Life
Member
I see what you're saying. Ironically, yes, games are getting larger and larger so even with SSDs, the loading times can sometimes be the same as years back, before SSDs.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
SSDs next gen will change my gaming habits.
- Thread starter 93xfan
- Start date
I see what you're saying. Ironically, yes, games are getting larger and larger so even with SSDs, the loading times can sometimes be the same as years back, before SSDs.
Stuart360
Member
I mean look at the thread title for this thread lol, it made me spit coffee.
They have gotten worse.
DRAM-less controllers. QLC memory (slower and less durable)
Yes, yes, yes. If you know what you're doing, you are not going to buy these.
But for the average schmuck, who has heard that SSD = fast, M2 = faster, things have gotten worse.
40 bucks for 240 GB SSD (WD Green), aww yiss!
People see 1TB SSD (Intel 660p), M.2, NVMe, 100$ bucks? Aww yea!
I wonder how many people in this thread saying that their SSD is not much faster than HDD have one of these garbage grade SSDs.
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
A garbage grade SSD is still better than a regular hard drive .
DESTROYA
Member
FN spellcheck!
Anyway if loading screens are your main concern it’s the silliest excuse as to why SSD’s will benefit consoles.
Patience.........you do realize you can get a external SSD fairly cheap and use that instead of internal storage for faster load times if that’s your biggest gripe.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Been using an SSD for years, platters just can't compete. That said, I think what MS and Sony might be using in the next-gen systems isn't standard SLC/MLC/TLC/QLC NAND or even NOR, but probably some form of 3D Xpoint, like Intel's Optane Persistent Memory.
Which would make sense if they're not going to have a massive RAM increase over this gen (only 16GB or 24GB at most); 3D Xpoint is byte-addressable and can be page-addressed on reads as virtualized memory like DRAM. If you break down the per GB cost from the Intel versions on sale right now, the cheapest is about $6.60 per GB, and that's for parts for the server market. Sony and MS could probably get per GB about half that price in the bulks they buy.
But, that'd mean getting custom work done for their systems, you wouldn't see anymore than probably 8-16GB (depending on how cheap they could get it) and you could look at it as a large cache that actually acts like a cache and not just storage. Only issue is the latency; fastest Optane Persistent Memory's still like 300+ ns, that's way slower than SLC or MLC NAND, much less NOR, much less DRAM, much less SRAM (you get the picture).
Even that said, some kind of persistent memory present along with the GDDR6 would be a pretty big game-changer, plus like non-volatile memory the data will still be there when you power off.
Which would make sense if they're not going to have a massive RAM increase over this gen (only 16GB or 24GB at most); 3D Xpoint is byte-addressable and can be page-addressed on reads as virtualized memory like DRAM. If you break down the per GB cost from the Intel versions on sale right now, the cheapest is about $6.60 per GB, and that's for parts for the server market. Sony and MS could probably get per GB about half that price in the bulks they buy.
But, that'd mean getting custom work done for their systems, you wouldn't see anymore than probably 8-16GB (depending on how cheap they could get it) and you could look at it as a large cache that actually acts like a cache and not just storage. Only issue is the latency; fastest Optane Persistent Memory's still like 300+ ns, that's way slower than SLC or MLC NAND, much less NOR, much less DRAM, much less SRAM (you get the picture).
Even that said, some kind of persistent memory present along with the GDDR6 would be a pretty big game-changer, plus like non-volatile memory the data will still be there when you power off.
Kenpachii
Member
I got pretty much all drives in my PC right now. 7200 rpm storage drives, 840 evo, 850 evo and a 970 plus 3500/3000 read/write nvme m.2 drive.
The big issue with HDD's are.
1) Spin up time, which delays loading massively if your hard drive is inactive.
2) When u got a lot of data on it and data gets more fragmented, loading times increase massively. ( which makes benchmarks kinda iffy on the net to showcase how slow a HDD really is as they mostly use clean drives )
3) Microstutter in city area's or blurry textures loading when moving fast to even lock ups at times. Because harddrive can't keep up (ac unity, black desert online )
4) far longer loading times in general.
5) System operations are far far slower which interfere and tanks with your game performance and actually can result in lower fps output as result. even worse if you run more then only a game )
SSD''s Speed matters, bad read or write speeds can result in still shit performance. ( shit ssd's with wonky read writes should be avoided at all cost )
Sata 2 SSD's: Samsung evo 850 on Sata 2 connected and 840. Which is 280mb up and down and not the full speed solution when it comes to sata 3:
Solves most of the HDD issue's, but longer obvious load times and still hitting performance hick ups in games like black desert online + microstutter.
Sata 3: 550/500 SSD's connected 850 / 840 evo solved this pretty much entirely and are fast in general on every solution.
Nvme m.2 970 plus 3500 read and 3000 write:
System operations are snappier, so basically installing data is faster, moving data is far faster, and innitional launching applications is faster but loading of games stay about the samish as a ssd sata 3 but faster then a SSD sata 2 for sure.
Microstutter or any harddrive interference is completely eliminated and u will be waiting mostly on online connections or hardware to do its thing. I would still advice it over a SSD sata 3 for microstutter dodging.
The big issue with HDD's are.
1) Spin up time, which delays loading massively if your hard drive is inactive.
2) When u got a lot of data on it and data gets more fragmented, loading times increase massively. ( which makes benchmarks kinda iffy on the net to showcase how slow a HDD really is as they mostly use clean drives )
3) Microstutter in city area's or blurry textures loading when moving fast to even lock ups at times. Because harddrive can't keep up (ac unity, black desert online )
4) far longer loading times in general.
5) System operations are far far slower which interfere and tanks with your game performance and actually can result in lower fps output as result. even worse if you run more then only a game )
SSD''s Speed matters, bad read or write speeds can result in still shit performance. ( shit ssd's with wonky read writes should be avoided at all cost )
Sata 2 SSD's: Samsung evo 850 on Sata 2 connected and 840. Which is 280mb up and down and not the full speed solution when it comes to sata 3:
Solves most of the HDD issue's, but longer obvious load times and still hitting performance hick ups in games like black desert online + microstutter.
Sata 3: 550/500 SSD's connected 850 / 840 evo solved this pretty much entirely and are fast in general on every solution.
Nvme m.2 970 plus 3500 read and 3000 write:
System operations are snappier, so basically installing data is faster, moving data is far faster, and innitional launching applications is faster but loading of games stay about the samish as a ssd sata 3 but faster then a SSD sata 2 for sure.
Microstutter or any harddrive interference is completely eliminated and u will be waiting mostly on online connections or hardware to do its thing. I would still advice it over a SSD sata 3 for microstutter dodging.
Last edited:
MeatSafeMurderer
Member
I wouldn't count on it. The limiting factor in the current consoles' load times isn't the HDD...it's the piss poor CPU and lack of RAM, Sony and Microsoft always cut corners there, it's how they turn a profit. PC versions of games load significantly faster off HDDs than their console counterparts. Don't believe the marketing bullshit, it'll be better for sure, but I doubt it's going to be some huge revolution.
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
ZenTheShogun
Member
I also remember when games could be beaten in an afternoon and didn't have the 'collect 10 emeralds and walk them all the way across the map to continue the story' segments about 2000 times per game
MeatSafeMurderer
Member
Division 2 takes about 30 seconds to load off a HDD on PC so...
And the second one is testing the speed difference on PC, not a console. The limiting factor on console is the CPU and RAM, that's not an issue on PC.
Last edited:
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
This is still an improvement and is running on the ps4 pro. The newer systems (scarlet/5) have far better specs. To say there isn't a difference is ridiculous.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Not to mention, these games are not even designed around the SSD yet. Next gen when they design them around that baseline, will be even more of an improvement. By far.
MeatSafeMurderer
Member
I didn't say there wasn't a difference. What I said was "I doubt it's going to be some huge revolution". And the fact that it takes an SSD to even match PC HDD loading times kinda confirms that. You're being naive if you think Sony and Microsoft aren't going to cheap out. For $500 you're not getting a top tier processor, Optane or MLC of a decent capacity, enough RAM and raytracing with decent performance. 4 words: Not going to happen.
You'll get a massively underclocked Zen processor, 16GiB of shared RAM, a not even half-baked RT implementation, a high end GPU (circa 2016) and a dog slow QLC SSD that will probably keel over after 3 years.
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
I'm expecting some improvement but I will be paying less than I would a pc so I'm okay with that.
manfestival
Member
Ooooof Total war without SSD is just wasting life away
Yeah there are definitely some games where SSD is super beneficial but others where it is not THAT big of a deal
A.Romero
Member
I think that's mostly because it's not the standard so games are not made to take advantage of it.
With consoles having them, this will change. I'm really hyped for this.
manfestival
Member
No doubt about that. It is just gonna ruin PC gaming for probably most of the world since I imagine that SSD hasnt penetrated the majority of the market but I could be wrong. It certainly has a good market share though.
A.Romero
Member
It's getting there. Decent sizes are now in the sub $100 area. Most users use SATA though, PCIe is relatively new but will become the norm during next gen.
My PS4 has a Samsung SSD in it.
Because I like loot games, and everything from Diablo 3 (bought long befor fhe current debacle), to Borderlands THC is just so infinitely much better with it, I cannot imagine ever going back.
My PC has an M.2 in it.
Hell, even my laptop has an SSD in it.
Come to think of it, Nintendo went SSD this gen. Ninty getting ahead of the curve, for once.
Because I like loot games, and everything from Diablo 3 (bought long befor fhe current debacle), to Borderlands THC is just so infinitely much better with it, I cannot imagine ever going back.
My PC has an M.2 in it.
Hell, even my laptop has an SSD in it.
Come to think of it, Nintendo went SSD this gen. Ninty getting ahead of the curve, for once.
Mexen
Member
Sickening, isn't it?
Spukc
always chasing the next thrill
Try the original RAGE on pc
And tell me you dont mind poor texture streaming.
You heretic
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
Flash memory isn't SSD.
EDMIX
Member
Huh? No bud, don't do that. You clearly saw he is taking about SSDs and states pretty clearly that is not a standard and he is correct. MOST AAA titles are not saying they NEED a SSD in order to be played. Right now, I'd argue PS5 and NextBox will make that a requirement for PC as those AAA titles will be made with PS5 and Nextbox in mind, thus forcing for the first time SSD to be a requirement for most AAA titles.
Don't try to lie and make it seem as if the topic at hand is "hard drive", its about SSDs. As someone that even owns a gaming PC, no...its not standard, its not NEEDED, not a requirement etc. Its nice sure, but most of my builds us regular HDDs, I just get more space for the buck and don't care much about speed differences as most of what I'm playing on PC are titles I don't care much for that type of performance.
Anything on console, forces the standard on PC. When PS5 makes SSD the norm, it will be on PC by default of that is where developers aim their specs now, not PC. It hasn't been that way for generations now too, since around 2004 or so, you stopped seeing that (thank 360 for being closer to a PC for that too). So for the most part, PC takes its real standards of specs from what Consoles SAY the new standard is as the developers make their games with what console is doing and then MAKE PC REQUIRED to meet or beat that standard.
Witcher 3 Wouldn't Exist Without Consoles
A lot of the news circulating around The Witcher 3 leading up to its release has been centered on downgrade-gate. In addition to the topic of downgrades, a lot of people have pointed fingers at the ho
www.cinemablend.com
EDMIX
Member
Yes, but most games are not created with SSD in mind for PC anyway. Think about it, having 4x SLI of some titan cards isn't suddenly going to make any game from 1999 look like Cyberpunk 2077 in 4k or something. If its not actually created to even take FULL advantage of it, it matters very little. Think about when you put in a PS1 title in a PS3, yes it will play, but that doesn't mean the PS3 was DESIGNED to make that PS1 title suddenly run differently like a PS2 or PS3 title etc, it will only bump it up based on what its able to do without any real programming. So you are seeing a game run on a SSD, you ARE NOT SEEING A GAME MADE TO MAX OUT THAT SSD IN TERMS OF FEATURES! It was NOT programmed, created and optimized to take full advantage of a SSD and required a SSD just run.
Thats like putting in a PS1 title in a PS3 and expecting online play, sixaxis support etc.
@SLoWMoTIoN Ok....thats a great example of just what I mean too, you can put a SSD in a PS4 or XONE....YOU WILL NOT SEE Spiderman on PS4 DO what it was doing on PS5. It was not actually made to take full 100% advantage of a SSD, thus you only see slight improvements. By your logic, we should be able to actually get those speeds RIGHT NOW on any PS4 or XONE game right? I mean...you can just pop in a SSD and magic right? You sure about that? So yes you can get better load times, you are not getting the load times seen on the PS5, a device that is making the SSD actually fully do something to a game that changes that speed exponentially.
That is the difference from adding in tech that isn't made to actually take 100% advantage of software vs tech made with that software in mind to actually do something significant.
When you have a video of a normal PS4 or Pro doing this with a SSD, then we can have that conversation.
Last edited:
Dargor
Member
Huh? No bud, don't do that. You clearly saw he is taking about SSDs and states pretty clearly that is not a standard and he is correct. MOST AAA titles are not saying they NEED a SSD in order to be played. Right now, I'd argue PS5 and NextBox will make that a requirement for PC as those AAA titles will be made with PS5 and Nextbox in mind, thus forcing for the first time SSD to be a requirement for most AAA titles.
Don't try to lie and make it seem as if the topic at hand is "hard drive", its about SSDs. As someone that even owns a gaming PC, no...its not standard, its not NEEDED, not a requirement etc. Its nice sure, but most of my builds us regular HDDs, I just get more space for the buck and don't care much about speed differences as most of what I'm playing on PC are titles I don't care much for that type of performance.
Anything on console, forces the standard on PC. When PS5 makes SSD the norm, it will be on PC by default of that is where developers aim their specs now, not PC. It hasn't been that way for generations now too, since around 2004 or so, you stopped seeing that (thank 360 for being closer to a PC for that too). So for the most part, PC takes its real standards of specs from what Consoles SAY the new standard is as the developers make their games with what console is doing and then MAKE PC REQUIRED to meet or beat that standard.
Witcher 3 Wouldn't Exist Without Consoles
A lot of the news circulating around The Witcher 3 leading up to its release has been centered on downgrade-gate. In addition to the topic of downgrades, a lot of people have pointed fingers at the ho
I'm sorry, not trying to be mean or anything here, but are you drunk?
At no point in my conversation I, nor the other poster for that matter, talked about what was or not "needed".
In fact, your post has so "nothing to do" with what me and that other poster were talking about that I can only imagine that you quoted the wrong person.
Last edited:
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
But I wasn't talking about what the Ps5 will do vs what the Pro/X1X can currently do on this post.
I did say on this post that we would have improved load times by next gen based on the specs alone. So cool, you are agreeing with me?
edit: FUCKING TEXT BREAK
Last edited by a moderator:
Hawking Radiation
Member
Fuck I'm going to miss making me a cup of coffee while open world games load.
All I know is that with an SSD, Bloodborne went from a "Fuck this shit", to a GoAT, for me.
bitbydeath
Member
It will be interesting if SSD’s start to become a requirement for PC games next-gen.
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
14 seconds is still bullshit
Mithos
Member
Then 2TB+ SSD/m.2 drives need to drop in price ALOT.
EDMIX
Member
Nope. Read. 93xfan states "Looking forward to what SSDs will mean for my gaming habits next gen"
You state "Next gen?
You can buy a SSD right now and get better load times"
You are questioning the feature in "next gen" with what its doing on the PS5 and stating you can buy a SSD right now, ignoring you can't get the performance that was shown on PS5. 93xfan means the performance they are able to get on next gen, they don't mean SSD in general, as in literally they are unaware that SSDs can work in a PS4 or XONE, simply that it won't do what you see on PS5 or Nextbox.....Thus the reason they are looking forward to it.
You don't need to look to argue all the time, I'm sure the person you replied to knows SSDs exist and can work on PS4 and XONE, clearly they mean the PERFORMANCE they are seeing on PS5.
Not simply the word "SSD" as some of you in love with the word vs the performance shown on PS5 or the context on what is being stated regarding that. Soooo no need to say "next gen?" with a question mark as if the thing this person is looking forward to can be done RIGHT NOW on PS4 and XONE with simply putting in a SSD.
You ignored a lot just to argue too. Do you really believe that person doesn't know what a SSD is or that it can work on PS4 and XONE? Context is key.
Dargor
Sure bud. "Are you saying the vast majority of pcs out there do not come with a hard drive or am I reading you wrong?" The person never even remotely stated that, even slightly. The topic is SSDs, you reached deeply to argue some narrative. You don't need to be like "Are you saying" and the proceed to start adding in stuff never stated just to argue some agenda or something. You can see what they stated. If the topic is SSDs and they are saying " Storage is standard as it’s a requirement for any computer to operate. The type of storage isn’t in a PC standards handbook." How on earth did you land on "pcs out there do not come with a hard drive" when the person verbatim is saying "The type of storage isn't in a PC standards handbook" ? THE TYPE of storage isn't. You wouldn't need to argue over such things if you just stopped, pause and read what they are saying instead of racing to rage post and arguing points no where near what is being stated. Storage is needed yes....SSD is simply an option, you clearly can have a regular HDD. Personal attacks won't change much and I won't partake in that as it doesn't advance anything.
Last edited:
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
He also mentioned current gen games so I have no idea whether he thinks SSD technology is based on whatever Sony is trying to sell people. But you also just wrote alot of text just to argue.
EDMIX
Member
He also mentioned current gen games so I have no idea whether he thinks SSD technology is based on whatever Sony is trying to sell people. But you also just wrote alot of text just to argue.
Yes...he also mentions that he is "Looking forward to what SSDs will mean for my gaming habits next gen."
Him talking about current gen titles doesn't mean he is literally asking for that RIGHT NOW, simply means he is giving an example of what he currently doesn't like.... You just argue too much bud, its clear what he is stating. I don't know why you reached to make it seem as if "SSD" suddenly means the PS4 can do what is happening in next gen. Pretty sure they know that otherwise they wouldn't be looking forward to what it could do next gen if they believed they can just do that right now. Unlikely.
Not everything is an argument man.
bitbydeath
Member
Yeah, we haven’t seen such risks since the launch of Crysis so I doubt many will partake in it.
EDMIX
Member
Pretty much. I want to get one of those m.2 drives when the price really drops, but when any developer actually makes great use of it. Looks like we will have to wait til next gen for anyone to really care about making great use of those drives.
Soon.
LordOfChaos
Member
Yup. I don't get that many hours in and when I only have a little while to play, I definitely don't want long loading times, so often I'll just start something lighter/repetitive. Get in and go will be a real game changer for putting more time into meatier stuff.
LordOfChaos
Member
m.2 is a form factor standard, that can be either SATA or PCI-E. It's still called an SSD either way, lol.
The PS5 one is all but confirmed to be a PCI-E 4.0 SSD, whether it's m.2 or not only has bearing on its upgradability, not its speed.
Dargor
Member
Storage is needed yes....SSD is simply an option, you clearly can have a regular HDD. Personal attacks won't change much and I won't partake in that as it doesn't advance anything.
Yeah, I think you are under the influence of something, cuz these posts you're making are completely nonsensical.
I have never added anything else to my posts.
I adressed a poster who said consoles don't have ssds as a standard by saying that "pcs dont have them as standard neither", then he/she and a third poster said pcs dont have a standard, which, funnily enough, supports my point, but I disagree with that notion though and said that they do have a standard, that "hdds are the standard" , because the vast majority of pcs out there do come with a hdd and on an earlier post even said that that will change, since ssds are taking hdd's place on the market.
He disagreed with my assessment and at that point I noticed the conversation was going in circles, said that to him and thanked him for the conversation and that was that, we went our separate ways.
But now, here you are, all angry, calling me a liar and other things, for no reason at all.
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier
Member
The Glorious PC Gaming Master Race has been enjoying the performance of SSD's for damn near a decade now...
CyberPanda
Banned
Yep, pretty much.
bitbydeath
Member
The difference is that games were never built to make use of it.