Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Jan 26, 2019.
Also the physical specifications are slightly different between UHD Blu-Ray and BD(XL) discs.
Another way to think of it: the difference between SATA M.2 and NVME is the controller. That difference in price is likely mostly expressed in terms of economy of scale; so in a year or so when they start taking delivery of NVMe controllers, prices are likely to be a non-issue.
Further, think abut this: you run a SATA SSD, you got to have a SATA controller on the southbridge (which is probably on the SoC). For NVMe you just need a PCIe controller, which is going to be there anyway.
Other side: they leave the SATA controller onboard and just use whatever's cheapest.
Might be SATA at first, might be PCIe later. Might be both.
Not to mention the fact that all historical benchmarks from the PS3 and onwards... whenever people put SSDs in their consoles it never showed adequate-enough loading time improvements to justify the cost difference. I have a 4TB external HDD connected to my Xbox One X and everything loads pretty reliably and fast enough. With some game installs these days tipping over 100GB I would rather have size than speed.
In PS4s case that was because they used some weird USB conversion for the SATA interface.
I’m just interested in how it would effect games if the base system on both platforms had m.2 NVMe. I’m not sure if there is anything there other than faster loading.
I wish MS would just go full on crazy with specs and then heavily subsidize the cost of the XBox with enterprise/cloud/azure profits. Just because they could afford to and it would be amazing. Anyway, I'm sure the new consoles will be interesting, regardless of rumors being true or not.
Not really accurate, though. The PS4 and Xbox One show a big improvement in loading times (in most games) with an SSD swap. Witcher 3 is one good example I can think of - I guess it takes like a minute to load on the included platter drives, but on an SSD it gets much closer to PC load times, like 30 seconds or so. I believe similar results can be seen in other games like GTA V, RDR 2, Bloodborne, etc. On the Xbox side of things, many people don't replace the included drive with SSDs because it takes some finagling to make it work properly (you have to use custom software to partition the drive in the format the Xbox OS works with.)
I didn't say it didn't make a difference, but I recently just upgraded my 2TB external HDD for my Xbox One X to a 4TB one simply because I ran out of room. Buying a huge SSD for the amounts they are wanting for the ones larger than 1TB is ridiculous and the performance difference isn't so huge that it justifies the cost.
The problem with console games is that sometimes loading is done on a fixed timer instead of giving back player control as soon as loading is finished. So even if a SSD can decrease actual loading time to 15 seconds you could still be stuck looking at a loading screen for 45 seconds. On PC you have oddballs like Fallout 4 where loading time was tied to the framerate.
It would get even cheaper if Sony and MS just went all out on a single joint console.
i'd go for a ssd instead of the nvme to take off ~$100 bucks off from the price anhd it would be the same performance, hell, even the same of an hdd if you compare it with an xbox one/x, changing the stock hdd for an ssd makes literally no diference at all, just increases the console price
QLC seems like it would work. 50 TB of writes wouldn't make a dent? 400 writes of 100GB games besides patches and misc?