• 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.

Forspoken Load Times Are Barely A Second Long On PS5, Has Multiple Graphics Modes

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
R&C and Spiderman's level streaming isn't what makes them look good. They are completely different things. R&C has artwork, and Spiderman is just the same game running at a faster clip with RT reflections. Both of those games can be run on any console/PC without the need for an ultra fast SSD.

I'll pass because you're now in the PlayStation Fanclub.
 
I might not be one of those persons but I can tell you one thing I don't need to
keep on boasting about PC being superior resolution, framerate, RT etc etc.
Go on ...

Then you go on to say this...

What I do know right now is my PS5 games load faster than PC games even though I'm using an NVME SSD.

For fucks sake...



So you don't like when someone mentions you get better performance and graphics over here... But you don't mind people praising a fraction of a second faster loading vs direct storage first iteration? I wonder if load times mattered last generation, especially for those who been rocking SSD's for the past 10 years? Kinda seems hypocritical, don't you think?


Let me ask you this John Wick John Wick , would you prefer a fraction of a second faster loading times, in return for lower resolution, textures, framerates, features? Or vise versa? I truly would love to see your take on this since you decide to double down.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Go on ...

Then you go on to say this...



For fucks sake...



So you don't like when someone mentions you get better performance and graphics over here... But you don't mind people praising a fraction of a second faster loading vs direct storage first iteration? I wonder if load times mattered last generation, especially for those who been rocking SSD's for the past 10 years? Kinda seems hypocritical, don't you think?


Let me ask you this John Wick John Wick , would you prefer a fraction of a second faster loading times, in return for lower resolution, textures, framerates, features? Or vise versa? I truly would love to see your take on this since you decide to double down.
We get both with PS5 only titles which are currently unmatched bro.

But I hear what you are saying.
Real soon PC will have both if Direct Storage takes off and things will be very interesting.

We all win when that happens.
 

Dream-Knife

Member
Because a faster NVME drive is only one part of the equation.



That article didn't really explain anything. It was like a "more better" apple ad.

Shouldn't a PC be able to brute force it with vastly better cpus?
 
Go on ...

Then you go on to say this...



For fucks sake...



So you don't like when someone mentions you get better performance and graphics over here... But you don't mind people praising a fraction of a second faster loading vs direct storage first iteration? I wonder if load times mattered last generation, especially for those who been rocking SSD's for the past 10 years? Kinda seems hypocritical, don't you think?


Let me ask you this John Wick John Wick , would you prefer a fraction of a second faster loading times, in return for lower resolution, textures, framerates, features? Or vise versa? I truly would love to see your take on this since you decide to double down.
That's another thing... Say you have a slower drive on PC, like a gen 3 drive at 2.5gb/s.

I really doubt that games that require direct storage are going to be broken in comparison to PS5 if you have a slower drive. Might load a few seconds later and that is it. Remember people, these multiplatform games have to work on series x as well! Let's see, but I think forspoken will be fine on these drives.

I'm confident in direct storage, that the gen 4 drive I bought for pc is sliiiiightly slower on paper than PS5 (over 5 gb/s read but under 5.5) that it will always be able to keep up this generation and cause no issues, and I'd bet money on it.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Direct Storage should be enough. We have had Epic say it's fine (or not even needed really) for nanite and we are seeing stuff like this where they say a 300mb buffer is all they need for 40gb assets.

But why is that relevant when meshlets are just a part of the final image a game will render at 30 or 60fps? And why would PlayStation Or Xbox limit their ambitions to those visuals this gen to fit with 300MB/s?

Going by previous gens like the PS2 or 360/PS3 where some games streamed closer to the limits of the DVD, Blu-ray or HDD read speeds - sometimes combined - for games, why wouldn't they look to be doing at least 100MB per frame of fresh streamed - probably precalculated BVH - data in a (2027) REYES renderer when they've added low latency high bandwidth hardware dedicated to the task like Cerny described?
 
Last edited:

Dream-Knife

Member
Knew some type of negative response would come towards him to try and attack his credentials.
He's PCMR and knows more about such things than 98% of anybody here.
PCMR used to mean tweaking things to get the most performance out of something. Now it just means they bought the latest thing.

Why can't that IO speed be brute forced? Elden Ring loads faster on my PC than the consoles, so what's that about? Even off a HDD it isn't too bad either.
 

MasterCornholio

Gold Member
That article didn't really explain anything. It was like a "more better" apple ad.

Shouldn't a PC be able to brute force it with vastly better cpus?

Probably but it’s also nice if the CPU doesn’t have to work so much with the I/O. I guess that’s the concept behind something like RTX I/O which should aid the CPU quite a bit if your decompressing a lot of data.




Seems like a good idea IMO.
 
Last edited:

John Wick

Member
Go on ...

Then you go on to say this...



For fucks sake...



So you don't like when someone mentions you get better performance and graphics over here... But you don't mind people praising a fraction of a second faster loading vs direct storage first iteration? I wonder if load times mattered last generation, especially for those who been rocking SSD's for the past 10 years? Kinda seems hypocritical, don't you think?


Let me ask you this John Wick John Wick , would you prefer a fraction of a second faster loading times, in return for lower resolution, textures, framerates, features? Or vise versa? I truly would love to see your take on this since you decide to double down.
I think that's the first time I've ever mentioned the PS5 loads games faster than PC. I would hardly call that boasting? Whereas you have clearly made many statements regarding this along with Captain Obvious. The fact a $400 console can load games faster than vastly more expensive PC's is class.
The PC loading faster obviously made a difference last gen but it's nothing compared to the speeds which will become the norm as this gen progress's.
The fact that your again asking the question of would I prefer this over that can you get me a PC with PS5 level of performance for £350?
So it's an apples and oranges comparison. I would prefer better graphics, framerate and RT at the expense of a fraction of a second load times at £350.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
PCMR used to mean tweaking things to get the most performance out of something. Now it just means they bought the latest thing.

Why can't that IO speed be brute forced? Elden Ring loads faster on my PC than the consoles, so what's that about? Even off a HDD it isn't too bad either.
Games that are still programed with HDD's in mind cannot take advantage of the PS5's I/O is why.
 
Probably but it’s also nice if the CPU doesn’t have to work so much with the I/O. I guess that’s the concept behind something like RTX I/O which should aid the CPU quite a bit if your decompressing a lot of data.







Seems like a good idea IMO.
Not trying to be all pcmr here but it really shouldn't be understated just how much faster PC cpus already are than PS5... Ryzen 5800x3D is already capable of twice the speed in games.

Even if direct storage on day 1 is slightly less efficient than PS5 solution, the cpus available on PC should pick up the slack.
 
Not trying to be all pcmr here but it really shouldn't be understated just how much faster PC cpus already are than PS5... Ryzen 5800x3D is already capable of twice the speed in games.

Even if direct storage on day 1 is slightly less efficient than PS5 solution, the cpus available on PC should pick up the slack.
Not trying to be a bla bla and so on...
5800x3D costs more than PS5 DE.
 

Skifi28

Member
This thread has become embarrassing to read. It should be locked with the usual suspects trapped inside so the rest of us can live outside in peace.
 

metaverse

Member
Agreed. Lets rally people! Lets tell Nvidia (RTX IO) and Microsoft (DirectStorage) that they're wasting their R&D budget on useless tech. We have experts at Neogaf stating a faster SSD will solve any loading issues.

/s this is embarassing
 
Last edited:
Yes, it is. There are drm free options available, humble bundles, steam refunds etc. Sales are far better.


Meanwhile on PlayStation it's usually the case where digital is much more expensive than physical as the prices don't move nearly as much.

To top it off Sony and MS can lock your account if you say some naughty words in a cod match.

This isn't a console vs. PC debate, as I said I buy physical PS5 games so there's no issue for me that console digital is overpriced and locked down.
 
Last edited:

ChiefDada

Member
Cerny talked about how worlds could be designed completely different because with the SSD they could make a world load instantly and could have parts of the world load as you turn. However, I don't think we will ever see this kind of implementation this gen at all. Games will just be designed as they have for so long and the SSD will only be used to reduce load times. Why? Because Sony will not design a game that could only be played on PS5 (that was PS3 era Sony, but not know). Third party would never do that! PC ports need to be able to be run on different specs, even lower than PS4 sometimes, so it short, this gen is just a waste of specs (or at least the SSD for now).
Respectfully disagree with basically all of this but of course time will tell.

Many people have came to a similar conclusion that much of Cerny's talk was theoretical but why design PS5 console as a proof of concept for PS6 /future gen games? Nah, if Cerny says we're getting 4gb+ textures loading within a 180 degree player turn then we're getting it. This gen. I think God of War has proven that Sony can lead with innovative games/tech and have it's financial cake too. The games will arrive on other platforms when they catch up with their i/o advancements.
 

MasterCornholio

Gold Member
Not trying to be all pcmr here but it really shouldn't be understated just how much faster PC cpus already are than PS5... Ryzen 5800x3D is already capable of twice the speed in games.

Even if direct storage on day 1 is slightly less efficient than PS5 solution, the cpus available on PC should pick up the slack.

Doesn’t mean technologies like RTX I/O shouldn’t be created. Even high end CPUs can benefit from it.
 
Doesn’t mean technologies like RTX I/O shouldn’t be created. Even high end CPUs can benefit from it.
I think I missed something... If someone said that in this thread it certainly wasn't me.

PC needs rtx IO.

Anyways I'm sure digital foundry and others will test rtx IO with various drive speeds and compare them to PS5 so we can stop the theoreticals already.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it is. There are drm free options available, humble bundles, steam refunds etc. Sales are far better.


Meanwhile on PlayStation it's usually the case where digital is much more expensive than physical as the prices don't move nearly as much.

To top it off Sony and MS can lock your account if you say some naughty words in a cod match.

This isn't a console vs. PC debate, as I said I buy physical PS5 games so there's no issue for me that console digital is overpriced and locked down.
pile GIF
 

MasterCornholio

Gold Member
I think I missed something... If someone said that in this thread it certainly wasn't me.

PC needs rtx IO.

Anyways I'm sure digital foundry and others will test rtx IO with various drive speeds and compare them to PS5 so we can stop the theoreticals already.

Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that high end CPUs don’t need RTX I/O because they can just brute force through it.

My mistake.
 

Md Ray

Member
Why wouod ps5 have faster load times when PC has better ssds?
There's more to it than just SSDs.

PS5 has dedicated unit in the main SoC for decompression of game assets, a PC doesn't. So devs plan to use the GPUs (RTX IO) for this task on PC via DirectStorage, but the current implementation of DirectStorage only supports decompression through CPU, not GPU. This functionality is coming at a later date in the future update to DStorage. This is why PS5 is still faster since the Kraken decompression isn't relying on either its CPU or GPU, there's a dedicated unit for that.
 

Md Ray

Member
That's not how pc works at all though, they've never been able to saturate that kind of speed on a PC nvme drive before. Loading times haven't been hugely different between an sata drive and an nvme in a PC. So if they can get close to the custome built PS5 solution in their first attempt I'll be highly impressed. Even if its like 1 second vs 1.8 or something that's damn cool.
This is correct.
 

Mister Wolf

Member
There's more to it than just SSDs.

PS5 has dedicated unit in the main SoC for decompression of game assets, a PC doesn't. So devs plan to use the GPUs (RTX IO) for this task on PC via DirectStorage, but the current implementation of DirectStorage only supports decompression through CPU, not GPU. This functionality is coming at a later date in the future update to DStorage. This is why PS5 is still faster since the Kraken decompression isn't relying on either its CPU or GPU, there's a dedicated unit for that.

I would think the current 4.8 GB of data Direct Storage can move without the GPU decompression should be more than enough for any game this generation.
 

Dr Bass

Member
I honestly don't get this conversation.

I see some people who have been downplaying the PS5 SSD custom hardware decompression (or even downright "laughing" at it), now drooling over DirectStorage. Even though it is twice as slow on this game. So the PS5 solution, which uses dedicated hardware and does not affect system performance otherwise, is lame, but the MS solution, which is still far, far slower, and uses your GPU, theoretically impacting your visuals, is awesome?

Seriously, let's get honest with ourselves here. If the situations were reversed the fanboys on the MS side of the aisle would love what's happening on the PS5.

They are also completely ignoring part of the point of the PS5 setup. Loading data directly into RAM in a "game ready" state with per frame latency. Insomniac has not only talked about this, it's already in shipping games on the shelf.


Epic talked about this in their initial UE5 demo, saying it would only run on the PS5 because of the geometry density and needing to load that in and out of memory as your view moves. Notice how none of the demos available that are cross platform, look as good as the initial demo in this respect. Hmm, is it because Epic was telling the truth perhaps? :pie_thinking:


Of course 1 seconds vs 2 seconds is a total wash when it comes to "loading times" and waiting for games to show up on screen. Even though the PS5 solution is, again, twice as fast right now, in practicality no one will care. It's what the tech enables in the above scenarios that makes the difference for the system. And this is continually ignored by people who don't want to acknowledge it, even though it's being done on shipped products.

In conclusion, PS5 setup still absolutely smokes the MS DirectStorage solution. It doesn't affect the rest of the system performance. And the haters are cheering on the far slower tech. Yeah. that makes sense.

I don't get why people can't just like everything and recognize reality. Yeah the PS5 gpu and cpu don't match up to what's available on the PC. It's not a big deal. Right now nothing can match the PS5 I/O tech. Again, that's just reality. I don't understand what is so hard for some people to just admit this.

I mean my Switch is seriously old and outdated from a tech perspective, and it's by far my favorite system because of the games. It has nothing to do with hardware or anything. But even though I prefer my Switch I recognize what the PS5 has, and does not have. Same with the XSX (that I just got rid of though). It has pros and cons.

Again, really surprised at either the gaslighting that is being attempted or the willful ignorance. I honestly can't tell which it is. Let's move on people.
 
Source: https://novicegamerguides.com/news/...cond-long-on-ps5-has-multiple-graphics-modes/

During GDC 2022, Luminous Engine’s technical director gave a demonstration of some of the technologies that they have incorporated into Forspoken.

In the case of the PS5, they have extremely fast load times thanks to the M.2 SSD in the PS5 console. The load times are so fast that they barely last a second. Compared to the PS5, the PC version can have load times as long as 2 to 22 seconds depending on the hardware.

The PC and PS5 versions will also benefit from the AMD FSR 2.0 implementation. There are different modes available in the game including a Quality Mode and a Native 4K mode. These will offer better performance while sacrificing some visual fidelity.

Microsoft has also helped with the development of the PC version with the Direct Storage support. A regular SSD might not compete with the load times of the PS5 version but an M.2 SSD can come quite close to it.
"Best in class" I/O
PS5 velocity architecture in action
Finally direct storage on pc. Comparisons will be interesting. Biggest benefit will be in magical ssd’s no longer being held back by 1980’s architecture.
Nope "currently" The PS5 has the fastest consumer grade I/O. If you aint running a workstation PC or dev kit you aint beating it.

Actually they have some catching up to do.
Direct Storage is a step towards catching up.
Nope. A full implementation of Direct Storage and RTX I/O on PC would outclass PS5's SSD.

This right here is Not even a one to one comparison knowing that according to the devs, Forspoken is not fully utilizing the current available Direct Storage let alone the future version of Direct Storage. There were still many bottlenecks that Direct Storage could eliminate that they left untouched.

 
Even though it is twice as slow on this game. So the PS5 solution, which uses dedicated hardware and does not affect system performance otherwise, is lame, but the MS solution, which is still far, far slower, and uses your GPU,
Did I miss something? Where is the comparison?


It says 1.9 seconds on "nvme" which could be who knows what speed.

Edit : ok I see, you are technically correct when you say it's twice as fast (or, nearly) on ps5 even though it's one second. I was scratching my head when you said it was far, far slower... it's not.

Regarding the "loads so fast you can turn around and it will load before you finish" that can be one up'd on PC simply by virtue of being able to load more data into memory, even at the present time.

Sure the scene would take longer to load (barely) but the scene can still match and exceed what is possible on Ps5.

There are cards with 12gb vram right now, which is more than ps5 has for graphics allocation.

What PS5's memory solution does is let's it get away with less ram, by virtue of being able to stream faster, but it can't do anything that direct storage can't simply with more memory available.
 
Last edited:

VFXVeteran

Banned
They are also completely ignoring part of the point of the PS5 setup. Loading data directly into RAM in a "game ready" state with per frame latency. Insomniac has not only talked about this, it's already in shipping games on the shelf.
The point is the SSD on the PS5 has done nothing to enhance graphics features and that's because it's bottlenecked GPU. Placing emphasis on fast load times is silly. We all want to see what the GPU performs like when it's hammered with RT, higher resolution framebuffers, maximum FPS, and really complicated shaders - none of which the SSD can help with.


Epic talked about this in their initial UE5 demo, saying it would only run on the PS5 because of the geometry density and needing to load that in and out of memory as your view moves. Notice how none of the demos available that are cross platform, look as good as the initial demo in this respect. Hmm, is it because Epic was telling the truth perhaps? :pie_thinking:
No. I was told it was a Sony piece and wasn't to be shared with any multiplatform. Not even PCs. They had an agreement with Sony for that demo and it legally belongs to Sony.
 
Top Bottom