-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Next gen PS5 and next Xbox launch speculation - Secret sauces spicing 2019
- Thread starter Phoenix Splash
- Start date
- Status
You're asking for the one thing that is going to leave you unhappy.
Common mistake a lot here seem to be making. You look at next gen as if it's going to be current gen with more power. As if they are making better hardware to run the games we have now at a higher resolution and higher frame rate.
That's not going to be the case. We will have native 4k games running at 30fps with "next gen assets" and "tech"..... Improvements in lighting, AI, geometry complexity and/or interactivity and a slew of other features that would cripple current gen hardware but be possible on next gen hardware.
And as usual, majority of the devs will opt for 30fps to allow for more eye candy in their games and again as usual only high end PCs will be able to take those same games and run them at a higher frame rate.
How does that allign "clearly" with a $499 box though? That looks more to me like a Dev kit.
I highly doubt that unless Sony also goes for $499 box,then all bets are off.
So a 8C/16t CPU, 64CU GPU at ~1500Mhz, 24GB of GDDR6 at around $7/GB....
Barring the ridiculous amount of storage, and it being NVMe, that doesn't sound like a $500 box to me. Sounds more like a $450-$480 to make box that will no doubt get subsidized and sold for like $399.
And I say this because I believe $500 box will in truth be a $550-$580 to make box that gets subsidized and sold for $499.
I don't think anyone of them is making a box that they will be selling at a profit.
I'd be very happy with that. Double the X in GPU power (12TF) plus added architectural enhancements that improve rendering efficiency paired with a modern Zen 2, 24GB GDDR6 and a NVME SSD. That is rock fucking solid all around.
Why do people keep saying "64 CUs". 64 is the most random number. I mean I do get why, because right now it's AMD's glass ceiling. There are only two scenarios with Navi:
1) They break the 64 CU limit - So why 64 CUs? I mean it could be 64, but it could also be 56 or 72. 64 Is a totally random number.
2) They don't break the 64 CU limit - Consoles will never leave every CU active, they will always turn off some CUs for yield. So again, 64 makes no sense.
So why everyone here is using the number 64? If they break the limit it's a totally random number and if they don't it's an unachievable number.
I'm not making this mistake, it's obvious. I've said it with this in mind:
If they are talking about Destiny with a very small visual upgrade, it sounds too easy to get it to 4k/60 considering a parallel desktop GPU runs Destiny 2 easily.
A console like that ^^ is better than my PC. I'd have no qualms using it as my main gaming device.
It is a dev kit. Likely with double the RAM, just like the X dev kit.
We don't know for sure if this is still based on gcn architecture. Navi has been in the pipeline for so long that things could of changed.
I don't really see any way a console will have an SSD as the main storage device, it makes no sense. If they will have some form of SSD, it will be for caching only. Next gen will have 1TB as a baseline if not more, it's too expensive for a console. It also means that external HDDs are irrelevant because whatever you install on them will never be able to keep up. A cache drive is the only thing that makes sense, it will both be reasonable in terms of costs and you will still be able to use an external drive or replace your current drive while maintaining the advantages of the SDD cache drive.
Microsoft already has ML for dividing game blocks in a smart way for enabling games to launch before they've finished downloading, they can use the exact same tech to cache the most relevant parts of every game installed on your HDD to keep it always ready for the next loading screen or streaming data. You can also keep a snapshot of the system's memory when you are done playing, that way you can jump right back in the game quickly even if you've launched other games before, just like on a smartphone.
Microsoft already has ML for dividing game blocks in a smart way for enabling games to launch before they've finished downloading, they can use the exact same tech to cache the most relevant parts of every game installed on your HDD to keep it always ready for the next loading screen or streaming data. You can also keep a snapshot of the system's memory when you are done playing, that way you can jump right back in the game quickly even if you've launched other games before, just like on a smartphone.
Last edited:
True, but Uncharted 4 was also rebooted after Amy Hennig and co left the studio. Different director could have meant different priorities.
I'm discussing hypothetical Navi GPUs because the so-called leaks you insist on quoting are tenuous and incomplete at best.
How many CUs does Navi 10 have from the leaks? What clocks?... No idea? Exactly my point.
Leaked performance figures of Navi-based parts could be from underclocked, undervolted engineering samples that clearly aren't final or are aimed at completely different market segments than the leaker thinks they are.
Trying to conclude anything concrete from them is useless and making sweeping statements about an entire unannounced GPU microarchitecture's possible performance, like "Navi won't be faster than Radeon 7", is more than a little misguided.
Also, you have no idea how much a 72CU part will cost because you have no idea of:
a) the 7nm production yields for a new Navi chip
b) the die size and TDP limits of said chip
c) the price AMD pays TSMC per silicon wafer
d) how many product lines the first Navi chip production runs will be binned to
e) how much margin AMD will put on it when it provides a RRP.
Without any of the above, your assessment on price or even cost is simply as good as numbers plucked from thin air.
Look, i'm not trying to talk down to you or be condescending, but I think you are making conclusions about things you don't properly understand and then arguing till you're blue in the face when corrected, instead of acknowledging your lack of understanding and looking to learn. This thread would be much better if more people asked questions to knowledgeable folks like anexanhume and Miniature Kaiju, rather than bullishly pushing incoherent arguments becuase they read a few PC benchmarks on Anandtech.
Sounds about right.
I may be mis-remembering, but I recall a recent tweet from a guy working at AMD RTG who confirmed GFX10 (Navi) is indeed GCN.
The idea would be to have the 1TB SSD for storage, and if you plugged in an external HDD, any games on it would be transferred to the SSD when you wanted to play them.
So in order to use an external drive, you will have to copy a 200GB game into the main drive just to launch it? Isn't that the exact opposite use of an external drive? Also, SSDs are just too expensive when you can have a smart caching system with a small SSD and a large magnetic drive.
I even said there are people more knowledgeable than I. I just know from what actual Engineers at AMD, and Third party vendors have assessed about NAVI as consumer product line. There is a Navi 20 in the mix which will more than likely by their high end, but leaks from AdoredTv and a couple others that talk about TSMC process, and the kind of yields they are seeing have caused confusion since from what reputable leakers have said that it was re-spun hence the no show at CES 2019.
From what you have said you don't know anymore than I , I just know from people that I trust in their knowledge, and their connections like actual vendors that Navi will be price/perf conscious,.
I literally was replying to someone who said Navi will be more powerful than Radeon 7. ANd currently with what has leaked and what we know from AMD's actual Pipeline they layed out high end NAVI is later.
Radeon 7 is a stop gap card, hence why it's using MI50 chips in it and HBM2 memory and not GDDR6. It did not cost them more R&D t make it.
We know that RX 590 was literally a last minute product like the Radeon 7 that they are trying to get the best perf/watt they can out of the first lineup of NAVI. So them putting out those cards as just stop gap cards while they get NAVI ready for initial launch this year that will 100% replace VEGA/Polaris lineup as time goes on.
What they will release first is what we don't know. But from what AMD engineers have said them selves the focus is on perf/watt which means efficiency in their focus. Which is what Polaris was for it's time.
You are right there isn't enough info out there, as in knowing how many CU's we will have, currently their high end has 64-60 with Radeon 7 having 60 but vega have 64.
There's nothing incoherent about my argument if you actually took the time to see the things that have literally been talked about by AMD themselves, and knowing what their roadmap is.
I won't derail any further, i just reacted to a comment someone made saying navi would be more powerful than radeon 7. And that would be true if navi 20 had a lot of what your are talking about. But it also would have to have over 1tb of memory bandwidth which so for no card has except the RADEON 7. So in raw performance maybe the navi 20 is way more effecient has more CU's, better memory controller with GDDR6. But lacks the high band width of 1tb that radeon 7 has because of the 16gb of memory.
I mean it cost them close to $600 alone to build a radeon 7 I don't think they want another product which is that expensive. ANd seeing GDDR6 prices are still not as cheap as what GDDR5/GDDR5X were I'm inclined to believe they may be going for more price conscious cards, with maybe the RADEON 7and Navi 20 being their high end.
TechRadar using couple people that are hit or miss for sources is in the same boat I a, thinking that Navi 20 probably does exist but is not on the roadmap till next year.
So for when in May they announce the new chips we will have a lineup that will at some point compete with high end, but nothing in the 2080ti range until 2020.
Do me a favor and Google 1TB SSD prices for retail. It's around $110 and coming down for retail. Would be much cheaper for bulk corporate order.
Do me a favor and google the prices of magnetic drives in google. Using an SSD in a console as the main storage device is just stupid, a console budget allows for ~35$ for the storage solution.
Do me a favour and google prices of 2-4TB external USB-C SSDs.
My worry is if you have only SSD on the main system you'll create a high baseline requirement so external drives may be too expensive or not even practical.
Or you do this weird fridge thing. Although if you have a small SSD Cache the system/dev would be doing that anyway
I hope you get your spinning drive machine and It get my SSD machine.
Anyone who doesn't want an SSD as the storage medium is either nuts or never used one. You can always hook up an external HDD for more space and just copy games back and forth as you wish. What's wrong with that setup?
You could do 72CU and deactivate 2 CUs per Shader Engine (= 8 CUs) -> 64 active CUs
About that reddit devkit leak. Doubt this are the real specs.
a 256GB cache drive will perform just like a main SSD drive if the OS knows what it is doing and a 256GB SSD + 2TB HDD will cost less than a single 1TB SSD drive.
Right now at Newegg a 4GB Baracuda HDD 2.5" is 90$ and a 256GB SSD is 25$, a single 1TB SSD is 100$. So what makes more sense? spending basically the same for 1TB of storage or 4TB with the same performance?
You can do any combo you would like if they break the 64CU limit, it's still the most unlikely number statistically because if they don't break the 64CU limit, it's unachievable.
Can someone give me a simple layman explanation for the follow two queries?
1. Why has it been a trend for AMD GPUs to always have lower performance/watt compared to nVidia GPUs (since forever)?
2. Why do AMD GPUs always have higher raw "TF" value which do not translate into performance compared to their nVidia GPU counterparts?
1. Why has it been a trend for AMD GPUs to always have lower performance/watt compared to nVidia GPUs (since forever)?
2. Why do AMD GPUs always have higher raw "TF" value which do not translate into performance compared to their nVidia GPU counterparts?
64 CUs are "random" in the same way that the 8 CPU cores or 8GB of RAM in PS4 are random - deliberately selected to balance performance, cost, and power consumption.
The "limit" of 64 CUs has to do with how the Vega architecture scales. Looking at benchmarks shows that you don't get a performance improvement commensurate with the CU increases going from Vega 56 to 64 adjusted for clocks. The architecture has inherent inefficiencies that make it not scale well. Exceeding 64 CUs is completely possible, but a fool's errand given diminishing returns.
AMD has acknowledged this limitation and you can read about that over at Anandtech. I've linked the article many times in the past.
Saying consoles will be limited to 64 CUs is pure speculation. It's entirely dependent on Navi's architecture. Given "scalable" is in AMD's marketing materials, I'm guessing we're going to see bigger parts. There's also no theoretical limit to how many extra CUs the die include that will be disabled for yield. That just becomes a cost factor. Using that as a basis to decry 64 as having no foundation in reality is severely misguided.
Following this logic, consoles would have never got hard drives at all. They wouldn't have got WiFi chips added. Why include new technology when it's going to raise the price of your console? Because the benefit is worth it. It's very much platform strategy and having a vision for the future. Making conservative or "safe" choices gets you the Xbox One design. We saw how that turned out.
If next gen consoles do not come with NVMe SSDs, next gen consoles are already dead.
Consoles are sooooooooooooo slow compared to a regular PCs.
A PC boots up in 7 seconds. An "App" boots up in 1 second.
A game can boot up in 5 to 15 seconds,
Boot and asset load times are one of the biggest isssues games have today.
1. Not really since forever. During AMD 58X0 series and Nvidia GTX 4X0 AMD was ahaed in performance/watt.
They just optimized for that knowing the Server market would make them billion. And that resulted in even more money to spend on R&D.
2. There is no simple explanation for that. It's a different architecture philosophy. FLOPs are just one part of the graphic calculation equation.
Consoles are sooooooooooooo slow compared to a regular PCs.
A PC boots up in 7 seconds. An "App" boots up in 1 second.
A game can boot up in 5 to 15 seconds,
Boot and asset load times are one of the biggest isssues games have today.
1. Not really since forever. During AMD 58X0 series and Nvidia GTX 4X0 AMD was ahaed in performance/watt.
They just optimized for that knowing the Server market would make them billion. And that resulted in even more money to spend on R&D.
2. There is no simple explanation for that. It's a different architecture philosophy. FLOPs are just one part of the graphic calculation equation.
Last edited:
A) I suspect Sony and MS will keep the die size the same as the X1X assuming they are going for a $499 price tag. Costs will initially be higher but isnt the entire point of shrinking die sizes is to reduce cost?
B) What exactly do you mean by power ceiling? I dont see the PS5 APU consuming anywhere near 300W. The X1X has a TDP of 170 with 40 CUs and clockspeeds of 1.17 Ghz. do you think they will hit the power ceiling for an APU thats under 150W? Also, what do you make of the graph below? To me, this means they can get 30% more clock speeds for the same power consumption when going to 7nm.
C) Balls. Day ruined.
So yeah, 64 is totally random just like 72 and 56.
No, it doesn't. a small SSD for caching makes sense, a full main storage SSD doesn't. You would get the same performance (except maybe some edge cases) and it will be much cheaper. Even if you could place a 1TB SSD in a console, it would be much smarter to use a small SSD for cache and have x2 or x4 the storage space on a magnetic drive.
I just got a new PC with an SSD and the damn thing loads up windows before i even have the chance to sit down on my couch. It's crazy.
That said, i can only have like 2-3 games on it at once and its frustrating. the other day i wasnt able to download the latest anthem patch because there was no space left. with games only getting bigger next gen, a 256GB SSD is going to frustrate a lot of people.
consoles already have rest modes that put you back in the game almost instaneously. most games are open world games nowadays so there is really only one laoding screen. story games like uncharted and tlou do a good job of hiding loading screens behind cutscenes. i was playing MLB the show the other day and it loads in like 10 seconds. used to take 30-40 seconds at the start of the gen iirc. we have come a long way from Bloodborne's 60 second death loading screens.
anthem is basically the only exception at the moment with terrible loading times but that game was shipped unfinished. even on an SSD it takes forever to load levels.
The first response is more nonsense. The second makes a lot of assumptions and largely ignores my points. I don't think it's constructive to continue.
A) I suspect Sony and MS will keep the die size the same as the X1X assuming they are going for a $499 price tag. Costs will initially be higher but isnt the entire point of shrinking die sizes is to reduce cost?
B) What exactly do you mean by power ceiling? I dont see the PS5 APU consuming anywhere near 300W. The X1X has a TDP of 170 with 40 CUs and clockspeeds of 1.17 Ghz. do you think they will hit the power ceiling for an APU thats under 150W? Also, what do you make of the graph below? To me, this means they can get 30% more clock speeds for the same power consumption when going to 7nm.
C) Balls. Day ruined.
More important is getting 300W of performance for 150W. You don't want to increase clocks. You do it because it's not cost effective or efficient to go wider.
His answer to C) is not completely confirmed. ARM/AMD have talked about challenges raising clocks at 7nm (mostly due to interconnect resistance), but leaked clock speeds for some Ryzen 3000 parts suggest base clocks are increasing with the same TDP as similar core configurations on Zen+ parts.
Finally, a given die size on 7nm is going to cost more than it did on 28nm (or 16nm). That will hurt consoles' BOMs.
NVidia made a commitment to improve perf/Watt after Fermi and AMD never caught up.
Games aren't just about compute power. You have to be able to use that power in the way games are coded. Nvidia got a lot better at the latter. AMD's compute advantage came in handy for the mining boom.
Last edited:
You have no idea what improvements Navi will have over current AMD architecture, no idea what are the costs of 7nm in each point in time, no idea what are Microsoft/Sony's budget or targets for the APU, no idea what are the yields but somehow 64CUs makes more sense to you than 56 or 72 because... zero knowledge? Amazing! So yeah, 64CU is random just like 56CU or 80CU. I mean you can say 64, just like you can say 56 but for some reason, people started taking 64CU as a dogma for no reason at all.
A full SSD doesn't make sense, it's too expensive. A cache drive will cost a lot less and will give you the same performance if it's large enough, let's say ~200GB. Talking about a console that uses SSD only is like talking about a 1.8GHz GPU, it makes sense on a PC but not on a 399$-499$ console. Maybe Microsoft and Sony will be able to get in summer 2020 a 1TB SSD for 35$ which is probably what they will spend on storage, but if they can get a 1TB for 35$ then they can get a 200GB SSD + 2-4 GB HDD for around the same price. With next-gen games getting close to 200GB if X enhanced games are any indication, 1TB SSD is not very smart.
Last edited:
Ok. How about we make this simple.....
How much do you think Sony/MS spent on a 500GB HDD back in 2013, how much do you think they spend on a 1TB HDD now, and how much do you think a 1TB M.2 SATA SSD will cost them (OEM pricing) in 2020?
For some context..
2013, 500GB HDD $60 retail (~$25 OEM)
2016, 1TB HDD ~$60 retail (~$25 OEM)
2019, 1TB SSD ~$100 retail (~$40 OEM? If looking at OEM pricing for HDDs)
So how much you think an SSD will cost at retail in 2020.... And how much do you think it will cost sony/ms at OEM pricing. And at what cost would you consider it to be unreasonable for them to Still use an SSD?
Lastly, have you thought about why an SSD is even needed? And what it would mean to not have one?
And the cache + HDD combo thing.... That only makes sense if they CANNOT get a 1TB SSD at under $40. But if they can then the cost and complexity of having a cache SSD and a 1/2TB is no longer worth it.
Sony spent 37$ on the PS4's HDD during launch, not 25$; in 2016 Microsoft spent on a 1TB drive 32$ and on a 2TB drive 55$. your numbers are just wrong so some sources could be nice. Even if they will be able to have a 1TB SSD for ~37$, current X-enhanced games are 100GB+ so next-gen games are going to be ~200GB. You will be able to install ~5 games on a 1TB drive, that's crazy.
And for the 30th time, I do think that an SSD is a good idea for next-gen, but having an SSD as the main drive is a waste of money so they need to use a smaller SSD for caching. It's not a PC, in a console caching SSD will work great even with the simplest OS implementation.
Last edited:
Firstly, 200GB game? Really? More like 100GB I'm guessing. Something like the complete FFXV is an outlier, and not all that data would need to be transferred.
Secondly, any game you buy will need to be installed from a disc or downloaded from the internet anyway, and they'd go straight into the 1TB SSD first. So you'd only be transferring the games from HDD to SSD after you had already transferred them to the HDD because you had been currently done with them. And given the size of the SSD you'd be able to hold like 8 games in it on average, so the supposed problem of constantly having to transfer back and forth wouldn't actually be that much of an issue.
Thirdly, plenty of devs would be able to set the game up so that it only needs some of the data on the SSD, not all, and BC PS4 games (as well as, probably, some indie titles) could run from the HDD if you wanted anyway.
Lastly current projections have flash memory prices falling fast to the point that a 1TB NVMe SSD would likely cost Sony and MS about $35 to put into a console releasing late 2020. Also, using just that SSD would mean no heavier HDD and no drive bay, shrinking the console, simplifying manufacturing and lowering shipping costs. So no, everything indicates it wouldn't be too expensive at all.
5 Games is more than enough for the majority of console owners.
When you need more, you can still go with an external or wait for the 2TB model later.
Ps4 has a 9.5 games tie ratio after 5 years on the market, including all the small digital games. It's not only 100GB games.
Also a lot of games area just bought / owned and not installed all the time, because they're not played all the time.
Also this:
One major upside of an M2 SSD, that many ignore. You don't need a nice mounting bracket anymore to reduce vibrations from the HDD.
That cost's $2, too
You can't just assume that, as though developers just won't bother to work on better data compression. Also, Sekiro literally just came out at a cool 15GB, so that's hardly universal.
XBX dev-kits also have a SSD which is normal for a dev-kit. Regardless of the veracity of the reddit leak, XB2 dev-kits will most certainly have a SSD too. But retail consoles certainly won't. It's way too expensive for what you get.
It would be much better to use the budget on GPU clock, number of CU, or GDDR6 clock increase or a combination of those. Also 1TB is too low for next gen. I expect a minimum of 2TB (which is what the latest models of Pros have) which would be even more expensive if SSD.
It would be much better to use the budget on GPU clock, number of CU, or GDDR6 clock increase or a combination of those. Also 1TB is too low for next gen. I expect a minimum of 2TB (which is what the latest models of Pros have) which would be even more expensive if SSD.
Sony is looking at prices over the long term, not just at launch. Today SSDs are much more expensive than HDDs, but the prices are coming down and the technology is getting better. There is something inevitable, SSDs with no moving parts are going to become more affordable than HDDs with moving parts. If this happens in the next 2-3 years, then it would have been a mistake to forgo SSDs for HDDs if Sony had the ability to absorb the initial loss in 2020.
They could have an onboard 1TB SSD to reduce costs with an expansion bay like the PS2, where the user could put in a drive with two scenarios: Performance is good enough to run games (an SSD) or performance is good enough to be used as storage only (HDD). It would allow them to keep the costs down, but future proof the system.
My numbers are based on this. And I even made them more expensive. At least for the 2013 ones. As for the 1TB HDD ones I just made estimates based on how much a 1TB HDD cost back in 2016.
Regardless of the accuracy of my numbers tho. My point stands. We can safely say these companies are willing to spend anywhere from $22 to $40 for storage. So the question is simple.
How much do you think a 1TB SSD will cost them in 2020?
Last edited:
The OG PS4 has certainly been a Beast, both for Sony, seeing how it dominated this gen, and for Microsoft, in the last case taking the most nightmarish of meanings :P
Last edited:
Yes. HDDs won't get much cheaper over time anymore.
SSDs will however.
It's inevitable that SSDs will become cheaper than HDDs on a $ per GB ratio.
And that could already happen within 5 years with 4TB SSDs and 4 TB HDDs
SSDs will however.
It's inevitable that SSDs will become cheaper than HDDs on a $ per GB ratio.
And that could already happen within 5 years with 4TB SSDs and 4 TB HDDs
Oh? You don't need to transfer all the data? You mean... using the SSD for caching? :)
People play from their HDD, they like having their libraries installed, it's not for backup. Most launch PS4 games are less than 40GB and it had 500GB so you could have like 12 games and still, everyone wanted 1TB and called the 500GB drive too small.
You've just described caching again, another point to team "small SSD drive for caching".
Removing a driver bay and saving 40g of weight will never offset the huge difference in pricing between an SSD and a magnetic drive. Anything you can do with an SSD you can do cheaper with an SSD+HDD combo.
Yes, 200GB games. X enhanced games are close to 100GB, next-gen games will be bigger. Gears 4 is 121.23GB, how much will Gears 6 on next-gen will take? 100GB will probably be a pretty small AAA install size.
If in some magical way SSDs will become so cheap that they will be cheaper than a mechanical drive, Sony can use a full SSD for the slim or pro. For now they better stick with an SSD+HDD combo.
What ever a 1TB SSD will cost them in 2020, a cache SSD and a 2TB HDD will cost them less and preformance will be the same.
I am willing to bet that there is no way next gen consoles don't come with an SSD of some sort.
It's the same reason they went from only having a HDD as a cache drive for games (7th gen), to running games exclusively off the HDD (8th gen).
We are at that point again where those same reasons requires that they use a faster drive. Can you even stop to think how long loading times will become if we are really getting consoles with anywhere between 16GB to 20GB of available ram for games????
That's like 3 to 4 times the load times compared to what we have now if they stick with HDDs. Some games will literally take like 4 minutes to load!!!!
But if you want bigger storage you'll need to grab a bigger ssd only?
Cab see advantages to both methods.
Ok it's safe to say you don't know what you are talking about.
In no specific order....
1) yes. Eventually SSDs will cost less than HDDs. There is a point that a mechanical HDDs price can't go below. And there is even a point it starts to increase. And that's just looking at the hardware. If we go into the demand, the second the entire industry is pretty much going with SSDs, whoever is left ordering HDDs is fucked.
2) who is this everyone wanted a 1TB HDD that you speak of? The majority of console buyers don't even know it's possible to upgrade your HDD much less want a 1TB HDD. Don't get it twisted. We on forums like these represent less then 5% of the gaming console buying populace.
3) and no. A 240GB cache drive + 1TB/2TB HDD is not going to be cheaper than whatever they spend on a 1TB SSD. That's really a very silly thing to say.
Beside's the added complexity to build, the added disadvantages to repairability, a setup like that will also weigh more and cost more to ship. Those all add up. As I've said. The only way splitting the storage makes sense is if an SSD costs them more than $40. But as long as it costs less (and all indications are showing it could cost them as little as $35) then going with a standalone SSD makes more all round sense.
4) and again no. No 200GB nonsense for games. What are you talking about??? The reason x enhnaced games take up that much space is simply due to dupliction of of assets. They basically have assets for the base version and for the X version. 200GB for games lol.....
Does the PS4 OS (or whatever is built upon) even really support SSD fully to make full use of them? The load time decreases seen from switching to an SSD from a HDD aren't that impressive IMO. I mean yeah, they're a lot lower, but the load times are still too high. I could have sworn I remember someone saying that SSD's wouldn't work as fast as they do in Windows because the OS PlayStation is using would need to be rebuilt to support them... Or something?
Either way I don't think we'll not have an SSD option at least with PS5, even if they don't make load times as quick as in PC's.
Either way I don't think we'll not have an SSD option at least with PS5, even if they don't make load times as quick as in PC's.
Of course there are advantages to both. But we are not talking about a charity organization here.
Console manufacturers will always spend with regards of what is absolutely necessary.
If going with a split storage system is at the time more of a luxury than an necessity then they simply won't do that.
Eg. Say it costs $40 to put in an embedded 240GB SSD + 2TB HDD. And $35 for a 1TB user upgradeable SSD..... Then it's settled. They will go with the SSD only option.
But if that SSD only option costs them like $50? Then they will go with the split storage option.
And I actually championed the idea of split storage. But I totally tossed that out the window when I saw (and experienced) how quickly SSD prices were dropping.
- Status