Support NeoGAF

[v_iHuGi]

Nope

it´s not 7 SECONDS, it´s 3 SECONDS from the Continue button, go check yourselves at 0.35m.

 

[v_iHuGi]

This was expected. Sony first party studios will likely be the only ones to fully utilize PS5's I/O architect. We already see it with Spiderman MM (1-2 seconds from loading a save).

it literally takes 3s on Assassins to go from Continue to Play go check.

 

[Kagey K]

it literally takes 3s on Assassins to go from Continue to Play go check.

It’s also less than 2 (and seems to match the PS5) when choosing play now in NBA.

 

[DForce]

Already moving goal post

There's no goalpost. It was explained in detail in Mark Cerny's talk.

So when I talked about the dream of an SSD part of the reason for that 5 gigabytes a second target was to eliminate loads, but also part of the reason for that target was streaming as in what if the SSD is so fast that as the player is turning around. It's possible to load textures for everything behind the player in that split second.


If you figure that it takes half a second to turn that's 4GB of compressed data you can load that sounds about right for next gen.

Anyway back to the hard drive another strategy for increasing effective read speed is to make big sequential chunks of data.

Just about every single game is not designed to stream data outside of 50-100MB per second.


This is where you failed to realize what the NEXT GEN goal is.


Prior to this generation. Games were to contain data for the NEXT 30 seconds.

NEXT GEN is designed to stream data for the NEXT SECOND.

Current Gen 16GB of RAM = for the next 30 seconds.
Next Gen 16GB of RAM = for the next 1 second.



As clearly shown in his talk, MOST ram is inactive use. Allowing developers to load data WHEN they need it means developers will have more memory to use in that scene.





It would help if you actually tried to pay attention to Mark Cerny's talk.

 

[BluRayHiDef]

In the end people aren’t going to go have time to make a sandwich or smoke a carton of cigarettes while they wait for their game like we have seen in the past, looks like half the time you won’t even be able to scratch your ass.

I‘d say that’s a win for everyone. (Except people with itchy asses)

How do you think this will effect eSports competitions? Players will no longer have time to psyche themselves out when transitioning from character-and-arena selection menus to matches.

 

[Kagey K]

How do you think this will effect eSports competitions? Players will no longer have time to psyche themselves out when transitioning from character-and-arena selection menus to matches.

TBH, I don’t give a shit. Esports is not my thing. I guess they could introduce 2 minute intermissions, aNd they’d have to pep talk themselves there.

There would have to be some sort of cool down or people would be running in like they were Continuing thier just finished match.

 

[Agnostic2020]

But bu b b b b.... Sony’s magic SSD.

Its almost 2 times faster to get in a game from os . Good enough imo for both

 

[Kagey K]

Its almost 2 times faster to get in a game from os . Good enough imo for both

Yeah Xbox owners will be falling asleep bored waiting for that load time.

 

[Gen.Grievous]

Like has been said a million times. The limiting factor in loading times is no longer the storage medium. The difference between PS5 and XBox Series S/X will be minimal. Other factors and background processes will affect the load time more.

 

[Agnostic2020]

Yeah Xbox owners will be falling asleep bored waiting for that load time.

I said both are great .

He made fun of ps5 ssd and I said ps5 is fast enough comparatively.

 

[ZehDon]

That's not really close if you think about it. Shows at least 20-30% faster on the PS5 side if you look at percent differences.

18-25% is the theoretical difference between the PS5 at max GPU boost clock vs the Series X at its sustained clocks. If we talk percentages, we can make differences seem much larger.

30% difference in speed when load times are 2 minutes long is a pretty big difference of 40 seconds.
30% difference in speed when load times are 10 seconds long is 3 seconds.
For me, 3 seconds isn't really worth consideration.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Launch titles are not using Oodle Texture.

Or SFS and velocity.

It’s hilarious that people think that games that are 100gb in total with all audio and videos are going to be loading 10GB/s every time you turn the camera lol. Games would be 3 minutes long if that were the case.

18-25% is the theoretical difference between the PS5 at max GPU boost clock vs the Series X at its sustained clocks. If we talk percentages, we can make differences seem much larger.

30% difference in speed when load times are 2 minutes long is a pretty big difference of 40 seconds.
30% difference in speed when load times are 10 seconds long is 3 seconds.
For me, 3 seconds isn't really worth consideration.

Exactly. 100% slower load times this generation would have been massive because load times were often over a minute. 100% slower load times when the load time is 5 seconds? Irrelevant and not even worth mentioning. I’d rather have an extra 20% of power so I can get higher resolutions and frame rate than minuscule load time differences.

 

[Agnostic2020]

18-25% is the theoretical difference between the PS5 at max GPU boost clock vs the Series X at its sustained clocks. If we talk percentages, we can make differences seem much larger.

30% difference in speed when load times are 2 minutes long is a pretty big difference of 40 seconds.
30% difference in speed when load times are 10 seconds long is 3 seconds.
For me, 3 seconds isn't really worth consideration.

From the time u click the game till u play ps5 does it in half time . Not 3 seconds faster. 3 seconds is from Game menu to game save. Redless even then they r both good

 

[ZehDon]

From the time u click the game till u play ps5 does it in half time . Not 3 seconds faster. 3 seconds is from Game menu to game save. Redless even then they r both good

What?

 

[Agnostic2020]

What?

From the article:
Load times from os to game

devil may cry

PlayStation 5: 19.52 seconds
Xbox Series X: 41.98 seconds

Nba 2k21

PlayStation 5: 14.43 seconds
Xbox Series X: 22.81 second

 

[manzo]

And people here act like they're surprised one way or another. Both the XseX and PS5 will have even more faster loading times, when the game engines evolve in the next 2 years to support fully the PS5 IO system and Xbox Velocity arc.

All these games tried out have very large baggage from the old consoles. The subsystems and IO packages are designed around 500gb 5200rpm harddrives. As long as the last gen baggage is there, both new systems are just bruteforcing the loading.

Once we have a game, which has no last gen version with an engine built around to support both new architectures, then we can actually compare the speeds of the corresponding IO subsystems. Now it's like comparing an SSD installed in a PS4 Pro vs the original hard drive.

 

[fermcr]

Last gen we compared graphics... now we compare load times

 

[Kagey K]

Last gen we compared graphics... now we compare load times

It shows how bored we really are. Most people use those loads to check phones. Now they will have no idea what is going on outside.

 

[Astral Dog]

Let the games begin

The loading games, the loser shall be forever shamed for the duration of this generation of videogame consoles

 

[Clarissa]

My friend who is a Nintendo fanboy who hates Sony is laughing his ass off at the loading times on PS5.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

How games load aren’t the main differentiation here, especially for multiplats that have outdated engines. The main benefit is data streaming on PS5 mainly for 1st party and multiplats on UE5 that are optimized for PS5. Having 17-22GB/s on PS5 is the level of current DDR4 RAM’s (single channel), making the whole 825GB internal SSD a massive secondary RAM that can stream as fast as 22MB/ms.

 

[Kagey K]

My friend who is a Nintendo fanboy who hates Sony is laughing his ass off at the loading times on PS5.

We have to wait for a consensus of what’s going on with the load times.

They are all over the place right now, and once this Sony NDA lifts we will finally be able to figure out what’s going on.

 

[Warablo]

That DMC load time just shows dev favoritism.

 

[danielJackson]

Few months ago:

"lol it is only 2s vs 4s!!1"
- well faster ssd is actually more than loading times, streaming assets, ingame teleports, other things above loading screens
"lmao damage control!"

now:
"lol so IT IS just few seconds!! we knew!!"
- well it is not about loading screens only, streaming and...
"lol magic ssd doesnt work!! sony wasted money!"

War, war never changes

Loading speeds are the easiest thing to see and measure, so I get it why non-technical people stick into it. But it is interesting to see what kind of changes we get in things that have been limited by HDD speeds for decades Loading speeds are fast enough now, other stuff are the real meat

 

[MrFunSocks]

That DMC load time just shows dev favoritism.

Definitely seems like the Xbox version is an afterthought. First the ray tracing not being in Xbox when every other game has it, now this.

 

[Kagey K]

Few months ago:

"lol it is only 2s vs 4s!!1"
- well faster ssd is actually more than loading times, streaming assets, ingame teleports, other things above loading screens
"lmao damage control!"

now:
"lol so IT IS just few seconds!! we knew!!"
- well it is not about loading screens only, streaming and...
"lol magic ssd doesnt work!! sony wasted money!"

War, war never changes

Loading speeds are the easiest thing to see and measure, so I get it why non-technical people stick into it. But it is interesting to see what kind of changes we get in things that have been limited by HDD speeds for decades Loading speeds are fast enough now, other stuff are the real meat

Like resolution and framerate? On top of the loading times?

A few months ago it was there’s no way the Xbox will ever keep up, a few days ago it was Xbox is faster because they spent more on BC, now it’s well they are cross gen so they don’t count.

This nonsense goes both ways.

 

[ZehDon]

From the article:
Load times from os to game

devil may cry

PlayStation 5: 19.52 seconds
Xbox Series X: 41.98 seconds

Nba 2k21

PlayStation 5: 14.43 seconds
Xbox Series X: 22.81 second

From the article:

The hell? Double the load time? It seems the Xbox Series X took a little longer checking my network environment than the PS5 (it visibly lingered on the checking network screen), and there’s an extra prompt (press A on your controller) to go through.

Also from the article:

Overall the Xbox Series X seems to take a little longer getting into games, but once inside the differences between the two consoles as far as loading speeds seem negligible.

I'm not sure what your point is, because you're ignoring half the article and the entire summary to make it. You've taken a very specific set of numbers and recited them while ignoring the other set of numbers in the same article that paints a clearer picture. Why?

Let's go a step further. Does a game take longer to cold boot on the Xbox Series X than PS5? Sure looks that way, and its fair to say that Sony have done some excellent work there. Bravo. However - do we have a comparison using the quick resume feature on the Xbox Series X? If we don't, then the comparison is only comparing the PS5's best case scenario against the Xbox Series X's worst case scenario. Cold boot is the only way to play games on the PS5, but it's not the only way to play games on the Series X. If the in-game loads times are about the same, and quick resume allows me to load the game faster than the PS5, why aren't you reciting those numbers?

 

[MrFunSocks]

Few months ago:

"lol it is only 2s vs 4s!!1"
- well faster ssd is actually more than loading times, streaming assets, ingame teleports, other things above loading screens
"lmao damage control!"

now:
"lol so IT IS just few seconds!! we knew!!"
- well it is not about loading screens only, streaming and...
"lol magic ssd doesnt work!! sony wasted money!"

War, war never changes

Loading speeds are the easiest thing to see and measure, so I get it why non-technical people stick into it. But it is interesting to see what kind of changes we get in things that have been limited by HDD speeds for decades Loading speeds are fast enough now, other stuff are the real meat

Let me guess - you think that devs are going to be loading 20% of the entire game data every single second of a 10 hour game whenever you move the camera?

10GB/S is great, but when an entire game with audio languages and video and game code is only 50gb, you’d be able to get by with < 1GB/S.

Edit; just saw who I’m replying to, my mistake. No point with you lol.

 

[Duallusion]

The difference is about as significant as the graphics/performance difference will be between both consoles in multiplarform titles. A nothingburger.

 

[Agnostic2020]

From the article:

Also from the article:

I'm not sure what your point is, because you're ignoring half the article and the entire summary to make it. You've taken a very specific set of numbers and recited them while ignoring the other set of numbers in the same article that paints a clearer picture. Why?

Let's go a step further. Does a game take longer to cold boot on the Xbox Series X than PS5? Sure looks that way, and its fair to say that Sony have done some excellent work there. Bravo. However - do we have a comparison using the quick resume feature on the Xbox Series X? If we don't, then the comparison is only comparing the PS5's best case scenario against the Xbox Series X's worst case scenario. Cold boot is the only way to play games on the PS5, but it's not the only way to play games on the Series X. If the in-game loads times are about the same, and quick resume allows me to load the game faster than the PS5, why aren't you reciting those numbers?

Ur trying to justify something.


Sure ms can reduce that using a software feature but to compare through put of systems u need to compare how long it takes them to start storing data in ram from ssd while the said game is not in ram (cold boot). Once both are in ram ms machine can make up ground due to fatser ram bandwidth (if a game doesn't exceed 10 gb of ram used)

I m just simply comparing the cold boot times which shows ps5 just like the spec suggests has double through put advantage .

 

[Black_Stride]

What the hell.

Shouldnt the PS5 be loading in like half the time?
Devs must not be using its full potential yet.

Will need to wait a little bit longer for more titles to show up to gauge whats what.

Definitely seems like the Xbox version is an afterthought. First the ray tracing not being in Xbox when every other game has it, now this.

This doesnt seem too bad:

• PlayStation 5: 4.01 seconds
• Xbox Series X: 5.59 seconds
• Xbox Series S: 6.95 seconds

2 seconds difference actually sounds like the PS5 isnt at full tilt yet.
The time should be cut in half so I would expect the PS5 to be doing sub 3 second loads.

If you are talking about this comparison:

• PlayStation 5: 19.52 seconds
• Xbox Series X: 41.98 seconds

It seems to have been down to networking issues on the reviewers part literally pointless because the checking connection phase of loading has nothing to do with SSDs.
They probably should have tried booting with the consoles offline.


But their overall impression that the Series X takes longer to actually boot into games seems to be correct from multiple sources.
I doubt thats going to change over the gen an extra few seconds to go from dash to game menu but once in the game it seems there is effectively no difference between the loading times as they are all sub 7 seconds.

Since people on this forum only play one game at a time (lol) the boot to menu time is irrelevant as whatever game you are playing will always be in the QuickResume queue.

Only ingame loading really matters......and again the differences right now are negligible.
Devs need to pull their socks up.......this isnt the war I was expecting.....BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
Not this kitten shit of they are so close together youd need to side by side it with a Rolex Stopwatch to tell the difference.

 

[M1chl]

DMC seems like a garbage release, even that DF of PS5 version looked bad, same thibg for Karak XSX video of this game.

 

[ZehDon]

Ur trying to justify something.


Sure ms can reduce that using a software feature but to compare through put of systems u need to compare how long it takes them to start storing data in ram from ssd while the said game is not in ram (cold boot). Once both are in ram ms machine can make up ground due to fatser ram bandwidth (if a game doesn't exceed 10 gb of ram used)

I m just simply comparing the cold boot times which shows ps5 just like the spec suggests has double through put advantage .

Considering you're the one cherry picking numbers for some reason, it would seem the pot is calling the kettle. What am I trying to justify?

Back to the point, if we want to compare the cold boot exclusively, of course that's fine, and that's absolutely a valuable metric to have in understanding these systems. In the post you replied to, we weren't talking cold boot numbers. You just replied and pasted them in for seemingly no reason at all. But, to be fair, in the cold boot race, based on what we have, it seems Sony is the clear winner. Hats off, here's the bottle of bubbly, enjoy the celebration.
However, for a completely fair comparison, we also need to acknowledge that the cold boot race isn't the only one being ran. Cold boot isn't how people are going to be starting the majority of their games on the Series X and Series S. Microsoft have provided an OS feature called quick resume that allows me to get from the OS - or other games - into the game potentially faster than Sony's machine can cold boot. The feature is called quick resume and it's automatic - it just works as part of the console's operations. So, that comparison is just as valuable a metric as the cold boot - and, I'd argue more so for the real world use case discussions, because every Series X owner is going to be using it for every game after the first time they start it up.

 

[Blood Borne]

We know the PS5 will load faster, but the thing is that we’re at the point where even a 100% faster load time is only a few seconds, which doesn’t matter, especially with the series X’s Quick Resume. It’s not like it’s 2 minutes vs 4 minutes, it’s 7 seconds vs 14 seconds max. Both are fantastic and fast enough.

Like I have been saying for months, there comes a point where taking twice as long to load is irrelevant because 2x nothing is still nothing.

Totally agreed. PS5 SSD, while great, is over hyped. GPU advantage > SSD advantage

 

[Agnostic2020]

Considering you're the one cherry picking numbers for some reason, it would seem the pot is calling the kettle. What am I trying to justify?

Back to the point, if we want to compare the cold boot exclusively, of course that's fine, and that's absolutely a valuable metric to have in understanding these systems. In the post you replied to, we weren't talking cold boot numbers. You just replied and pasted them in for seemingly no reason at all. But, to be fair, in the cold boot race, based on what we have, it seems Sony is the clear winner. Hats off, here's the bottle of bubbly, enjoy the celebration.
However, for a completely fair comparison, we also need to acknowledge that the cold boot race isn't the only one being ran. Cold boot isn't how people are going to be starting the majority of their games on the Series X and Series S. Microsoft have provided an OS feature called quick resume that allows me to get from the OS - or other games - into the game potentially faster than Sony's machine can cold boot. The feature is called quick resume and it's automatic - it just works as part of the console's operations. So, that comparison is just as valuable a metric as the cold boot - and, I'd argue more so for the real world use case discussions, because every Series X owner is going to be using it for every game after the first time they start it up.

Ofcourse load times from menu is great for both . When data is in the ram , xsx will make up with faster ram bandwith atleast for now that no game is gonna use over 10 gb . Xsx ram has higher bandwidth .

Regardless its good news for both imo

 

[TBiddy]

Loading times going down is one of the best things in next-gen (current-gen by tomorrow, I suppose?), but just like with graphics, there's diminishing returns. No one gives a crap whether a game takes 6 seconds or 8 seconds to load. No one outside the most fanatic warriors, that is.

The interesting aspect will be to see, if the faster SSD in the PS5 actually makes a tangible difference when it comes to texture quality, when compared to the XSX.

 

[Kagey K]

Loading times going down is one of the best things in next-gen (current-gen by tomorrow, I suppose?), but just like with graphics, there's diminishing returns. No one gives a crap whether a game takes 6 seconds or 8 seconds to load. No one outside the most fanatic warriors, that is.

The interesting aspect will be to see, if the faster SSD in the PS5 actually makes a tangible difference when it comes to texture quality, when compared to the XSX.

We haven’t seen that difference either. On the few games I‘ve seen it seems like engine limitations are the bottleneck. They both hang in the same spots.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Loading times going down is one of the best things in next-gen (current-gen by tomorrow, I suppose?), but just like with graphics, there's diminishing returns. No one gives a crap whether a game takes 6 seconds or 8 seconds to load. No one outside the most fanatic warriors, that is.

The interesting aspect will be to see, if the faster SSD in the PS5 actually makes a tangible difference when it comes to texture quality, when compared to the XSX.

Even that won't be any time soon. Maybe by the end of 2021 or 2022 as Oodle Textures aren't being utilized yet on PS5. Spiderman both MM and Remastered have unheard of polygon density and quality models yet, but even that game is still using traditional LOD system according to some review videos.

If someone is impressed with what we've seen already, things should get even better in the future when engines get updated and HW gets realized.

 

[Shmunter]

Loading is the boring part of ssd tech. What’s generationally exciting will be it’s use as part of the entire memory pipeline during the execution of a game.

 

[J_Gamer.exe]

I'd hang on 1 more day if I were people.

The loading i saw on red gaming tech series x vid watchdogs took like 25 seconds, from memory, there or there abouts, see rgt video for actual number.

Then valhalla took about 17 on seriex x.

This was from game menu to gameplay start which is the main one for me.

The boot ones will be upto devs, some include unskippable splash screens etc.

Fairest test is pure loading from a menu to game.

This is where the advantage will shine for ps5. Not long to wait.

 

[Shmunter]

Loading times going down is one of the best things in next-gen (current-gen by tomorrow, I suppose?), but just like with graphics, there's diminishing returns. No one gives a crap whether a game takes 6 seconds or 8 seconds to load. No one outside the most fanatic warriors, that is.

The interesting aspect will be to see, if the faster SSD in the PS5 actually makes a tangible difference when it comes to texture quality, when compared to the XSX.

The basic theory of faster deliver into ram supports better assets on the platform. Ultimately devs will need to want to do it.

 

[TBiddy]

The basic theory of faster deliver into ram supports better assets on the platform. Ultimately devs will need to want to do it.

Yeah, but the interesting thing is if the I/O in the PS5 is "faster enough" to make a difference vs. the XSX.

 

[Riky]

I'll be using Quick Resume for what I'm actually playing, so load times become almost a non issue really.

 

[Leyasu]

SSDs are scratching the surface of how it's going to be used in next gen consoles.

Fast SSDs will be used for streaming in assets and this is going to matter down the line. Those 1-2 second different might be come a factor down the line.

I basically said the same thing and we posted like 1 second apart lol. Remember during the road to PS5 when Cerny talked about loading things as the character turns, it's likely that the PS5 SSD is only just fast enough to do that, anything that takes longer won't be able to do it in the same way.

I would wait and see before continuing with this.

 

[Shmunter]

Yeah, but the interesting thing is if the I/O in the PS5 is "faster enough" to make a difference vs. the XSX.

The speed specs difference on paper is significant in regards to ability in refreshing the ram. Beyond that, the purported latency benefits via added priority channels aren’t there for fun I expect. Sony is betting the house on all this, it’s obvious. Being a glass half full guy I’m on board with their vision. Would be a shame if it goes to waste and doesn’t deliver.

 

[MrFunSocks]

I'll be using Quick Resume for what I'm actually playing, so load times become almost a non issue really.

Exactly. I’ll rarely need to cold boot on the series X because I can have 5 games loaded in game at once indefinitely. It’s like arguing about console cold boot times - who cares, mine cold boots once a year.

 

[sinnergy]

Launch titles are not using Oodle Texture.

I was told the Sony SSD would be far more performing out of th

Exactly. I’ll rarely need to cold boot on the series X because I can have 5 games loaded in game at once indefinitely. It’s like arguing about console cold boot times - who cares, mine cold boots once a year.

yup ...

But those cold boots man

 

[splattered]

Both look great

 

[Arun1910]

Both are really good.

I can just see the console wars starting about whose is faster like it actually matters

 

[Chukhopops]

I'd hang on 1 more day if I were people.

The loading i saw on red gaming tech series x vid watchdogs took like 25 seconds, from memory, there or there abouts, see rgt video for actual number.

Then valhalla took about 17 on seriex x.

This was from game menu to gameplay start which is the main one for me.

The boot ones will be upto devs, some include unskippable splash screens etc.

Fairest test is pure loading from a menu to game.

This is where the advantage will shine for ps5. Not long to wait.

Watch dogs is actually 48 seconds from boot to being able to move the character, but there are several logos and unskippable sequences, then the menu, campaign, continue etc.

Watch dogs fast travel from the most southeast to the most northwest of the map is 8.9s.

Source: just tested it.