That has nothing to do with anything I said. We all know the architecture of both machines goes far beyond loading games faster. Just wanted to correct you on SoD2 and the Spider-Man tech demo.

I think what we have to ask ourselves here is what the purpose of realistic graphics and speed are when it comes to gaming hardware. The answer in both cases is immersion. Graphical realism can make a gaming experience feel a little more like life. On the other hand, things like loading screens and lag and so forth take you out of that immersion and remind you that you're just playing a game. Let's not kid ourselves: the functional, noticeable differences between the tech in the Series X and that in the PlayStation 5 will likely be relatively small in the eyes of the average consumer. The question then becomes which difference is more significant, more noticeable to the average consumer...and the average AAA developer: the graphical difference that the Series X might offer or the speed difference that the PlayStation 5 could offer. "Developer Matt" seems to feel that it's the latter, which is what it looks like on paper to me. But we'll see!

It's not just the difference in SSD speed that must be taken into account, but also how the memory is processed. 

Components having direct access to the PS5's SSDs, instead of having to go through multiple paths before reaching their desired locations is also an advantage the PS5's I/O has over the XBSX. It speeds up many processes by forgoing what has been the default memory seeking method since forever now.

Just logic.

An SSD like the one in the PS5 doesn't come in cheap, and certainly costs a lot more than the one in the XSX for the same space. So Sony needed to sacrifice on something to not let the price go overboard, and the only place where they really could do so was on the GPU die. Having a GPU that's 30% smaller than the one in the XSX can save up a lot of money that's needed for the expensive SSD in the PS5. Hence why the PS5 GPU has much less CU than the one in the XSX (36 vs 52) and tries to compensate for it with high clock speeds (2.23 Ghz vs 1.8 Ghz).

Yes 3rd party devs will have to learn to work around the slower SSD speeds of the XSX...just like they will have to learn to work around the weaker overall power of the PS5.

Wrong. What would cost more to develope on the ssd is the development. Once that is done with the cost to produce will be maybe a tiny bit more if any at all. Cost of developement on pc translates to higher price because they need to make their money back on the hardware. But cost of development does not translate to higher cost on consoles as they dont make money on conssoles sold, but software and subcriptions after the console is bought. 

RolStoppable said: So which one is it, @DonFerrari ? DonFerrari (9 hours ago) Waiting for Sony Executive to say devs will need to learn how to use weaker GPU/CPU. And seems like this executive doesn't know much of development and think it is only loading times. On one hand you question the credibility of this executive, but on the other hand you gladly run with his statements because they fit your narrative.

Where did I question his credibility? I questioned his technical knowledge. And he accepting there is a considerable gap on the I/O is one thing he can do without much technical knowledge, but assuming that would just make loading times different and nothing else is due to lack of knowledge. We have most devs saying it is much more profound than this.

They choose a smaller GPU/CPU sure (and we even have Pema saying that it may even be more expensive due to the high frequency), but that isn't indication of being because of the SSD, it would be pointless to overblow the budget in one direction and then have to silver tape the rest of the components making the extra juice useless. Also the frequency and thermal was decided several years ago not as compensation, because if it was easy to have this them MS would have also made their frequency higher even with higher CU count.

The two more probable reason for the choice of CPU/GPU is to be overall a cheap console to manufacture and second that was where they thought the console would be more balanced for their objectives.

This.

Current GPU's aren't a representation of the GPU's in the next-gen consoles.

Wait for Big Navi for proper comparisons to be made.

The Xbox Series X also has hardware decompression and also has hardware 3D positional Audio.

The only game that proves that "core level design" principles have changed is Star Citizen... On the PC.

Otherwise, we only have baseless assertions and hearsay until the games are actually released... Because let's face it, that is the evidence we need to put these endless debates to rest.

But you are right, both consoles have strengths and weaknesses and they are both solid pieces of hardware.

What makes you think Microsoft hasn't invested in all the "behind the scenes" technology to drive it's SSD?

Correct.
Developers need to build around each hardware sets specific nuances to best showoff their games.

I'm sure some PS5 exclusive will take full advantage of the faster SSD, but for multiplatform games... Game engines are more scalable than ever, and looking at that UE5 demo (doing all the LOD stuff procedurally) I think next gen tools will be even more scalable.
So in the real world the difference won't matter that much I believe.

No it isn't the same. If I say you aren't a doctor or engineer so your knowledge in some of those subjects (based on what you have said) doesn't seem high that isn't questioning his credibility. Didn't say he lied or anything of the like, just that he don't really understand what he is commenting on.