advise you not to "hang onto" every single utter word that Cerny murmurs... And there is a good reason for that. - Cerny is a paid employee of Sony and thus he has a conflict of interesting in inflating, supporting and big-noting his company and the products he is trying to sell.

Same goes for Phil Spencer and whoever is Nintendo's equivalent.


And no. Xbox doesn't only "have software". - The Xbox series X, like the Playstation 5 features hardware accelerated decompression/compression, which is also aided by software.
The companies might "brand" their approaches differently, but they share very similar concepts fundamentally, even if Sony's definitely has the performance edge.

eva01beserk said:

but its much more than the 5.5 vs 2.4 raw speed.

That is exactly what the difference is.

eva01beserk said:

And I think we saw  a bit of this on the start up comparisons they have both made, the xbox had games start in like 4x the speed of the previous gen wich was like 12s vs 54s, while the ps5 was instant almost. under 2 sec wich was just the button presses and the fade to black between inmages. it was insane. But again, thouse where diferent games we might need to wait untill the same games are compared to really see.

The Xbox may be doing other tasks in the background, there are far to many variables like different operating systems, api's and so forth for one.
Undoubtedly the Playstation 5 has the bandwidth edge on it's storage and that will translate to load times and other nuanced differences.

However, the SSD is still dog-awfully slow compared to Ram.

ArchangelMadzz said:

Getting a 1TB drive to expand your XSX in the UK is £29 cheaper than just buying an XSS. I'd rather have the 2 consoles aha. 

Definitely much better grabbing yourself an external drive, I doubt Microsoft is going to make this option cheaper any time soon even though SSD's get cheaper all the time.

The thing with SSD's on PC is that yes... They are getting cheaper all the time, but they are also getting faster and better... Consoles are different, they stagnate for the duration of their useful lifespan.

In a few years time... A 1 terabyte, PCI-E 4.0 SSD will be bargain-basement stuff.

I do prefer mechanical disks due to their resilience in cold storage scenarios though. Shame they are terrible performers comparatively.

Wrong on all accounts, this is not what Kaz Hirai told me