-
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
BlueXImpulse
Banned
Mike Zhang
Member
These post just reminder people there is no nextgen game on series x for comparison.
You need to watch DF review on Spiderman:MM to see what's the nextgen loading time
You need to watch DF review on Spiderman:MM to see what's the nextgen loading time
New Yorks Finest
Banned
Kagey K
Banned
.....Until Valhalla info drops later today.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
People don't understand this and people need to hold off on celebrating. You can run SSDs on XB1 and PS4 and you're not getting true SSD speeds.
Bernkastel
Ask me about my fanboy energy!
Oh they did. The moment someone posts GTA V comparison I will quote it(since he specifically mentioned that).
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Uh, wasn't the common talking point for the SSD I/O in PS5 that it would be easier to leverage and "just worked"? It'd seem like MS's XvA is the one that has to be more explicitly programmed against. Also DiRT 5 as was being tested by people earlier wasn't yet finished, it's also not a multiplat natively designed for either next-gen platform, so....?
You're being awfully defensive. People wanted to see proof in results, now we're getting them. We'll get more as time goes on. I don't think it's impossible to acknowledge that there are clearly BC titles Series X (and S) beat PS5 in when it comes to load times, but there might be a few BC titles PS5 beats those systems in WRT load times, that haven't been tested yet.
Personally I still stand by the idea that MS's solution punches above its weight in this regard (surprisingly moreso than even I thought would be the case initially), but I still expect Sony's solution to be the faster overall. Just, not by anywhere near the margin the paper specs would suggest. Real-time use-case performance, I wouldn't expect any blow-outs.
That doesn't matter too much; look at the chart Longdi posted above and apparently PS4 Pro has faster cold boot time than both PS5 and Series X, but PS4 Pro wasn't designed with SSDs in mind.
BC games (and all games in general), even if they aren't programmed explicitly to the full capabilities of a system's I/O design, they still have the raw hardware to leverage. People need to keep in mind the BC games being tested here by and large aren't even leveraging most of MS's XvA features; it's unknown if they are leveraging Sony's raw or not. I'd assume they aren't programmed against most of Sony's featureset.
At the very least we can already get a glimpse of how these solutions will perform in practice and it turns out it's not going to be the clear-out blow-out in favor of PS5 a lot of people were repeatedly saying, because there's still other parts of the system architecture that have to work with the data coming off the SSDs. I think once both are getting pushed to their limits, Sony's solution will maintain a lead in terms of I/O, but the real-world margin between them and MS on this note is going to be a lot smaller than people have been conditioned to think it'd be going simply off some of the (few) specs on the I/O we got on paper early in the year.
Surprised how? I've followed info on both systems for a long time now, and looked into various research papers and patents with regards to them. There are a lot of things regarding how data read from the SSDs is actually used that a lot of people haven't been considering.
Yes it's true BC optimizations count for a good deal here, but in the same breath you have DF being very impressed with PS5's BC, so would that not mean Sony have done a lot of optimizations with their own BC? You can't have your cake and eat it too; if BC is at the root then we'd be seeing that manifest in actual BC software performance on PS5 being behind, too, but that doesn't look to be the case.
I still think PS5's solution will maintain an edge but there's nothing outside of some paper specs (which did not list a lot of details, like random read speeds on the NAND modules...I could try getting documentation on that if the specific part models of the NAND for both systems was more clearly listed (and the documentation even available in a PDF)) suggesting it'll be a blowout. This isn't a slight at Sony's solution, just a tip of the hat to MS's for being more elaborately planned out than some people were willing to consider.
The solutions are actually more apples-to-oranges in the first place which is why I always thought going simply off paper specs wasn't the best idea particularly surrounding the SSD I/O because that seems to be the area the systems diverge from the most. The way some people were treating MS's solution however they would think it was an afterthought, which didn't make sense even months back, and we're starting to see why that wasn't a good notion since we're getting actual data showing how these systems run some of these games, something we've been waiting to see since the end of last year.
Last edited:
J_Gamer.exe
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.
Yeah its alrwady shown 2 seconds on real next gen games, xbox shown upto 15 with dirt.
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 is it showing xbox punching above its weight considering this is bc games not using Velocity architecture' or ps5 custom hardware? Weve seen what it can do on games coded for it. We will see this very soon.
Go an see spiderman, nba, ratchet etc etc etc.
You really want to die on that hill, very silly man lol.
BlueXImpulse
Banned
I expect in real-world next gen performance (not BC) for there to be quite the clear difference in favor of PS5.
Trogdor1123
Member
Any fallout or Skyrim comparisons?
J_Gamer.exe
Member
Nah, this is bc games as said using ssd which will hit a hard limit, then maybe the faster in bc mode cpu clock on xbox makes it faster.
On next gen games I guarantee PS5 is way faster.
User name: Required
Banned
Why is XsX faster in almost every comparison LMFAO
pasterpl
Member
Yeah, let's be clear: these are astonishing load times. So impressed.
BlueXImpulse
Banned
This is what will happen with actual games optimized for the platform.
Insane Metal
Member
Lol @ these load times on PS5.
Manstructiclops
Banned
Theoretical max for SSD's is bullshit marketing. Sony forum warriors fans are now finding this out.
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
Man l can't help but feel disappointed with the PS5 results something not quite right there.
The ps5 SSD IS better. This is not taking advantage of the ps5 ssd speed as this is backwards compatibility that is being compared. We'll see the difference when we compare current gen games for both.
alucard0712_rus
Member
Probably CPU related.
If XCX uses 8-core mode (no SMT) for BC then it runs at 3.8Ghz vs 3.5Ghz on PS5. That's 8 percent more CPU clock on XCX.
If XCX uses 8-core mode (no SMT) for BC then it runs at 3.8Ghz vs 3.5Ghz on PS5. That's 8 percent more CPU clock on XCX.
Last edited:
This is comparing backwards compatibility, not current gen games.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Seriously I dont think we reeally need to read much into this.
What we need to compare is nextgen titles written with SSDs in mind.
But realistically after the first few months of ohh hey games now load in sub 5 seconds people will be bored of talking about loading times and we can get back to counting pixels and 1% frame drops.
I think we won’t see a 2x difference ... it will be about the same is my guess . Like we said both companies set out to do the same in different ways .
Last edited:
BlueXImpulse
Banned
And btw xsx is slower in frame rate because tthe bc games have higher res
This is true. But why should we care about this? The fact remains, you are dropping frames and the smoother experience is on PS5.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Based on what? Look, people wanted to see proof in data of games on both systems to see how they would perform on them. We're getting that now. But for some folks, these aren't the results they wanted, so the goalposts are being shifted instead of just saying "yeah, it is what it is here", and being open to it either staying that way or shifting back the other way when other points of comparison come about.
This is what's called an emotional response, not a logical one. It's a bit striking considering people were waiting on objective data and now we're finally getting some, but it doesn't fit what they wanted to happen. There's nothing wrong with giving results their due, it doesn't suddenly mean the other solution is inferior. I wouldn't even be surprised if there are some BC games PS5 loads faster, we just have to wait for results to prove that (and hopefully they are honest results).
That wouldn't suddenly mean Series X's solution is poor, but I have a feeling some people here would try shifting the entire meta discussion into that framework hinging it all on a few examples favoring PS5, then putting those examples on a pedestal and being the only valid ones...or something.
I don't know why this tribalistic mentality when it comes to consoles is still a thing
Team Andromeda
Member
elenapska
Member
prinz_valium
Member
I see we are cherry-picking worst case scenarios now:
PS5's SSD has probably some limits set for PS4 BC games to run properly.
Can you provide a link so I can add it to the OP?
Razvedka
Banned
Based on what? Look, people wanted to see proof in data of games on both systems to see how they would perform on them. We're getting that now. But for some folks, these aren't the results they wanted, so the goalposts are being shifted instead of just saying "yeah, it is what it is here", and being open to it either staying that way or shifting back the other way when other points of comparison come about.
This is what's called an emotional response, not a logical one. It's a bit striking considering people were waiting on objective data and now we're finally getting some, but it doesn't fit what they wanted to happen. There's nothing wrong with giving results their due, it doesn't suddenly mean the other solution is inferior. I wouldn't even be surprised if there are some BC games PS5 loads faster, we just have to wait for results to prove that (and hopefully they are honest results).
That wouldn't suddenly mean Series X's solution is poor, but I have a feeling some people here would try shifting the entire meta discussion into that framework hinging it all on a few examples favoring PS5, then putting those examples on a pedestal and being the only valid ones...or something.
I don't know why this tribalistic mentality when it comes to consoles is still a thing
I don't care about the PS5 or XSX frankly. Most of your post is completely wasted on me, go preach to a different choir.
I'm talking purely on a technical level, using backwards compatibility as a benchmark for either machine's I/O makes zero sense. It's an illiterate thing to do on a technical level.
I expected that kind of analysis from many posters, but not someone like you. I typically enjoy the content of your posts very much, so this is just a surprising twist.
Last edited:
JimboJones
Member
Yeah that's what it sounds like in this case, basically running the games via SSD how a PC would without DirectXstorage benefits, and tonnes of benchmarks show SSD speeds mean very little after a certain point.
CPU advantage is brute forcing the load times.