I guess people should stop watching some wannabe "expert" on YT and visit sites like Anandtech where people who actually understand what they're talking about are writing articles and reviews.

The funny thing is, Microsoft Xbox Division hyping the same thing with the SSD.  They understand the important of SSD and they know SSD will be the next big thing and changed the future of graphic.

Xbox SX has Nvme SSD, but Sony went Super Saiyan 4 with the SS/ IO and Xbox SX went Super Saiyan 2 with the SSD. I am not saying Xbox SX weak in terms of SSD, but in terms of SSD and IO i think Sony is just another level (according to the paper spec and developer ) . XBox has advantage on Compute unite over PS5, but not much and also has advantage slightly on overall raw GPU power but around 17 % to 18 %.

Microsoft focusing on "raw power" by adding more CU but at the same time sacrificing the IO costume (less customizable component) on the APU, While Sony focusing on developer request on SSD and bottle neck (costume IO) by doing that Sony sacrificing compute unit on PS5, (they have less CU on the GPU)  

If you asked me “why Microsoft focus power not SSD?". As we know Microsoft current gen Xbox One were known as weak consoles, they want to change that image and already did with Xbox One X. They want to keep the momentum to XBOX SX, bringing the same flag and motto “the most powerful " console.
They knew SSD is the most important factor, but at the same time they don’t want to lose their fans who proud with “Power" is everything. They don't want to lose their fans again, even if in the end it will not giving a real benefit for game development in the future. At least they get the marketing angle.

Sony is different, from the beginning of PS4 development, they trying to please developer, they learning from their past mistake with PS3, they motto is always asked the developer first what is their idea and input. The reason why PS4 are powerful it's just a matter of coincident, Xbox one has bigger die then PS4 APU. But their focus on media and Kinect that lead to utilization of SRAM inside the APU and a waste of die space, that’s the one that killed the performance.
Sony from the beginning of this generation always "asked developer first”. It always is since PS4 and now with PS5.

They don’t care about what layman like us want, they don’t care about teraflop, they design system that will result great for gamers and developer.
Microsoft it’s a bit of mixed bag, in one side developer requested but in the other side they afraid of losing their core audience with "power" and more "power". there is nothing bad with power but sometimes they don't have to listen everything from the consumer. 

In the end both machine are capable, 12 teraflop with 52 CU are good in raw performance and handling traditional way on rendering games, but games like the one running on UE 5, will be difficult for Xbox and Xbox will not have performance advantage over PS5. And quite possibly PS5 will have advantage over Xbox SX in this area.

But for games build on traditional way i think Xbox SX will have slightly advantage , altho only slightly. 

I'll bet the XSX actually runs UE5 better than the PS5 will. 

They are hyping SSD because they have an agreement with Sony to bring their games to the Epic store on the PC side most likely, this stuff is bull shit. 

If Sony was the one with 52 CU, 12 teraflop processor, all the people saying "raw performance doesn't matter!" likely would be singing a very, very different tune. It's only a "problem" now because it's MS in the driver seat for better performance. 

I think Linus is not part of EPIC store, why would he also hyping PS5 SSD's ?

Also  teraflop is important , nobody said it's not. It just Sony chose balance between power, and speed. While Microsoft is more of power with less speed. 

There are more then just power in gaming development, i think you need to watch my first post on this thread. Also comparing PS4 to Xbox One is just stupid, PS4 is balance in terms of power and speed, Xbox One is just a disaster in term everything.

Also UE 5 used SSD to stream the data, you need good GPU but to move that assets you need SSD not teraflop. 

Just watch this game commentary and reaction from game engine developer at 24:27 ( i already made a time stamp). "to stream polygon anda data you need a blazing fast SSD" he said. That's when he even did not know the spec of PS5, latter on ( a few days after watching the demo ) he reacted to PS5 because curious on how PS5 has so much SSD speed. 

The Playstation 5 is certainly "lagging behind" in multiple aspects compared to the Xbox Series X and even PC.
And the Xbox Series X is certainly "lagging behind" in other aspects.

We need the games to finally put the debates to rest... Because the constant mud flinging is getting rather boring at this point, it's the same arguments, different day.

The Playstation 5 is more than just the "SSD". And the Xbox Series X is more than just the "Teraflops" but people aren't willing to put them into the appropriate perspectives or contexts.
They are both solid pieces of well-rounded hardware that deserve praise... Unlike this console generation the consoles aren't running with a moderate amount of Ram (With a large % taken away from games for the OS), Mid-range GPU and a low-end Tablet CPU relative to the PC, everything sits a notch higher, this is a good thing.

If the Playstation 5 has the same number of Geometry Units as the Xbox Series X, then it's geometry throughput could potentially be greater as it's Geometry Unit x Clockrate.

The Playstation 5 has a higher MPixel fillrate than the Xbox Series X as both feature the same number of Render Output Pipelines... And MPixel is a function of ROP x Clockrate.

So whilst on paper more "CU's" seems like the answer to all the worlds ills... It's not always as simple as the raw numbers would otherwise imply.

Now without a doubt the Xbox Series X does have the GPU compute edge and by a significant amount, especially as we don't actually know what the sustained GPU clockrate of the Playstation 5's GPU is when the entire system is loaded 100%.

Bit of a stretch to assume the Xbox Series X isn't as proficient in streaming assets from SSD, there could be additional details on this front that hasn'e been elaborated upon, Microsoft, like Sony have invested allot in the technology that backs up the SSD... Which is actually the most important aspects rather than the "raw" GB/s in the spec sheets.

20% advantage on the GPU for the Xbox Series X in some scenarios, 20% advantage for the Playstation 5 for the GPU in other scenarios.

The Xbox Series X also has an impressive I/O with allot of investment in compression and data management.

Wait for the games... As I feel like people are clinging to a single aspect of these consoles, running with a set narrative and proclaiming it's like the second coming.

A console is an entire *system* not just a singular component and different games rely on different aspects of the hardware, some games will want more out of the CPU, some will want more out of the GPU, some games will employ lots of Alpha effects and need more memory bandwidth... And some games will rely more intensively on asset streaming.

The SSD isn't going to suddenly make the Playstation 5 the definitive place to play every game release, some games will definitely have some noticeable advantages however and some games will have noticeable disadvantages.
Xbox Series X or Playstation 5, there isn't a wrong purchasing decision... At the end of the day, you should base your purchase on the games you wish to play.

More CPU/GPU doesn't make up for slower I/O, unless you are doing something like procedural generation that relies heavily on CPU/GPU generation algorithms or some such.

The Xbox Series X unlike the PC however... Has the same amount of Ram as the Playstation 5, so it will need to rely on streaming assets into memory where-as the PC can dump more data into memory to start with and be less reliant on storage speeds. - That's the main difference between PC and consoles next gen.

I think I speak for everyone though when we can finally get rid of load times and get back to the "instant play" that we had back in the Nintendo 64 era.

The Switch, WiiU, Wii, 3DS and so forth had solid state storage. It might only be cheap shit emmc or in a carts case... ROM, but it was still solid state.

I/O is important, it's always been important, mechanical hard drives and consoles stagnated for a couple of generations... And the PC only increased marginally on this front over time.
If storage increased at the same rate as Ram bandwidth since the Nintendo 64 we would be running with SSD's that offered 280GB/s... Which is nuts. That would mean storage would offer sufficient memory bandwidth to handle 1440P resolutions. (Latency and other factors not withstanding of course.)

In saying that, storage isn't a replacement for super fast Ram, it helps, but systems have a tier of memories ranging from smallest, lowest latency, highest bandwidth with L1/L0 caches to largest and slowest hard drives/ssd.

Actually the N64 era of "only cartridges have the high speed to make 3D worlds! Playstation's slow CD can't do it!" was largely bull shit even back then.

The Playstation was able to do fully 3D polygonal games just fine on top of doing cinematic style games far better than what a cartridge could achieve.

I/O is overrated, I doubt you'll see anything that great on a PS5 that an XBSX doesn't do better. It has a better GPU + a very fast SSD on its own and developers are not going to lock out the PC market + potential Switch 2 + XBox market for some PS5 solution that will probably be outdated by PC parts soon enough anyway.

A "regular" NVMe SSD is more than good enough and there's nothing that magical or special about that, iPhones have had NVMe speed for half a decade now. 

Nvidia's DLSS is quite frankly a far bigger deal for graphics performance IMO than anything PS5 or XBSX bring to the table hardware wise (lame duck AMD graphics hardware). With DLSS, an old 2070 vanilla card (not even Super) from two years ago likely can outperform a PS5 or XSX, quite easily at that. 

Yeah agree about PC will rely on dumping everything in to the main system Ram

Xbox can do assets streaming in but  compared to PS5 it just not on the same level, so if Xbox trying to run the games like PS5 expect there will be some pop in in LOD or frame rates down or some lag.  Unless the game engine is procedural generation that relies heavily on CPU/GPU generation algorithms or physic , or relied a lot on path tracing. Some water/cloth/ hair and particle  simulation and deformation on character also relied on compute unit.

Before we have new info about Xbox SX IO costume , i will stay on my opinion that PS5 for now is still mile a head in terms of IO, also PS5 SSD raw speed also bigger than Xbox SX speed.  

SSD wont replace RAM it's true , the problem is that traditional  game design always relied on a lot on RAM to mitigate the lack of storage bandwidth due to dependency on HDD/ CD/DVD /Blue RAy.

Even games that made on  cartridge like Switch are made with mechanical drive in mind. With this philosophy RAM becoming the big factor, every game need to be loaded first on RAM. With fast SSD and fast IO it change everything . it will not the same again because game doesn't need to be loaded and it just transfer and stream the data you need for a few minutes  ahead.

So yeah, we finaly returning to N64 era. 

The PSX had long-ass loading times straight outta hell though.

So if the games happen to look better on XSX but the PS5 has little to no loading times, I sure know where my money is going! =P