By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS5 Confirmed Backward Compatibility

Pemalite said:
taus90 said:

Thats the point even going by the GCN specs we can speculate what will be the performance limitation for NAVI, but still a huge part of the development for Navi is still unknown the only leak I can find on the internet regarding the development is that AMD was looking to improve Geometry engine, which has been problematic area for GCN. 

Indeed. The Geometry Engines have been a bit of sticking point for AMD... The irony is, they beat nVidia to the Tessellation game by 9-10 years and yet nVidia's Polymorph engines have consistently beaten AMD to the punch.

In saying that, Graphics Core Next has some serious limitations, so I doubt AMD will go past 4 Geometry Engines, but will likely increase each individual Geometry Engines capabilities, which AMD has been doing consistently with almost every Graphics Core Next update.

taus90 said:

And I don't remember the article or the year but it was i think 2018 interview where AMD CEO Lisa Su revealed that more than half of the staff from RTG were redirected from Vega on to improving Navi and that it was particularly being designed for Sony, It could be a possibility that Sony might have jumped in mid Navi development and suggested some changes of their own (IBM,Cell) , Now what those changes or secret sauce could be is completely unknown.

I think people are looking into it to much.
Yes, Sony likely made some architectural suggestions, but AMD still needs to work within the confines of Graphics Core Next.

The reason for the amount of staff that is dumped on Navi is simple though, Semi-Custom chip designs, aka. Multiple chips for Microsoft, Sony, PC APU's (Desktop and Notebook!), PC GPU's. - There is hundreds of millions of dollars up for grabs.
It's not a small job to pull off all at once... But the financial gains for AMD is absolutely massive, hence the urgency in dumping as much staff onto the project.

taus90 said:

P.S. Wont be Surprised if Ps5 makes an appearance at Navi Reveal on July 7

I agree. Also can't wait!

DonFerrari said:

Hey I know you and CGI were being conservative and mindfull on your expectations at the console releasing @399 without massive losses, thus I said I was joking on seeing Sony troll both of you.

About the Stadia comparison, HW being more than twice as powerfull because of efficiency I understand, but also on real world we have to consider the internet infrastructure for most customers, and in this scenario I would say I see Stadia performing worse than PS4Pro to most customers.

Also happy to be proven wrong. At the end of the day, I am a tech enthusiast, so it's still a win.

DonFerrari said:

I made the question to CGI above, but I also would like to see your input on they having 8GB of HBM2 and 16GB of DDR4. How much impact such different type of RAM and their bandwidhts would have on the balancing and use on the system? Could they use it seemless to have the slower RAM working on the parts that need more memory but lower speed and HBM for the more urgent tasks? Or is that a good way to take on the ineficiency of GCN on needing plenty of memory and bandwidth to keep CUs feed? Also if Sony accepted slightly slower multitasking the 8Gb of RAM for the OS could be increased using the other 16Gb for game right, or perhaps OS doesn't change the RAM but the other apps when initializing get some of the gaming RAM, just like on PS4 some apps will put game in suspension and others will have other apps closed before running.

The main impact will be on the development side of the equation, developers will need to allocate workloads to get the most out of the differing bandwidths and capacities.
They will also need to spend more transistors on additional memory controllers to drive it all, which will also cost power.

In short, it's not impossible, but I don't see it being likely... They would probably be best served going with a single large pool of GDDR6.
Remember... It will also be Ryzen powered... And we all know how much Ryzen loves it's bandwidth!

drkohler said:

No way the OS uses 8GBytes. The streaming buffer currently uses a good chunk of the os, hence the large reserves in the PS4/X1. They crammed the PS3/X360 os into a few megabytes, and that is the target for any console, make the os as small as possible.

Given that the SoC will be largehere will be two different memory bus architectures in the SoC, it's just too big a mess to design and synchronise (the cpus already have the synchrinise penalty built in so you would avoid any additional penalty as much as you can). Maybe even only a 256bit gddr6 interface and some cheap 4-8GByte streaming buffer somewhere downstreams (getting rid of the memory reserves we have now) would be enough for a PS5.

The Xbox 360 managed to get away with 32Mb of Ram for it's OS... The Xbox One wanted 3072MB... And each time the consoles were simply doing more.
More data is being cached to speed up various operations, things like higher quality voice chat, video streaming, multi-tasking were all implemented.

In short, the consoles are becoming more PC-like, which means they need more memory.

I don't think there is an immediate need for more than 4GB for an OS yet though, you can do a surprising amount with that... But let's just wait and see how the cards fall.

But if there is going to be targeted 8k User-Interfaces, then I don't expect the memory usage to be small. - Microsoft will likely use a UI that scales up well, but uses minimal memory, but they are a software/OS engineering giant...

Thanks Pemalite, it aligns with what I remember on the benefits of unified memory bandwidth and type.

But saying they could have for the same price

16GB of GDDR6 or 8GB of HBM2 and 16GB of DDR4, and pretend devs could make optimal use of it (or even better Sony delivers API that does it flawlessly, I know it wouldn't happen) would getting the first a better option on your POV? In the first case we would have 8GB for games and 8 for OS, on the second 16GB for games and 8 for OS. The second case would look more like PC memory with a higher spec for GPU and lower for OS and regular CPU tasks.

Pemalite said:
thismeintiel said:

Then gamers are still going to see the difference between them with the much shorter load times, both to begin the game and within the game itself.

There are ways to reduce load times rather than resorting to faster storage subsystems.

Either way, load times haven't really been a contentious issue between consoles anyway.

I do agree loading times on Playstation consoles have always been an issue because it is disc based, but basically no one ever stopped buying one because of it, nor would it be the differentiation that would push sales to Sony if their console were a little weaker and a little more expensive (it would be the kinect 2 of Sony). But if because of the memory solution some games release only on PS5 or the end result is much better (I doubt) that could push sales.

TranceformerFX said:
OTBWY said:

That... kind of comes with it. 

Sony has for some reason been dropping the ball on just releasing their PS1 load onto their main system. I for the life of me can't understand why they don't invest in this more. Seeing how they handled the PS Classic, I think they just don't care.

When they confirmed Backwards Compatibility, I'm 100% sure it was in reference to PS4 games. Not PS3, PS2, or PS1 games. Expecting them to do that is just dumb, and completely irresponsible thinking.

Just because all of PlayStation's flagship consoles were disc based, doesn't mean they'll work just fine regardless of hardware and architecture disparity/differences.

It's not like Sony has it's finger on an On/Off switch and just refuse to flip it on in the name of pure greed. 

Well I'm pretty sure PS5 drive could easily read disc from all previous system if Sony wanted as they are just regular CD, DVD and BD discs. But running the games is certainly another thing, and Sony would either have to work on native BC or emulation (which seems like they are doing). So it's quite possible Sony is investing on the emulator to have more games sold on PSN without having to port it (so more money and less licensing problems), and likely could allow discs running without paying for the game on PSN just for the marketing and goodwill, more because they know that pristine discs aren't as spreed to cause they to lose money (they can also sell the improvement pack for the games on a small discount over buying the game on PSN and increasing profit).

Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

Of course it will depend on the game, anything bad codded can ruin any HW it run on.

RAM surely is faster and probably bandwidth will be higher, but there is a reason the PS4 and X1 games don't run from the BD disc, because they are to slow, and there is a reason why putting a SSD on they make loading much faster and also the in game loading faster.

So it is only reason that SSD architeture will enable much faster and agile, nothing of kool-aid here so far.

We can expect same difference between slow HDD versus fast SDD next gen. He didn't promise all games will load in 1s. Seems like you are reading more than what is being said.

The funny thing is games seem to often load more in the 8th gen than last gen. Even with vastly faster and more RAM, better CPUs, better GPUs and being optimized for HDDs. The load times in fighting games have suddenly become the worst they've ever been.

I don't feel running games off a HDD was done out of necessity. The PS3 was able to run games directly from a BD disc, so did the Wii U (likely BD tech). Therefore its not crazy to assume PS4 and X1 could have as well especially with their faster drives. I believe they opted for HDD primarily because that made optimization easier, faster transfer speeds and storage dropped in price significantly.

I'm not sure what they did to make Spiderman load so fast on the PS5 devkit, but I think they're misleading us on how it was done. He's giving the impression its because of the SSD on its own, but that just doesn't make sense. I believe it has more to do with the other specs of the hardware, especially RAM. I mean if basically all the textures and other assets can be stored in RAM, that's gonna eliminate much of the streaming needed from the storage. Maybe consoles using unified RAM helps simplify this process.

First paragraph is true, but because everything increased in size, so loading and processing is much higher and that increases loading time (although my experience on PS4 is that games install faster and load faster than on PS3). GTS is much much much faster to enter a race or retry than GT5.

PS3 had mandatory install for most games and some were almost the size of the game. I guess the price for a faster BD drive were higher than a bigger HDD to mandate install, and with digital games being much more relevant and needing HDD anyway there weren't much benefit for they to put better BDs (even more because then the HDD would be the issue, and games need to run equally well from physical or digital purchase).

PS4 have unified RAM, rumor is that PS5 won't be unified (but sure a lot faster) and isn't that much bigger to the point the whole SM would fit on the RAM. They can be misleading, but doesn't seem the case. Why would they put so much money on the storage solution if the gain would be minimal? Because we can be sure that the price difference from a regular 2TB HDD is much lower than 2TB SDD on the type of speed he is talking about (higher than any available to PC, here he can't lie because that is spec).

https://www.ps4storage.com/ps4-ssd-vs-hdd/

Most games loaded twice as fast on the SSD compared to HDD, and that is on a system that wasn't designed to take the benefits of SSD. So a native solution, on a high bandwidth, SSD could be a very good thing on PS5.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Biggerboat1 said:

An estimate made within a forum thread isn't really sufficient evidence in my book...

There won't be any official numbers to give you. The profits estimative comes more from similar earnings, but PSN alone costing less than whole of Nintendo. So if earning are close but costs are lower then profits are higher.

You may dispute if they are really higher, equal or lower. But the main factor remains that it is still very close.

My point from the beginning is that stating that PSN makes as much money (which I've defined as profit) is a statement that cannot be made as we have zero evidence - and no, an estimate made on a forum has never, nor ever will be, counted as evidence. Maybe it makes more, maybe it makes less, maybe it makes the same - the bottom line is that we don't know, so stating a possibility as fact is wrong!

PSN costs will be massive as the majority of games sales will be paid out to devs. I'd even imagine that only a slice of 1st party games will be attributed PSN with the majority of the sale being attributed to the the development division (after all, they done most of the work). It's essentially a store - and like any store, costs are going to be high relative to revenue as they have to pay the suppliers (or in this case the devs). So I'm really not sure where you're getting this notion that costs will be low... By the way, I've made this point about PSN costs multiple times now, which you seem to completely ignore and instead repeat your knuckle-headed position of 'PSN costs are low'.

If you could pay attention to what I'm writing rather than just trying to win the argument at all costs in the most smug way possible then we might actually get somewhere.

I'm not disputing anything - you are the one disputing my position of 'we don't have the evidence to arrive at a conclusion'.

So unless you can provide this evidence I'm not really sure what you want from me??

Last edited by Biggerboat1 - on 22 April 2019

Biggerboat1 said:
DonFerrari said:

There won't be any official numbers to give you. The profits estimative comes more from similar earnings, but PSN alone costing less than whole of Nintendo. So if earning are close but costs are lower then profits are higher.

You may dispute if they are really higher, equal or lower. But the main factor remains that it is still very close.

My point from the beginning is that stating that PSN makes as much money (which I've defined as profit) is a statement that cannot be made as we have zero evidence - and no, an estimate made on a forum has never, nor ever will be, counted as evidence. Maybe it makes more, maybe it makes less, maybe it makes the same - the bottom line is that we don't know, so stating a possibility as fact is wrong!

PSN costs will be massive as the majority of games sales will be paid out to devs. I'd even imagine that only a slice of 1st party games will be attributed PSN with the majority of the sale being attributed to the the development division (after all, they done most of the work). It's essentially a store - and like any store, costs are going to be high relative to revenue as they have to pay the suppliers (or in this case the devs). So I'm really not sure where you're getting this notion that costs will be low... By the way, I've made this point about PSN costs multiple times now, which you seem to completely ignore and instead repeat your knuckle-headed position of 'PSN costs are low'.

If you could pay attention to what I'm writing rather than just trying to win the argument at all costs in the most smug way possible then we might actually get somewhere.

I'm not disputing anything - you are the one disputing my position of 'we don't have the evidence to arrive at a conclusion'.

So unless you can provide this evidence I'm not really sure what you want from me??

Earnings are declared where it happens. So a 1st party game sold on PSN have the revenue declared as PSN revenue, if it were otherwise then 3rd party games sold on PSN would have only Sony portion declared.

Nintendo have the cost of Switch (which let's say sell at break even) that takes much more from the profit than Sony paying the dev cut... game sold at Walmart and PSN the dev/pub get about the same, on Walmart let's say Walmart get 10 and Sony 15, on PSN Sony get 25 (so from 60 sale, 25 profit - 40% margin).

And sorry, but your posture were more on it being impossible that PSN profit more than all of Nintendo instead of it not being possible to prove it right or wrong.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Biggerboat1 said:

My point from the beginning is that stating that PSN makes as much money (which I've defined as profit) is a statement that cannot be made as we have zero evidence - and no, an estimate made on a forum has never, nor ever will be, counted as evidence. Maybe it makes more, maybe it makes less, maybe it makes the same - the bottom line is that we don't know, so stating a possibility as fact is wrong!

PSN costs will be massive as the majority of games sales will be paid out to devs. I'd even imagine that only a slice of 1st party games will be attributed PSN with the majority of the sale being attributed to the the development division (after all, they done most of the work). It's essentially a store - and like any store, costs are going to be high relative to revenue as they have to pay the suppliers (or in this case the devs). So I'm really not sure where you're getting this notion that costs will be low... By the way, I've made this point about PSN costs multiple times now, which you seem to completely ignore and instead repeat your knuckle-headed position of 'PSN costs are low'.

If you could pay attention to what I'm writing rather than just trying to win the argument at all costs in the most smug way possible then we might actually get somewhere.

I'm not disputing anything - you are the one disputing my position of 'we don't have the evidence to arrive at a conclusion'.

So unless you can provide this evidence I'm not really sure what you want from me??

Earnings are declared where it happens. So a 1st party game sold on PSN have the revenue declared as PSN revenue, if it were otherwise then 3rd party games sold on PSN would have only Sony portion declared.

Nintendo have the cost of Switch (which let's say sell at break even) that takes much more from the profit than Sony paying the dev cut... game sold at Walmart and PSN the dev/pub get about the same, on Walmart let's say Walmart get 10 and Sony 15, on PSN Sony get 25 (so from 60 sale, 25 profit - 40% margin).

And sorry, but your posture were more on it being impossible that PSN profit more than all of Nintendo instead of it not being possible to prove it right or wrong.

Bold 1 : Yes, REVENUE - I'm not sure what you're trying to clarify here - I've never claimed income generated from game sales isn't included in REVENUE. 

Bold 2 : Hardware is only part of Nintendo's sales, not sure if you've noticed but they're also selling a butt-load of software - of which they'll retain a significantly higher portion of the profit than PSN will from it's software.

Bold 3 : If you want to invent nonsense to argue against, knock yourself out! I actually couldn't care less who's profit is higher - I don't own stock and I don't owe either company anything.

I own a Switch & PS4 btw.

My only point is that the initial statement that PSN made as much money as Nintendo is unfounded, and thus far you've spectacularly failed to prove otherwise.

As usual, you love to argue over nothing and just fill the thread with waffle.

I'm not going to derail this thread any further (I have suggested to you multiple times to move it over to a relevant thread), and I'm also not going to continue yet another futile tail-chasing session with your good self. I'm out ;)



Biggerboat1 said:
DonFerrari said:

~ snip

My only point is that the initial statement that PSN made as much money as Nintendo is unfounded, and thus far you've spectacularly failed to prove otherwise.

While this discussion really does need to get back on track, regarding the financial talk, Don is likely referring to this: https://www.dualshockers.com/psn-made-more-money-in-2018-than-nintendo-xbox/

Don: This means that PSN generated more revenue than all of Nintendo in 2018 (not overall). Just to clear up the confusion.



                                                                                                                                                           

Around the Network
DonFerrari said: 
Mr Puggsly said:

The funny thing is games seem to often load more in the 8th gen than last gen. Even with vastly faster and more RAM, better CPUs, better GPUs and being optimized for HDDs. The load times in fighting games have suddenly become the worst they've ever been.

I don't feel running games off a HDD was done out of necessity. The PS3 was able to run games directly from a BD disc, so did the Wii U (likely BD tech). Therefore its not crazy to assume PS4 and X1 could have as well especially with their faster drives. I believe they opted for HDD primarily because that made optimization easier, faster transfer speeds and storage dropped in price significantly.

I'm not sure what they did to make Spiderman load so fast on the PS5 devkit, but I think they're misleading us on how it was done. He's giving the impression its because of the SSD on its own, but that just doesn't make sense. I believe it has more to do with the other specs of the hardware, especially RAM. I mean if basically all the textures and other assets can be stored in RAM, that's gonna eliminate much of the streaming needed from the storage. Maybe consoles using unified RAM helps simplify this process.

First paragraph is true, but because everything increased in size, so loading and processing is much higher and that increases loading time (although my experience on PS4 is that games install faster and load faster than on PS3). GTS is much much much faster to enter a race or retry than GT5.

PS3 had mandatory install for most games and some were almost the size of the game. I guess the price for a faster BD drive were higher than a bigger HDD to mandate install, and with digital games being much more relevant and needing HDD anyway there weren't much benefit for they to put better BDs (even more because then the HDD would be the issue, and games need to run equally well from physical or digital purchase).

PS4 have unified RAM, rumor is that PS5 won't be unified (but sure a lot faster) and isn't that much bigger to the point the whole SM would fit on the RAM. They can be misleading, but doesn't seem the case. Why would they put so much money on the storage solution if the gain would be minimal? Because we can be sure that the price difference from a regular 2TB HDD is much lower than 2TB SDD on the type of speed he is talking about (higher than any available to PC, here he can't lie because that is spec).

https://www.ps4storage.com/ps4-ssd-vs-hdd/

Most games loaded twice as fast on the SSD compared to HDD, and that is on a system that wasn't designed to take the benefits of SSD. So a native solution, on a high bandwidth, SSD could be a very good thing on PS5.

Can't find exact speeds but it does seem PS4 has a faster drive, so that would explain the faster install. Also, PS3 was slow as fuck for updates.

PS3 had a slow drive so some developers compensated with partial installs. But over time I do recall games being better optimized to run directly off the disc. Anyhoo, I'm arguing it was possible to run 8th gen games off a BD disc, I'm not arguing they should have.

Having seen SSD vs HDD loading videos, it seems to me open world games have a huge loading disparity. Most games may not be impacted as much. I certainly hope the move to SSD great reduces load times next gen. However, I wouldn't be surprised if developers use this as opportunity to spend less time optimizing.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:

Can't find exact speeds but it does seem PS4 has a faster drive, so that would explain the faster install. Also, PS3 was slow as fuck for updates.

PS3 had a slow drive so some developers compensated with partial installs. But over time I do recall games being better optimized to run directly off the disc. Anyhoo, I'm arguing it was possible to run 8th gen games off a BD disc, I'm not arguing they should have.

Having seen SSD vs HDD loading videos, it seems to me open world games have a huge loading disparity. Most games may not be impacted as much. I certainly hope the move to SSD great reduces load times next gen. However, I wouldn't be surprised if developers use this as opportunity to spend less time optimizing.

The Xbox 360 had the bulk of it's library able to be run directly from disk... Likely that is due to the Core and Arcade consoles not coming with mechanical storage of some type necessitating it.
But the DVD Rom drive also had better transfer rates than the PS3's Blu-Ray. - Although that came at the cost of excessive noise. It sounded like a plane was taking off.

The Playstation 4's Blu-Ray drive can do 27MB/s sustained reads verses the Playstation 3's 9MB/s and the Xbox 360's 15.85MB/s.

In the Xbox 360's case though... Some games did necessitate an install to the Hard Drive... But the game would stream mesh and texture data from the optical disk in tandem increasing overall throughput as the Hitachi 5400rpm drive would tank to around 30-40MB/s when lots of random accesses performed... So it was worth doing in some cases.

It is entirely possible to run games off the BD-Rom drive with the right foresight though, no doubt about it. - The question though is whether they should when the internal 500GB drives are 60-90MB/s?



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

CGI-Quality said:
Biggerboat1 said:

My only point is that the initial statement that PSN made as much money as Nintendo is unfounded, and thus far you've spectacularly failed to prove otherwise.

While this discussion really does need to get back on track, regarding the financial talk, Don is likely referring to this: https://www.dualshockers.com/psn-made-more-money-in-2018-than-nintendo-xbox/

Don: This means that PSN generated more revenue than all of Nintendo in 2018 (not overall). Just to clear up the confusion.

Yes I know it is talking revenue against revenue from PSN vs all Nintendo or all Xbox.

Then I claimed that from what we know it is likely that the cost of PSN is smaller than the cost of all of Nintendo. Since you have advised to get the discussion back to what is the thread I won't keep going. But the point was just that we have evidence that PSN made more revenue than Nintendo, so he posing as if it would be non-sense to say profit of PSN was higher than all of Nintendo is what I was pointing against.

Now back on track, we are still on the wait of full BC or only PS4 BC. Considering the patent and interview I would guess PS4 BC on disc without need of additional download or payment (of course there could be option to patch or paid improvements), for PS1-PS2-PS3 games I would say if you bought on PSN you can download and play immediately, but if you have disc you'll have option to play directly (not likely since they wouldn't profit from the emulator) or download the patch of compatibility and improvement.

Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said: 

First paragraph is true, but because everything increased in size, so loading and processing is much higher and that increases loading time (although my experience on PS4 is that games install faster and load faster than on PS3). GTS is much much much faster to enter a race or retry than GT5.

PS3 had mandatory install for most games and some were almost the size of the game. I guess the price for a faster BD drive were higher than a bigger HDD to mandate install, and with digital games being much more relevant and needing HDD anyway there weren't much benefit for they to put better BDs (even more because then the HDD would be the issue, and games need to run equally well from physical or digital purchase).

PS4 have unified RAM, rumor is that PS5 won't be unified (but sure a lot faster) and isn't that much bigger to the point the whole SM would fit on the RAM. They can be misleading, but doesn't seem the case. Why would they put so much money on the storage solution if the gain would be minimal? Because we can be sure that the price difference from a regular 2TB HDD is much lower than 2TB SDD on the type of speed he is talking about (higher than any available to PC, here he can't lie because that is spec).

https://www.ps4storage.com/ps4-ssd-vs-hdd/

Most games loaded twice as fast on the SSD compared to HDD, and that is on a system that wasn't designed to take the benefits of SSD. So a native solution, on a high bandwidth, SSD could be a very good thing on PS5.

Can't find exact speeds but it does seem PS4 has a faster drive, so that would explain the faster install. Also, PS3 was slow as fuck for updates.

PS3 had a slow drive so some developers compensated with partial installs. But over time I do recall games being better optimized to run directly off the disc. Anyhoo, I'm arguing it was possible to run 8th gen games off a BD disc, I'm not arguing they should have.

Having seen SSD vs HDD loading videos, it seems to me open world games have a huge loading disparity. Most games may not be impacted as much. I certainly hope the move to SSD great reduces load times next gen. However, I wouldn't be surprised if developers use this as opportunity to spend less time optimizing.

Yes PS4 have a higher speed drive, but still much slower than even basic/cheap HDD.

And you saw the point on your last paragraph, for some games the very fast memory architeture could lead to some design choices that would be impossible otherwise.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

This is the dream machine to me. My only question is should i pick up ps5 or ps5 pro?



God bless You.

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


Sad there is no ps3 ps2 and ps1 bc :(



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS