Do modern AAA releases in general run fine on HDDs? Last time I tried with a few games I had tons of stuttering that wasn't there on an NVME, not to mention loading screens taking forever.Cerny magic gonna be proven to be not so magical when this game is perfectly playable on a 7200 RPM bog standard HDD. Can't wait.
Source? Because I sincerely doubt a majority of people are rocking NVMe SSDs that run 5.5 GB/s or faster.where's the, "i don't care and this shouldn't matter" option. Any conversation about this is console war bait imo
Technology advances and SSD's at those speeds are the standard now
There's was nothing special about the SSD, it's the hardware decompression that is doing God's work.
Edit: To be fair, the SSD was quite fast back at launch.
Cerny magic gonna be proven to be not so magical when this game is perfectly playable on a 7200 RPM bog standard HDD. Can't wait.
I don't think it needed to be 5.5gb/s for every game, tests have shown that already for ratchet specifically.
That's 3.2GB/s ssd with custom i/o hardware ps5 has, not 3.2GB/s on an average pc. It's not about theoretical speeds and it's not about this game (it might even work).The DF test way back said their rock bottom 3.2GB/s PC SSD worked fine when they installed it in a PS5.
I thought that was the lowest test out there, but a gaffer (I forget who) said in a more recent post that some people tested it on even slower SSDs and the game ran fine. I forget what the speed rating was but it might had been dumbed down to 2GB/s perhaps. I dont remember
Find it unlikely, although i did consider it among the criteria just in case. This is the kind of thing you'd normally need access to the source code to do.I'm going to take a guess the official minimum specs will be a SSD, but modders will figure out how to make the game run fine on a HDD.
Maybe because it's a Microsoft DirectX tech? IDK if that has to do.This game would be a perfect candidate to use Direct Storage.
Sadly, it seems it won't, considering the trailer bragged about having lot's of tech, but nothing about DS.
BTW, for transferring large amounts of data out of storage, with the old Windows file system, the bottleneck will be the CPU. Not the SSD.
So the question is on which CPU will be required.
For CPU to become a bottleneck, you have to assume the game requires a NVMe anyway.BTW, for transferring large amounts of data out of storage, with the old Windows file system, the bottleneck will be the CPU. Not the SSD.
So the question is on which CPU will be required.
Played Cyberpunk on a old 5TB Western Digital drive. Worked perfectly fine. That was even with the "HDD mode" or whatever not in use.Do modern AAA releases in general run fine on HDDs? Last time I tried with a few games I had tons of stuttering that wasn't here on an NVME, not to mention loading screens taking forever.
Screwing around obviously. Also:Or not whats the point?
This, this is not game design. Its software design. As long as the end result is the same, no matter what software shenanigans were utilized to achieve it, the game design doesn't change.Having a CPU with 32GB/ 64GB of RAM that could just act as a data cache is kinda a game design fix around the issue.
The whole point of these conversations was the effect on game design. Having a CPU with 32GB/ 64GB of RAM that could just act as a data cache is kinda a game design fix around the issue. The whole point was fast SSD meant Sony could get away with having less RAM since data can be streamed in from SSD on a just-in-time basis.
I don't know, just guessing here, most probably it has nothing to do with it
Digital Foundry: Even then the game is loading fast. I did a loading test, just between PCs. It is not as fast as PS5, but still it is just under five seconds to load the game from the menu on nearly any modern PC with an NVME drive. It is very fast in comparison to other PC games. Still, what is actually the bottleneck in loading times on PC? Is it the IO-stack there (which even DirectStorage's first version without GPU decompression tries to address) or is it CPU limitations?
Jurjen Katsman: I am not certain if decompression is actually the bottleneck for load times as we did do some things to make decompression go faster, but we backed out on some of those that were hurting the in-game loading (streaming). As in-game (as in streaming while in game, moving around) with those decompression speed-ups in place, we were taking too much CPU away from the game. So we backed that away, and it didn't really meaningfully impact loading screens.
I think other things that do play into it probably is shader compilation that's happening during loading screens, and you mentioned BVH building before, so that is also happening. There's a variety of little things that we do on PC, some of it would be the IO stack... We have some DirectStorage experiments but especially for a loading screen we can use all the CPU for loading, that's what the loading screen is about, right? It's not that suddenly the IO stack change is suddenly going to make it go four times as fast. For in-game purposes, I think that's when when it [Direct Storage] becomes interesting, right when there's this CPU core being fully utilised just to facilitate decompression, freeing up that CPU core if we were able to do that... that would be that's an exciting future, but not where we we're at right now.
I disagree. To me, game design is everything that goes into designing a game. Your engine, systems, mechanic...etc.Screwing around obviously. Also:
Game design relates to the portal mechanics present in the game, how they behave, how the players can use them, etc. The concept exists purely on the ludonic level, in term of game systems, rules, mechanics, etc.
This, this is not game design. Its software design. As long as the end result is the same, no matter what software shenanigans were utilized to achieve it, the game design doesn't change.