No. Because it doesn't work like that.
I have been using an SSD since the OCZ Vertex came out in 2009... So be using them since the early days before it was cool.

I agree I think a cache makes the most sense... Then the cache can in theory be applied to all forms of mechanical storage irrespective of the bus like USB 3.0.

Don't hype up Navi... It's a mainstream/mid-range part.

People hyped up Polaris despite not understanding it's position in AMD's lineup and were thoroughly disappointed upon it's release. - Vega is still going to be around and be AMD's flagship offering, so Navi will be positioned underneath it.

Vega was also hyped up as well and was a pretty big disappointment.

Wait till the parts are actually released before we go drumming about how amazing they are constantly.

Teraflops are pretty pointless comparison points.

Games benefit from SSD's on PC. - What has given you the conclusion it doesn't? It's just not as pronounced as this "demo" which is DESIGNED to showcase the differences in the most extreme form possible to try and sell consumers on an idea...

Console manufacturers actually have a blatant history of doing this all through history... Power of the Cell, Blast Processing, Cloud Processing... I could go on, the demo's they create are meant to show the concept in the best possible light, not what will happen realistically in the real world.

At the end of the day, games are designed a certain way for a reason, because from a gameplay perspective it's what works.

PC Can have storage setups that makes the Playstation 5 NAND setup seem archaic and slow. The Samsung Evo 970 is far from the best the PC can offer.

In a consoles instance though it should mean that the same thing as the Cart based systems should occur. - That is... Developers should be able to read straight from disk for a heap of assets rather than dumping that data into Ram first... Meaning they should be able to use their limited Ram much more effectively than what you would typically get on say... The PC.

Of course PC types are going to be talking about this being old tech. The problem with that is that this will be the first time a system is built around a SSD as a standard feature. Even on PC, a SSD isn't going to give you anything close to a 90% decrease in load times.

Third party devs will likely be held back due to having to design their games around the lowest common denominator but Sony’s own titles will be a sight to behold.

PC tech is irrelevant, simple fact of the matter is devs design their games around the dominant console’s tech. As Cerny explained the increased rendering speed allowed by the custom SSD solution will allow for fundamental changes in game design.

Its a good thing to have SSD. But, what if size of hard disk is not sufficient? We know that provided SSD us a custom SSD from Sony and off shelf SSD won't give same performance! ! I bet that Sony custom SSD expansion would be expensive like the Vita storage.

It's not about cool or not it's about software and games application that used and maximize the utilization of SSD and build based on that tech. Non of games that been made are made on SSD in mind.

I have been use SSD as well on PC for  quiet long and until these days all games is just load on normal loading screen , what make difference is just using ssd is just more faster . 

What we have in the video is they get rid the loading screen and moment. All games from PS5 will be made with this in mind. Thanks to console that push this old tech to become mainstream. 

I'd imagine Sony may make this a mandatory thing.  Or it may just be something devs don't have to do anything different to take advantage of.  Now, the only question is, will MS copy this approach or will they stick with HDD only.  If they don't have this tech, will they try to force some ridiculous parity clause so that every comparison video doesn't show the PS5 loading within a sec or two, while the XB2 is taking a minute or two to load, as well as showing more pop-in?  I'd imagine in that case, some devs may not bother with the XBox.

Well, if the two rumors revolving around this turn out true, there is a SSD and a HDD.  I would imagine the HDD is for storing the majority of the games not being played, and would be upgradable by the consumer.  The SSD will be the same across all SKUs and will be used to store several of the most recently played games.  I believe one rumor said it was 1TB in size.

Until SSDs will finally allow a number of rewrites of the same order of magnitude of what mechanical HDDs offer, my favoured solution will always be a larger RAM, good ol' HDDs and possibly an additional SSD if OS and apps allow to use it mainly for data that are rarely written and rewritten, but very often read.
SSD could be a godsend for ivery often written data too, but this use would kill the drive quickly, it could speed up a lot swap for example, but for now this use must be avoided, better, and even faster, reducing need for swap by increasing RAM.
Anyhow, using SSD to store read-only level files aand app and system libraries can already be a fast and efficient application.

Next Gen is finally coming, can't wait for PS5 and Anaconda.

They did right at the very beginning ,but it was loaded so fast that you blinked and missed it.