Support NeoGAF

[3liteDragon]

The PS5 System Software has been updated to support ALL PCIe Gen 4.0 x4 NVMe drives, so with the help of Fidler_2K from the DF Supporter Program, we tracked down the absolute slowest drive - the WD SN750 SE - and stacked it up against the console's internal SSD and the Mark Cerny-approved max spec WD SN850. Can a bargain basement, spec-deficient drive cut it out against the best of the best? The results are surprising.

 

[nikolino840]

Pop corn ready

 

[Kazza]

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Short answer: Yes

 

[Kilau]

PS5 magic makes the drive perform 62% faster than possible!

 

[Mister Wolf]

I would like to know how much data a second R&C really needs. I think it would be quite telling if there were a way to test SATA drives.

 

[reforen]

I watched the video, so the magic SSD needed for Ratchet and Clank was only a marketing thingy? The load times are similar in the tests and the gameplay looks the same

 

[killatopak]

So basically it means there’s more room for improvement for future games.

I distinctly remember Insomniac devs telling them that they had a problem with SSD speed. Not with it not being not fast enough but that their game engine couldn’t fully utilize the speed. I dunno if he’s telling the truth but the results shown here seems to confirm it a little.

edit: yeah, they really did say that the engine couldn’t keep up with the SSD speed. Here is the interview.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

TL;DW: Yes. There's barely a difference.

Would be interesting to know what the real bottom is. 2500 MB/s? 2000? 1500? Sadly nobody can really test it.

 

[reksveks]

This topic was on the discord group for a while so interested to see the video now.

 

[3liteDragon]

I would like to know how much data a second R&C really needs. I think it would be quite telling if there were a way to test SATA drives.

TL;DW: Yes. There's barely a difference.

Would be interesting to know what the real bottom is. 2500 MB/s? 2000? 1500? Sadly nobody can really test it.

Looking at the game, the amount of data it's pulling in is probably in the GB/s range but nowhere near 5.5GB/s. My guess would be 1-2GB/s, which means a decent PCIe 3.0 drive can probably run the game, pure speculation on my part.

 

[Mr Moose]

"Behind the scenes, there’s so much to peel back about the SSD and the I/O around it," he says. "We’re just scratching the surface of it. As a developer, that will be really cool to see how it turns out."

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Aside from a couple times writing to the slow WD750 took forever (like 9x longer than writing to the 850), everything else from gameplay, frame rate hitches, and loading times were basically a wash between the WD750, WD850 and PS5's internal SSD.

In other words, the WD750 3.2gb/s SSD is just as good as the internal SSD.

If you look closely at the gameplay triple comparison, there are times the WD drives frame rates are a bit better than PS5's for a fraction of a second.

For all you PC gamers who'd chime in once in a while in an SSD thread saying your PC's slower SSD could probably do R&C's time warping tunnels. You're right. A PC 3.2gb/s SSD did it fine.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Aside from a couple times writing to the slow WD750 took forever (like 9x longer than writing to the 850), everything else from gameplay, frame rate hitches, and loading times were basically a wash between the WD750, WD850 and PS5's internal SSD.

In other words, the WD750 3.2gb/s SSD is just as good as the internal SSD.

If you look closely at the gameplay triple comparison, there are times the WD drives frame rates are a bit better than PS5's for a fraction of a second.

I personally still wouldn't buy a slow SSD for the PS5. Maybe two, three years from now Sony releases games which actually use 5500 MB/S of bandwidth, and then if you cheaped out on the SSD you're out of luck.

 

[winjer]

These drives might just be more limited by iops, than by read speed.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I watched the video, so the magic SSD needed for Ratchet and Clank was only a marketing thingy? The load times are similar in the tests and the gameplay looks the same

Thats marketing for ya.

 

[Lysandros]

Just like that the comment section of the video is already full of clueless people making fun of PS5's I/O-SSD tech and Cerny. Mission accomplished i guess. If i were Cerny i would post an a mini article explaining the reasons. But knowing that Sony don't seem to care about its hardware reputation to the slightest degree this gen, i see this possiblity as low.

 

[Plantoid]

So much for the revolutionary SSD, and people in here were saying rift apart wasn't possible on PC because of the ssd

 

[Low Moral Fibre]

Still about to order a SN850 so my e-peen is intact.

 

[NickFire]

So much for the revolutionary SSD, and people in here were saying rift apart wasn't possible on PC because of the ssd

Don't you need a sample size greater than 1 before you consider a hypothesis proven?

 

[nikolino840]

Just like that the comment section of the video is already full of clueless people making fun of PS5's I/O-SSD tech and Cerny. Mission accomplished i guess. If i were Cerny i would post an a mini article explaining the reasons. But knowing that Sony don't seem to care about its hardware reputation to the slightest degree this gen, i see this possiblity as low.

What reasons? i would like to see your posts in the first reveal trailer of r&c

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I personally still wouldn't buy a slow SSD for the PS5. Maybe two, three years from now Sony releases games which actually use 5500 MB/S of bandwidth, and then if you cheaped out on the SSD you're out of luck.

Thats true.

But at this point with R&C being the focal point of SSD, it looks like a 3.2gb/s PC SSD handles loading and streaming data perfectly fine. And it was the crappiest SSD they could find that supports the specs. You never know, if there was a compatible card running at 2 gb/s R&C might still work just as well. Nobody knows the absolute bottom requirement.

Just to show how odd it can be, in some of those loading comparisons, the 750 did just as well or even a touch better in a few examples than the internal. It was such an even-steven comparison, all 3 were basically just as good except for a few weird loading issues with the 750 which took forever, but then another game was some reason fast like the other SSDs.

 

[Lysandros]

So much for the revolutionary SSD, and people in here were saying rift apart wasn't possible on PC because of the ssd

PCs have PS5 I/O complex embedded on them now?..

 

[T-Cake]

Is there such a thing as a SATA to NVME convertor so you could plug in something even slower? It would be an interesting test.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Don't you need a sample size greater than 1 before you consider a hypothesis proven?

It's the one game that pushes streaming speed tbh. Next up is... idk, Spiderman 2? We'll be waiting a loooong time.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I watched the video, so the magic SSD needed for Ratchet and Clank was only a marketing thingy? The load times are similar in the tests and the gameplay looks the same

It's the PS5s I/O controller, not the SSD chiplets themselves.

But carry on you tech savvy creampuffs.

 

[Plantoid]

PCs have PS5 I/O complex embedded on them now?..

So are you saying that it isn't possible on a PC with a 3200mbs SSD?

 

[ReBurn]

I watched the video, so the magic SSD needed for Ratchet and Clank was only a marketing thingy? The load times are similar in the tests and the gameplay looks the same

There's the answer to your question.

 

[Lysandros]

Let's just pretend that the hardware decompressor, coprocessors, SRAM, coherency engine and Cache Scrubbers don't exist and the external SSD isn't connected to them. That's the right thing to do.

 

[DForce]

I watched the video, so the magic SSD needed for Ratchet and Clank was only a marketing thingy? The load times are similar in the tests and the gameplay looks the same

Do you even watch the entire video?

 

[Sosokrates]

So which is incorrect the box label saying its 3200mb/s or PS5s OS saying its like 5000mb/s?

 

[Negotiator101]

Just like that the comment section of the video is already full of clueless people making fun of PS5's I/O-SSD tech and Cerny. Mission accomplished i guess. If i were Cerny i would post an a mini article explaining the reasons. But knowing that Sony don't seem to care about its hardware reputation to the slightest degree this gen, i see this possiblity as low.

Maybe you could do it, I assume you are not one of the clueless people?

 

[Bernd Lauert]

So which is incorrect the box label saying its 3200mb/s or PS5s OS saying its like 5000mb/s?

The latter is wrong. You can easily test the speed on a PC.

 

[Snowdonhoffen]

The most impressive thing is that an SSD rated at 3200mb runs at at 5173mb on PS5, is that a bug or something else?

 

[NickFire]

It's the one game that pushes streaming speed tbh. Next up is... idk, Spiderman 2? We'll be waiting a loooong time.

I stand by my doubt that one game at the beginning of the cycle is good reason to install below expansions below spec. I find it incredibly unbelievable that Sony is recommending the minimum speed for the heck of it. They don't even have a propriety expansion to profit from.

 

[Neo_game]

I wonder why are they recommending faster SSD when slower pcie gen 4 are good enough. If only 5-10 games need faster SSD I am not sure it will be worth it

 

[RoadHazard]

So are you saying that it isn't possible on a PC with a 3200mbs SSD?

Without DirectStorage? Most likely not. With it? Most likely.

 

[M1chl]

People probably cannot fathom how much data is 5.5GB/s of sustained bandwidth.

Let's just say that in last gen you have barely 30MB/s with a lot of overhead and slow CPU, not the mention seek times.

By the way, some background info Direct Storage coupled with RTX3090 (sorry I don't do pleb GPUs) is a real deal, but PS5 ASIC is still faster.
And yes I am dev. And yes NDA.

But brighter future ahead.

 

[skit_data]

Not very surprised by the results tbh, a game developed before specs were finalized. I’m more surprised that the speed test of the drive was completely off.

As Richard is saying dedicated decompression pulls the heaviest weight and it will take a while before devs will maximize the potential by utilizing it to the fullest.

 

[Snake29]

Thats true.

But at this point with R&C being the focal point of SSD, it looks like a 3.2gb/s PC SSD handles loading and streaming data perfectly fine. And it was the crappiest SSD they could find that supports the specs. You never know, if there was a compatible card running at 2 gb/s R&C might still work just as well. Nobody knows the absolute bottom requirement.

Just to show how odd it can be, in some of those loading comparisons, the 750 did just as well or even a touch better in a few examples than the internal. It was such an even-steven comparison, all 3 were basically just as good except for a few weird loading issues with the 750 which took forever, but then another game was some reason fast like the other SSDs.

These added drives still need to use the I/O complex, so i wouldn’t say it would be completely the same performance without I/O complex.

This is only good news for future PS5 games. A lot of headroom for bigger titles.

 

[RoboFu]

I’ve said from the start, ratchet and crank is more coding than hardware.. you can easily see where the tricks and loading are hidden.

 

[Lysandros]

So are you saying that it isn't possible on a PC with a 3200mbs SSD?

 

[DForce]

I’ve said from the start, ratchet and crank is more coding than hardware.. you can easily see where the tricks and loading are hidden.

There are no hiding loading screens other than a white flash in Blizar Prime.

 

[DForce]

Doesn't surprise me that people are ignoring the last part of the video. This has been known for a while.

 

[RoboFu]

There are no hiding loading screens other than a white flash in Blizar Prime.

I can clearly see the change from animated texture to real 3D in the speedy on rails rifts

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I stand by my doubt that one game at the beginning of the cycle is good reason to install below expansions below spec. I find it incredibly unbelievable that Sony is recommending the minimum speed for the heck of it. They don't even have a propriety expansion to profit from.

Personally, I think anyone buying a compatible SSD will be fine. If the 5.5gb/s was that important, they wouldnt let people install slower SSDs. They'd just make it mandatory 5.5 or more. And wouldnt say "recommended 5.5"

I see this example like PC games min and reco specs. But in this case, the min and reco specs lead the same quality and performance.

 

[SlimySnake]

Let's just pretend that hardware decompressor, coprocessors, SRAM, coherency engine and Cache Scrubbers don't exist and the site external SSD isn't connected to them. That's the right thing to do.

That's not the point. The point is that Sony couldve gone with a cheaper and slower SSD to reduce costs or maybe apply those cost savings into a more powerful GPU or a bigger SSD.

Because right now, it's a waste of money. They have essentially spent extra money on something that will not be utilized by 99% of devs. And the 1% who are utilizing it, are not even close to maxing it out as this Ratchet test shows.

99% of the devs are going to fully max out the 10 tflops GPU. It's not that hard. You push resolution and pixels and some GPU heavy RT effects and you hit the GPU bottleneck. No one at the moment seems to be maxing out this SSD. I/O seems to be more than capable on its own. What Cerny has done is deliver a weaker console at the expense of this fancy SSD that no one seems to give a shit about at the moment. Literally one studio has taken advantage of it, and they are 2.2 GBps away from maxing it out. The rest of their own studios are busy doing cross gen games.

Maybe in 2 years when Spiderman comes out and does something fancy with the PS5 SSD speeds of 5.5 GBps we can say that it was a good choice to prioritize SSD speeds over SSD size and faster GPU. But if we have to wait 3 years to see what this fancy SSD can do then maybe they shouldve stuck in their mid gen console instead.

 

[carloseduardocd]

"My take on the results is that we should not be expecting to see the SSD pushed to its limits in first-gen PlayStation 5 titles."

First-gen ok. What about next? That's why Richard recommend to buy using the recommendations ( >= 5.5GB/s read)

Can the slowest PS5 NVMe upgrade run Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart?

Sony's latest system software update for PlayStation 5 went live last week, bringing with it the ability for all users …

www.eurogamer.net

 

[DForce]

I can clearly see the change from animated texture to real 3D in the speedy on rails rifts

No, dude. lol.

 

[Mr Moose]

That's not the point. The point is that Sony couldve gone with a cheaper and slower SSD to reduce costs or maybe apply those cost savings into a more powerful GPU or a bigger SSD.

Because right now, it's a waste of money. They have essentially spent extra money on something that will not be utilized by 99% of devs. And the 1% who are utilizing it, are not even close to maxing it out as this Ratchet test shows.

99% of the devs are going to fully max out the 10 tflops GPU. It's not that hard. You push resolution and pixels and some GPU heavy RT effects and you hit the GPU bottleneck. No one at the moment seems to be maxing out this SSD. I/O seems to be more than capable on its own. What Cerny has done is deliver a weaker console at the expense of this fancy SSD that no one seems to give a shit about at the moment. Literally one studio has taken advantage of it, and they are 2.2 GBps away from maxing it out. The rest of their own studios are busy doing cross gen games.

Maybe in 2 years when Spiderman comes out and does something fancy with the PS5 SSD speeds of 5.5 GBps we can say that it was a good choice to prioritize SSD speeds over SSD size and faster GPU. But if we have to wait 3 years to see what this fancy SSD can do then maybe they shouldve stuck in their mid gen console instead.

How much did their SSD cost?