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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
View attachment 254267
Looks like $500 for the one with the disk drive, 400 for digital edition if these leaks from Amazon are to be believed.
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.And you also ignored that there are games now that are getting higher framerates and better frame times/pacing with current ssd tech so what makes you think that a high bandwidth ssd won't be a requirement to have a smooth experience in the future. Look man I don't even own a console and haven't since a release PS3 that i sold 2 yrs later. Who am i shilling for?
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.oh and i just remembered, from the ps5 reveal, that you can use an external drive with the PS5 you just won't be able to run "next gen" games from it. so take that as you will.
you say "in some instances" right in a porly designed implementation. this is a custom 5 channel design which was designed to give very low access times and was designed specifically for this use case. Not like they are using a bottom of the barrel single channel sata over m.2 thing. So when it comes to smaller files then we really want to see the 4k speeds and iops as well as access times. and i'm sure whatever it is it blows sata ssd's out the water.
But really for most cross platform games the most you'll have to worry about is whatever Xbox is doing as that will be the minimum spec. The only games that will be able to take advantage of the tech will be PS exclusive titles anyway but I haven't heard any devs coming out complaining about or mocking the tech. Only people on this board. And actually rumors one the streets devs are saying that the PS is the better console. So time will tell.
Games were never limited by sequential transfer rate speed of the disk they are loaded from.
I don't really keep track of the 'game', but didn't Star Citizen start requiring or recommending an SSD a while back?
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.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.
I really don't know what do you mean. Photogrammetry is not new technology.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.
They also have a pretty good implementation of motion blur, which helps considerably in smoothing out fast camera pans and movement.
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...
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.
That demo ran at 40 FPS on a laptop...so reality already debunked Sony's PR fluff
That demo ran at 40 FPS on a laptop...so reality already debunked Sony's PR fluff
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,
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.
2070 infact...but still higher FPS than the PS5 demo = "Magical Sauce" debunked.
2070 infact...but still higher FPS than the PS5 demo = "Magical Sauce" debunked.
The laptop in question is no slouch mind, featuring Nvidia RTX 2080 graphics and a 970 Evo Plus. Epic's CTO, Kim Libreri, has already confirmed to us that you'll get "pretty good" performance with UE5 running on something like an RTX 2070 Super, but having a more specific performance figure is always good.
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...
"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.So a 16 core cpu with 32 gb ram & gpu with 12+gb vram along with fastest NVME SSD should work ??
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.View attachment 254267
Looks like $500 for the one with the disk drive, 400 for digital edition if these leaks from Amazon are to be believed.
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.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.
If the consoles are so far ahead of the PC why are there no benchmark numbers to show this?
Now where have I heard that before ?PC gaming is doomed.
That's mighty convenient, "our shit is better, but we don't have time to prove it" LOLBecause 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.
That's mighty convenient, "our shit is better, but we don't have time to prove it" LOL
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.I believe it. I mean, I thought it was going to be $600, but it looks like a legit leak.
A platformer game can switch worlds very quickly, great, now I want a PS5...are signs it's pretty powerful, like that Ratchet & Clank game where they can change entire game worlds on the fly.
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.Where are you buying a 2070s for $700. They are $500 right on Nvidia site. Even less for the non super.
At $500 to $600 then the PS5 has to worry. I don't understand how the Blu-Ray drive costs $100 for a console.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.
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.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.
since windows PCs are going this direction anyways, it seems like the real big advantage a console will have for gamers is price and ease of use?
but PCs are faster and can be upgraded and the total hardware cost will be 3-4x that of the console over the console’s lifespan, so you can play console ports at higher resolutions and frame rates, so there’s that.
This is true.
Like most people that have grown up, the console is mostly a media center pc that can play games. My one x has a keyboard, mouse, and controller. It primarily plays netflix and streams ripped content from my media server. Other than that Path of Exile, Age of Wonders, and Civilization all run great and allow me to have a pc I can dedicate to work without having gaming as a consideration. The only reason I really want an upgrade is so I can play past turn 100 reliably without the onset of long wait periods between turns.
I think the problem with much of this back and forth is the console generation, say people born between 1980 and 1995ish, have got to the point where we just don't have time for this nonsense anymore. I just want a device that reliably plays what I want it to play for a few hours a week and can fill other rolls in the meantime. All these twitch game exclusives are targeted at teenagers so are largely irrelevant. At least for me, and everyone I know.
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.At $500 to $600 then the PS5 has to worry. I don't understand how the Blu-Ray drive costs $100 for a console.
You can't say that throughout on storage doesn't matter than go on and say a SSD is enough. Why not a HDD?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.
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.
If only your knowledge was at the same level as your confidence.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.
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.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.