-.- -_- >_<
I'm going to try to something here... Rather than assuming malice, I am going to assume ignorance, or, lack of knowledge to put it more softly... So... Let me try and explain a few things... Maybe, just maybe, things will become clear in the end. This is relevant for you too,
@Keihart ...
Games are currently developed with HDDs in mind, not SSDs. What do HDDs have? They have platters and a head to seek information. In order to access data on the HDD, the platters spin, and the head needs to be 'put' in the proper position on the platter to start reading the data. Obviously, you want to read things as fast as possible. But it takes time for the head to be put in the right position, to start reading the data.
Then we have SSDs. SSDs do not have seek times in the traditional sense. Basically, you can read from an SSD in a similar way compared to how you read from RAM.
Hopefully, this has been understood. Before jumping to conclusions, if you have any doubts, please do me a favor and ask.
... Let's continue...
What happens if you put a game programmed for HDDs on an SSD? Well, we need some more background information here...
First of all, since HDDs are so slow, developers do multiple things to reduce seek times (i.e. the time the head has to search for the data on the platter) and also to transfer data as fast as possible. This is to optimize for the slow data transfer.
The first thing they do is copy the same file multiple times on the HDD. So basically you can have 5, 10, or even 20 copies of the same file in extreme cases, in order to reduce seek times. This is one of main the reasons games are so big right now. Look at it like this. If you have to find one ball as quick as possible on a football field, the chances of finding it in less time is a lot higher if there are several balls rather than only one.
Additionally, when the game is installed, each file is stored sequentially, meaning, all the data is placed in the exact order that the head would move over the spinning platter. This reduces the amount of times you have to seek for data, in addition to enabling the head to 'constantly' read the data without interruptions afterwards.
SSDs on the other hand, they do not benefit from multiple copies of the same file at all (it's actually the opposite), and benefit to a much lesser extent from sequential data. Data on the SSD can practically be accessed relatively instantly anywhere on the drive. The main thing that slows down SSDs is random reads, because I/O requests are not free. Sequential data would reduce the amount of I/O requests in comparison to the data being scattered everywhere, and thus you get an increase in performance. But it does not have anything to do with seek times or the actual accessing of the data.
And that is exactly the problem. Since you have a bunch of copies of the same file when you programmed with HDDs in mind, the HDD is trying to access whichever data is the closest, and this increases performance. On an SSD, there really is no 'close' or 'far away' data. So the SSD will try to read from all of the copies, basically turning the sequential read into a random read, tanking performance. The optimal setup for the HDD is pretty much the worst for the SSD. Rather than an optimization, it is pretty much gimping the SSD. You end up making a lot of unnecessary I/O requests, because the game thinks it's on an HDD that needs to find a ball as quickly as possible by running on a field. It is the exact reason why SATA SSDs perform basically the same as NVMe SSDs, despite the latter being a LOT faster. They both get 'killed' equally by the unnecessary I/O requests of the game.
This is why I have been saying that dropping a game that is not optimized for an SSD on the PS5 will have the exact same effect as what State of Decay had in the non-optimized demo for the XSX. And yes, it was non-optimized. Find the State of Decayt video on YouTube and read what the description says. The argument of an older gaming having the same effect on the PS5 and XSX has little to do with the capabilities of either console, and it has everything to do with the way things are being done currently, and how they are far from optimal for the new hardware in either console. If you can acknowledge that a SATA and NVMe SSD give pretty much the same performance on a game optimized for HDD, despite an NVMe SSD generally being anywhere between 5 to 7 times faster, it really is a stretch to somehow believe that things are different for the XSX SSD and the PS5 SSD. Especially considering the fact that a PS5 SSD is not even 3 times as fast as the XSX SSD, compared to the 5+ times faster of SATA vs NVMe...
Hopefully, this clears up some things, and we can lay off the disinformation.