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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why the SSD is a big deal for PS5, Series X.

padib said:

Pemalite said:

padib said:
Why is an SSD a big deal with the next consoles? It's been around for an eternity and is not particularly expensive. Franckly it should've been defacto in the PS4/X1

500GB-1TB SSD's were allot more expensive in 2013.

I would have rather the Playstation 4 and Xbox One actually include a 7200rpm mechanical disk rather than a crappy, slow 5400rpm drive that offers 40-50MB/s of sustained sequential reads... Bonus is that pretty much every USB 3.0 external hard drive was an upgrade.

SSDs back then were approx 70c per gig, rapidly declining in price. It didn't have to be 500GB, that's a lot of space,  a 150GB SSD could've worked in a starter pack. At ~100$, it's a good design move to ensure a big jump in data access speeds. Even another alternative: a 150GB SSD + 420GB 7200rpm drive would've been great.

My point is just that the PS's SSD is making noise, when it is such an easy upgrade nowadays and honestly barely needs to be mentioned as a feature. It's to be assumed nowadays that machines use SSDs or flash memory to propel software.

$100 when the internal hard drive probably costed Sony/MS something like $40.

There are some good benefits to an SSD, but even that modest sized drive would have put up the console's price at least $50.  And people would only be able to install a couple games at a time. 

Consumers would either pay a lot more or they'd be very limited in their collection.  Either way, it's not ideal for a company to try selling to the average console buyer. 



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:

$100 when the internal hard drive probably costed Sony/MS something like $40.

There are some good benefits to an SSD, but even that modest sized drive would have put up the console's price at least $50.  And people would only be able to install a couple games at a time. 

Consumers would either pay a lot more or they'd be very limited in their collection.  Either way, it's not ideal for a company to try selling to the average console buyer. 

They have choices to make, and they chose not to do it. But the way I see it, SSDs are very old now, and should've been in consoles last gen. The number I gave was on the high end, but the SSDs were becomming cheaper every year. In 2012, they were at 1$ per gig, in 2013 already at 70c per gig. In 2015, they were already at 39c per gig. A 100GB drive could be sold at 40$ in 2015. Especially in mass production, it would've been cheaper to mass produce than what the average consumer pays. I don't think my suggestion is so out of left field.



padib said:

Pemalite said:

padib said:
Why is an SSD a big deal with the next consoles? It's been around for an eternity and is not particularly expensive. Franckly it should've been defacto in the PS4/X1

500GB-1TB SSD's were allot more expensive in 2013.

I would have rather the Playstation 4 and Xbox One actually include a 7200rpm mechanical disk rather than a crappy, slow 5400rpm drive that offers 40-50MB/s of sustained sequential reads... Bonus is that pretty much every USB 3.0 external hard drive was an upgrade.

SSDs back then were approx 70c per gig, rapidly declining in price. It didn't have to be 500GB, that's a lot of space,  a 150GB SSD could've worked in a starter pack. At ~100$, it's a good design move to ensure a big jump in data access speeds. Even another alternative: a 150GB SSD + 420GB 7200rpm drive would've been great.

My point is just that the PS's SSD is making noise, when it is such an easy upgrade nowadays and honestly barely needs to be mentioned as a feature. It's to be assumed nowadays that machines use SSDs or flash memory to propel software.

Yes let's ignore that designing a game for SSD is very different than using SSD on a game designed for HDD. And yes all devs are silly people for being happy about it but you know better?



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."

padib said:
the-pi-guy said:

$100 when the internal hard drive probably costed Sony/MS something like $40.

There are some good benefits to an SSD, but even that modest sized drive would have put up the console's price at least $50.  And people would only be able to install a couple games at a time. 

Consumers would either pay a lot more or they'd be very limited in their collection.  Either way, it's not ideal for a company to try selling to the average console buyer. 

They have choices to make, and they chose not to do it. But the way I see it, SSDs are very old now, and should've been in consoles last gen. The number I gave was on the high end, but the SSDs were becomming cheaper every year. In 2012, they were at 1$ per gig, in 2013 already at 70c per gig. In 2015, they were already at 39c per gig. A 100GB drive could be sold at 40$ in 2015. Especially in mass production, it would've been cheaper to mass produce than what the average consumer pays. I don't think my suggestion is so out of left field.

Yes it is, even X1X being premium didn't put SSD on it.

And devs when talking to Cerny about what they wanted most being SSD but knowing it was impossible because consoles are made under very tight budgets (reason why they also didn't increase RAM significantly).



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:
padib said:

SSDs back then were approx 70c per gig, rapidly declining in price. It didn't have to be 500GB, that's a lot of space,  a 150GB SSD could've worked in a starter pack. At ~100$, it's a good design move to ensure a big jump in data access speeds. Even another alternative: a 150GB SSD + 420GB 7200rpm drive would've been great.

My point is just that the PS's SSD is making noise, when it is such an easy upgrade nowadays and honestly barely needs to be mentioned as a feature. It's to be assumed nowadays that machines use SSDs or flash memory to propel software.

Yes let's ignore that designing a game for SSD is very different than using SSD on a game designed for HDD. And yes all devs are silly people for being happy about it but you know better?

I don't know what technical world you live in where games are designed for SSDs. You know that SSDs and spindle drives have been swappable from the beginning. Even an SSD plugged directly into the motherboard doesn't require custom development.



Around the Network
padib said:

Pemalite said:

padib said:
Why is an SSD a big deal with the next consoles? It's been around for an eternity and is not particularly expensive. Franckly it should've been defacto in the PS4/X1

500GB-1TB SSD's were allot more expensive in 2013.

I would have rather the Playstation 4 and Xbox One actually include a 7200rpm mechanical disk rather than a crappy, slow 5400rpm drive that offers 40-50MB/s of sustained sequential reads... Bonus is that pretty much every USB 3.0 external hard drive was an upgrade.

SSDs back then were approx 70c per gig, rapidly declining in price. It didn't have to be 500GB, that's a lot of space,  a 150GB SSD could've worked in a starter pack. At ~100$, it's a good design move to ensure a big jump in data access speeds. Even another alternative: a 150GB SSD + 420GB 7200rpm drive would've been great.

My point is just that the PS's SSD is making noise, when it is such an easy upgrade nowadays and honestly barely needs to be mentioned as a feature. It's to be assumed nowadays that machines use SSDs or flash memory to propel software.

And Mechanical HDD's were 0.08 cents per gig verses 68 cents per gig on an SSD.

It's clear why they opted for a mechanical drive to start with.

A 150GB~ SSD wouldn't have been viable... Remember the OS/Reserved portion of the drive is a total 138GB on the Xbox One and the PS4 took a big chunk for the OS as well.

If you are suggesting a cache drive... That would have increased the bill of materials substantially, suddenly you need more interfaces to drives on the SoC/Chipset, more motherboard traces, more power delivery and you increase the complexity of the system which can result in more failure points theoretically.

Microsoft did release an Xbox One variant with an SSHD for what it was worth...

But in my opinion the 8th gen should have used 7200rpm drives from the outset with 120MB/s transfer rates rather than absolutely terrible 5400rpm drives which might do 50MB/s on a good day.

DonFerrari said:

Yes it is, even X1X being premium didn't put SSD on it.

And devs when talking to Cerny about what they wanted most being SSD but knowing it was impossible because consoles are made under very tight budgets (reason why they also didn't increase RAM significantly).

Even with the Xbox One X, it was a missed opportunity not to include a much faster 7200rpm HDD... Microsoft touted an upgrade to the SATA interface as some "new measure" to unlock extra performance, but that wasn't it... It helped during burst transfers which occurs when reading data from the Hard Drives Ram, but that was about it.

It was the faster Seagate 5400RPM drive that almost doubled sequential reads/writes in the Xbox One X, Microsoft could have taken it a step further still.





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

Pemalite said:
padib said:

SSDs back then were approx 70c per gig, rapidly declining in price. It didn't have to be 500GB, that's a lot of space,  a 150GB SSD could've worked in a starter pack. At ~100$, it's a good design move to ensure a big jump in data access speeds. Even another alternative: a 150GB SSD + 420GB 7200rpm drive would've been great.

My point is just that the PS's SSD is making noise, when it is such an easy upgrade nowadays and honestly barely needs to be mentioned as a feature. It's to be assumed nowadays that machines use SSDs or flash memory to propel software.

And Mechanical HDD's were 0.08 cents per gig verses 68 cents per gig on an SSD.

It's clear why they opted for a mechanical drive to start with.

A 150GB~ SSD wouldn't have been viable... Remember the OS/Reserved portion of the drive is a total 138GB on the Xbox One and the PS4 took a big chunk for the OS as well.

If you are suggesting a cache drive... That would have increased the bill of materials substantially, suddenly you need more interfaces to drives on the SoC/Chipset, more motherboard traces, more power delivery and you increase the complexity of the system which can result in more failure points theoretically.

Microsoft did release an Xbox One variant with an SSHD for what it was worth...

But in my opinion the 8th gen should have used 7200rpm drives from the outset with 120MB/s transfer rates rather than absolutely terrible 5400rpm drives which might do 50MB/s on a good day.

Yeah, I'm suggesting a cache drive, just for gametime.

The OS could be on the spindle drive, no problem. Nobody really cared too much about speed in the OS/main interface. I know that the Xbox had a few interesting variants, I think it should've been standard if properly designed. With a feature to move data in the background on off hours or segments of the game that are needed jit, something interesting could have been done at the time.

Definitely 7200rpm should've been a minimum standard. I feel like people are touting features that are not supposed to be touted, that's just where I'm coming from.



padib said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes let's ignore that designing a game for SSD is very different than using SSD on a game designed for HDD. And yes all devs are silly people for being happy about it but you know better?

I don't know what technical world you live in where games are designed for SSDs. You know that SSDs and spindle drives have been swappable from the beginning. Even an SSD plugged directly into the motherboard doesn't require custom development.

Games are designed per specs. So there is a big difference between developing with 35Mb/s versus 2500 or 5000Mb/s. If you think that will only make loading time faster you would be wrong.

Pemalite said:
padib said:

SSDs back then were approx 70c per gig, rapidly declining in price. It didn't have to be 500GB, that's a lot of space,  a 150GB SSD could've worked in a starter pack. At ~100$, it's a good design move to ensure a big jump in data access speeds. Even another alternative: a 150GB SSD + 420GB 7200rpm drive would've been great.

My point is just that the PS's SSD is making noise, when it is such an easy upgrade nowadays and honestly barely needs to be mentioned as a feature. It's to be assumed nowadays that machines use SSDs or flash memory to propel software.

And Mechanical HDD's were 0.08 cents per gig verses 68 cents per gig on an SSD.

It's clear why they opted for a mechanical drive to start with.

A 150GB~ SSD wouldn't have been viable... Remember the OS/Reserved portion of the drive is a total 138GB on the Xbox One and the PS4 took a big chunk for the OS as well.

If you are suggesting a cache drive... That would have increased the bill of materials substantially, suddenly you need more interfaces to drives on the SoC/Chipset, more motherboard traces, more power delivery and you increase the complexity of the system which can result in more failure points theoretically.

Microsoft did release an Xbox One variant with an SSHD for what it was worth...

But in my opinion the 8th gen should have used 7200rpm drives from the outset with 120MB/s transfer rates rather than absolutely terrible 5400rpm drives which might do 50MB/s on a good day.

DonFerrari said:

Yes it is, even X1X being premium didn't put SSD on it.

And devs when talking to Cerny about what they wanted most being SSD but knowing it was impossible because consoles are made under very tight budgets (reason why they also didn't increase RAM significantly).

Even with the Xbox One X, it was a missed opportunity not to include a much faster 7200rpm HDD... Microsoft touted an upgrade to the SATA interface as some "new measure" to unlock extra performance, but that wasn't it... It helped during burst transfers which occurs when reading data from the Hard Drives Ram, but that was about it.

It was the faster Seagate 5400RPM drive that almost doubled sequential reads/writes in the Xbox One X, Microsoft could have taken it a step further still.

Sure I agree that 7200RPM would have been a smaller increase in cost for a very good increase in performance. My point was that even with X1X premium design they still cheaped out on HDD, so nope SDD wasn't really an option.



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:
padib said:

I don't know what technical world you live in where games are designed for SSDs. You know that SSDs and spindle drives have been swappable from the beginning. Even an SSD plugged directly into the motherboard doesn't require custom development.

Games are designed per specs. So there is a big difference between developing with 35Mb/s versus 2500 or 5000Mb/s. If you think that will only make loading time faster you would be wrong.

What make you the person to know who's right and who's wrong? If you're wrong, what should I care that you cling onto false ideas and hopes?

Not a single game engine is designed in function of the hard drive, if you have any facts to back up the opposite, please share your mystical knowledge.

Game engines are designed against graphical specs, cpu and ram. If you have some kind of revelation regarding hard drives and how they are involved in the development of game engines, then you might just break the internet.



padib said:
DonFerrari said:

Games are designed per specs. So there is a big difference between developing with 35Mb/s versus 2500 or 5000Mb/s. If you think that will only make loading time faster you would be wrong.

What make you the person to know who's right and who's wrong? If you're wrong, what should I care that you cling onto false ideas and hopes?

Not a single game engine is designed in function of the hard drive, if you have any facts to back up the opposite, please share your mystical knowledge.

Game engines are designed against graphical specs, cpu and ram. If you have some kind of revelation regarding hard drives and how they are involved in the development of game engines, then you might just break the internet.

Um no.  

We literally have game developers who are talking about the tricks they have to utilize in order to make their game work with slow hard drives.  

This isn't written by a game developer as far as I know, but much of what he says is stuff that Naughty Dog has talked about. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/PS5/comments/fn1yc0/practical_examples_of_how_lack_of_ssd_impacted/

A big part of a game engine is streaming in data.  If you pick up the Game Engine Architecture textbook, there are literally chapters dedicated to things like memory management and streaming in data.  

Right now, there are several game developers on Twitter talking about how big a deal the fast SSDs are.  To the point that one of them on Era said they'd take a faster SSD over an extra TF of GPU compute.  

So if you want to tell the experts that wrote the books and are developing world class games that they are wrong and that games aren't designed with HDD speeds in mind, that's on you.  

Mark Cerny literally spent half an hour talking about the SSD and what advantages it would bring to game design.