Well, I don't want to get too much into this because it's not very productive, but I think a crucial difference is that the actual speed of the SSD and the I/O subsytem and its benefits were discussed at length and actual results can already be seen,
I mean, they KIND of can, but we also know that you DON'T need SSDs at the speed of PS5's or even the Series systems (in terms of raw sequential read speeds anyway) to get fast load times because several PS4 games were updated to have massive I/O gains on base PS4 systems....and those are using SATA II (maybe SATA III at best) drives.
while the idea that PS5 doesn't have hw support for while the XSX does is based on old FUD, "the PS5 is RDNA 1.5".
This is conflation; hw support in relation to what specifically? RT? I think vast majority assumed they had hw RT support when Cerny said as such way back in an interview. The question was if Sony were using AMD RT or some custom RT due to Oberon regression tests not showing RT enabled (because doing so would cause the tests to fail at that time).
...which was a speculation that never made too much sense because it hinged on a separate processor block connected to the main one without any available means of high bandwidth to not bottleneck the system altogether. But hey, that was early days of 10th-gen speculation.
I still remember the Xbox camp here swore PS5 had no hw ray tracing support, until it did.
You're massively exaggerating "the Xbox camp"; why would you take a few rogues saying that to be indicative of the entire Xbox community, including those who actually play on multiple platforms (which is a lot)? We can just as easily take a few PS extremists statements from around that time regarding the Series X that they swore were (made up) gospel until info came out to disprove it (such as Series systems having no dedicated audio, or the segmented bandwidth causing "regular" drops to sub-224 GB/s memory bandwidth averages, etc.), should we use that to admonish the entire PlayStation fanbase community here?
So yeah, it's a false equivalence and I do have to admit, MS does get its audience engaged and is very good at it,
Now you're suggesting Microsoft pays to spread FUD, yet there's not a single bit of proof. Taking a minority of fanboys' actions as indicative of official endorsement by a mega-conglomerate is all types of whoops.
their fans get hyped with their overuse of buzzwords that are mostly exaggerations for marketing purposes.
You mean like the SFS, etc. stuff they had working, tangible demos showing off today at GameStack?
They managed to get their fanbase to believe them being behind on writing a newer version of their API meant that their hardware was newer and better, for example.
You mean like the features they went into more details today at Game Stack, in relation to system features dependent on AMD (Super Resolution, still not available yet) and transition from XDK to GDK that numerous people in the industry (including those who mainly focus on Sony-related rumors) concurred on as being an actual thing?
How many whoops is that for you now?
Weve seen what ssds streaming directly to video memory can do with unreal 5 and also an old tech from amd called SSG!
One is a demo and the other was barely used by commercial video games :/
its actually the biggest advancement in gaming since 3d,
Uh, only if you are tech-ignorant, I guess :/
but all the false advertisement from series x fanatics is no where to be seen, the superior teraflops, ml advantage, rdna 2 advantage, sampler feedback, vrs, its all buzzwords,
It's barely six months into a new generation; devs are still using older pipelines and have not began to optimize for the new systems yet. When they begin to, we should start to see the benefits of each system's design choices come into play and for the Series platforms, that's seemingly in the form of a bigger focus on ML, raw compute, SFS etc (btw it's hard to call some of these buzzwords when they are literally demoing them in practice at technology events...whoops).
the point of my post was to debunk all the fanatics who said ml wasnt hardware supported on ps5, when infact it is.
You haven't debunked anything because "all the fanatics" were a vocal minority; further along that end if anyone has speculated if PS5 supports ML inference of precisions lower than FP16 they are well within their right to do so as Sony have yet to confirm their system supports this (and it looks increasingly likely they will never confirm nor deny it).
How is the latter somehow "worse" in your expert opinion? The first one still has not been demonstrated in any way we can compare the two, which is true for the SSD as well, but we know the order of the difference.
1: I'm not an expert, no need to be facetious .
2: Yes, neither have been fully demonstrated but it's funny that in both cases we still effectively work with paper specs yet for you the latter is a known quantity based on majority paper specifications. So far SSD performance has been remarkably similar between Sony and Microsoft's designs with majority of advantages on PS5 being relatively meaningless in terms of QoL impact and a lot not reflective of the gap given in the paper specifications whatsoever (across games available on both platforms).
OTOH there have been more than a small number of scenarios with Series platforms having better times, and although this is with the majority of the I/O software stack not being leveraged on either platform, it does demonstrate that Microsoft's solution will perform a lot more competitively in practice than what paper specifications indicate
