• 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 9 - 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
50,945
3,644
126
Whats the storage situation on the 5? I know it has some weird proprietary less than 1TB but, my current PS4 pro has (I swapped it long ago) a 2TB SSD/HD drive inside and an external 2TB SSD connected via USB to SATA dongle. I have 2 4TB SSDs BNIB I can use but can I use both via external connectors? The PS4 did not allow that. I am gonna have a hell of a time copying nearly 4TB of stuff to a Ps5. I hope Sony made it easier.
It has an 825gb drive. We don't know how much of that is reserved for the system yet either. It is kind of pathetic that if you purchase Spiderman and Demon Souls that you will have used 170gb out of at most 825gb but probably closer to 800gb or less after system reserved space.

I also thought I read that you will be able to play PS4 games off of external non-SSD drives but that may have been a rumor. They haven't said much about it direct from Sony.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,931
593
126
It has an 825gb drive. We don't know how much of that is reserved for the system yet either. It is kind of pathetic that if you purchase Spiderman and Demon Souls that you will have used 170gb out of at most 825gb but probably closer to 800gb or less after system reserved space.

I also thought I read that you will be able to play PS4 games off of external non-SSD drives but that may have been a rumor. They haven't said much about it direct from Sony.
Here's the portion of the Anandtech article discussing what should be expected for the usable space on the PlayStation 5 (highlighting by me):

The 12-channel controller also leads to unusual total capacities. A console SSD doesn't need any more overprovisioning than typical consumer SSDs, so 50% more channels should translate to about 50% more usable capacity. The PS5 will ship with "825 GB" of SSD space, which means we should see each of the 12 channels equipped with 64GiB of raw NAND, organized as either one 512Gbit (64GB) die or two 256Gbit (32GB) dies per channel. That means the nominal raw capacity of the NAND is 768GiB or about 824.6 (decimal) GB. The usable capacity after accounting for the requisite spare area reserved by the drive is probably going to be more in line with what would be branded as 750 GB by a drive manufacturer, so Sony's 825GB is overstating things by about 10% more than normal for the storage industry. It's something that may make a few lawyers salivate.
Ultimately, if what they are surmising is true, the storage situation may end up being worse. Maybe it's a good thing that the launch window is so bare. :p
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
7,937
1,124
126
www.teamjuchems.com
Whats the storage situation on the 5? I know it has some weird proprietary less than 1TB but, my current PS4 pro has (I swapped it long ago) a 2TB SSD/HD drive inside and an external 2TB SSD connected via USB to SATA dongle. I have 2 4TB SSDs BNIB I can use but can I use both via external connectors? The PS4 did not allow that. I am gonna have a hell of a time copying nearly 4TB of stuff to a Ps5. I hope Sony made it easier.
I don't think you'll be able to play games off anything but the internal NVME drive(s) - the one included and the one that you can someday populate with a drive that meets the performance requirements - because of the expected storage requirements of the software. Some games will break pretty badly without the really burst ready internal storage performance. How we'll navigate moving files from internal storage to external storage and back on both the Series X and the PS5 is up in the air, I believe. I'd expect it to evolve over time as well.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
7,937
1,124
126
www.teamjuchems.com

Sony is only allocating maybe 20% to Digital Edition consoles. Adds fuel to the fire that Sony wanted higher prices for the consoles to reduce their loss.
I think it's interesting to consider that there are not additional savings with the digital only version of the console to Sony - same chassis, the whole bit. Say what you want about MS, but the Series S not only has more modest specs to lower the BoM but it is physically smaller. You can pack more into planes, containers, semi's and warehouses. Really they decided to go all in and really deliver a digital only product that targets a real demo - price sensitive so they are OK with some lower specs. Lower specs means less components. Less components means less physical size and lower PSU requirements. Smaller size leads to logistical savings, etc. All those savings passed through to the customer might result in a bigger install base for their subscription format. If you didn't "win" last round, doing something actually different this round seems like the only logical thing to do.

Makes the PS5 "just the same but missing the UHD drive" look a little lazy in comparison. Comparatively speaking, they have very little reason to push it.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
50,945
3,644
126
I think it's interesting to consider that there are not additional savings with the digital only version of the console to Sony - same chassis, the whole bit. Say what you want about MS, but the Series S not only has more modest specs to lower the BoM but it is physically smaller. You can pack more into planes, containers, semi's and warehouses. Really they decided to go all in and really deliver a digital only product that targets a real demo - price sensitive so they are OK with some lower specs. Lower specs means less components. Less components means less physical size and lower PSU requirements. Smaller size leads to logistical savings, etc. All those savings passed through to the customer might result in a bigger install base for their subscription format. If you didn't "win" last round, doing something actually different this round seems like the only logical thing to do.

Makes the PS5 "just the same but missing the UHD drive" look a little lazy in comparison. Comparatively speaking, they have very little reason to push it.
Word on the street is that the disc-less PS5 made up about 20% of the total consoles available and the Series S was significantly lower than that. That was what I heard from people who work at Gamestop and their allocations.

I personally think both discless consoles are stupid decisions with the PS5 one being even dumber. Saving $100 to not have a disc drive is not very enticing at all and it was probably Sony's panic response after hearing about the Series S coming out or something behind the scenes. I'm just glad that games on PS5 will just have 1 target hardware though and I think games will ultimately look better on PS5 in the long run than Xbox since they have like 5 Xbox pieces of hardware alone to target and make sure games run fine on.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
7,937
1,124
126
www.teamjuchems.com
Word on the street is that the disc-less PS5 made up about 20% of the total consoles available and the Series S was significantly lower than that. That was what I heard from people who work at Gamestop and their allocations.

I personally think both discless consoles are stupid decisions with the PS5 one being even dumber. Saving $100 to not have a disc drive is not very enticing at all and it was probably Sony's panic response after hearing about the Series S coming out or something behind the scenes. I'm just glad that games on PS5 will just have 1 target hardware though and I think games will ultimately look better on PS5 in the long run than Xbox since they have like 5 Xbox pieces of hardware alone to target and make sure games run fine on.
That's a fair assessment too I think. From a "If we are going to create a less expensive version of our console, what should it look like?" standpoint, I think MS has a much more complete solution. A more realized vision that has some coherence and actually costs less for MS to make. At 60% of the price of the Series X it seems like a good (plausible) way to pursue a different demographic. Which isn't to say it will be crazy successful.

After some reflection, I think I am even more surprised neither company came out with a $999 SKU. I know, I know, that sounds nuts but people pay that for phones and many other devices. I mean, Apple prices iPads into that realm and I am sure they sell some. If there had been a PS5+ at launch that had maybe 24GB of ram, a GPU with ~2x the CU's at maybe a lower clock speed and lets say 2TB of usable (so like 3x PS5) flash I think that at maybe a 3:1 (normal to + models) they would have sold all they could have made. To me that would have made way more waves than slicing out the UHD drive to hit a $400 price point. Merchandising wise, it would have made the $500 version look like a great marginal utility pick and made the $200 difference between the Series S and the Series X look less significant.

Case in point: NVIDIA sold all the 3080's they had on hand the very next day. That's a $700 PC component that needs a ~$1,000 PC to even make sense. Now I know that consoles & PC's aren't the same utility wise, my point is there would be people who were willing to buy the + model by virtue of it even existing and thinking about how much use they'll get out of it.

I also think it would have just straight buried MS when it came to making it obvious which console a "real gamer" should buy. Flip it for MS over Sony, but it's not as compelling due to the weaker hardware still being supported and lack of exclusives coming.
 

JujuFish

Lifer
Feb 3, 2005
10,376
395
136
I think it's interesting to consider that there are not additional savings with the digital only version of the console to Sony - same chassis, the whole bit. Say what you want about MS, but the Series S not only has more modest specs to lower the BoM but it is physically smaller. You can pack more into planes, containers, semi's and warehouses. Really they decided to go all in and really deliver a digital only product that targets a real demo - price sensitive so they are OK with some lower specs. Lower specs means less components. Less components means less physical size and lower PSU requirements. Smaller size leads to logistical savings, etc. All those savings passed through to the customer might result in a bigger install base for their subscription format. If you didn't "win" last round, doing something actually different this round seems like the only logical thing to do.

Makes the PS5 "just the same but missing the UHD drive" look a little lazy in comparison. Comparatively speaking, they have very little reason to push it.
Sure, if you ignore the fact that Sony makes a cut of literally everything on the digital console. No more used games. Sounds like the holy grail for console manufacturers to me.
 

JujuFish

Lifer
Feb 3, 2005
10,376
395
136
I think games will ultimately look better on PS5 in the long run than Xbox since they have like 5 Xbox pieces of hardware alone to target and make sure games run fine on.
I guess PC games must look worse than any console game ever made, since, you know, there are practically infinite pieces of hardware to account for. Oh wait....
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,833
278
126
Word on the street is that the disc-less PS5 made up about 20% of the total consoles available and the Series S was significantly lower than that. That was what I heard from people who work at Gamestop and their allocations.

I personally think both discless consoles are stupid decisions with the PS5 one being even dumber. Saving $100 to not have a disc drive is not very enticing at all and it was probably Sony's panic response after hearing about the Series S coming out or something behind the scenes. I'm just glad that games on PS5 will just have 1 target hardware though and I think games will ultimately look better on PS5 in the long run than Xbox since they have like 5 Xbox pieces of hardware alone to target and make sure games run fine on.
I disagree on the last part only because of how
Microsoft’s tools work. They target the Xbox series x first and scale down from there to every other console in the line up. Sony’s tools are starting with ps4 and scaling up. Developers did say they find the ps5 easier since the tools didn’t change, but Microsoft targeting the top end first, IMO, isn’t a bad thing. In the end though any marginal difference in performance in 3rd party titles will be offset by Sony’s exclusives that will have no direct comparison. Much like the one X. I think people who had both the one x and the PS4 pro realized the one x will probably run 3rd party titles better but not have Sony’s exclusives. Obviously the network most of your friends are on might make more of a determining factor than anything else when it comes time to pick one or the other. Ultimately I think there is room for both, I know there is for me. I think Microsoft’s services are better and the ability to re-use my $250 headset is a huge benefit(not sure if the ps5 will work with it) but they can’t compete on first party titles.

 
Last edited:

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
7,937
1,124
126
www.teamjuchems.com
Sure, if you ignore the fact that Sony makes a cut of literally everything on the digital console. No more used games. Sounds like the holy grail for console manufacturers to me.
Sorry, coming from the PC side of things where Steam has made that the norm for so long.

I've purchased heavily discounted digital titles for my consoles already and it looks like game pass services from both Sony and MS are making "owning" many older titles superfluous over the long run.

I guess you get $100 to pay towards the difference in prices between secondhand games and "new" digital copies over the life of the console? I also have no issues with the developers getting some residual sales revenue over the long haul.

Also, I used the word "comparatively" to the strategy that MS used to create a entire lower cost SKU to get people on board.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
50,945
3,644
126
I disagree on the last part only because of how
Microsoft’s tools work. They target the Xbox series x first and scale down from there to every other console in the line up. Sony’s tools are starting with ps4 and scaling up. Developers did say they find the ps5 easier since the tools didn’t change, but Microsoft targeting the top end first, IMO, isn’t a bad thing. In the end though any marginal difference in performance in 3rd party titles will be offset by Sony’s exclusives that will have no direct comparison. Much like the one X. I think people who had both the one x and the PS4 pro realized the one x will probably run 3rd party titles better but not have Sony’s exclusives. Obviously the network most of your friends are on might make more of a determining factor than anything else when it comes time to pick one or the other. Ultimately I think there is room for both, I know there is for me. I think Microsoft’s services are better and the ability to re-use my $250 headset is a huge benefit(not sure if the ps5 will work with it) but they can’t compete on first party titles.

de
The problem is Microsoft can say they are targeting high end all they want, but the fact of the matter is it is clear as day they are lying about it with how Halo Infinite looked. There is just absolutely no way that game was optimized for the Series X and they were planning on downgrading it for lower end consoles. It literally looked like a late gen 360 game.

This will change though after their promise of 2 years or whatever they promised to run their games on Xbox One though.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,833
278
126
Sorry, coming from the PC side of things where Steam has made that the norm for so long.

I've purchased heavily discounted digital titles for my consoles already and it looks like game pass services from both Sony and MS are making "owning" many older titles superfluous over the long run.

I guess you get $100 to pay towards the difference in prices between secondhand games and "new" digital copies over the life of the console? I also have no issues with the developers getting some residual sales revenue over the long haul.

Also, I used the word "comparatively" to the strategy that MS used to create a entire lower cost SKU to get people on board.
I think the series S targets a couple specific group. Those who don’t have a shiny new 4K HDR tv, budget minded individuals, and those who don’t care about UHD playback and media functions. The core market I can see is a family with kids who don’t want to spend $500 on a console. Maybe they have a switch, but they want to be able to play games that don’t see a switch release.

That said I didn’t see any interest at all in the S today when I pre ordered my X at my local GameStop. They had 3 X available and they were claimed by myself and two others who had been there for 3 hours. They had 2 S systems but everyone walked away when they found out all the X were gone. The gamer crowd doesn’t want the lower power box I guess.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
50,945
3,644
126
I guess PC games must look worse than any console game ever made, since, you know, there are practically infinite pieces of hardware to account for. Oh wait....
Except that is not what I said is it.

Of course a PC game running on a video card that costs as much or more than a full console is going to look better than the console or a PC with a lower end card.

You are delusional if you don't think targeting 1 piece of hardware gives you the ability to optimize and take advantage of the hardware more so than if you are targeting multiple piece of hardware. Then you have to be generic and do generic tricks.

Show me a PC that is the equivalent of a PS4 and show me a game running on it that looks as good as The Last of Us 2.
 

JujuFish

Lifer
Feb 3, 2005
10,376
395
136
Except that is not what I said is it.

Of course a PC game running on a video card that costs as much or more than a full console is going to look better than the console or a PC with a lower end card.
So games can push the highest end PC gaming cards to their limits, yet Xbox developers won't be able to do that for the Series X. Okay, sure.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
50,945
3,644
126
So games can push the highest end PC gaming cards to their limits, yet Xbox developers won't be able to do that for the Series X. Okay, sure.
Again, I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I said they won't be able to target 1 specific piece of hardware and optimize for that because they have to worry about multiple configs.

It's not a coincidence that Playstation and Xbox games best looking games are exclusives and not multiplatform games. There is a very specific reason for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and blckgrffn

quikah

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
3,425
307
126
Again, I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I said they won't be able to target 1 specific piece of hardware and optimize for that because they have to worry about multiple configs.

It's not a coincidence that Playstation and Xbox games best looking games are exclusives and not multiplatform games. There is a very specific reason for it.
Too bad Spiderman and Horizon are being held back by the PS4.

And Dirt 5 is held back too, damn, will have to play at only 120FPS on the Series S. Could have gone to 240FPS probably if they didn't release on Xbox One.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,833
278
126
Too bad Spiderman and Horizon are being held back by the PS4.

And Dirt 5 is held back too, damn, will have to play at only 120FPS on the Series S. Could have gone to 240FPS probably if they didn't release on Xbox One.
By that logic PC games are held back because the average gamer uses a gtx 1060
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
50,945
3,644
126
Too bad Spiderman and Horizon are being held back by the PS4.

And Dirt 5 is held back too, damn, will have to play at only 120FPS on the Series S. Could have gone to 240FPS probably if they didn't release on Xbox One.
They are.

Do you honestly think Horizon 3 won't look better than part 2, if/when it comes out? And it will in turn be partially due to not having to worry about PS4.

I thought this was common sense but here we are.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
50,945
3,644
126
Son of a...it's still throws me an alert saying it's out of stock and can't add to cart.
Yeah I didn't try adding it to cart before posting it. I saw a tweet from IGN about it like 54 minutes ago and saw the preorder button live.

Looks like it wasn't actually live though that long sorry :(
 

sze5003

Lifer
Aug 18, 2012
13,453
334
126
Yeah I didn't try adding it to cart before posting it. I saw a tweet from IGN about it like 54 minutes ago and saw the preorder button live.

Looks like it wasn't actually live though that long sorry :(
I saw a thread on reddit too recently. Seems people are experiencing the same. Could a site glitch too.

I probably could have gotten the Xbox series X easily had I paid attention to when it went live. Now I see on Microsoft's site they are letting people preorder it with a payment plan.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
50,945
3,644
126
I saw a thread on reddit too recently. Seems people are experiencing the same. Could a site glitch too.
They had been getting them in multiple times after the initial preorder so I'd keep messing with it. It was glitchy for me when I got mine from Target too but eventually it worked.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,833
278
126
I saw a thread on reddit too recently. Seems people are experiencing the same. Could a site glitch too.

I probably could have gotten the Xbox series X easily had I paid attention to when it went live. Now I see on Microsoft's site they are letting people preorder it with a payment plan.
The payment plan was available through some retailers too. It’s not a bad deal for people really because you get a game pass subscription.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY