Support NeoGAF

[Bonsaibäumchen]

Fine. I will amend my post to remove the bit about the 7 GBps remark and replace it with the fact that he literally said you NEED extra bandwidth on top of the 5.5 GBps which we now know is a misleading statement.

And I edited out the bit about him lying, Herman and Jim Ryan within a minute after posting. If my stalker JakGhost wasnt so fast with his replies, no one wouldve seen it. I knew that was going too far as soon as I posted it.

So you are saying PS5 games will never use more SSD Bandwidth?
How do you know that?

Here we go again people are jumping to wrong conclusions by looking at currently available games.
As if any game that was released yet has already been using the full potential of this new hardware.
But I guess it fits the narrative you guys are trying to create, lol.

 

[Topher]

Fine. I will amend my post to remove the bit about the 7 GBps remark and replace it with the fact that he literally said you NEED extra bandwidth on top of the 5.5 GBps which we now know is a misleading statement.

And I edited out the bit about him lying, Herman and Jim Ryan within a minute after posting. If my stalker JakGhost wasnt so fast with his replies, no one wouldve seen it. I knew that was going too far as soon as I posted it.

I'll accept that as I've had to amend my posts before as well when saying something out of line. As far as being "misleading"......that was over a year ago. As far as we know the tech has changed and they have found ways to mitigate the priority levels and not require those higher speeds. And.....once again....this is beta testing. Why are you acting like everything we are seeing is final? And even it were, you don't think Cerny and Sony's engineers are taking more into account than just a few early games? Why all the hyperbole?

 

[SlimySnake]

So you are saying PS5 games will never use more SSD Bandwidth?
How do you know that?

Because Sony has not set any minimum requirements and are letting you put 3.9 GBps SSDs in the internal bay?

5.5 GBps is recommended, not minimum. That was the main thesis behind the other thread yesterday that everyone here dismissed as an overreaction and now the guy has been proven right.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

Because Sony has not set any minimum requirements and are letting you put 3.9 GBps SSDs in the internal bay?

5.5 GBps is recommended, not minimum. That was the main thesis behind the other thread yesterday that everyone here dismissed as an overreaction and now the guy has been proven right.

They haven't set one yet.
It is, after all, a Beta.

And they can ALWAYS insert some disclaimers even for future usage of expandable storage upgrades:

 

[Topher]

Because Sony has not set any minimum requirements and are letting you put 3.9 GBps SSDs in the internal bay?

5.5 GBps is recommended, not minimum. That was the main thesis behind the other thread yesterday that everyone here dismissed as an overreaction and now the guy has been proven right.

This feature is only available to beta users at this time. The internal M.2 SSD expansion feature will be enabled via an upcoming PS5 system software update. Please check the guide below for more information. Please note that because this is a beta, features and specifications described herein may change prior to the official system software release.

How to add an M.2 SSD to a PS5 console

Find out which M.2 SSDs can be used to expand your PlayStation®5 console storage space, and how to insert an M.2 SSD into the expansion slot.

www.playstation.com

 

[SlimySnake]

I'll accept that as I've had to amend my posts before as well when saying something out of line. As far as being "misleading"......that was over a year ago. As far as we know the tech has changed and they have found ways to mitigate the priority levels and not require those higher speeds. And.....once again....this is beta testing. Why are you acting like everything we are seeing is final? And even it were, you don't think Cerny and Sony's engineers are taking more into account than just a few early games? Why all the hyperbole?

I am commenting on real world tests, benchmarks and what we know today. We spent over 2 years SPECULATING on rumors and I think it's fair to comment on some actual benchmarks.

I dont think you can just figure out a way around priority levels. I dont care if you are Nicolas Tesla himself. Optimizations are made but the hardware was already final by then. The PS5 SSD has 6 Priority Levels and Cerny knew exactly why the other SSDs needed the extra bandwidth. Because they only had two. He pointed out how the SSDs can take full advantage of the PS5 I/O because the SSDs connect directly to it, but the catch is that they needed to have extra bandwidth required to match the PS5 SSD performance. Notice how many times he says need and required, and yet there are no minimum bandwidth requirements.

This feature is only available to beta users at this time. The internal M.2 SSD expansion feature will be enabled via an upcoming PS5 system software update. Please check the guide below for more information. Please note that because this is a beta, features and specifications described herein may change prior to the official system software release.

How to add an M.2 SSD to a PS5 console

Find out which M.2 SSDs can be used to expand your PlayStation®5 console storage space, and how to insert an M.2 SSD into the expansion slot.

www.playstation.com

We will see. This firmware should be out in a couple of weeks. We can bump this thread then. I am sure that they wont make 5.5 GBps a requirement. The games they have in development have already been tested internally and they wouldve never let a beta start without a minimum requirement if their own internal tests showed those SSDs were too slow.

 

[odhiex]

This is good news. Not everybody want to pay a lot of money for a solution to store/play PS5 games.

I would consider of getting some higher ends one anyway, for future proofing. But this is good news, still.

 

[K2D]

"PS5 runs just as good with cheap SSD" - Cerny/Sony lies

"PS5 games runes poorly with my cheap 2019 SSDs" - PS5 bad!

 

[Topher]

I am commenting on real world tests, benchmarks and what we know today. We spent over 2 years SPECULATING on rumors and I think it's fair to comment on some actual benchmarks.

No, you are commenting on a journalist with a stopwatch. This is in beta for a reason.

 

[reinking]

Mike never specified which SSDs he tested. Maybe they were significantly slower than the one in the OP.

Or maybe. .. ..just hear me out... ..you will see a 15 percent hit in performance while playing when you hit a part of the game that utilizes data streaming.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Or maybe. .. ..just hear me out... ..you will see a 15 percent hit in performance while playing when you hit a part of the game that utilizes data streaming.

But what does 15% mean in real performance? Let's say the dimension jumping takes 0.1 seconds to properly stream. 15% slower would mean... 0.115 seconds? Doesn't sound like a big deal.

 

[Keihart]

Never mind that going from a 0.5 seconds on a streaming situation to 1 second or something similar, will probably be felt during gameplay, but hey...

Maybe sony does sets a new low bar for the ssd, with whatever doesn't chug Ratchet and calls it a day, they have to sell those future games on PC after all.

 

[assurdum]

Good we're seeing real world results now, some of the hype can be dispelled with these results and what DF said about Geometry Engine.

You can't really avoid to do console war and use your brain when we talking about ps5 tech, isn't it? And really you talking about exaggerated hype mister true RDNA2 hardware and series S will put in trouble ps5 multiplat? What a buffoon. What exactly tell DF about GE now, I'm curious. When they ever talked about it? Aside Dictator via Twitter which practically know nothing about ps5 hardware GE features, he even candly admitted it in the twit.

Yeah better put a laugh gif. It's the only convicing argument you have which isn't console warring.

 

[reksveks]

Mike never specified which SSDs he tested. Maybe they were significantly slower than the one in the OP.

That would be funny as he would have had to test a pcie3 ssd

 

[alucard0712_rus]

According to Mike you should expect slower results from it. That's if you go with one that's below the recommended specs BTW.

Slower like 2.3 seconds instead of 2 seconds? I don't mind at all.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Slower like 2.3 seconds instead of 2 seconds? I don't mind at all.

Might be an issue for games that rely heavily on data streaming. Things like I/O stutters might only happen with the slower SSDs.

None of this really discredits the PS5s SSD though. I would be more worried if slow Gen3s performed on par with it for example.

 

[Kilau]

Jump to conclusions the thread, and based on the verge of all places lol. At least wait until a competent website does some analysis before you freak out.

 

[Kazza]

R&C shows off the SSD in a very rudimentary way.

To utilize the SSD in the manner intended by Sony will require a significant change to game engines and how devs think of storage. The example given by Cerny was the player turning 180 deg and those textures behind him being pulled from the SSD as he turns (not precached to ram).

Right now, nothing is doing this to any significant extent. Not R&C, not Returnal. It will take years, particularly due to the protraction of cross-gen. But when it happens a 3GB/s SSD - assuming it is not blacklisted by the system software - will render your game unplayable due to hitching and texture pop-in.

That raises the question: what's the point of going to all the time, money and effort creating this piece of specialised hardware if no game is going to take advantage of it? We are fast approaching the first year anniversary of the release of the console, and not only is there no sign of any software that is going to take advantage of this much-hyped SSD/IO system, but the games which were supposed to really show off the hardware (Ratchet and Returnal) are now being downplayed (albeit, only after these recent tests). If we ever do see evidence of it's practical use in a game, maybe the PS6 will already be on its way.

Compare this failure to deliver on pre-release hardware hype with those of other consoles:
Sega Megadrive - boasts about true 16-bit gaming, and then delivers 16-bit features rarely seen in 8-bit titles right off the bat (smooth parallax scrolling, large sprites, speech etc)
SNES - boasts about it's Mode 7 scaling hardware, which is then immediately taken advantage of in its launch titles (Pilot Wings, F-Zero etc)
PS1 - boasts about its 3D capabilities, which are then demonstrated in multiple launch titles

While the PS5 IO/SSD system might possibly be useful in some games at some indefinite point in the far future, I think we can all now agree that it was massively overhyped in the media in general, and these forums in particular.

Oh, yes, because a game that was in development before the PS5 specs were finalized is supposed to masterfully utilize the PS5's SSD to its maximum capability, incorporating radical, paradigm-shifting game design concepts and crafty techniques to take advantage of the revolutionary data streaming management, nevermind the fact that these developers have been developing games appealing to extremely lower-end spinning-disk storage drives since the fucking inception of the company itself.

You're a troll - cut and dry - claiming victories before the yeast has even risen. It's funny because this is the type of willful, disingenuous ignorance that would get me an insta-warn in an XBOX thread. Pathetic.

Calm down, everything is going to be ok. The TF advantage the XSX has doesn't make a massive difference in practice. The PS5's SSD/IO system isn't what it was hyped to be. Both consoles will share 95% of the games library in common, and any differences will require a DF 400% zoom to notice. As a PC owner, I'm getting the best of both worlds anyway.

Sounds like you've been warned against console warring a number of times in the past (enough to be angry about it, anyway), yet you accuse me of trolling... You wouldn't ever engage in such low behaviour, right?

 

[alucard0712_rus]

Might be an issue for games that rely heavily on data streaming. Things like I/O stutters might only happen with the slower SSDs.

None of this really discredits the PS5s SSD though. I would be more worried if slow Gen3s performed on par with it for example.

Theoretecally it's possible, I understand. Hypothetical game that loads/unloads assets everytime you see it and uses all the SSD bandwidth...
I don't believe that game will come, but I just instal THAT game on internal SSD and save the money.

 

[John Wick]

This thread is class. We got the Xbots doing their usual of downplaying anything positive about the PS5. Before it was the 12 teraflops. Now we turn to the SSD. One shit publication done some basic testing (without any context provided) and it's results are now taken as the be end of all facts for the SSD and IO solution for the PS5. I can't wait to return to this thread sometime down the road and see how many people made fools of themselves by being utter tools and fangirls.

 

[nikolino840]

Insomniac did state they saw a difference. However that was only in the sections that stressed the I/O. I would still aim for a drive that's similar in performance to the soldered drive.

Edit: Topher I believe he was the one from Insomniac that made the comment about the slower drives.

Found it.

So the r&c portals could work on series x with idk some seconds more but fine?

 

[John Wick]

That raises the question: what's the point of going to all the time, money and effort creating this piece of specialised hardware if no game is going to take advantage of it? We are fast approaching the first year anniversary of the release of the console, and not only is there no sign of any software that is going to take advantage of this much-hyped SSD/IO system, but the games which were supposed to really show off the hardware (Ratchet and Returnal) are now being downplayed (albeit, only after these recent tests). If we ever do see evidence of it's practical use in a game, maybe the PS6 will already be on its way.

Compare this failure to deliver on pre-release hardware hype with those of other consoles:
Sega Megadrive - boasts about true 16-bit gaming, and then delivers 16-bit features rarely seen in 8-bit titles right off the bat (smooth parallax scrolling, large sprites, speech etc)
SNES - boasts about it's Mode 7 scaling hardware, which is then immediately taken advantage of in its launch titles (Pilot Wings, F-Zero etc)
PS1 - boasts about its 3D capabilities, which are then demonstrated in multiple launch titles

While the PS5 IO/SSD system might possibly be useful in some games at some indefinite point in the far future, I think we can all now agree that it was massively overhyped in the media in general, and these forums in particular.



Calm down, everything is going to be ok. The TF advantage the XSX has doesn't make a massive difference in practice. The PS5's SSD/IO system isn't what it was hyped to be. Both consoles will share 95% of the games library in common, and any differences will require a DF 400% zoom to notice. As a PC owner, I'm getting the best of both worlds anyway.

Sounds like you've been warned against console warring a number of times in the past (enough to be angry about it, anyway), yet you accuse me of trolling... You wouldn't ever engage in such low behaviour, right?

Are you stating that games like R&C aren't using the PS5 IO system?
The IO and the SSD are being used in games like Demon Souls, Returnal and R&C.
Do you think when an external SSD is inserted into the PS5 the IO isn't doing anything and it's just the SSD?
This another one of those stupid comments.

 

[John Wick]

So the r&c portals could work on series x with idk some seconds more but fine?

Yes. Why?

 

[Mr Moose]

He didnt say you needed 7 but he implied you NEED extra speeds after showing how a 3.5 GBps PCIE 3 ssd was not enough and showed a 7GBps ssd.


Timestamped:





See above.

I know what he said, I linked it a few days ago for someone.
If someone buys a slower than recommended drive and it doesn't run as well in the future, they've only got themselves to blame. They put this warning on their page.
Not all games are created equally, "Here's the catch though, that commercial drive has to be at least as fast as ours, games that rely on the speed of our SSD need to work flawlessly with M.2 drive."
Don't get something below 5.5 and complain when you have to transfer it back to the PS5s drive.

 

[MasterCornholio]

So the r&c portals could work on series x with idk some seconds more but fine?

I read somewhere that's it's not necessarily the SSD speed that would prevent it but all the other I/O components. Some changes would have to be made to make it work.

 

[underwater]

That raises the question: what's the point of going to all the time, money and effort creating this piece of specialised hardware if no game is going to take advantage of it? We are fast approaching the first year anniversary of the release of the console, and not only is there no sign of any software that is going to take advantage of this much-hyped SSD/IO system, but the games which were supposed to really show off the hardware (Ratchet and Returnal) are now being downplayed (albeit, only after these recent tests). If we ever do see evidence of it's practical use in a game, maybe the PS6 will already be on its way.

Every new console takes time for games to fully utilize the hardware. Nothing at the launch of PS4 compares to mid-cycle titles like Uncharted 4 and HZD.

This is just the way it is, game development takes time and game engine R&D takes time. We are less than 1 year into what will probably be a 6-7 year cycle, complaining that games are not yet taking full advantage of the SSD is childish and absurd.

 

[John Wick]

I'll accept that as I've had to amend my posts before as well when saying something out of line. As far as being "misleading"......that was over a year ago. As far as we know the tech has changed and they have found ways to mitigate the priority levels and not require those higher speeds. And.....once again....this is beta testing. Why are you acting like everything we are seeing is final? And even it were, you don't think Cerny and Sony's engineers are taking more into account than just a few early games? Why all the hyperbole?

Some people just don't engage their brains. I mean how shit would Cerny's skills be if game devs could saturate the SSD speed and IO within the first year? Imagine that?
Cerny: Look at this super fast SSD and IO block.
Insomniac: Sorry mate we've saturated it within 7 months of release.

 

[3liteDragon]

Because Sony has not set any minimum requirements and are letting you put 3.9 GBps SSDs in the internal bay?

There’s a reason it’s a fucking beta test my guy, jfc

 

[tr1p1ex]

slowest COMPATIBLE ssd.

COMPATIBLE means they've vetted said ssd to be an Olympic sprinter.

So it's no surprise that anything already vetted as an Olympic sprinter is good enough.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

A lot of old narratives getting blow TF up lately

This is incidentally good news tho, means you can get a solid drive at a pretty cheap price, probably below $150 even closer to the $100 range, just depends on what capacity of storage you'd want.

 

[MasterCornholio]

A lot of old narratives getting blow TF up lately

This is incidentally good news tho, means you can get a solid drive at a pretty cheap price, probably below $150 even closer to the $100 range, just depends on what capacity of storage you'd want.

How is that a bad thing?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I wouldn't call 15% lower speeds "flawless".

If it leads to no perceptible difference in gameplay for a title like Rift Apart (which was marketed as needing the SSD to function as promised), then the experience while playing will essentially feel "flawless" to the player, I think that's what they were suggesting.

Basically you'd need to perform at a delta much worst than 15% to run into real-world scenarios where that gameplay is adversely affected by an inferior drive. If Insomniac's testing was looking at the raw numbers then yeah I can see the importance in noting a 15% differential, but the question should really be if that has a perceptible impact on the gameplay and at least for some of these other testers, it has had none.

And lets not forget there are also issues to be considered regarding long-term sustained performance of the drives. These things don't last forever and degrade with extended use. So starting with greater headroom is likely beneficial.

P/E (power/erase) cycles have nothing to do with bandwidth, that is all down to cell density in the NAND chips used. A 2 GB/s SSD @ 1 TB with SLC NAND would last longer than a 6 GB/s SSD @ 1 TB with QLC NAND.

I wonder if even slower drives would work fine too. All these talks about R&C is not possible without ULTRA FAST SSD

It'd depend on a bevy of factors outside of just if they're "slower" WRT sequential reads. Too small a capacity could be an issue, access latency for the NAND modules could be an issue, etc.

Ironically though some slower drives tend to be smaller drives, and may tend to have higher-quality NAND, which can improve access latency of the chips on the drive.

How is that a bad thing?

Personally I don't think it's a bad thing. However, it kind of frames a question of "how much is too much", in a way. It was natural to assume that if you wanted a 3P SSD in the PS5 that offered similar performance to the internal one, it'd need some sequential read bandwidth headroom to make up for lack of other features that might've been present with the internal storage but not on the 3P drive.

Now we're seeing that even 4 GB/s drives are offering performance virtually indistinguishable from the internal drive in a 1P game that was marketed as flexing the custom solution as a requirement for its gameplay. In that context it makes some of the hoopla over all the SSD talk as a whole (from both Sony and Microsoft sides) look silly, and I do still personally think people are overestimating the SSD's impact in being the lead factor fueling new game design concepts as the generation matures but, that's a bit of an aside conversation.

However, it's good in the sense that this should open up cheaper options for PS5 owners to get drives that will give virtually the same performance in real-time in gameplay even if in terms of theoretical numbers they come up a tad short in some areas. This might also force Microsoft to bring in more partners for their expansion storage sooner, to help reign the prices for their drives down, if such becomes a motivating factor for people to decide what system to purchase.

Basically, it helps enable more competition which is why it's good, but in terms of certain optics related to technical discussions for the past year or so, it's a bit of a blemish.

 

[Crimson_Fate]

So the r&c portals could work on series x with idk some seconds more but fine?

Well thats the question. This article only tested load times not gameplay

 

[Heisenberg007]

I called it as soon as I saw that the 5.5 GBps was recommended, not minimum.

I remember how Cerny said that you would need extra speeds because of the priority channels being 6 in the PS5 SSD so these 2 Priority channel SSDs would need the speed to be higher. Well, it turns out they can be a lot slower.

You also have to wonder just wtf Cerny was thinking going with 5.5 GBps when 3.9 GBps would do just fine. The objective should have been to save costs on the SSD in favor of a larger SSD or a larger GPU. Abosoluletly bizarre decision right here.

You're making the same mistake the author of the article did.

R&C is working relatively fine* with 3.9 Gb/s (Insomniac confirmed that these SSDs were 15% slower in stress-test areas, which the author didn't even test), but what about future games? Was PS5 SSD only created so Rift Apart could work?

There will be plenty of games in the future that would utilize the SSD and I/O more effectively than Rift Apart. In those games, that 4 GB/s SSD won't cut it.

Besides, are you really questioning Cerny? Dude is an industry legend for a reason.

 

[MasterCornholio]

If it leads to no perceptible difference in gameplay for a title like Rift Apart (which was marketed as needing the SSD to function as promised), then the experience while playing will essentially feel "flawless" to the player, I think that's what they were suggesting.

Basically you'd need to perform at a delta much worst than 15% to run into real-world scenarios where that gameplay is adversely affected by an inferior drive. If Insomniac's testing was looking at the raw numbers then yeah I can see the importance in noting a 15% differential, but the question should really be if that has a perceptible impact on the gameplay and at least for some of these other testers, it has had none.

Well to be fair that slow drive performs similarly to the PS5s if you didn't know. However put in a slow GEN3 drive and I'm pretty sure it might be a lot slower.

Anyways I don't see how this is a mark against the PS5s SSD since you need a similar drive to achieve that level of performance. Now if you could do the same with a 2GB/s drive that is definitely a disaster.

 

[On Demand]

The PS5 custom I/O is still being used with the external SSD. This doesn’t prove what people want to think it proves.

 

[reksveks]

You're making the same mistake the author of the article did.

R&C is working relatively fine* with 3.9 Gb/s (Insomniac confirmed that these SSDs were 15% slower in stress-test areas, which the author didn't even test), but what about future games? Was PS5 SSD only created so Rift Apart could work?

There will be plenty of games in the future that would utilize the SSD and I/O more effectively than Rift Apart. In those games, that 4 GB/s SSD won't cut it.

Besides, are you really questioning Cerny? Dude is an industry legend for a reason.

No one knows what the stress test was though and what they measured specifically. They also didn't say what those ssd's that insomniac used were afaik.

 

[reksveks]

Well thats the question. This article only tested load times not gameplay

Hopping through dimensions in Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart, I saw no appreciable difference with the slowest SSD.

They did 'test' the gameplay but unless you are doing frame counts, you won't be able to test it accurate so they focused on the load times.

 

[Corndog]

This proves nothing though. It might not be the same story with future releases that stress the i/o even more heavily.

The key issue is that the assumed throughput must always be available or else all kinds of bugs can ensue, its a QA nightmare.

Sure it does. That ssd doesn’t need to reach insane speeds to be effective.

 

[assurdum]

You're making the same mistake the author of the article did.

R&C is working relatively fine* with 3.9 Gb/s (Insomniac confirmed that these SSDs were 15% slower in stress-test areas, which the author didn't even test), but what about future games? Was PS5 SSD only created so Rift Apart could work?

There will be plenty of games in the future that would utilize the SSD and I/O more effectively than Rift Apart. In those games, that 4 GB/s SSD won't cut it.

Besides, are you really questioning Cerny? Dude is an industry legend for a reason.

The level of ignorance of people who write such article is really discouraging. They barely touched the SSD and I/O capability, of course now normal SSD are fine.

 

[Corndog]

I already see some idiots here that are going to go out and get lower spec’ed SSDs just to bitch up a storm later when problems arise. Tom also needs to stop for a second because they are only testing on a single PS5 game, the one game where the developer is saying the custom I/O pulls the rest of the grunt work.

It’s the one game people have touted as requiring Sony’s nvme solution. So that’ probably why they used it.

 

[reksveks]

The level of ignorance of people who write such article is really discouraging. They barely touched the SSD and I/O capability, of course now normal SSD are fine.

Would I run out and buy the slowest PCIe Gen4 SSD I can buy for my PS5? I’m not so sure, because Sony picked its recommended SSD spec for a reason — even if today’s games and today’s PS5 aren’t taking full advantage, developers may need that additional headroom in the future. They’ve been promised 5,500MB/s to deliver instant game worlds, and I’d hate to find out I bought the wrong drive years down the road.

Plus, there might already be some moments in Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart where you’ll notice a difference, says Insomniac technical director Mike Fitzgerald:

Not happy with that in the article?

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

You're making the same mistake the author of the article did.

R&C is working relatively fine* with 3.9 Gb/s (Insomniac confirmed that these SSDs were 15% slower in stress-test areas, which the author didn't even test), but what about future games? Was PS5 SSD only created so Rift Apart could work?

There will be plenty of games in the future that would utilize the SSD and I/O more effectively than Rift Apart. In those games, that 4 GB/s SSD won't cut it.

Besides, are you really questioning Cerny? Dude is an industry legend for a reason.

Most likely but who knows how long it takes to reach this point.

As it stands today these cheaper drives seem to work great and by the time we reach the point of needing faster speeds who knows what prices may be then.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Most likely but who knows how long it takes to reach this point.

As it stands today these cheaper drives seem to work great and by the time we reach the point of needing faster speeds who knows what prices may be then.

True which is why it's great that the PS5 can tap into the PCs NVME market.

 

[K' Dash]

Most likely but who knows how long it takes to reach this point.

As it stands today these cheaper drives seem to work great and by the time we reach the point of needing faster speeds who knows what prices may be then.

now that Sony is going to port their games to PC, wouldn't it make sense to develop for the lowest common denominator? meaning that their games probably will still work fine with slower SSDs.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

now that Sony is going to port their games to PC, wouldn't it make sense to develop for the lowest common denominator? meaning that their games probably will still work fine with slower SSDs.

Maybe but I do expect like Heisenberg007 said eventually first party games may need speeds equal to that of the internal SSD just who knows how far down the road that might be

 

[Topher]

now that Sony is going to port their games to PC, wouldn't it make sense to develop for the lowest common denominator? meaning that their games probably will still work fine with slower SSDs.

I doubt all games are going to be ported to PC, but games that depend on faster SSD speeds are probably going to have minimum requirements that reflect that.

 

[Heisenberg007]

No one knows what the stress test was though and what they measured specifically. They also didn't say what those ssd's that insomniac used were afaik.

They mentioned the slowest compatible SSD, which I believe is the same one that the author tested for this article.

Anyway, I don't see the point of testing Rift Apart when Insomniac has already done that and shared the results. As you said, random testers won't know what stress-test areas are, so their tests will always be insufficient, just like this one.

 

[Portugeezer]

Interesting to see small differences, I'll wait for some more thurough tests though; splash screens aren't necessarily loading screens when it comes to next gen.

 

[IntentionalPun]

All I really care about is crazy fast load times..

So it's good to know a decent 5GB/second drive is probably going to be good enough, at least for the time being.

Chances are.. it will be good enough for the entire generation. The idea that games by and large would actually be designed to push the I/O as far as the PS5 can has never been particularly logical.

And that's A-OK.. because the load times are insane.. and the I/O complex in general does things to go way beyond the raw speed.