Forums - Gaming Discussion - which next gen console are you looking forward to the most?

Which next gen console are you looking forward to the most?

PS5 1,101 69.33%
 
Xbox Series X 487 30.67%
 
Total:1,588
Hiku said:
vivster said:

It's gonna be a design difference but not necessarily a speed difference. Just like in old times where they used elevator rides for loading, you'll see similar tricks. Be that being spawned in a corridor so that the world outside can load or just a bit longer black transition between scenes. The SSDs in the consoles aren't miracles and general PC SSDs are just as fast where it counts.

Loading screens in general have been phased out more and more and actual loading times aren't bottlenecked by how fast your SSD is, but other processes in the background. Loading times haven't been a thing on PC for some time now. The only time where PC gamers notice them is when console players take longer to join the lobby.

I wasn't exclusively referring to the ability to load in larger assets quickly for level design, though that is an aspect.
But PC SSD speeds are pretty irrelevant in this case, because no game will have its levels designed around high SSD speed. They have to function properly on HDD (until a fast SSD is a requirement for a game), and will be designed that way. There's still going to be a corridor or a ladder between the big areas even if you use an SSD. The speed at which your character can move and turn around will also be the same, because they're not going to bother designing for two separate versions that are so drastically different.

Using an SSD for a game designed with HDD in mind will improve loading screens, but not in as many cases or as much as if the game was designed purely for SSD.
Adding in a super fast SSD on top of that, and we might see 0 seconds become the norm in those cases, but that remains to be seen.

Because the systems require these fast SSD's. We will get an equivalent to the PS5 SSD soon on the market, and SATA 4 etc.
But if it's just optional to have, and not a requirement, then those games will be held back by their HDD compatibility.

Granted, this will be the case for a lot of PS5 games as well that are multiplatform. Less so if it's only planned for PS5 and XSX, and PC that requires a certain SSD speed to run.

I think you're vastly overestimating developers willingness to design specifically around high SSD speeds when there is next to no benefit compared to traditional design. You will always have a fast experience with an SSD no matter if the game was designed for it or not. Hell, you don't even need SSDs at all for fast loading times. All you need is enough RAM and a predictive loader. Modern GPUs hold everything they need in VRAM without the need to constantly stream large amounts of data from storage. The use cases where lots of data needs to suddenly be streamed to RAM/VRAM are limited and mostly only occur when you start up a game. This is great for the instant game resume feature on the consoles but less useful from within the game.

Take a normal use case for example. An open world game is the most taxing thing when it comes to heavy visual applications. Lots of of high quality assets at the same time that need to be constantly loaded in to be rendered. Pop ins are basically eliminated on SSDs despite games not being designed specifically for SSDs. Now imagine fast traveling between two far away places with completely different textures. Another very taxing activity as lots of assets will have to be exchanged within the VRAM. In this case you will have a loading screen for HDD users while for SSD users it's barely there and the bottleneck lies within the CPU and GPU to construct the scene. Now if you designed that for SSD only you will maybe completely lose the loading screen that pops up for a second but it'll be replaced by something else, a one second black screen or other kind of transition. Because even with the fastest SSDs loading won't be instantaneous. If it is instantaneous then the data was already present in RAM since memory bandwidth is about 100 times faster than the fastest SSDs.

So in that case "optimizing for SSD" would mean nothing else but replacing a loading screen with something else while loading just as fast. Maybe you can name a specific use case where it is needed to specifically code with SSDs in mind to get a significant speed boost.



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

Around the Network
vivster said:
Hiku said:

I wasn't exclusively referring to the ability to load in larger assets quickly for level design, though that is an aspect.
But PC SSD speeds are pretty irrelevant in this case, because no game will have its levels designed around high SSD speed. They have to function properly on HDD (until a fast SSD is a requirement for a game), and will be designed that way. There's still going to be a corridor or a ladder between the big areas even if you use an SSD. The speed at which your character can move and turn around will also be the same, because they're not going to bother designing for two separate versions that are so drastically different.

Using an SSD for a game designed with HDD in mind will improve loading screens, but not in as many cases or as much as if the game was designed purely for SSD.
Adding in a super fast SSD on top of that, and we might see 0 seconds become the norm in those cases, but that remains to be seen.

Because the systems require these fast SSD's. We will get an equivalent to the PS5 SSD soon on the market, and SATA 4 etc.
But if it's just optional to have, and not a requirement, then those games will be held back by their HDD compatibility.

Granted, this will be the case for a lot of PS5 games as well that are multiplatform. Less so if it's only planned for PS5 and XSX, and PC that requires a certain SSD speed to run.

I think you're vastly overestimating developers willingness to design specifically around high SSD speeds when there is next to no benefit compared to traditional design.

Id say it's the opposite.
They would no longer be forced to design games around the limitations of an HDD. Is it a controversial idea that a developer wouldn't want to waste time creating extra unnecessary corridors, or navigating the player through streets in a specific manner so that the walls and buildings block out views in the distance?

It's easier for them to just design the games closer to the way they actually want, and it saves them precious dev time.

Vivster said:
You will always have a fast experience with an SSD no matter if the game was designed for it or not.

Right, but like you mentioned, there are a lot of other bottlenecks aside from the speed of the drive.
That's why even if you use an SSD that's 10x faster than the HDD in PS4, you'll only get about 2x the loading speed.
Many of those bottlenecks are addressed in accordance to the SSD in PS5 to actually allow game loads and streaming to be 100x faster.
 
And for a game designed to work on HDD, there will still be a loading screen masked as something else. While in a game designed only for a fast SSD, the would be no need for them.

Vivster said:
Hell, you don't even need SSDs at all for fast loading times. All you need is enough RAM and a predictive loader. 

Exactly. For a typical PS4 game, the system memory has to already contain all the information you may need in the next 30 seconds or so of gameplay. This means that a lot of data you actually didn't end up needing takes up space just sitting there when something else could have been loaded instead.

That's why the PS5's SSD essentially being able to function as additional fast RAM in the way it does is so important. Not just the speed of the drive.
And the XSX's SSD will function in a similar manner from what I've read.

Vivster said:
Maybe you can name a specific use case where it is needed to specifically code with SSDs in mind to get a significant speed boost.

Well, when I said faster SSD, I was taking into account the other hardware components being designed around it to make it function more optimally.
To eliminate masked loading screens in level design, the game has to be designed for a fast SSD (or something equivalent). But for let's say a quicker respawn load screen after you die, having other hardware components designed to accommodate the SSD is more important than the game designed for SSD. Although not having to repeat the same data hundreds of times in a cluttery and bloated game file could help the SSD to find the data quicker as well, but I imagine the benefits there are more minuscule in comparison. 

Last edited by Hiku - on 04 May 2020

vivster said:
Hiku said:

I wasn't exclusively referring to the ability to load in larger assets quickly for level design, though that is an aspect.
But PC SSD speeds are pretty irrelevant in this case, because no game will have its levels designed around high SSD speed. They have to function properly on HDD (until a fast SSD is a requirement for a game), and will be designed that way. There's still going to be a corridor or a ladder between the big areas even if you use an SSD. The speed at which your character can move and turn around will also be the same, because they're not going to bother designing for two separate versions that are so drastically different.

Using an SSD for a game designed with HDD in mind will improve loading screens, but not in as many cases or as much as if the game was designed purely for SSD.
Adding in a super fast SSD on top of that, and we might see 0 seconds become the norm in those cases, but that remains to be seen.

Because the systems require these fast SSD's. We will get an equivalent to the PS5 SSD soon on the market, and SATA 4 etc.
But if it's just optional to have, and not a requirement, then those games will be held back by their HDD compatibility.

Granted, this will be the case for a lot of PS5 games as well that are multiplatform. Less so if it's only planned for PS5 and XSX, and PC that requires a certain SSD speed to run.

I think you're vastly overestimating developers willingness to design specifically around high SSD speeds when there is next to no benefit compared to traditional design. You will always have a fast experience with an SSD no matter if the game was designed for it or not. Hell, you don't even need SSDs at all for fast loading times. All you need is enough RAM and a predictive loader. Modern GPUs hold everything they need in VRAM without the need to constantly stream large amounts of data from storage. The use cases where lots of data needs to suddenly be streamed to RAM/VRAM are limited and mostly only occur when you start up a game. This is great for the instant game resume feature on the consoles but less useful from within the game.

Take a normal use case for example. An open world game is the most taxing thing when it comes to heavy visual applications. Lots of of high quality assets at the same time that need to be constantly loaded in to be rendered. Pop ins are basically eliminated on SSDs despite games not being designed specifically for SSDs. Now imagine fast traveling between two far away places with completely different textures. Another very taxing activity as lots of assets will have to be exchanged within the VRAM. In this case you will have a loading screen for HDD users while for SSD users it's barely there and the bottleneck lies within the CPU and GPU to construct the scene. Now if you designed that for SSD only you will maybe completely lose the loading screen that pops up for a second but it'll be replaced by something else, a one second black screen or other kind of transition. Because even with the fastest SSDs loading won't be instantaneous. If it is instantaneous then the data was already present in RAM since memory bandwidth is about 100 times faster than the fastest SSDs.

So in that case "optimizing for SSD" would mean nothing else but replacing a loading screen with something else while loading just as fast. Maybe you can name a specific use case where it is needed to specifically code with SSDs in mind to get a significant speed boost.

It's not just about SSD, the SSD on PS5 are used as RAM to be exact. They are  literally lifting the GPU workload on compressing and decompressing duty to IO and also lifting the heavy duty on memory bottleneck on GPU. That's why. This features  is the most wanted aspect from GPU vendor and game developer even more then more CU account.  Even Nvidia said this a couple of times on hw important memory bottleneck  is and how expensives VRAM is .

They did this because VRAM is expensive and will be like that for a couple a year a head. That's why they trying to use SSD as a system RAM. Of course the SSD is still slow compared to RAM especially VRAM , but they made a lot of trick to tackle that problem.  So SSD will be game changer for the whole industries even for PC . Hell they already this on PC in 2016 with Radeon Pro SSG . It's really revolutionary.

Last edited by HollyGamer - on 04 May 2020

This probably will be the first time I have purchase a MS console before Sony and its all thanks to Gamepass. Depending on price between the 2 systems, I have squirreled away just enough for extra controller, 2 games and a system. With game pass, I might be able to take that money for games and put it towards something else, probably the PS5. It really will be determined based on games when both system come out but the XSX has the advantage.



PS5. Though I've been playing a lot less games on consoles these days.

Excited now that we have consoles that can push game designs forward (using non-potato CPU's) and SSD's. Ultra fast boot times and less loading might mean I may have more time for couch gaming. Basically less filler, more play time.

Also really want to try the Dualsense, I have a feeling the improved haptic feedback and adaptive triggers are going to be the new standard coming up.



Around the Network

XSX though it might be some time before i get it.



m0ney said:
What is there to look forward to? Short loading times? We have that on PC since forever.

Lies...



vivster said:

I think you're vastly overestimating developers willingness to design specifically around high SSD speeds when there is next to no benefit compared to traditional design. You will always have a fast experience with an SSD no matter if the game was designed for it or not. Hell, you don't even need SSDs at all for fast loading times. All you need is enough RAM and a predictive loader. Modern GPUs hold everything they need in VRAM without the need to constantly stream large amounts of data from storage. The use cases where lots of data needs to suddenly be streamed to RAM/VRAM are limited and mostly only occur when you start up a game. This is great for the instant game resume feature on the consoles but less useful from within the game.

Take a normal use case for example. An open world game is the most taxing thing when it comes to heavy visual applications. Lots of of high quality assets at the same time that need to be constantly loaded in to be rendered. Pop ins are basically eliminated on SSDs despite games not being designed specifically for SSDs. Now imagine fast traveling between two far away places with completely different textures. Another very taxing activity as lots of assets will have to be exchanged within the VRAM. In this case you will have a loading screen for HDD users while for SSD users it's barely there and the bottleneck lies within the CPU and GPU to construct the scene. Now if you designed that for SSD only you will maybe completely lose the loading screen that pops up for a second but it'll be replaced by something else, a one second black screen or other kind of transition. Because even with the fastest SSDs loading won't be instantaneous. If it is instantaneous then the data was already present in RAM since memory bandwidth is about 100 times faster than the fastest SSDs.

So in that case "optimizing for SSD" would mean nothing else but replacing a loading screen with something else while loading just as fast. Maybe you can name a specific use case where it is needed to specifically code with SSDs in mind to get a significant speed boost.

Isn' RAM more expensive than an SSD? I mean you can get a 250GB SSD for under $50 right now and I am guessing those prices would continue to drop. And have you tried playing star citizen without an SSD? I don't know why the PC folk on here seem to have some sort of selective intelligence, but there isn't a debate here. There hasn't been a game designed for an SSD on PC outside SC... and even with that one it's debatable. Make no mistake, you would see SSDs become minimum requirement for PCs by the end of this year and onwards for games on the PC.

Why do our PC friends have a way of invading all console threads?



Looking forward to both.
PS5 in the top spot, but imma sucker for open world over the shoulder shooters, and if MS can nail open world Halo im all in day 1.



Between the two, PS5 is the one I am more interested in. I have been active on Sony platforms since the PS2, and I prefer their 1st party and Japanese 3rd party games over anything MS has to offer.

The XSX is certainly shaping up to be the more capable console, no doubt. However MS still has a lot to prove to me in other areas to get my money for a 3rd gen.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984