Thirty7ven
Banned
Sekiro is 1800p on 1X and 1800p checkerboard on PS4 Pro.
And there is no way. You're just putting putting your eggs on BC titles, but... you know next gen games are going to start releasing in a few days.
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Xbox Series X vs PS5 load time comparisons on BC games
- Thread starter prinz_valium
- Start date
Sekiro is 1800p on 1X and 1800p checkerboard on PS4 Pro.
And there is no way. You're just putting putting your eggs on BC titles, but... you know next gen games are going to start releasing in a few days.
Bruno_Arrais85
Member
old games comparison?
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
To be fair, multiplats are under embargo for PS5 still
Hayabusabruh
Member
This thread reminds me of Trump asking to recount the votes
LazyParrot
Member
If a game loaded faster on XBO than PS4, it will most likely also load faster on XSX than PS5. Storage speed will hit a wall pretty quickly. It's why switching from an HDD to a SATA SSD on PC makes a pretty big difference in loading times, but switching from that to an NVMe drive won't do nearly as much, despite being around three times as fast.
J_Gamer.exe
Member
Damn you guys are at it again celebrating too early.
This is bc games with no code changes.
When a code change is done ps5 can load games like spiderman and ratchet in 2 seconds.
The xbox has shown games using the velocity architecture like dirt and taking up 15 seconds depending on whats loading and how heavy it is.
Their software solution hasn't made up the gap, since its not used here in bc. Neither is all that hardware in ps5, designed to do so for next gen games or re-coded games.
Ps5 will beat, by multiples, series x load times on games actually meant for the system or re coded.
Last edited:
DonkeyKong
Member
Strange results, was expecting the PS5 to be much quicker
Gabbar Singh
Member
Lol. So much for the SSD Sony. Xbox Series X SSD violates and anhilates PS5 SSD.
BattleScar
Member
This is gonna be a fun thread.
Kerotan
Member
Next gen games will come in time.
I don't care about Destiny 2 until it gets next months next gen patch. That's what really matters.
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
PS5 will do a lot better on next gen games optimised for the SSD, that's true.
That said, Series X load times will also be greatly diminished due to Quick Resume, which we aren't seeing here.
For now, we can only say Series X loads BC games a good bit faster
ScaryBrandon
Banned
What did you expect Microsoft are software wizards while Sony is decent at making Televisions. Trying to brute force things with sequential read/writes was never going to work.
Sony deceiving their fanboys once more.
Sony deceiving their fanboys once more.
Mojoraisin
Member
I think it's a stupid decision on Sonys part to not make use of the extra power on all BC games. It makes them look bad now. This must account for most of the difference we're seeing here?
Thirty7ven
Banned
Unfortunately there seems to be no way around it. Game files need to be stored in a specific way, and compressed in a certain way for them to use the capabilities of the system.
A true bummer to me.
MadchesterManc
Member
This thread kinda reminds me of those NFL plays where folk celebrate too early. Gen aint even started yet
Mister Wolf
Member
Now I'm even more interested in the Watch Dogs comparison.
Krappadizzle
Member
When the differences are that close, it wouldn't bug me if I owned a PS5. But I would be feeling pretty stupid if I went around espousing the PS5 SSD like it was the next coming.
Us in the PC world tried telling some of ya, but nothing can beat the sweet honeyed words of Cerny.
Us in the PC world tried telling some of ya, but nothing can beat the sweet honeyed words of Cerny.
HarryKS
Member
Loading times measured in years are not fair.
Loading a game is not just a measure of how quickly you can read data. You need to do something with that data once it is has been read.
Hence some games are ties, some games are a PS5 win and some games are a XSX win. Different games do different things.
ScaryBrandon
Banned
All I get from that is how dumb of a sport American handball is.This thread kinda reminds me of those NFL plays where folk celebrate too early. Gen aint even started yet
Last edited:
you do realize games made for series x will use the velocity architecture, right? these backward compat games are loading faster WITHOUT using it.
Krisprolls
Banned
Loading times on PS5 will be a lot faster than on XSX on next gen games, although they'll be good on XSX too.
You just can't test that on BC games, they locked a lot of things (including SSD perf and framerate) to avoid breaking the games.
You just can't test that on BC games, they locked a lot of things (including SSD perf and framerate) to avoid breaking the games.
Last edited:
SegaSnatcher
Member
Not surprised at all, and no this doesn't mean XSX SSD is better than PS5. The simple answer is Microsoft has better optimizations for backwards compatibility than Sony.
splattered
Member
Or will it
The fact that the Series X boots just as faster or faster should be telling in itself.
I want the PS5 to be the best place to play all my PS4 library i already own and the bad ass games that come out like Demon's Souls, but i am not expecting black magic performance out of it vs the Series X. It just isn't going to happen.
Andodalf
Banned
This thread kinda reminds me of those NFL plays where folk celebrate too early. Gen aint even started yet
This is basically the people who said that the PS5 SSD was massively better and XSX couldn't compare at all
Guys you should really factor in another element, which is that the consoles aren't out yet and we will likely see patches both to the OS and to individual games approaching launch and also on launch day.
I would say that until the patches situation settles down you can't really offer 'final' loading performance levels to compare.
ACG was saying the other day that his consoles have received multiple OS updates while he's had them and that he saw improvements in performance with each one.
I would say that until the patches situation settles down you can't really offer 'final' loading performance levels to compare.
ACG was saying the other day that his consoles have received multiple OS updates while he's had them and that he saw improvements in performance with each one.
Last edited:
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Basically this.
When people called out Penello as a MS shill.
But i said he doesnt work for MS anymore. He worked for Amazon recently. He still have insider friends.
No.
BC games aren't designed to take advantage of the I/O or VA.
If a next gen game like Spider-Man can load in a few seconds vs a BC that has far less data to load, then it should be completely obvious what's happening.
Brute force speed always a mistake. Amiright?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
I think it's pretty clear MS's solution is definitely "punching above its weight", as the saying tends to go. I mean, there was a lot of evidence to suggest this would be the case beyond the paper specs, but it's not like MS's been 100% transparent on info regarding the SSD I/O either. For example there wasn't as much on it as most would've liked at Hot Chips.
Both of these systems are solving a big problem from last-gen though when it comes to load times; I don't think we'll get a super-strong impression on what the SSD I/O for both systems can do until we start seeing games natively developed for the consoles leveraging that hardware. On that note, PS5 kind of has an advantage because of R&C, Demon's Souls Remake etc. coming out sooner rather than later (or in some cases, right at launch).
However, I think this is all also validation of some stuff a few of us were saying months ago: you're not going to get games that are possible on one system suddenly impossible on the other due to what paper specs relating to SSD I/O say, because in practice both system's solutions will be very performant with each other when all of the aspects of their I/O design are taken into account.
Great news for anyone getting either (or both) systems, I say
They're partly right about that, because data requests still need to ultimately be handled through the CPU. Some folks on B3D explained this better than I could, but essentially things don't just "end" at the SSD; the CPU still needs to do a bit of work.
However I also think part of it is because MS's solution is probably more elaborate than people give them credit for. I know it's easy to assume how it plays out looking at paper specs but given what we're starting to see in practice, it's apparent both Sony and Microsoft did a lot of work to ensure their solutions hit optimal levels of performance.
Both of these systems are solving a big problem from last-gen though when it comes to load times; I don't think we'll get a super-strong impression on what the SSD I/O for both systems can do until we start seeing games natively developed for the consoles leveraging that hardware. On that note, PS5 kind of has an advantage because of R&C, Demon's Souls Remake etc. coming out sooner rather than later (or in some cases, right at launch).
However, I think this is all also validation of some stuff a few of us were saying months ago: you're not going to get games that are possible on one system suddenly impossible on the other due to what paper specs relating to SSD I/O say, because in practice both system's solutions will be very performant with each other when all of the aspects of their I/O design are taken into account.
Great news for anyone getting either (or both) systems, I say
They're partly right about that, because data requests still need to ultimately be handled through the CPU. Some folks on B3D explained this better than I could, but essentially things don't just "end" at the SSD; the CPU still needs to do a bit of work.
However I also think part of it is because MS's solution is probably more elaborate than people give them credit for. I know it's easy to assume how it plays out looking at paper specs but given what we're starting to see in practice, it's apparent both Sony and Microsoft did a lot of work to ensure their solutions hit optimal levels of performance.
Last edited:
Razvedka
Banned
Guys, this is not a raw measure of I/O. It's a measure of how the two machines handle backwards compatibility.
I'm amazed some of the more technical posters are using this moment to talk about "equality of solutions" or something. It seriously isn't.
I'm especially surprised at thicc.
The writing was always on the wall that the XSX would have a better BC solution than what Sony was doing, at least in my opinion. That's what these results are saying and perfectly conform to my expectations. Has dick all to do with the SSD solution in either console beyond a minimal point.
I'm amazed some of the more technical posters are using this moment to talk about "equality of solutions" or something. It seriously isn't.
I'm especially surprised at thicc.
The writing was always on the wall that the XSX would have a better BC solution than what Sony was doing, at least in my opinion. That's what these results are saying and perfectly conform to my expectations. Has dick all to do with the SSD solution in either console beyond a minimal point.
Last edited:
Krisprolls
Banned
Not on BC games lol.
Looks like the FPS being better on PS5 BC kinda irked some people. I knew this day would be difficult for them.
ReBurn
Gold Member
It's just interesting to see the reactions when people who have been playing specs have their expectations challenged after people start actually playing games.
Overall I don't see anything here that puts me off of one system or the other. Even if XSX loads a few seconds faster it's still slower for games like RDR2 than I was hoping for. I'm looking forward to seeing how multiplat games built for this generation compare.
Overall I don't see anything here that puts me off of one system or the other. Even if XSX loads a few seconds faster it's still slower for games like RDR2 than I was hoping for. I'm looking forward to seeing how multiplat games built for this generation compare.
funking giblet
Member
There is literally reviews of new games loading in 2 seconds.
Some of you are a pack of layman pants-shitters. Use your brains for a second.
Some of you are a pack of layman pants-shitters. Use your brains for a second.
TheDude108
Member
When did people say backward compatible games would load in 2 seconds?
Dibils2k
Member
Last edited:
BattleScar
Member
Basically this.
When people called out Penello as a MS shill.
But i said he doesnt work for MS anymore. He worked for Amazon recently. He still have insider friends.
He's still chatting shit in that tweet.
yurinka
Member
I'm surprised to see shorter loading times in BC games for Series X, I didn't expect it at all. Let's see if we get more loading time comparision data from reliable places like Digital Foundry and other sites for more games.
PS5 has USB 3.2 gen 2 USB. This means loading from external USB HDD or SSD should be very fast if using USB 3.2 gen 2 HDD/SSD, and maybe could add a difference when running them on Series X (it has 3.1 gen 1 USB). I assume the type of USB SSD/HDD may
Last edited:
Razvedka
Banned
I think it's pretty clear MS's solution is definitely "punching above its weight", as the saying tends to go. I mean, there was a lot of evidence to suggest this would be the case beyond the paper specs, but it's not like MS's been 100% transparent on info regarding the SSD I/O either. For example there wasn't as much on it as most would've liked at Hot Chips.
Both of these systems are solving a big problem from last-gen though when it comes to load times; I don't think we'll get a super-strong impression on what the SSD I/O for both systems can do until we start seeing games natively developed for the consoles leveraging that hardware. On that note, PS5 kind of has an advantage because of R&C, Demon's Souls Remake etc. coming out sooner rather than later (or in some cases, right at launch).
However, I think this is all also validation of some stuff a few of us were saying months ago: you're not going to get games that are possible on one system suddenly impossible on the other due to what paper specs relating to SSD I/O say, because in practice both system's solutions will be very performant with each other when all of the aspects of their I/O design are taken into account.
Great news for anyone getting either (or both) systems, I say
They're partly right about that, because data requests still need to ultimately be handled through the CPU. Some folks on B3D explained this better than I could, but essentially things don't just "end" at the SSD; the CPU still needs to do a bit of work.
However I also think part of it is because MS's solution is probably more elaborate than people give them credit for. I know it's easy to assume how it plays out looking at paper specs but given what we're starting to see in practice, it's apparent both Sony and Microsoft did a lot of work to ensure their solutions hit optimal levels of performance.
How? Because running last generation games in each console manufacturer's respective backwards compatibility mode yields roughly the same load times?
I think you're extrapolating far too much out of this analysis. Your posts are normally way better than this. The first alarm bell here for you should have been that games like Arkham Knight, on next gen systems with massively more grunt and exponentially faster I/O, take over 40 seconds to load. That's not really measuring 'the hardware', just the B/C implementation/software layer.
Last edited:
LeftThumbstick
Member
Phil did the job right this time around. We got a blazing fast SSD & a more powerful GPU & CPU, and far superior BC. I'm not saying the PS5 isn't faster before Geordie and Ethomaz go full panic attack, but credit where credit is due, Xbox isn't slacking in any area (except you know, 1st party launch games).