That didn't really happen with this gen... the parts weren't really that good or advanced.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney says the PS5 is so impressive it’s ‘going to help drive future PCs’
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
I think today effectively punctured that narrative, promoted data throughout into a new light as far as visual performance goes. I think a more nuanced outlook is required now, if it wasn't already. Both these machines may each have strengths over the other on different aspects of the tech stack shown today.
User Banned (1 Day): Thread Derailment
This reminds me a lot of the iPhone. I don't give a shit how powerful a piece of hardware is if I hate using it. Sony's online services are unacceptably bad. I don't know how powerful the XSX is going to be compared to the PS5, but Xbox Live is miles better than PSN and I've seen no indication that they plan to improve it, so I'm going Xbox next gen.
It's not gonna happen this gen either outside of the SSD's with Ampere coming months before PS5/SX, Sony/MS know they can't compete with Nvidia in the GPU space so they didn't bother. Nvidia is just too rich at this point, they can throw billions into R&D like it's nothing.
For the best anyway, i don't think people want $600/700 Consoles.
I don't understand, as a mostly pc player, the defensive attitude of other pc player, really I don't. If anything someone who plays on pc can not possible be really angry as the current gen of consoles hold us back a lot (hardware wise these were flawed machine from the start). Is it pride? even that does not make sense, even if next gen is spectacular pc will catch up and surpass it in months and afterwards we will have the greater benefit. Someone need to explain me, it can not only be buyer validation (the idea that you picked the best platform who which will be always be the best one for everything under any circumstances).
This literally has nothing to do with said topic at hand. Go shitpost somewhere else. Reported.
Even if a significant amount of PC gamers have SSDs, there is nothing on the market yet that'll be near to the speed of the PS5 SSD for a price near to the PS5. All Tim is saying is that PC developers will now drive the sales of Ultra-fast SSDs.
You seem angry?
Sony havent really touched on most things PS5 yet, never mind the network side. But seeing as you've made your mind up...
I just think PS generates a lot more money for them than Xbox. Sony doesn't need to pay anything.
Epic gives priority to the most important market/client. Every company does that.
Yup. In every one of these next gen threads, like clockwork.
Now we just say our piece & peace out.
Without the demo also running on a Series X and PC, we can't make that call at all. The only thing clear here is that the PS5 is capable of great things, which we already knew. That's just about where it starts and ends.
That's going to need to be "good enough" for the foreseeable future. That is, until we finally get some "next-gen only" multiplats that are actually pushing these systems. So like...2022? idk.
They're still a company interested in making money. If you think they picked a PS5 for this demo without any incentive, I don't think you're thinking clearly.
They also said in the PC gamer article this is able to run on a 2070 on pc and even with the less state of the art ssd would run well.
So ... No.
No links and no proof that a majority of PC gamers are using SSDs.
Just because they have been around for a while does not mean anything.
A lot of games are still being stored on HDDs though. High storage capacity SSDs are expensive
Doesn't really contradict what I'm saying. Will it run as well without the same data throughput? That's an open question. An up to scratch GPU may output the same or more pixels in a demo like this, you might get better RT on the 2070 (or better) but less storage throughput may have other side effects. So like I say, you might have different strengths on different ends of the pipeline showing up in different ways on different types of system.
We can't say anything for sure until we see requirements for a given level of fidelity. But I think the question has been opened up. I don't think we can so simply say anymore that your performance will definitely scale only with your GPU, for example.
I'm not making any call - I said looking at this tech, each may have strengths in different areas. I do think when a lead middleware engine puts a heavy runtime emphasis on data throughput, it does require us to be more nuanced about what advantages better SSD throughput may bring. The simplistic narrative about shorter loads no longer flies.
Both companies pay Epic for announcements... Epic doesn't do it for free lmao 😂😂😂
I'd be surprised if a majority of gamers who have a fairly modern GPU are not also running an SSD somewhere in their system. It would be an odd series of investments.
Most of the systems I've seen running HDDs are *not* systems anyone would play games on. They're like 2014 systems and older. Outside of games like League of Legends and Team Fortress 2, those folks don't really need to be part of the conversation.
I'm with you here, I'm looking forward to progress in game design and hardware uses. On PC we mostly looked to higher resolutions and crazy framerates with up to 300hz monitors hitting the market... because what else are we doing to do with all that power. Now some are on to RT and lowering resolutions to hit good framerates, then using upscaling features to match their new 4k displays.
The fact that Xbox was not mentioned at all in the context of this demo, even when asked explicitly, means that there is some "deal" involved which forbids talking about it so I don't think we can infer anything around the engine when it comes to Xbox.
We do not know this.
Unreal just lowered the costs for UE5 and launched a PC store with a much smaller fee than Steam.
They generate A LOT of money already.
And why would Sony/MS pay for a tech demo ?
Makes no sense, the demo will be forgotten in 1 month when REAL games are shown.
Both can use that money for funding a game/exclusive, whatever.
PS didn't even tweeted about the tech demo. They could have used this on their own event too (Road to PS5).
The incentive for Epic is showhing theIr engine with the console that will more than probably sell better.
Also they have a good relation with Sony (several SIE games have been released exclusively on EGS).
And I even think one guy from Sony or Bend is in the board or advisor for Epic / the Unreal engine. Don't remember where i read that though (Could be Blue Point, can't remember)
But yeah if the 'incentive' wasn't Cash, but something else, you could be right (SIE games on EGS is a good one per example).
Yes most enthusiast gamers will have an SSD but not all of their games will be stored on those SSDs. With these new consoles, SSDs are effectively a new baseline.
Even most budget PC's, gaming or not, build on Reddit subs like r/buildapc get SSDs slapped into them for OS and gaming. Been like that for looong time now.
Even if that SSD is "just" 200 or 500 GB models.
Edit: If you don't have SSD in the build you get laughed at and told to put SSD because it isn't 1999.
Sure you are. The "call" is in the assumption that something is a meaningful "strength" or a meaningful "weakness". Those "calls" will come by way of comparing and contrasting actual multiplat software. Until that time, any suggestions of who is doing what better or worse in any meaningful way is purely conjecture. Maybe the Xbox's GPU advantage will matter. Maybe it won't. Maybe the PS5's SSD advantage will matter. Maybe it won't. We just don't know.
This demo or demos like it could be what we need to get a better idea of what architectural differences will show up in a meaningful way in games...but it seems unlikely this demo at least will provide that opportunity. We will know once we start seeing multiplat games a year or so down the line.
agree.
yea, that will be good for all.
Uh, okay.
I'm not angry, just tired of dealing with PSN being crap. Hopefully Sony gives me a reason to consider sticking with them.
He did mention they are both his babies, and considering how much money they make on Fortnite and UE4 games on them, I can see that being a reason why he doesn't try to pick favorites. Also he'd have to deal with both companies after picking a favorite, just like a parent that can't just avoid their kids after claiming a favorite.
I think it's nice that he look at them like that. It's good for him if all 3 of his babies does well. Oh, 6 of his babies, forgot about Apple, Android, and Switch.
When you're at the top, it's only natural for some to want them to fall.
I want both to be competitive and I think we will get that.
I mean of course, it's all conjecture. I was responding to a post discussing conjecture and its credibility. I am saying that I think the notion of SSD bandwidth only mattering for load times took a big hit today, and that it's more credible than ever to speculate that it might be a meaningful component in runtime performance - that as a result, each system may show different strengths in different setups.
That's the extent of 'the call' :) Of course it's speculative. I think the speculation that it won't have any impact beyond loadtimes on the other hand looks that bit shakier today, IMO.
I think it won't be long before PC games require a minimum SSD and I/O speed to play them.
That demo was insane. Even more so when you realize it was streaming all of those assets and triangles on the fly as the camera panned.
That demo was insane. Even more so when you realize it was streaming all of those assets and triangles on the fly as the camera panned.
Actually they already said a little more power than a 2070 Super is all a PC needs for this demo at the performance level presented.
One pc game might come quite soon for a multiplatform title but it being the norm will take longer, of course.
People are annoyed about yet another pricy part to keep track of. SSD have been around, but there are big price gaps between SATA and NVMEs, and so far we've had minimal performance differences between the 2.
Now we're being told that the top-end, expensive NVME will absolutely revolutionize everything and... some people are sceptical. Understandably so.
Their strong relationship most likely became stronger when Microsoft announced their first-party games were coming to Steam.
I'm not 100% sure but I think Xbox uses Unreal Engine in more first-party games than PlayStation does, right? I mean Gears alone is the biggest first-party Unreal game from any console manufacturer, unless I'm missing something?
Anyway, the SSD really is the most exciting part of next-gen, and he's not wrong about it driving PC development. The one thing I've never understood about this console war is the fact that no (or very little, to my knowledge) developer has developed a game with SSD as a standard, which that alone means games will change in such a drastic way. Whether it's the CRIPPLINGLY SLOW *spits on ground* Xbox SX SSD or the BLISTERING FAST *pumps chest out* PS5 SSD, no developer is used to SSD yet. It's exciting.
Define "near".
PCI-E 4.0 should bring really nice speed increases to NVMEs, but that is 2021 - 2022 stuff.
Surpassing PS5 and XSX spike top speeds can be bit grayer area because both consoles use those custom compression and decompression chips to enhance storage performance.
I give it few years once big publishers move away from cross-gen.
Can people cut this sort of shit out?
I fucking read the article, that's why I'm posting what I did.
why don't YOU work on your reading comprehension?
From the fucking article ^
As soon as games are designed for next gen only. And as soon as the average PC gamer notices this requirement, they'll just buy a damn SSD (which will be dirt cheap, even "dirt cheaper" than they already are, by then) and that'll be the end of it.
I would love this to be the case. A revolutionary way to use storage and memory that drove the whole industry forward would be excellent.
Not that I'm convinced, but it would be cool. As it is, I hope games can at least take further advantage of the benefits of SSDs on PC if consoles can push devs to require them.
Not that I'm convinced, but it would be cool. As it is, I hope games can at least take further advantage of the benefits of SSDs on PC if consoles can push devs to require them.
This is all true.
And also why PS5 exclusives don't need to wait, and why that matters.
God of War, Horizon 2, etc.. don't need to take PC into account (HZD PC is being released YEARS after HZD on PS5, by which time, the drive speeds will have caught up on medium/high PC specs).
I'm really looking forward to PS5 exclusive titles showing the way for change.
PC Gaming Era Poll: Are You Using A HDD Or SDD To Run Your Games?
i have 2 nvme SSD drives for my PC. :) 1tb Samsung 970 Pro and 1tb Samsung 970 Evo :)
www.resetera.com
Not scientific, but I bet these results are reflective of the PC Gaming community writ large. Anyone in the last ten years that's put a GPU in their computer to play games has almost definitely also put in a SSD. Knowing about GPUs and knowing that SSDs are dollar for dollar the most impressive performance enhancement hardware available goes hand in hand. I'm sure there are millions of PCs being used to game that don't have SSDs, but most PC Gaming is done by ultra casuals that use a box they got from Dell or HP and wouldn't even dream of installing a graphics card, let alone swapping the OS drive. The audience playing AAA games on PC is already defaulting to SSDs. I don' think it would be controversial if AAA games right now started listing SSDs as minimum hardware.