Xbox Series X and PS5 loading comparison (AC, Watchdogs, Dirt 5)

[VanWinkle]

Well, the SSD bandwidth numbers (for the most part) definitely don't tell the whole story, that's for sure. This is not the difference I was expecting back in the Road to PS5 Cerny talk and I can't help but be a little disappointed.. Still early days, so things could change, but I can't help but wonder if Sony took the wrong approach by having the (comparatively) weaker GPU and spending that money on a much faster SSD. What good is a 2.3x faster SSD when loading time differences are negligible? By far the biggest difference in the video is AC Valhalla, but it's showing the company logos and stuff on Series X while it doesn't on PS5. I could see either the PS5 version getting patched to put the logos in (if they're supposed to be there) or Series X version getting a patch to remove the logos. In fact, Series X will feel generally faster period with the inclusion of Quick Resume, and faster boot and resume times.

The dream is that every game eventually on PS5 will load as fast as Miles Morales does, but I don't have faith that will happen. Really, Miles/Spider-Man Remastered are about the only games that make me think, "wow. This is the power of having a fast SSD." A lot of the games feel like SATA-SSD-in-a-PC fast, which is not remotely what most of us were expecting.

 

[Radical Larry]

Oh of course, I have no idea what i'm talking about. Kinda just assume that with everyone on a forum.

Would you not agree though? Logically it makes sense, it's not something that'd happen instantly in terms of transitioning over to next gen. My example with the load times was purely theoretical

Also, I love how you correct me a lot of the time 🤣

Click to shrink...

I keep my eye on particular offenders, it's refreshing to meet one that openly admits it xD If you admit that, why do you post opinion or assumption as fact? Similarly uninformed posters will see your comments and believe them to be true, contributing to the perpetual cycle of misinformation spreading. I like your enthusiasm though!

I don't disagree with the first part, in fact it goes without saying. When you say "in theory", you're pretending to know the theory. There's a lot more that goes into load times than pure IO throughput.

 

[Godzilla24]

Valhalla skips the logos on the PS5, not on the XSX... not a fair comparison there.

Click to shrink...

This.

 

[Deleted member 7148]

Good thing I didn't buy AC:V on XSX yet. If the load times are that damn long I'll just buy it on PS5.

 

[Uzupedro]

Well, the SSD bandwidth numbers (for the most part) definitely don't tell the whole story, that's for sure. This is not the difference I was expecting back in the Road to PS5 Cerny talk and I can't help but be a little disappointed.. Still early days, so things could change, but I can't help but wonder if Sony took the wrong approach by having the (comparatively) weaker GPU and spending that money on a much faster SSD. What good is a 2.3x faster SSD when loading time differences are negligible? By far the biggest difference in the video is AC Valhalla, but it's showing the company logos and stuff on Series X while it doesn't on PS5. I could see either the PS5 version getting patched to put the logos in (if they're supposed to be there) or Series X version getting a patch to remove the logos. In fact, Series X will feel generally faster period with the inclusion of Quick Resume, and faster boot and resume times.

The dream is that every game eventually on PS5 will load as fast as Miles Morales does, but I don't have faith that will happen. Really, Miles/Spider-Man Remastered are about the only games that make me think, "wow. This is the power of having a fast SSD." A lot of the games feel like SATA-SSD-in-a-PC fast, which is not remotely what most of us were expecting.

Click to shrink...

We already had two next-gen face offs, DMCV:SE(crappy port aside) and AC:Valhalla(not from DF, but it was legit), both looked exactly the same between consoles, couldn't you argue the same for MS? Spenting months screaming about power but in the end not differentianting in any relevant way? Yes, but it would be equally wrong.

And I am not aiming this directly at you because there are several posts in this thread and others(like the BC loadings comparison) with the same kind of thought, but wtf, this is a third party game developed for 8 machines with different specs, a crossgen game that could have many bottlenecks when translating the loading times to the next gen machines.

Look at a full next-gen game like Demon's Souls, or a cross-gen game with way more optimization for the console like Miles Morales, how could they took the wrong approach? And we have Ratchet and Clank...sorry but this kind of thought just boggles me.

 

[VanWinkle]

We already had two next-gen face offs, DMCV:SE(crappy port aside) and AC:Valhalla(not from DF, but it was legit), both looked exactly the same between consoles, couldn't you argue the same for MS? Spenting months screaming about power but in the end not differentianting in any relevant way? Yes, but it would be equally wrong.

And I am not aiming this directly at you because there are several posts in this thread and others(like the BC loadings comparison) with the same kind of thought, but wtf, this is a third party game developed for 8 machines with different specs, a crossgen game that could have many bottlenecks when translating the loading times to the next gen machines.

Look at a full next-gen game like Demon's Souls, or a cross-gen game with way more optimization for the console like Miles Morales, how could they took the wrong approach? And we have Ratchet and Clank...sorry but this kind of thought just boggles me.

Click to shrink...

I do agree that the extra GPU power doesn't seem to be amounting to anything there either, but at least there the Series X is only like 17% more powerful, whereas the equally negligible PS5 SSD is like 120% faster. The smaller difference of the GPU in practice on third-party makes sense considering its ACTUAL lower difference, but the SSD difference doesn't pan out at all in practice. It's insane to me that these load times in a lot of these third party games are like PC SSD load times levels. How on Earth are they not taking better advantage of the hardware? The whole point was that the bandwidth and speed to get to the CPU would be much better in consoles than in PCs because of their custom IO blocks, so it truly doesn't make sense to me that these third party games seem to gain little to no benefits from that.

And we can look at how fast the load times are on first party games (and, for the most part, they ARE between fast and super fast), but 1.) First party titles are only a small part of a console's library, and the SSD being over two times faster should at least be showing bigger differences than it is in third party, and 2.) We don't know if the Series X will be able to do comparably fast load times to something like Miles. If they can't, then that's totally fair and makes me happy that PS5's SSD is so fast, but we haven't seen any newly developed first party titles on Xbox yet (a problem in its own right).

 

[ShapeGSX]

Good thing I didn't buy AC:V on XSX yet. If the load times are that damn long I'll just buy it on PS5.

Click to shrink...

You don't need to load the game if it is in a quick resume slot on the Xbox.

 

[crazysapertonight]

Watch Dogs initial boot: 21:25 vs. 24:32
Watch Dogs save file load: 23:42 vs. 26:27

Dirt 5 initial boot: 23:51 vs 26:27
Dirt 5 race load: 19:20 vs 14:09

AC Valhalla initial boot: 15:42 vs 40:30 (Xbox has 3 extra splash screens)
AC Valhalla save load: 11:34 vs 12:16

Console cold boot: 24:11 vs 19:13
Loading new profile: 3:37 vs 8:48
Booting from suspend: 5:55 vs 2:46

Click to shrink...

No difference at all. Intresting, is just Sony's SSD technology is too rare or they are actually on pair.
And then with Quick Resume feature Xbox Series X actually could be more "without loadings" console

 

[liquidmetal14]

Someone who's I think much like the slight disparity in graphical prowess that you will see the difference once these things are even more optimized for the individual hardware. So it's rather nice that there is a difference in the speed but considering it's the first generation of games I'm surprised there's even a difference

 

[Doc Cottle]

Enough about load times, this is what the angry mobs want to see

 

[Tora]

I keep my eye on particular offenders, it's refreshing to meet one that openly admits it xD If you admit that, why do you post opinion or assumption as fact? Similarly uninformed posters will see your comments and believe them to be true, contributing to the perpetual cycle of misinformation spreading. I like your enthusiasm though!

I don't disagree with the first part, in fact it goes without saying. When you say "in theory", you're pretending to know the theory. There's a lot more that goes into load times than pure IO throughput.

Click to shrink...

🤣 🤣

You're right, I should be more explicit, otherwise it comes off as me trying to state something as fact. What you described is actually something that I loathe, so it's poor on my part.

I'm only describing what I have knowledge of, even if it's extremely basic in the hopes that it'll spark discussion (someone corrects me or adds onto what i've said) but errr, yeah I agree with what you've said.

I like to think that i'm always open to listen to criticism/feedback so I don't mind that you've tried to moderate me almost lol

 

[TheBravePioneer]

This is very interesting, but since these are cross gen games I will hold out on saying this is what the entire gen will be like. I wanna see how the third party games that are only on the current gen, optimised for the ssd will perform.

These are great numbers nonetheless! I'm sure that regardless of the gap, both sides will come out as winners for not having to stare at a loading screen for more than a minute as we used to.

 

[The Shape]

The first page of this thread is so weird. Every post is basically saying the same thing over again one after the other. So confusing. Like no one is reading anyone else's posts.

 

[Radical Larry]

🤣 🤣

You're right, I should be more explicit, otherwise it comes off as me trying to state something as fact. What you described is actually something that I loathe, so it's poor on my part.

I'm only describing what I have knowledge of, even if it's extremely basic in the hopes that it'll spark discussion (someone corrects me or adds onto what i've said) but errr, yeah I agree with what you've said.

I like to think that i'm always open to listen to criticism/feedback so I don't mind that you've tried to moderate me almost lol

Click to shrink...

I really like that attitude. We need more posters like you in this forum!

 

[Lionheart]

The jury is still out on the potential of the ssds until we see non cross gen titles. For all we know they are running legacy code via BC on these games and just upping the res so they aren't taking advantage of the speed. Time will tell although Sonys first party games have already demonstrated this potential, of course there is no XSX sku so they can't be compared.

We will have to see if it paid off for Sony or if they should have went with the faster APU. Same with MS if they made the right move, also the XSX might cost a lot more to make for all we know so the choice might not have been there for Sony regardless if they didn't want to take a huge hit on the BoM.

Let say Ratchet is taking full advantage of the theoretical SSD speeds and a 3 second rift takes 6 seconds on XSX, well that 6 seconds would be pretty jarring and take you out of the experience as the point is to be as seamless as possible. In that very specific scenerio you have a game that doesn't quite work XSX. Sony would have to leverage those types of experiences on PS5 to make the SSD worthwhile.

 

[Adum]

Those loadings are all abnormally long for how fast those SSDs are. They seem bottlenecked by other aspects of their design/architecture. One has to assume that it isn't just moving data from the SSD that's causing such long loads, but network access, engine/world initialization, and many others. They simply have not cared to optimize those games for next-gen.

Click to shrink...

These are all games designed to run on last gen consoles ported to the current gen. I'm really looking forward to the first big wave of true current gen games so we can make better comparisons.

Given this loading thread I'd like to take a moment to shamelessly inflate my ego.

Back when these consoles were unveiled there was a thread about how we'll never have loading screens again, or w/e, and I was skeptical and was like ... nah, we'll still have loading screens, they'll just be a lot shorter, instead of 2mins they'll be 30 seconds, or w/e, and I got thoroughly dunked on by a bunch of people who knew way more about the hardware than I did, and took the L. I want to say now that we're out of the hype of the reveals. Well, my example was a Rockstar game taking 30 seconds to load instead of 2mins, I took my L, and now I'm happy to give back my L because that's exactly what RDR2 takes to load from menu to gameplay on the new consoles.

So I hereby rescind my L for the world to see!

(I can see myself in 2 years having to eat yet another L when the next Rockstar game comes out and load instantly into our brains)

Click to shrink...

You seem to be mistaken a bit. None of these games that are being tested are current gen titles. They were all designed for last gen consoles and then ported to current gen. Of course they won't be able to take full advantage of the full array of current gen hardware features (that includes load times). You're right in that loading screens aren't going to magically disappear, but you're also very mistaken if you think any loading on either of the systems is going to be anywhere near half a minute. I fully expect all proper PS5/XSX titles to have loading screens that comprise of flashes of light or a nice visual effect lasting a few seconds (maybe 5 secs at most). It just doesn't make sense otherwise. They'll have fully loaded the RAM in seconds so why keep the player in an artificial loading screen for any longer?

 

[Calabi]

Well, the SSD bandwidth numbers (for the most part) definitely don't tell the whole story, that's for sure. This is not the difference I was expecting back in the Road to PS5 Cerny talk and I can't help but be a little disappointed.. Still early days, so things could change, but I can't help but wonder if Sony took the wrong approach by having the (comparatively) weaker GPU and spending that money on a much faster SSD. What good is a 2.3x faster SSD when loading time differences are negligible? By far the biggest difference in the video is AC Valhalla, but it's showing the company logos and stuff on Series X while it doesn't on PS5. I could see either the PS5 version getting patched to put the logos in (if they're supposed to be there) or Series X version getting a patch to remove the logos. In fact, Series X will feel generally faster period with the inclusion of Quick Resume, and faster boot and resume times.

The dream is that every game eventually on PS5 will load as fast as Miles Morales does, but I don't have faith that will happen. Really, Miles/Spider-Man Remastered are about the only games that make me think, "wow. This is the power of having a fast SSD." A lot of the games feel like SATA-SSD-in-a-PC fast, which is not remotely what most of us were expecting.

Click to shrink...

Yeah its making me not bothered about getting a PS5 I was hyped but not much anymore. Are all 3rd party games going to be permanently like this? They could load in under 5 seconds or less(or maybe the cant)on PS5 but why bother, lets just have 20 second plus load times to keep parity with PC and Xbox. I'd love to hear an experts opinion are these games just not using the PS5 special IO system? Will they ever?

 

[hey it's that dog]

Since I was mad at how slow Dirt 5 loaded on the PS5 I sought out more footage and now that there are finally people playing it on twitch and such, I can report that I've seen pre-race load times of 10-11 seconds. I don't know how they got 20s in this test, but it might not be typical.

 

[Godzilla24]

The series X ssd is a beast. Holding its own very well. MS must be employing something which helps the ssd even having half the theoretical speed. IMpressive.

 

[Berserker976]

The series X ssd is a beast. Holding its own very well. MS must be employing something which helps the ssd even having half the theoretical speed. IMpressive.

Click to shrink...

Either that or the SSD isn't the thing bottlenecking load times. Which, considering we're at the very start of this gen, and all of these games and their engines were made for slow-ass HDDs, is much more probable.

 

[DjRalford]

The IO speed is certainly there on PS5 as seen by the first party games, but given how fast both are we will realistically only ever see a few seconds difference, if PS5 can load a game in 2 seconds Xbox may be 4 seconds which means PS5 is twice as fast but the difference for us is really a non issue.

 

[nelsonroyale]

The series X ssd is a beast. Holding its own very well. MS must be employing something which helps the ssd even having half the theoretical speed. IMpressive.

Click to shrink...

Its early days.

 

[admiraltaftbar]

Spiderman MM is really where the PS5s SSD has impressed me the most (so far). Booting into the game and starting really does feel instant. Valhalla is fast but it just feels like a game running on an SSD on a pc.

 

[digitalrelic]

I posted a prediction poll about this a few weeks back. The results are below.

How do you think PS5 load times will compare to XSX?

It seems like quick load times is going to be one of the defining advancements of this generation. We've see what the XSX can do in this respect but we're still waiting to see how the PS5 does. If you had to take a guess how do you think PS5 load times will compare to XSX? On one hand the PS5...

www.resetera.com

PS5 will be around twice as fast (or more) - Votes: 441 - 25.9%
PS5 will be slightly faster - Votes: - 851 - 50.0%
They will be about the same - Votes: - 369 - 21.7%
XSX will be slightly faster - Votes: 24 - 1.4%
XSX will be around twice as fast (or more) - Votes: 18 - 1.1%

Click to shrink...

Looks like most of us had our expectations in check. 71.7% said they will be about the same or PS5 will be slightly faster.

 

[Godzilla24]

The loading times for Xbox series x and s should also improve tremendously when they employ their Dlss solution even further.

 

[xem]

Either that or the SSD isn't the thing bottlenecking load times. Which, considering we're at the very start of this gen, and all of these games and their engines were made for slow-ass HDDs, is much more probable.

Click to shrink...

ya im speculating that CPU is playing a part here

 

[xenonium]

Until Sony implements something like quick resume, loading time comparisons actually seem kind of misleading. These are just first launch, worst case scenarios and most of the time on Xbox the game loads drastically faster.

 

[haklong]

People should wait for proper next gen only multiplatform games before making claims for either side

Click to shrink...

Seriously. No idea how people think this gen is going to be a wash when these games are cross gen games being completed during a global pandemic. If there is going to be a difference we won't see it till these multiplatform games are next gen only designed to take advantage off both consoles strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Stacey]

Until Sony implements something like quick resume, loading time comparisons actually seem kind of misleading. These are just first launch, worst case scenarios and most of the time on Xbox the game loads drastically faster.

Click to shrink...

If quick resume actually works properly.

 

[rntongo]

The jury is still out on the potential of the ssds until we see non cross gen titles. For all we know they are running legacy code via BC on these games and just upping the res so they aren't taking advantage of the speed. Time will tell although Sonys first party games have already demonstrated this potential, of course there is no XSX sku so they can't be compared.

We will have to see if it paid off for Sony or if they should have went with the faster APU. Same with MS if they made the right move, also the XSX might cost a lot more to make for all we know so the choice might not have been there for Sony regardless if they didn't want to take a huge hit on the BoM.

Let say Ratchet is taking full advantage of the theoretical SSD speeds and a 3 second rift takes 6 seconds on XSX, well that 6 seconds would be pretty jarring and take you out of the experience as the point is to be as seamless as possible. In that very specific scenerio you have a game that doesn't quite work XSX. Sony would have to leverage those types of experiences on PS5 to make the SSD worthwhile.

Click to shrink...

R&C wouldn't take more than 3 seconds on the Series X either. Have you seen how fast it is at loading into NBA 2k21? The PS5 can probably load that void in less than 3 seconds. Series X in about 3 seconds.

 

[rntongo]

Yeah its making me not bothered about getting a PS5 I was hyped but not much anymore. Are all 3rd party games going to be permanently like this? They could load in under 5 seconds or less(or maybe the cant)on PS5 but why bother, lets just have 20 second plus load times to keep parity with PC and Xbox. I'd love to hear an experts opinion are these games just not using the PS5 special IO system? Will they ever?

Click to shrink...

Most of the games are not but if you want to see an example of a multiplat using PS5's power look at NBA 2K21. It loads in about 3 seconds, close to Spiderman MM . They will definitely improve in load time across the board as game engines are updated. But the only difference you'll see compared to say the Series X is 2x. So 2 vs 4 seconds.

 

[Lant_War]

Since I was mad at how slow Dirt 5 loaded on the PS5 I sought out more footage and now that there are finally people playing it on twitch and such, I can report that I've seen pre-race load times of 10-11 seconds. I don't know how they got 20s in this test, but it might not be typical.

Click to shrink...

Looking at footage I've seen up to 30s loads on PS5 for Dirt 5. It's just variable.

 

[Deleted member 14927]

Given this loading thread I'd like to take a moment to shamelessly inflate my ego.

Back when these consoles were unveiled there was a thread about how we'll never have loading screens again, or w/e, and I was skeptical and was like ... nah, we'll still have loading screens, they'll just be a lot shorter, instead of 2mins they'll be 30 seconds, or w/e, and I got thoroughly dunked on by a bunch of people who knew way more about the hardware than I did, and took the L. I want to say now that we're out of the hype of the reveals. Well, my example was a Rockstar game taking 30 seconds to load instead of 2mins, I took my L, and now I'm happy to give back my L because that's exactly what RDR2 takes to load from menu to gameplay on the new consoles.

So I hereby rescind my L for the world to see!

(I can see myself in 2 years having to eat yet another L when the next Rockstar game comes out and load instantly into our brains)

Click to shrink...

Rescind the 'L' - Rofl

Thank you for making me laugh

 

[hey it's that dog]

Looking at footage I've seen up to 30s loads on PS5 for Dirt 5. It's just variable.

Click to shrink...

I've been playing the game and 10-12 seconds is the maximum I've experienced so far.