By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 12 February 2024
Edit Thread
Chrkeller said:
sc94597 said:

The difference between load times for an NVME drive and much slower SATA SSDs (that are rated around the 300 MBps mark you mentioned) are minimal when it comes to most games.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2116-storage-speed-game-loading/ 

My guess though is the Switch 2 will have UFS and they'll use slower proprietary carts with mandatory installs for certain, large asset, titles.

UFS 3.0 should get near NVME PCI-E 3.0 speeds and it is designed for mobile platforms, so the heating issue is somewhat resolved. With UFS 4.0 being the new standard, prices shouldn't be too bad either.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Flash_Storage

There is also the matter that the Switch 2 titles will have much smaller assets to load. 

I'm surprised loading is considered minimal.  The difference in loading on the ps4 (ssd) and ps5 is stark.  But I agree ssd load speeds are not a deal breaker.  My concern is the cost of UFS carts, I expect poor third party support to avoid costs.  Like digital only or large parts of the game require downloads.  I don't see third party taking the hit on cart costs.

First party games don't concern me at all.  Assets will be much smaller and will play/look stunning on a 2050.  

I mean even in SSD-heavy titles like RDR2 the difference between a SATA SSD and a top of the line NVME is a few seconds. 

The load times between the PS4 and PS5 probably have more to do with the CPU than the difference in SSD speeds.

I wasn't thinking Nintendo will use UFS carts. They'll probably use something much slower and have 256 GB - 512 GB of UFS internal storage. The carts are just non-digital ways to transfer copies of the game faster than downloading, but not fast enough to play directly from for the most ambitious titles.