• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Official Playstation 5 thread

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
50,966
3,660
126
It’s not terrible if you were gonna buy an extra controller and whatever game they toss in. It’s just the principle of forcing people to take it or leave it I don’t really like.
Yeah I remember seeing them doing that back on the Wii but it was for crap games too. Just crappy all around.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
9,582
2,050
136
Honestly, I’m mostly using the Series X for an all-around better Xbox experience. I’m not planning on putting non-Series titles on spinning storage as I want the loading increases inherent to a good SSD. (Although, I do wonder if more CPU power means an external SSD would be pretty good?).
The CPU is definitely a bottleneck. Even upgrading the PS4 Pro drive to an SSD won't get you loading times comparable to PC with the same drive. I would think the benefit would depend on what Sony/MS do to the CPU current gen games however.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,942
597
126
The CPU is definitely a bottleneck. Even upgrading the PS4 Pro drive to an SSD won't get you loading times comparable to PC with the same drive. I would think the benefit would depend on what Sony/MS do to the CPU current gen games however.
That is a good point. From what I recall, Sony has a few different modes that older games can use. There are the two Legacy modes that target PS4 and PS4 Pro games, and then a PS5 mode that has to be supported by the developer. (The prior two should just work.) Now, if these two modes are strictly about reducing CPU and GPU performance to match a specific target, then I'm not sure how that would affect I/O. Sony has its own dedicated I/O controller, which I'm assuming would be separate. On the flip side, I haven't heard about how Microsoft is handling previous generation games.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
7,979
1,162
126
www.teamjuchems.com
That’s a good point. Fortunately, I’m sure someone will do tests around release as to how fast things load. As for the USB ports, I did notice that they have the SuperSpeed logo, but I didn’t notice the SuperSpeed10 logo. So, I assume they’re 5Gbps?

Surprisingly good write up on storage related stuff for older titles.

1601317867691.png

It seems to me like that should translate to the PS5 - how much of the loading bottleneck is really the CPU doing integrity checks on files and stuff (that's a thing, I think?) as it's being loaded. With the new CPU's and the entirely superior IO backbone everything should benefit.

Haha, that surprises me none-much about Borderlands 3. One of the biggest QoL changes on my new rig over my 3930k/Intel SSD rig was decreased loading times. Went from (start --wait--wait--wait--texture pop in-- done) to darn near that Ratchet & Clank video where by the time the warp animation played I was loading in.
 
Last edited:

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,942
597
126

Surprisingly good write up on storage related stuff for older titles.

View attachment 30585

It seems to me like that should translate to the PS5 - how much of the loading bottleneck is really the CPU doing integrity checks on files and stuff (that's a thing, I think?) as it's being loaded. With the new CPU's and the entirely superior IO backbone everything should benefit.

Haha, that surprises me none-much about Borderlands 3. One of the biggest QoL changes on my new rig over my 3930k/Intel SSD rig was decreased loading times. Went from (start --wait--wait--wait--texture pop in-- done) to darn near that Ratchet & Clank video where by the time the warp animation played I was loading in.
After reading the article, I was left wondering one thing.. how comparable are the numbers to an SSD-equipped PC? What has me even more curious was the use of an external drive, and whether both companies should've considered allowing users to add a 2.5" internal drive for older-generation games.

Maybe an interesting comparison would be seeing how fast games load on a PC via an SSD installed into a system vs. one connected via USB. It all comes down to whether or not USB is introducing enough overhead/latency to consider it a negative.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
7,979
1,162
126
www.teamjuchems.com
After reading the article, I was left wondering one thing.. how comparable are the numbers to an SSD-equipped PC? What has me even more curious was the use of an external drive, and whether both companies should've considered allowing users to add a 2.5" internal drive for older-generation games.

Maybe an interesting comparison would be seeing how fast games load on a PC via an SSD installed into a system vs. one connected via USB. It all comes down to whether or not USB is introducing enough overhead/latency to consider it a negative.
Ha, or if one had just adopted tiered storage. Like ~300GB of stupid fast NVME and then a big, cheap (maybe still nvme?) 2TB drive for internal tiered storage. The masses would see one with over 2TB of storage and think that had twice the game storage as the other system. And they wouldn't have been wrong.

We'll see what happens at the refresh, eh?

I think good USB 3 is probably optimal for a good SATA II driver, with peak on USB being 5 gpbs and SATA II being 3 gbps. 2 gbps second for overhead and stuff seems really reasonable.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,942
597
126
I think good USB 3 is probably optimal for a good SATA II driver, with peak on USB being 5 gpbs and SATA II being 3 gbps. 2 gbps second for overhead and stuff seems really reasonable.
It sounds more like you're talking about protocol data overhead. I'm referring to how specific protocols can introduce latency depending on how their controllers are implemented. This is getting a bit out of my wheelhouse, but it's like the remarks that I hear about SATA (AHCI) vs. NVMe in regard to SSDs. From what I can recall, the prior was designed around hard drives, and one example is how NVMe has a significantly higher queue depth (32 vs 65,535). So, it kind of comes down to if we were to compare NVMe, USB and SATA, would their implementations introduce slowdowns in data retrieval for games?

Ultimately, this just goes back to me wondering how the USB numbers in that chart relate to pure SSD performance in a desktop. As I talked about before, I'm tempted to just install everything on the internal SSD, and those charts certainly suggest that some games will show a hefty benefit. I've been considering whether I'll have storage issues (I'm below 50% left on my 1TB Xbox One X right now) and if I should just buy the 1TB storage increase now.
 

sze5003

Lifer
Aug 18, 2012
13,461
341
126
LOL, what? Shouldn't you tell the store how many you will send them before you allow them to start selling them?
Yup..pretty much just like Sony told everyone don't worry we will give everyone a heads up regarding the preorders this time. Then the stores put up preorders a day ahead of when they were supposed to start. Literally a few hours after the Sony live event.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmdrdredd

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
9,582
2,050
136
Yup..pretty much just like Sony told everyone don't worry we will give everyone a heads up regarding the preorders this time. Then the stores put up preorders a day ahead of when they were supposed to start. Literally a few hours after the Sony live event.
IIRC you can thank Walmart for that. They started taking preorders almost immediately.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,838
278
126
That is a good point. From what I recall, Sony has a few different modes that older games can use. There are the two Legacy modes that target PS4 and PS4 Pro games, and then a PS5 mode that has to be supported by the developer. (The prior two should just work.) Now, if these two modes are strictly about reducing CPU and GPU performance to match a specific target, then I'm not sure how that would affect I/O. Sony has its own dedicated I/O controller, which I'm assuming would be separate. On the flip side, I haven't heard about how Microsoft is handling previous generation games.
On the Xbox you can put in almost any Xbox game and play it. All the way back to the OG Xbox. For the OG Xbox and Xbox 360 games are basically emulated and they have a list of working titles(many on game pass). The Xbox one games all work natively and all games running off the SSD will get loading benefits and resolution scaling benefits across the board. They said most games will see performance benefits like less slowdown etc
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
7,979
1,162
126
www.teamjuchems.com
It sounds more like you're talking about protocol data overhead. I'm referring to how specific protocols can introduce latency depending on how their controllers are implemented. This is getting a bit out of my wheelhouse, but it's like the remarks that I hear about SATA (AHCI) vs. NVMe in regard to SSDs. From what I can recall, the prior was designed around hard drives, and one example is how NVMe has a significantly higher queue depth (32 vs 65,535). So, it kind of comes down to if we were to compare NVMe, USB and SATA, would their implementations introduce slowdowns in data retrieval for games?

Ultimately, this just goes back to me wondering how the USB numbers in that chart relate to pure SSD performance in a desktop. As I talked about before, I'm tempted to just install everything on the internal SSD, and those charts certainly suggest that some games will show a hefty benefit. I've been considering whether I'll have storage issues (I'm below 50% left on my 1TB Xbox One X right now) and if I should just buy the 1TB storage increase now.
Super relevant update to the article (Emphasis added by me):

[Update, 7pm EDT: Since this article's publication, I've re-run this gamut of tests upon confirming that the external USB 3.1 drive I'd used on both Xbox One X and Xbox Series X was not the highest-speed drive I had available. I blame my mix-up on how my slim Seagate drive runs silently and outperforms Xbox One X's built-in mechanical drive. I've since added a fourth loading time to each test, as run on a WD Blue 1TB 3D NAND drive connected via a USB 3.1 adapter.

The newly added scores (marked in gray) are for the faster drive as connected to Xbox One X. Notice I didn't list scores for this drive on Series X. That is because its results are nearly identical to Series X's built-in NVME 4.0 drive, within a margin of error of 1-2 seconds. This is very good news, should you wish to enjoy cheaper higher-speed storage for older software on Series X.]

Sounds like if you have a solid (WD Blue?) external SSD drive you should A-OK.

I was going to suggest an external NVME DIY solution, but that apparently would be overkill. A solid external drive (ie, not a gimped chipset) enclosure with darn near any consumer SSD could provide the same performance for back compat titles with the One X. I would imagine similar for PS5 - I really think the CPU was a to blame before. My $0.02 :)
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,942
597
126
Super relevant update to the article (Emphasis added by me):

[Update, 7pm EDT: Since this article's publication, I've re-run this gamut of tests upon confirming that the external USB 3.1 drive I'd used on both Xbox One X and Xbox Series X was not the highest-speed drive I had available. I blame my mix-up on how my slim Seagate drive runs silently and outperforms Xbox One X's built-in mechanical drive. I've since added a fourth loading time to each test, as run on a WD Blue 1TB 3D NAND drive connected via a USB 3.1 adapter.

The newly added scores (marked in gray) are for the faster drive as connected to Xbox One X. Notice I didn't list scores for this drive on Series X. That is because its results are nearly identical to Series X's built-in NVME 4.0 drive, within a margin of error of 1-2 seconds. This is very good news, should you wish to enjoy cheaper higher-speed storage for older software on Series X.]

Sounds like if you have a solid (WD Blue?) external SSD drive you should A-OK.

I was going to suggest an external NVME DIY solution, but that apparently would be overkill. A solid external drive (ie, not a gimped chipset) enclosure with darn near any consumer SSD could provide the same performance for back compat titles with the One X. I would imagine similar for PS5 - I really think the CPU was a to blame before. My $0.02 :)
Thanks for the update! Honestly, I assumed an external SSD was being used for the initial tests, but I really should've looked into it more. However, now that we have an SSD being tested, it's really good to see that you don't really need the internal drive for optimal performance for previous generation games. Prior to the update, I was really considering buying the Series-specific expansion due to the modest increase seen in a good chunk of games. Although, you can get the 1TB WD Blue SSD for $100, and $230 for a 2TB model (+extra for the external adapter/enclosure), or you can buy a 1TB Samsung T5 external SSD for $140. This certainly provides options for a nice discount -- especially when dealing with stupidly large games like Call of Duty -- but it is money spent on something that specifically only handles older games. Albeit, it may not be a big deal to just separate Series-only or Series-enhanced games (the latter does have to be on Series-specific storage, or it will run in Xbox One mode) from older games.

My only complaint is... I really just don't like things hanging off my systems. To be fair, since the console isn't very deep (~6" x ~6" x ~12"), it shouldn't be all that hard to hide an external drive behind it. (Heck, there's a ton of blank space on the back where you can attach the drive.) I still think it would've shown some forethought to add a 2.5" drive slot somewhere (at least on the more expensive Series X), but it's not bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blckgrffn

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
7,979
1,162
126
www.teamjuchems.com
Thanks for the update! Honestly, I assumed an external SSD was being used for the initial tests, but I really should've looked into it more. However, now that we have an SSD being tested, it's really good to see that you don't really need the internal drive for optimal performance for previous generation games. Prior to the update, I was really considering buying the Series-specific expansion due to the modest increase seen in a good chunk of games. Although, you can get the 1TB WD Blue SSD for $100, and $230 for a 2TB model (+extra for the external adapter/enclosure), or you can buy a 1TB Samsung T5 external SSD for $140. This certainly provides options for a nice discount -- especially when dealing with stupidly large games like Call of Duty -- but it is money spent on something that specifically only handles older games. Albeit, it may not be a big deal to just separate Series-only or Series-enhanced games (the latter does have to be on Series-specific storage, or it will run in Xbox One mode) from older games.

My only complaint is... I really just don't like things hanging off my systems. To be fair, since the console isn't very deep (~6" x ~6" x ~12"), it shouldn't be all that hard to hide an external drive behind it. (Heck, there's a ton of blank space on the back where you can attach the drive.) I still think it would've shown some forethought to add a 2.5" drive slot somewhere (at least on the more expensive Series X), but it's not bad.
Haha, I think the reviewer thought the same thing but had just accidentally grabbed the wrong drive for the testing.

If I go this route, I have regularly had older SSDs coming into my possession and I have at least one DIY USB 3 enclosure that works well (hanging off my One S with a old 250GB Samsung 840 in it) and I will just repurpose that - but I completely hear you. It's annoying to have it sitting there with it's own bright AF led and to have it use 2 (doesn't work that well with 1 and my One has super finicky USB ports) of the three available ports is a big bummer.

The "decent" thing is you could use an extender cable and hide it somewhere far from the console.

For me, both PS5 and Series X have plenty of storage for holding anything I would play in ~2 years locally so I probably won't sweat it.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,942
597
126
For me, both PS5 and Series X have plenty of storage for holding anything I would play in ~2 years locally so I probably won't sweat it.
I would be a bit hesitant due to higher resolution textures leading to larger storage size. I usually use Final Fantasy XV on the PC as an example. By default, the PC install is about 100GB, which is already fairly large, but to add in the high-resolution texture package, you add another 50GB to that. Games that are enhanced for Series S/X need to be on the Series-compatible storage to be launched, and I'm not sure what happens if you just toss the entire game on an external drive. Does it just ignore the enhancements that you've downloaded and launch it normally? Does that require even more space (i.e. need space for lower resolution and higher resolution textures)?
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,838
278
126
For me, both PS5 and Series X have plenty of storage for holding anything I would play in ~2 years locally so I probably won't sweat it.
Funny you say that. Bungie is actually removing old content that is not played regularly from destiny 2 and putting it in a vault. Every so often they will rotate that content out into the game again. This they say is because the game is too large and install sizes are nearly 200GB. Funny thing is that many people paid for this content and now it’s being stripped away as the game becomes F2P. I’m so glad I quit that game. The game play and lore are fun and interesting but it went nowhere lol.

Anyway it seems game install sizes are a real concern in some cases.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
7,979
1,162
126
www.teamjuchems.com
Funny you say that. Bungie is actually removing old content that is not played regularly from destiny 2 and putting it in a vault. Every so often they will rotate that content out into the game again. This they say is because the game is too large and install sizes are nearly 200GB. Funny thing is that many people paid for this content and now it’s being stripped away as the game becomes F2P. I’m so glad I quit that game. The game play and lore are fun and interesting but it went nowhere lol.

Anyway it seems game install sizes are a real concern in some cases.
Well, I am planning on playing 2-4 games in that time period on the console, and I almost never come back to a game once I have finished it so... Probably OK.

I get what you are saying. I play BL3 and it's ~120GB for a fresh install now, up from like 60GB at launch. My gaming PC HD has 1.53 TB of 1.81 TB free though ;)
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,838
278
126
Well, I am planning on playing 2-4 games in that time period on the console, and I almost never come back to a game once I have finished it so... Probably OK.

I get what you are saying. I play BL3 and it's ~120GB for a fresh install now, up from like 60GB at launch. My gaming PC HD has 1.53 TB of 1.81 TB free though ;)
Think about how people with a launch Console feel. No space. Sure you can expand it but a lot of casual gamers may not know that.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
7,979
1,162
126
www.teamjuchems.com
Think about how people with a launch Console feel. No space. Sure you can expand it but a lot of casual gamers may not know that.
As much as they are advertised, it seems like people know about external drives. I really hope PS5 and Series S/X make it really easy to make good use of them.

And some people just aren’t digital hoarders. I purged my Steam collection (cloud saves anyway for most titles) and it honestly felt great to not have to worry about it anymore.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,838
278
126
As much as they are advertised, it seems like people know about external drives. I really hope PS5 and Series S/X make it really easy to make good use of them.

And some people just aren’t digital hoarders. I purged my Steam collection (cloud saves anyway for most titles) and it honestly felt great to not have to worry about it anymore.
Yeah I don’t keep everything installed. I delete what I’m done with.
 

EXCellR8

Diamond Member
Sep 1, 2010
3,887
788
136
Same, mostly. There's plenty of games that I know I'll probably never play again--and so they get purged.

I don't think I've ever used an external drive for a gaming console, save for the one that popped onto the top (side?) of the X360.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
50,966
3,660
126
Here is the official teardown video of PS5.


Gotta say that is one of the ugliest consoles ever.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY