Support NeoGAF

[Bo_Hazem]

just as an additional notice, I'm currently basically idling with Edge open and I use 5GB of System memory. meaning my total increase was indeed just about 6GB since I had the browser open during testing.

Your game settings also play a role here. Overall, PS5 was overengineered to last longer through the generation. PC's when moving to PCIe 5.0 will automatically trash it or with higher hardware advantage. If you look at the graph without GPU power and probably VRAM they can't even reach the 7.3GB/s throughput of the core speed of the PCIe 4.0 NVMe m.2 SSD's. PS5 isn't as efficient as Apple's silicon that has EVERYTHING inside that massive chip minus the SSD, but closer concept of shortening the data travel length physically between GPU/CPU/shared cache/SSD/etc.

The natural evolution of consoles, and PC's, is ARM going forward.

 

[Spukc]

Full loading from boot with logos:

Sonic 2 loaded faster

 

[01011001]

Your game settings also play a role here.

running max settings (minus RT)

Overall, PS5 was overengineered to last longer through the generation. PC's when moving to PCIe 5.0 will automatically trash it or with higher hardware advantage. If you look at the graph without GPU power and probably VRAM they can't even reach the 7.3GB/s throughput of the core speed of the PCIe 4.0 NVMe m.2 SSD's.

I mean given that no PS5 game currently needs more than 2.8gb/s, what exactly do you think games will be like to use the apparently magic PS5 speeds? not even the "instant" load games that are currently out use more than that, and that's only as slow as we know of since it's hard to get a really slow Gen4 SSD to test the PS5 with. who knows how low you could go currently and still see no tangible load speed difference

 

[Bo_Hazem]

running max settings (minus RT)




I mean given that no PS5 game currently needs more than 2.8gb/s, what exactly do you think games will be like to use the apparently magic PS5 speeds? not even the "instant" load games that are currently out use more than that, and that's only as slow as we know of since it's hard to get a really slow Gen4 SSD to test the PS5 with. who knows how low you could go currently and still see no tangible load speed difference

Mostly the games that have PS5 as the main hardware first, like 1st party games. Forspoken is meant to work on HDD PC's, so you think they'll put all their effort into making it as optimized as possible for PS5? Does it look as good as GOW:R or HFW on PS5? No. Also what's with the 2.8GB/s nonsense?

 

[Saiyan-Rox]

This baby is super fast

It goes 0 to mediocre in 2 seconds

 

[01011001]

Mostly the games that have PS5 as the main hardware first, like 1st party games. Forspoken is meant to work on HDD PC's, so you think they'll put all their effort into making it as optimized as possible for PS5? Does it look as good as GOW:R or HFW on PS5? No. Also what's with the 2.8GB/s nonsense?

2.8gb/s is the slowest m.2 ssd tested inside a PS5. the lowest I could find at least.
it's hard to get slower ones, you might be able to artificially slow them down by completely loading them full of tiny files to the brim or by doing other stuff to it, but so far 2.8GB/s is the slowest speed tested and all the "instant load" games still load instantly with those speeds

 

[GHG]

Mostly the games that have PS5 as the main hardware first, like 1st party games. Forspoken is meant to work on HDD PC's, so you think they'll put all their effort into making it as optimized as possible for PS5? Does it look as good as GOW:R or HFW on PS5? No.

Let's be honest, it doesn't even look as good as HFW on PS4.

This is a very strange situation. We have our resident Xbox brothers trying to hold this mediocre game up on PC as a slight against the PS5. Is this really what it's come to?

PPS, please buy it on the windows store.

 

[Black_Stride]

Because those hacks at Microsoft could have done this ages ago.

Are you assuming the engineers had the solution already and decided to NOT release it because they like the element of surprise or something?

P.S What stopped devs from using GPU decomp themselves?

 

[01011001]

Let's be honest, it doesn't even look as good as HFW on PS4.

This is a very strange situation. We have our resident Xbox brothers trying to hold this mediocre game up on PC as a slight against the PS5. Is this really what it's come to?

this is absolutely irrelevant. the relevant metric in this discussion is how much VRAM the game needs on the highest settings and how fast it can load all the files needed to render the scene of your last save file.
and so far my slowest SSD which is a USB ssd by samsung, which is rated for 540 MB/s, loads the game just as fast as the PS5 does. which is usually not the case, but direct storage seems to be the real deal here.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

2.8gb/s is the slowest m.2 ssd tested inside a PS5. the lowest I could find at least.
it's hard to get slower ones, you might be able to artificially slow them down by completely loading them full of tiny files to the brim or by doing other stuff to it, but so far 2.8GB/s is the slowest speed tested and all the "instant load" games still load instantly with those speeds

I mean you seem you've already went to PS6 and had the whole generation figured out as it seems. Loading games is one thing, but the SSD's doesn't stop there, it also plays a critical role in data streaming during gameplay. If it gets throttle then you get dropped frames/stuttering or problems in LOD's/audio/etc. We've already seen plenty of shite performance games on PC's vs PS5.

Let's be honest, it doesn't even look as good as HFW on PS4.

This is a very strange situation. We have our resident Xbox brothers trying to hold this mediocre game up on PC as a slight against the PS5. Is this really what it's come to?

Well, tough times on the green side, mate. Just enjoy your Xbox Achievements on PC and chill.

 

[Black_Stride]

How did the PC performance thread turn into a console war thread?

 

[Dr.Morris79]

Sweet. Anything to hear that dialogue faster is a boon indeed.

 

[01011001]

I mean you seem you've already went to PS6 and had the whole generation figured out as it seems. Loading games is one thing, but the SSD's doesn't stop there, it also plays a critical role in data streaming during gameplay. If it gets throttle then you get dropped frames/stuttering or problems in LOD's/audio/etc. We've already seen plenty of shite performance games on PC's vs PS5.

those games perform worse because of shader compilation stutters and other API issues, not the storage used. there's not a single game out there whose performance issues can be tracked back to the storage device used, unless said storage device is a ridiculously old and slow HDD.

no game out there needs excessively high speeds to stream in data on the fly.

 

[Gaiff]

Are you assuming the engineers had the solution already and decided to NOT release it because they like the element of surprise or something?

P.S What stopped devs from using GPU decomp themselves?

Nah, I'm assuming they damn well knew what the bottleneck was on the software side and have for years but nobody could be assed to work on it because they wouldn't benefit from it.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

How did the PC performance thread turn into a console war thread?

Blame S staticshock

 

[GHG]

this is absolutely irrelevant. the relevant metric in this discussion is how much VRAM the game needs on the highest settings and how fast it can load all the files needed to render the scene of your last save file.
and so far my slowest SSD which is a USB ssd by samsung, which is rated for 540 MB/s, loads the game just as fast as the PS5 does. which is usually not the case, but direct storage seems to be the real deal here.

Dude, the game looks like crap, runs at 720p on PS5 and you want to use this as some kind of benchmark for anything?

The only redeeming feature is the fact that it features direct storage, but it's the first example we have so we have no idea how it will stack up against other games at this moment in time.

I would say tread with caution but whatever, who am I kidding? Seen this song and dance enough times to know people will latch on to anything they can.

How did the PC performance thread turn into a console war thread?

Because that's how it was originally designed.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

those games perform worse because of shader compilation stutters and other API issues, not the storage used. there's not a single game out there whose performance issues can be tracked back to the storage device used, unless said storage device is a ridiculously old and slow HDD.

no game out there needs excessively high speeds to stream in data on the fly.

So you are running Demon's Souls, HFW, GOW:R through your SATA III SSD via USB 10Gbps interface? If I shat in the toilet and hit the water it would sound more legit than this. These games won't even start through USB.

 

[Kilau]

Let's be honest, it doesn't even look as good as HFW on PS4.

This is a very strange situation. We have our resident Xbox brothers trying to hold this mediocre game up on PC as a slight against the PS5. Is this really what it's come to?

PPS, please buy it on the windows store.

I’m just pissed MS couldn’t swing us a PC game pass deal for those sweet, sweet cheevos.

 

[Mister Wolf]

Too bad Returnal won't be using Direct Storage.

 

[GHG]

I’m just pissed MS couldn’t swing us a PC game pass deal for those sweet, sweet cheevos.

They might still. This game isn't selling.

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

As much as I am enjoying watching Forspoken crash and burn, I must admit that this is mighty impressive.

 

[01011001]

Dude, the game looks like crap, runs at 720p on PS5 and you want to use this as some kind of benchmark for anything?

I know people on here are instantly becoming science deniers as soon as their favorite box is on the losing end of logic and reason, but let me break this down for you.

load speeds depend on 2 things:
#1: How much data needs to be loaded into memory
#2: How fast can your storage device and CPU/GPU read the needed data to render a scene

what load speeds do not depend on:
#1: How good a game looks
#2: How well a game runs

this title asks for somewhere between 8GB and 16GB of VRAM on ultra settings (hard to say exactly without people testing on their RTX4090s running at 720p to shrink the framebuffer size out of the equation)
and uses about 6GB of system memory from my tests.

it loads this amount of data in less than a second on my PC using a relatively slow USB3 SSD. and it seems to load this fast for everyone who's playing this demo on an SSD on whatever PC they are playing it on.
these are the only metrics that are of any interest in this load speed thread you are currently in.

the game seems to fill the VRAM of any card on PC within a short fade to black like on PS5, even on super slow SSDs

 

[01011001]

So you are running Demon's Souls, HFW, GOW:R through your SATA III SSD via USB 10Gbps interface? If I shat in the toilet and hit the water it would sound more legit than this. These games won't even start through USB.

I mean hopefully we will see how they run soon enough
especially God of War tho, yes absolutely you could, Horizon most likely as well.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

I mean hopefully we will see how they run soon enough
especially God of War tho, yes absolutely you could, Horizon most likely as well.

Haven't been catching up with the updates notes, if they suddenly allowed PS5 games to run through external SSD's then that's new. Anyway, have a good night/day.

 

[The_Mike]

http://[URL]https://www.trueachievements.com/game/Forspoken/achievements

[/URL]

PC players keep winning

 

[01011001]

Haven't been catching up with the updates notes, if they suddenly allowed PS5 games to run through external SSD's then that's new. Anyway, have a good night/day.

I meant the inevitable PC ports

 

[Bo_Hazem]

I meant the inevitable PC ports

They should work perfectly with the recommended specs.

 

[GHG]

I know people on here are instantly becoming science deniers as soon as their favorite box is on the losing end of logic and reason, but let me break this down for you.

load speeds depend on 2 things:
#1: How much data needs to be loaded into memory
#2: How fast can your storage device read the needed date to render a scene

what load speeds do not depend on:
#1: How good a game looks
#2: How well a game runs

this title asks for somewhere between 8GB and 16GB of VRAM on ultra settings (hard to say exactly without people testing on their RTX4090s running at 720p to shrink the framebuffer size out of the equation)
and uses about 6GB of system memory from my tests.

it loads this amount of data in less than a second on my PC using a relatively slow USB3 SSD. and it seems to load this fast for everyone who's playing this demo on an SSD on whatever PC they are playing it on.
these are the only metrics that are of any interest in this load speed thread you are currently in.

the game seems to fill the VRAM of any card on PC within a short fade to black like on PS5, even on super slow SSDs

Dude, let me be the first to tell you, I honestly don't care, I'm just trying to tell you you're attempting to extrapolate meaning where it likely doesn't exist.

I booted the demo up on my PC, was impressed with the instant load time from the main menu (and during fast travel) but let me tell you, the moment actually saw what it loaded I was no longer impressed. Considering how it looks and the hardware I'm running it on it should load instantly.

If you want to talk about "science" when your sample size is one then be my guest.

 

[01011001]

Dude, let me be the first to tell you, I honestly don't care, I'm just trying to tell you you're attempting to extrapolate meaning where it likely doesn't exist.

I booted the demo up on my PC, was impressed with the instant load time from the main menu (and during fast travel) but let me tell you, the moment actually saw what it loaded I was no longer impressed. Considering how it looks and the hardware I'm running it on it should load instantly.

If you want to talk about "science" when your sample size is one then be my guest.

so you are denying that the game needs the amoung of VRAM stated and the amount of System memory people see it use?

what GPU do you have? try setting everything to the max settings and run the game at a low resolution (like 720p), then look how much VRAM your PC uses.
that amount you see there is the amount the game needed to load.

it DOESN'T MATTER how it looks, load times depend entirely on how big the files are that are needed to run the game. and that has zero to do with how it looks.

 

[PhoenixTank]

Certainly an issue but just booting the game feels like an eternity.

Also, GTA Online is a masterclass in horrible UI.

Patches upon patches upon patches with no cohesive design for what goes where. A nightmare learning or returning to the game.

Just booted up single player on PC. Yeah, you're right. Saying nothing of the waste of space & time R* Launcher or the unskippable title logos, hitting load game still took aaages to complete.

 

[Mr Moose]

this is absolutely irrelevant. the relevant metric in this discussion is how much VRAM the game needs on the highest settings and how fast it can load all the files needed to render the scene of your last save file.
and so far my slowest SSD which is a USB ssd by samsung, which is rated for 540 MB/s, loads the game just as fast as the PS5 does. which is usually not the case, but direct storage seems to be the real deal here.

540MB/s SSD loads it this fast?


I think mine is 560MB/s, might download the demo and give it a try.
Edit:The demo is 40GB?

 

[GHG]

so you are denying that the game needs the amoung of VRAM stated and the amount of System memory people see it use?

what GPU do you have? try setting everything to the max settings and run the game at a low resolution (like 720p), then look how much VRAM your PC uses.
that amount you see there is the amount the game needed to load.

it DOESN'T MATTER how it looks, load times depend entirely on how big the files are that are needed to run the game. and that has zero to do with how it looks.

You're putting your trust in a single game from a dev team that clearly didn't know what they were doing. The game looks decidedly last gen despite being "next gen" only. If this was a game from id software then I'd understand (and I can tell you for a fact it wouldn't look like it does). I don't get it but you do you.

And no, I'm certainly not wasting my time running this game at 720p on my 4090. Hopefully you find someone else to be your guinea pig.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

so you are denying that the game needs the amoung of VRAM stated and the amount of System memory people see it use?

what GPU do you have? try setting everything to the max settings and run the game at a low resolution (like 720p), then look how much VRAM your PC uses.
that amount you see there is the amount the game needed to load.

it DOESN'T MATTER how it looks, load times depend entirely on how big the files are that are needed to run the game. and that has zero to do with how it looks.

So this is bullshit?

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Y'all are trash

 

[Bo_Hazem]

So this game is at low settings is already using a total of ~17GB while still on the menu, but we should ignore that and believe the digital guy. Also it's using 21-22GB of virtual memory (so a total of around ~39GB), probably that's direct storage making partition inside the harddrive which is a dangerous move that would degrade the SSD pretty quickly and might suddenly die just like Apple's trick with one finding that in less than a year he hit like 156 TBW which is nearly half the estimated lifespan of the memory. So a small advice to people to avoid putting their games on a drive that has critical data to them.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Curious to bench that without DirectStorage, what if it’s already fast without it?

 

[DenchDeckard]

This looks faster than ps5?

Wow, crazy impressive.

So, direct storage with a gen 4 nvme smokes the ps5? Even a gen 3 is more bandwidth. This is amazing news for all and future games.

 

[Myths]

I will see for myself what awesome this is

 

[twilo99]

This is great news..

Hopefully more devs take advantage.

 

[sachos]

Really awesome to finally see this tech on PC too. Can't wait for every game to be optimized for SSDs moving forward.

 

[staticshock]

To get in the ballpark of the theoretical max of the PS5 SSD you need a 4090 paired with a gen 4 nvme. You can see the results from a variety of PC's in the link I posted above to the direct storage thread.

Make of that what you will.

Well In this game, the load times on PC is actually FASTER than the PS5 and they are not using 4090 nor the fastest NVME SSD. Some are getting these Faster Than PS5 speeds using external SATA SSD.

That's bonkers. Just admit it. DirectStorage is too much!

Bo_Hazem do you have the game?

 

[sendit]

Xbox achievements (and Gamerscore) >>> Steam achievements.

I hope you're joking.

 

[supernova8]

Pretty astounding load times, shame about the game itself.....

 

[hlm666]

So this game is at low settings is already using a total of ~17GB while still on the menu, but we should ignore that and believe the digital guy. Also it's using 21-22GB of virtual memory (so a total of around ~39GB), probably that's direct storage making partition inside the harddrive.

Try looking at the part of the overly that says game for ram/vram. You got no idea what that guy has running in the background but the game process memory allocation isn't what your saying it's 10.6/GB.

 

[sinnergy]

But it’s Microsoft tech

 

[Thebonehead]

As much as I am enjoying watching Forspoken crash and burn, I must admit that this is mighty impressive.

Comes to something when the most impressive thing about this game is a storage library from Microsoft.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Try looking at the part of the overly that says game for ram/vram. You got no idea what that guy has running in the background but the game process memory allocation isn't what your saying it's 10.6/GB.

So you skipped the 5.5-6GB VRAM? The guy is running it at low 1080p.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Well In this game, the load times on PC is actually FASTER than the PS5 and they are not using 4090 nor the fastest NVME SSD. Some are getting these Faster Than PS5 speeds using external SATA SSD.

That's bonkers. Just admit it. DirectStorage is too much!

Bo_Hazem do you have the game?

I'm not sure what's going on with you, mate. I've said what's needed to be said. rofif has the game on both I think and he can enlighten us with the RAM usage situation, he has 3080 and PS5. RAM's are faster than SSD's so comparing PC's with 32-48GB RAM/VRAM recommendation to 16GB PS5 is pretty wild but you are trying so hard here to avoid any kind of logic. Anyway, please stop mentioning me as I'm not interested in wasting my time any further.

 

[GymWolf]

Fast travel on ps5 is like .30 sec.

 

[rofif]

I'm not sure what's going on with you, mate. I've said what's needed to be said. rofif has the game on both I think and he can enlighten us with the RAM usage situation, he has 3080 and PS5. RAM's are faster than SSD's so comparing PC's with 32-48GB RAM/VRAM recommendation to 16GB PS5 is pretty wild but you are trying so hard here to avoid any kind of logic. Anyway, please stop mentioning me as I'm not interested in wasting my time any further.

Hey. Yeah vram is weird here. The game doesn’t load all textures properly if I use high or ultra vram setting in game. 10gb vram is somehow not enough.
Loading is still faster on ps5 too btw.