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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What does the ps5's SSD tech mean for Series X and pc?

I think PC's will be fine. I'm planning on upgrading to NVMe's at some point near the end of this yr or the start of 2021. I've already got 5 SSD's running, so I'm doing fine with loading times and texture streaming thus far (save for older games like RAGE, which were just bad in general with their mega-textures).

I also think that ports to PC will not run "atrocious" either, especially considering the list of good ports we've had this gen (DOOM being the Crème de la Crème).

Last edited by Chazore - on 20 March 2020

Around the Network

What I'm hoping for is volumetric approach (about bloody time), whether it's sparse voxel octrees or something else, where massive amount of fine detailed persistent world data is kept on SSD and streamed into RAM. There's been move in that direction from some indie/small devs, I'm waitng to see what big budget devs can do.



The end goal is 60fps on 4k resolution for both consoles, and they will both do that. If the XSX can pull off 120fps on 4k, that could be something that will win them market share.

Yet, I see two very similar consoles with two very different corporate visions.

Microsoft: Make the most cost effective 4k gaming, ray tracing mini PC and let developers do what they want with it to regain the third party publisher time exclusives/extras to coerce gaming masses into their paid Xbox subscription.

Sony: "We have a vision," PSVR, Immersive experience with a somewhat tackled on ray tracing and having enough studios to demonstrate the capabilities to drive demand for more of this; coercing third party publishers to follow suit and snowballing demand of PlayStation plus paid subscriptions.

Only time will tell who will execute their plan better. I kind of feel that the roles have reversed a bit, Xbox X had a vision this past generation(not a good one), while the PS4 was most powerful machine for the third party publishers. The only difference now is that Sony has been increasing its developer arsenal for a while now, because they know they can't depend on third party publishers to fully utilize the hardware unless they see the demand/profit beforehand.



It's cool to speculate. Have fun. I mean that.

But until I see these promises in practice, I'm holding off judgement. There's been too much of this kind of talk in the past that never came to fruition--from too many different companies, including Sony.



Twitter: @d21lewis

DraconianAC said:
The end goal is 60fps on 4k resolution for both consoles, and they will both do that.

Neither of them will do that for most AAA titles...2xfps + 4xpixels over current gen standard hits really hard GPU resources...for example, 5700XT in Control drops from 68fps@1080p to 22fps@4K, 2080ti from 101fps@1080 to 36fps@4K



Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
sales2099 said:
I really hope the SSD isn’t clung to as tightly as the CELL was. PS5 is focused more on utility where as Series X is raw power. Both should end up being pretty similar in performance and game design. The multiplats will be the true comparisons.

Actually, both are dealing with raw power, the Series X just has more of it. I expect the games to be a lot closer than people think, because the leverage the PS5's SSD will provide isn't be taken serious enough. The hardware in it is more exotic (yes, Sony has somewhat returned to this), but it's still in tune with what developers requested. I prefer it, because as the underdog, they'll put that much more into their exclusives, which on consoles, I expect to dominate visually.

Also, with SSD vs Cell — two completely different things (the analogy doesn't work). If nothing else, 'teh Cell' is more like those lovely teraflops that many of you like to tout, but it was only ever taken full advantage of by in-house developers (and you will never truly know what that teraflop number means in regards to your games). This will not be that, as the PS5 is still built far more conventionally (certainly more than the complete exotic anatomy of the PS3).

So, as I always advise, look at the real meat of both systems. There's less than a 20% difference in raw power and plenty of raw power to satisfy the needs of both platforms.

Totally agree. When I think about what next gen games should look like, huge detailed worlds and a leap in level design is pretty much what I mostly want to see. Native 4k is also nice but hopefully not the main focus for aaa developers next gen. It does seem like Sony's taking quite a risk but maybe the ssd tech doesn't raise production cost that much compared to a bigger gpu. Will be very interesting to hear the prices and which platform developers will be using as the base console.



drkohler said:
goopy20 said:

I was a bit baffled by Sony's presentation but I have to admit that the SSD tech definitely sounds like a game changer in the way game worlds can be realized and how we move around in them. However, if developers would fully embrace the tech and build their whole games around it, how will that work on Series X and how about pc? 

We do not know.

What people don't seem to understand is what was actually solved by Sony. Whether Sony spent too much money on this (and sound hardware) and sort of forgot the rest (I'm not happy at all about the memory bandwith, for example), only time will tell. Here it gets very technical, but the short version of it is: Sony can stream into gpu memory space with gpu cache coherency, and do this at very high speeds. No ssd/pc combination in the world can do this. Yes, there are very fast ssds available for pcs, but they all stream into cpu memory! The XSX also streams into gpu memory space (not quite at the high speeds as the PS5), but MS has not explained how they solve the problems associated with that. The cache scrubber (and possibly whatever is in the Kraken hardware) is proprietary to Sony, so MS doesn't have that.

I remember a demo of AssCreed where the guy runs through a crowd. Often people and stuff appeared out of nowhere (what is called popup). The faster the guy ran, the more popups, very annoying to watch.

Now on the PS5, these popups are entirely gone if you program your stuff "the correct way". Even when you turn around your warrior and s/he looks elsewhere and a whole new lot of assets have to be loaded - no popups. That situation can easily get completely out of hand when you use ray tracing in building your scenery, as your gpu caches might no longer contain large parts of the correct scenery.

The games will show us the truth. I imagine that a game tailormade for the PS5 will run atrociously on a pc, if it is a simple port to the pc (whatever that means). What the XSX does with such a game is anyone's guess at this time of (not) knowing the intrinsics of the gpu hardware, but I can imagine it will require some additional work to "get it right", a simple compiler flag setting won't do the job.

High end PCs should be just fine, they will have ample supply of RAM and VRAM to store things that would normally be stored on the SSD. But in the end it's gonna be the same as usual. Low end PCs will just be fine with a low fidelity experience, as it has always been.

I would bet that people on PC will be absolutely fine next gen even without any SSD at all.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
drkohler said:

We do not know.

What people don't seem to understand is what was actually solved by Sony. Whether Sony spent too much money on this (and sound hardware) and sort of forgot the rest (I'm not happy at all about the memory bandwith, for example), only time will tell. Here it gets very technical, but the short version of it is: Sony can stream into gpu memory space with gpu cache coherency, and do this at very high speeds. No ssd/pc combination in the world can do this. Yes, there are very fast ssds available for pcs, but they all stream into cpu memory! The XSX also streams into gpu memory space (not quite at the high speeds as the PS5), but MS has not explained how they solve the problems associated with that. The cache scrubber (and possibly whatever is in the Kraken hardware) is proprietary to Sony, so MS doesn't have that.

I remember a demo of AssCreed where the guy runs through a crowd. Often people and stuff appeared out of nowhere (what is called popup). The faster the guy ran, the more popups, very annoying to watch.

Now on the PS5, these popups are entirely gone if you program your stuff "the correct way". Even when you turn around your warrior and s/he looks elsewhere and a whole new lot of assets have to be loaded - no popups. That situation can easily get completely out of hand when you use ray tracing in building your scenery, as your gpu caches might no longer contain large parts of the correct scenery.

The games will show us the truth. I imagine that a game tailormade for the PS5 will run atrociously on a pc, if it is a simple port to the pc (whatever that means). What the XSX does with such a game is anyone's guess at this time of (not) knowing the intrinsics of the gpu hardware, but I can imagine it will require some additional work to "get it right", a simple compiler flag setting won't do the job.

High end PCs should be just fine, they will have ample supply of RAM and VRAM to store things that would normally be stored on the SSD. But in the end it's gonna be the same as usual. Low end PCs will just be fine with a low fidelity experience, as it has always been.

I would bet that people on PC will be absolutely fine next gen even without any SSD at all.

I'm not so sure. The whole point of Sony's SSD tech is to completely change how levels/ worlds can be designed and take away the traditional barriers. Obviously, we need to see what that mean in practice but I have my doubts that ports will will run on a low end pc. I mean there's a reason why you can't just stick any SSD in the ps5 if you want to upgrade the storage, in fact compatible off-the-shelf SSD's don't even exist at this time.  



goopy20 said:
vivster said:

High end PCs should be just fine, they will have ample supply of RAM and VRAM to store things that would normally be stored on the SSD. But in the end it's gonna be the same as usual. Low end PCs will just be fine with a low fidelity experience, as it has always been.

I would bet that people on PC will be absolutely fine next gen even without any SSD at all.

I'm not so sure. The whole point of Sony's SSD tech is to completely change how levels/ worlds can be designed and take away the traditional barriers. Obviously, we need to see what that mean in practice but I have my doubts that ports will will run on a low end pc. I mean there's a reason why you can't just stick any SSD in the ps5 if you want to upgrade the storage, in fact compatible off-the-shelf SSD's don't even exist at this time.  

It's just an SSD that is directly coupled with the system memory, which is in the case of PS5 both RAM and VRAM together. You can't have exactly that in a PC, but that's fine. PC as a platform is very versatile and people who develop or port for PC know that. Low end PC gamers have to deal with issues anyway since they have less than 10Gigs of VRAM in the first place.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

HoloDust said:
DraconianAC said:
The end goal is 60fps on 4k resolution for both consoles, and they will both do that.

Neither of them will do that for most AAA titles...2xfps + 4xpixels over current gen standard hits really hard GPU resources...for example, 5700XT in Control drops from 68fps@1080p to 22fps@4K, 2080ti from 101fps@1080 to 36fps@4K

I disagree, 4k60 will be the new standard this coming generation. It will be targeted by developers, because Microsoft and Sony will demand their first party studios meet or exceed that requirement. Third party studios will appear lazy if they can't reach those numbers, so they will either remove features, or optimize their code to meet it.

And about Control: It was not really AAA title (I know you never said it was, but you gave it as an example). It's budget was 30 million and it's development time was 3 years. That's pretty good for Remedy entertainment that has 250+ people in its staff, and they did great with the resources that they had, but it's not really a triple-A title for our times. More money was probably needed to optimize the code and really polish the game, but you can't say they didn't do a great job. They were ambitious and they made use of the latest graphic card technologies (RTX), so I'm gonna go ahead a presume that you understand that one's first attempt at a type of work, is never your best.