cybereality
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,789
I believe it. I mean, I thought it was going to be $600, but it looks like a legit leak.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
PS5 - The Future of Gaming | The Power of V
- Thread starter nguyen704
- Start date
Flogger23m
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 14,368
Seems about right. $450-500 is about what I guessed, $400 without a disc drive seems fitting.
T4rd
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 20,111
I'm sure those are placeholders for Sony's worst-case pricing if Xbone goes with a $500 base price. I could still see them doing $500 for the digital version and $550-$600 for the optical drive version regardless.
I'm surprised MS didn't announce a digital version of Series X too, considering they made the Xbox SAD edition, which seemingly flopped and is now discontinued because they priced it $50 more than the standard Xbone S with a disk drive.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,036
You confuse correlation with causation. I'm saying it can be done and has been done without SSDs, but if sony wants this to be their thing, they might go in a direction where they deliberately ignore storage optimization improvements of the past 2 decades for first party titles. But don't expect cross platform titles to suddenly require 5 NVME SSDs in raid, it just not going to happen, they still need to do the storage optimizations if they expect to sell their games. If systems had 64GB of VRAM instead of the 6-8 average, you might have a case for the need for ultra fast storage.
You don't want to run games from an external hard drive on the PC either, so no surprises there. Mostly due to latency, and interface overhead though, not throughput.
Of course I take this exactly as I said before: Sony shopping around for a problem for their solution. If they want they can make games that require extra high throughput, but graphically and feature wise it doesn't offer anything that you cannot do with optimization. Games are already oversized, so there are other reasons for optimizing storage as well, that makes this seem even more of a dead end street.
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,594
I wasn't comparing the PS5s specific SSD. Also for the most part on average PC NVMe drives are also faster in random performance latency. But the limitation here is NAND itself (as the technology has considerations for cost/size and persistence over other memory types to trade off in latency/seed) so the differences are not going to be the differences of that of HDDs to SSD (SATA) regardless of the aspects.
That's the case for the most part (aside from some potential outliers) but it'll be interesting to see if given a hardware paradigm shift what developers could potentially leverage. Well at least to some degree, as we can see with examples like multi-core CPUs it's a bit more tricky and complex in practice.
I don't follow Star Citizen so wouldn't know what it does but a SSD requirement may not be that surprising. The thing to keep in mind is that SSDs (even early slow ones with no sequential transfer advantages over HDDs) are still around 2 orders of magnitude (100x) faster in terms of latency and random access performance than HDDs. In terms of streaming in data in real time during play say with even a slow SSD (let's say only 50x faster) you want to do in less than a frame at 60 fps (16.67ms per frame) it can do it in 10ms, while a HDD would like 500ms (0.5s) or nearly 30 frames.
cybereality
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,789
I think the Unreal 5 demo shows something that is next-gen and not easily reproduced on older systems, with regards to the power of the SSD.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,036
I really don't know what do you mean. Photogrammetry is not new technology.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
That is the FIRST feature I disable in every single game I play...I wan't CRISP I.Q. not blur smeared out over everything...
T4rd
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 20,111
Again, what some like you and M76 don't get is that per-object motion blur is different and doesn't smear everything like it does in older games.
It's funny that he detested it so much too, but if you go to the Horizon Zero Dawn thread he posted in several times, he didn't mention motion blur whatsoever, because that game has a good implementation of it and it's not overdone at all. In fact, no one in that thread complained about it outside of one guy who figured out it was his TV smearing it and fixed it in game mode. Same story for all the other PS4 exclusive threads; all have some form of motion blur and no complaints from many players who are PC enthusiasts just like us and would otherwise detest motion blur.
Also, keep in mind that these are all 3rd person action/adventure games and also using a controller where you're always turning the camera smoothly with a joystick and also playing at a slower pace than what you may be used to with a PC FPS game where you're making erratic movements with a mouse and want maximum clarity rather than realism or practical effects.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
T4rd
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 20,111
That demo ran at 40 FPS on a laptop...so reality already debunked Sony's PR fluff
Yeah, never mind that the laptop had a 2080 and 3.5 GB/s 970 Pro SSD and didn't have V-Sync enabled like the PS5 did.
It's funny r reading the ignorant PCMR dude argue that it's just a ssd even after Linus Sebastian had to backtrack those same lines when he was reminded all the hell he had to go through when setting up his server in order to actually deliver the throughput he thought he had installed. Changed CPU, OS, filesystem and these weren't small changes at all, these were massive because yes i/o can easily overwhelm most CPUs, plus it ignores the extra latency that you get on pc from not having a hardware path to vram directly but having to use extra cores on top to decompress into system ram and then copy it to your vram.
Latency's effect can be alleviated by creating bigger buffers (holding more seconds ahead) aka more ram and vram, but to keep the bigger buffer you have to brute force a higher bandwidth solution (raid) and this requires a higher cpu in order to handle everything alongside the game code itself, and this destroys the value proposition for an "equivalent pc"
Latency's effect can be alleviated by creating bigger buffers (holding more seconds ahead) aka more ram and vram, but to keep the bigger buffer you have to brute force a higher bandwidth solution (raid) and this requires a higher cpu in order to handle everything alongside the game code itself, and this destroys the value proposition for an "equivalent pc"
That demo ran at 40 FPS on a laptop...so reality already debunked Sony's PR fluff
Only the initial lumen test, with no say of resolution and you forget that locked XX fps means that it has to run much faster than the lock framerate.
The streaming proportion past the lumen test is explicitly not talked about how it runs. So nothing debunked specially when the camera cuts section had a couple frames showing slightly low quality assets on a couple of statues for a couple frames on the ps5, hinting that this would break a current pc with the 8k assets. 8k assets are not needed in reality but this was a stress test marketing to sell UE5 for VFX pros and if you look around it worked.
So a 16 core cpu with 32 gb ram & gpu with 12+gb vram along with fastest NVME SSD should work ??
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
2070 infact...but still higher FPS than the PS5 demo = "Magical Sauce" debunked.
T4rd
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 20,111
The few articles I saw about it all say 2080. No V-Sync = higher FPS.
The "2070" claim is up for dispute. But even then, you conveniently forget that the PS5 is likely to be a $500-600 box where even a tower with the necessary components would likely cost, what, roughly three times more (maybe higher) before you include a display? So yes, if the clear majority of PC gamers had recent systems costing $1,500 or more, you could design UE5 games for PC that looked about as good... but most don't, so it's still not realistic. We're back to that position where there could be a couple of years where PS5 and XSX games look better in some areas simply because every gamer can expect that level of detail.
I don't know why you need to cling to this "PCs are always better at everything" myth like a toddler clings to a security blanket. Your worth as a person will not decline if you accept that the PS5 and XSX will have a few advantages for a while.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
RTX 2070 in a laptop:
https://www.techpowerup.com/267280/...2070-super-gpu-at-minimum-for-smooth-gameplay
And I like how "VSYNC" is now the excuse for 30 FPS...we know it ran below 60 FPS...and the laptop ran it faster...about 30%...RTX 2070 (in a laptop).
A high end gaming PC is far ahead of the PS5 (just like evey single console launch in history) even before it launches...
https://www.techpowerup.com/267280/...2070-super-gpu-at-minimum-for-smooth-gameplay
And I like how "VSYNC" is now the excuse for 30 FPS...we know it ran below 60 FPS...and the laptop ran it faster...about 30%...RTX 2070 (in a laptop).
A high end gaming PC is far ahead of the PS5 (just like evey single console launch in history) even before it launches...
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
One more thing...the laptop ran the demo in the editor...not a "cooked" stand alone version...leaving more perfomance on the table.
Now in the PR-hype times for the launch of a new console...ask yourself this question:
If the consoles are so far ahead of the PC why are there no benchmark numbers to show this?
The laptop running the same demo as the PS5 in the editor and with higher performance was not planned to be public knowlegde.
Why the post was pulled.
Highers ups not very happy with that info being shared...because it reveals the hype for what it is:
PR hype.
Now in the PR-hype times for the launch of a new console...ask yourself this question:
If the consoles are so far ahead of the PC why are there no benchmark numbers to show this?
The laptop running the same demo as the PS5 in the editor and with higher performance was not planned to be public knowlegde.
Why the post was pulled.
Highers ups not very happy with that info being shared...because it reveals the hype for what it is:
PR hype.
T4rd
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 20,111
Read that article; says you'd need at least a 2070S to run it smoothly, doesn't say anything about the laptop that ran it and the word "laptop" isn't anywhere in that article.
Here's the article you meant to reference, and it's a laptop running a 2080.
Again, the 2070S is cited as a minimum to run the demo, but the laptop had a 2080 in it, which is a bit faster than a 2070S still.
Well if you don't know how V-Sync works, the GPU has to cap the the output at 30FPS even if it's capable of running up to 59 FPS on a 60/120 Hz display, so that's how much potential headroom is left on the table for the PS5 in that demo.
Using your logic, please show me a 2080 Ti running a game at 60 FPS with V-Sync enabled on a 120 Hz display so that I can claim my 2080 is about 30% faster by running the same game and settings with V-Sync disabled at 90 FPS, simply because the 2080 Ti couldn't hit 120 FPS so V-Sync capped it at 60.
"maybe" that nvme may need a bit more than 7 GB/s if it's something specifically like Spiderman miles Morales, Horizon 2 or some possible ratchet & clank pc port. 90%+ of games won't require that.
Still trying to dismiss what Sony did as just an ssd is a bold statement from a position of ignorance.
In any case it won't matter for most games because indeed third party developers will design from the ground up with their platforms of choice, so if the game comes out natively and not emulated then there won't be any problem.
Ask a native mandarin speaker to translate that interview for you, it has been said long enough and was discussed on Twitter including Tim Sweeney himself, all those articles come from a mis translation. You can go to beyond 3d forums or resetera if you search properly enough you will find the correct translation.
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,938
If the PS5 was $400 then PC gaming is doomed. The equivalent to a PS5 is a RTX 2070 and that's currently a $700 graphics card, and that doesn't get you an entire PC. Nvidia would have to pull one hell of a rabbit out of their hat if they want to stay in business. AMD doesn't care because they have the Xbox and Playstation contracts that's going to make them a boat load of money. Big Navi will be more powerful than a PS5, but it'll probably cost $700+ which doesn't make it attractive to buy Big Navi over PS5. Though without the Blu-Ray drive the PS5 loses out on used games.
Where are you buying a 2070s for $700. They are $500 right on Nvidia site. Even less for the non super. Also consumer graphics is not their entire business. Probably their smallest part now. That said I will take these leakess with a grain of salt. I doubt Sony has given out pricing to anyone outside the company. It is going to be between $500 and $600 for the two sku.
Last edited:
Because the PS5, the XSX and their associated games haven't been released yet, and "devise and release benchmarks for our unfinished games to humble a PC snob" probably isn't high on the development checklist.
Stryker7314
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 867
Really looking forward to the progress brought on by the tech the new consoles have adopted. Games/software that are further optimized to utilize multiple powerful cores/threads and take advantage of ssd/nvme speeds, faster memory, not to mention graphical horsepower. Exciting times ahead, especially for PC gamers that have been playing console ports on their supercomputers for years.
I would rather have the problem of PC playing catchup than console so I know I'm maxing my hardware, though that may be a stretch.
I would rather have the problem of PC playing catchup than console so I know I'm maxing my hardware, though that may be a stretch.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,036
Now where have I heard that before ?
Oh right, everywhere and anywhere for the past 20 years.
Consoles are closer and closer to PC in architeccture, one or two generations and they'll just be pre-built mid range gaming PCs.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,036
That's mighty convenient, "our shit is better, but we don't have time to prove it" LOL
Well, if you've ever paid attention to game studios' crunch period (and they're definitely in the middle of it now), you'll know they're busy enough just trying to finish the title itself. I'm not expecting many games to absolutely max out the SSD, but there are signs it's pretty powerful, like that Ratchet & Clank game where they can change entire game worlds on the fly.
Not sure why it looks legit. That Amazon page could be mocked up in 60 seconds just with HTML editing and Sony's stock PS5 image.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,036
A platformer game can switch worlds very quickly, great, now I want a PS5...
Also you can see the stutter, even in the trailer, as the assets are being swapped in video memory from one world to another.
I doubt the SSD is even pushed with that. As I've mentioned numerous times in this thread the limitation is VRAM, not the sequential read speed of the disk.
This is the very definition of a solution in search of a problem. They put very fast storage in it, now they are trying to justify it somehow. Look at all these cool things, that we can do now*
*except we could've done it with a regular ssd all the same, but then we couldn't claim fastestest.
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,938
Oh yea, they have gone down in price. Currently, it is still more expensive than a PS5 and you still need CPU, RAM, and etc.
At $500 to $600 then the PS5 has to worry. I don't understand how the Blu-Ray drive costs $100 for a console.
Or more likely because it's better to leave people to speculate than to prove you correct. It's not like console games have built in benchmarks to test it against PC.
RanceJustice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,629
II think the solution to this is increasing ease of use among what we may consider the existing "PC" ecosystem - something that has been evolving significantly independent of any push to outmode consoles. Steam's Big Picture, SteamPlay, home streaming/playtogether etc...for instance. Even many Linux distros or even independent applications (ie Retrospin, or something like Kodi for a media center frontend) are set up to be essentially controller-UI focused, ready to play as much as possible. Of course, its worth noting that pretty much since the end of what I consider the justifiable years of the console platform (ie the PS2 era being the last) its worth noting that console games started to take bits from the PC side which went against "ease of use" or sole functionality. Adding things like day one patching, DLC, updates, multiple non-game related tasks to an online dashboard (including advertising!) etc.. all made the whole "buy the game on physical media, come home and put the media in the console, play the game" element less central. I'd venture that gaming on PC today is already pretty easy to use, and perhaps another crack at the "Steam Big Picture" or similar style UI at boot could easily provide a "console-like" experience without giving up all the benefits and freedom of PC gaming.
When it comes to price, that breaks down into hardware and software. Regarding hardware, its worth noting that most people need some sort of PC overall, so it must be taken into consideration that the price of upgrading it to make it gaming compatible isn't necessarily the same as a build from scratch exclusively for gaming. While gaming PC component performance is likely to quickly overshadow the console i0 Now, console hardware is going to potentially have a price benefit thanks to the volume , but that doesn't necessarily require a "console" ecosystem; if Microsoft, Sony etc... were selling them as essentially prefab full gaming HTPC/SFFs, the same savings could be had hardware wise. These days the options for computing as well as gaming are expanding and its also possible to use everything from Parsec to Steam Home Streaming to allow users to play games on a thinclient receiver box of some sort (ie Steam Link hardware etc) , as opposed to a whole separate PC if they don't desire it. When it comes to software, I think PC gaming is definitely in the lead both for developers and players. There are no fees for specific dev kits, no licenses to release on their hardware, nobody looking over your shoulder with console level scrutiny, nor the other platform/distribution costs. On the player side, PC games are MUCH cheaper especially with digital distribution. There are myriad stores and platforms that software can be sold upon, all with different policies (some better than others), as well as legit key-vendors ; Steam pioneered massive discount sales and they continue today across various stores. One can generally pick up even a pre-ordered game for 20%+ discount, and titles go on sale way faster and for larger discounts on PC compared to console. This can be easily seen when comparing multiplat keys on something like GMG or Humble Store, where the PS4 or Nintendo Switch version of the game will be full price or with some measily 5% discount even after quite a long time, but the PC will do much, much better.
This is not to say that there couldn't be more done to facilitate ease of use, but it would be much easier to do if Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo were all on the same side, instead of pushing to maintain control of locked down console-style ecosystems that benefit them, as middlemen, versus everyone else. This is not to say that all these companies wouldn't have a role to play in a future without proprietary console platforms. Imagine Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony selling pre-built PCs using standard components (or at worst, partial laptop-style hardware, still standardized), plus their own enclosure designs, peripherals, and non-critical software (skins and the like). Everyone working together would make it easier to make industry wide changes , such as a simplified system besides pure hardware min/suggested requirement that would allow for less technical players to understand what their overall experience will be with a given game ; this would require hardware manufacturers and game designers to agree on an open standard preferably, but it could be done in a way to helpfully confer more information without as much technical necessity.
Even as things stand right now, the most beneficial elements of a modern console experience are A) even if we take the most dramatic assessment of their status, not that far from the PC experience and B) can easily be improved to something of a parity level if not better . That's not even getting into the discussion that even if the there hypothetically couldn't be any improvement (decidedly not true as this is), I doubt the trade off of accepting all the limitations of console ecosystems (intended to benefit the owner of said ecosystem) will be worth it. In any case, we can move beyond the console platform dynamic and gain a lot in openness, compatibility, value and the likes while still being aware of any benefits that the console ecosystem provided, aiming to offer something comparable without the drawbacks
Have you priced them for a PC? Cost of Blu Ray + R&D (drivers, console design changes, etc). It's really not bad if it's a UHD compatible drive. If it's a non UHD then.. not great not horrible, a bit on the higher side but not OMG Apple expensive either.
staknhalo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,924
It's a slim 4K UHD Blu-ray drive, not a slim regular Blu-ray drive.
You can't say that throughout on storage doesn't matter than go on and say a SSD is enough. Why not a HDD?
Saying it doesn't matter is basically admitting you don't know how data arrives in VRAM to begin with.
Gamers switched to ssds for a reason obviously they affect load times. If it didn't no one would.
I do think Ratchet & Clank is a "look ma, we have an SSD" game, and no I'm not expecting most people here to be jazzed for a platformer. With that said, the game also doesn't have a release date. I don't know how representative that is of final performance when the game likely isn't showing up until 2021 or later.
More importantly, I would expect this to be much like what you see with features on previous consoles, not to mention some GPUs (see ray tracing, and even geometry T&L): at first developers lean hard on the novelty aspect, but more practical uses become clearer later on and you see the value. Engines like UE5 can play a significant role in that.
I'm pretty sure that the posters here are waaaaaay better engineers than Cerny, Sweeney, the whole Microsoft team and literally every developer that has actually talked about the subject of the importance of SSD'S for future game development, but they are humble and that's the only reason why they haven't created their own company with their own console that will beat everything under the sun with, not even a 5400 rpm hdd, but just reading only from a blu-ray disc.
*SARCASM*
BTW I went and fetched this video so people don't forget the harsh reality :
In order to ensure 3GBps to his team of editors Linus had to create a 32c/64T Linux server with lots of caveats. Watch the whole video to hear all the bottlenecks he found on Windows server and Linux when trying to get real world i/o performance, and keep telling yourself that both consoles only have ssd's and nothing more.
Installing something that in theory can deliver 20+ GBps and actually getting them reliably are entirely different subjects.
*SARCASM*
BTW I went and fetched this video so people don't forget the harsh reality :
In order to ensure 3GBps to his team of editors Linus had to create a 32c/64T Linux server with lots of caveats. Watch the whole video to hear all the bottlenecks he found on Windows server and Linux when trying to get real world i/o performance, and keep telling yourself that both consoles only have ssd's and nothing more.
Installing something that in theory can deliver 20+ GBps and actually getting them reliably are entirely different subjects.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,036
If only your knowledge was at the same level as your confidence.
- I said games are limited by VRAM, that's why you can't have more complex scenes on the screen with more assets
- I also said that no matter how fast your storage is, loading from it will never be the same as having assets in the video memory. So you can't have more complex scenes no matter how fast your drive is.
- Throughput does matter, but not sustained sequential read speed, but random access speed. In which a HDD is at least two orders of magnitudes slower than even the most basic SSD.
- So moving from HDD to any SSD is about 100-200x faster.
- Pushing it to the fastest possible SSD is pointless, you still can't use it as ram replacement, you will still have to wait for the data to arrive in VRAM, so you still can't have bigger scenes than what fits in VRAM.
- The only thing you can decrease is the loading times by a small margin, which is fine, but not nearly as important feature as this was made out to be.
- Peak sequential transfer rate is meaningless for loading games. You never load big continous sets of data, you load random bits.
Because make no mistake Sony opting to get the fastest possible SSD instead of a reasonably priced one, means nothing more than a tiny decrease in loading times compared to a regular run of the mill SSD. They try to sell the idea with ratchet and clank but you can see the pauses between transitions as the assets are loaded into VRAM. Not to mention with pre-loading the same effect might even be possible using a HDD. As the game is linear, the transitions between worlds are not happening at a moment's notice, there is plenty of time to pre-load the assets between the time a rift first appears, and you actually going through it.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,036
Sigh. How many times do I have to repeat myself? There is no practical benefit apart from having slightly smaller load times. Unless your entire game is about switching between maps or distinct environments at a moment's notice. It can be useful in some very specialized cases, but it's not this game changer that will revolutionize all of gaming. I'm pretty sure it is more a marketing tactic than an actual engineering decision to make it like that.