Top
1160°

Sony Has Shown How Fast The PS5 Loads Games VS The PS4 Pro

Sony has today shown off a video showcasing how fast the next gen Sony console (expected to be PlayStation 5) loads games versus the PlayStation 4 Pro. When the first PS5 details were released last month, one of the main selling points for the console was how fast it loads games.

Update:

fixed source

The story is too old to be commented.
affrogamer28d ago

WOWZERS!! The Beast is on the way!!!

pwnmaster300028d ago (Edited 28d ago )

This should be the type of performance all consoles next gen should atleast be at. That was insanely quick loading.

cigi27d ago

Remember this is loading 1080p assets that is not what we will be seeing next Gen I hope. Just to make this clear!

Rude-ro27d ago

&cigi
I get your point, but it is the pro version vs the next gen.
Not the base console.

Abnor_Mal27d ago

Can we stop with all this "beast" talk, it was annoying af with the XBox One X fanclub, call it a monster instead.

meep31627d ago (Edited 27d ago )

@cigi you say it like you have a clue about the quality of the assets in this game. Even if the render resolution is 1080p the assets could be of very high quality, which most sony games are. I could go on, but I think its better for people to just study how graphics are rendered before they start making comments like this.

fr0sty27d ago (Edited 27d ago )

They don't change assets other than textures for 4k in most cases, and the Pro version of Spiderman is running at 2560×1440 upscaled to 3840x2160.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 27d ago
itsmebryan27d ago

Load times make it a"Beast"? I never heard anyone say they load times are more important than frame rates and resolution. But, I guess things change.

sampsonon27d ago

@itsmebryan no pop in makes it a beast.

nitus1027d ago (Edited 27d ago )

@itsmebryan

I will agree that load times do not make a PC/console a beast although they do help significantly.

Yes, framerate and resolution are important especially in games that can make significant use of them, however, most TV's and especially 4K and 8K ones have a refresh rate of 60Hz unless you are willing to pay significantly more for ones with a higher refresh rate. For instance, my Sony 55" HD (ie. up to 1080p) TV has a refresh rate of 200Hz and that makes fast action games comfortable on the eyes even though the frame rate of the game may be 30fps although I will admit that slowdown can be annoying.

It must be noted that it does not matter if your PC/console outputs a game at say 120fps or better if your display has a refresh rate of 60Hz. Sure you may see a marginal difference although that is debatable, however, you can see a significant difference if your displays refresh rate is equal or higher than the framerate of the game. As an example say your game outputs at 120fps and if you wish to have a display that will support that framerate then its refresh rate should be 120Hz or better.

Why do you think many PC gamers choose a 1440p 144Hz or higher monitor?

Mr Logic27d ago

@nitus10

Virtually everything you just spewed is ignorant and wrong.

meep31627d ago (Edited 27d ago )

@Mr Logic he's actually right, where some people get confused is that many tvs have 120hz output but only 60hz input. They take a 60 hz signal and add frames, which gives us the god awful soap opera effect. Some tvs can accept a higher refresh rate signal at 1080p, this all should be common knowledge in the information age.

the last two paragraphs he wrote are a little off, but not that far. Blurbusters has a lot of material you can read up on, including freesync and gsync. The next consoles should have freesync (and tvs are starting to get it too), and im surprised we arent hearing more about it yet. Im pretty sure the xbox one x has some sort of freesync built in already as well.

Mr Logic27d ago

@meep316

No...You seem to be attributing things to nitus that he never explicitly says and I was never responding to. Let's take things one at a time.

"my Sony 55" HD (ie. up to 1080p) TV has a refresh rate of 200Hz and that makes fast action games comfortable on the eyes even though the frame rate of the game may be 30fps although I will admit that slowdown can be annoying."

Sheer garbage. Your screen can be 60hz, 120hz, or 240hz, but it will never make 30fps content smoother and if it does, then it is doing so at the expense of latency. In addition I am aware that very few TVs do actual 120hz, but a number of Sony TVs actually do.

"It must be noted that it does not matter if your PC/console outputs a game at say 120fps or better if your display has a refresh rate of 60Hz. Sure you may see a marginal difference although that is debatable,"

This is not debatable. Sure exceeding your screen's refresh rate does not make the game more "smooth", but it does serve up the most recent frame at all times resulting in lower latency.

"however, you can see a significant difference if your displays refresh rate is equal or higher than the framerate of the game. As an example say your game outputs at 120fps and if you wish to have a display that will support that framerate then its refresh rate should be 120Hz or better.

Why do you think many PC gamers choose a 1440p 144Hz or higher monitor?"

Several things here. Let's set aside adaptive sync/gsync/freesync for a second, because he never mentioned frame syncing. Under those circumstances you generally don't want your Hz to exceed the game fps because it will result in permanent tearing.

PC gamers choose 144hz only if you plan to at least get close to if not exceed those fps. Nobody is buying a 144hz display with a cheap gpu that only reaches 80fps.

As to everything you said, it is mostly correct. Xbox already supports Freesync on all their models (except maybe the original X1?), but the issue is that most freesync displays up until this point have been monitors, and only accept AS over DP and not HDMI.

Also worth mentioning is that Xbox actually supports 120hz over HDMI via recent firmware upgrade.

meep31627d ago (Edited 27d ago )

"PC gamers choose 144hz only if you plan to at least get close to if not exceed those fps. Nobody is buying a 144hz display with a cheap gpu that only reaches 80fps. "

actually many do, especially if its a freesync or gsync monitor. I have an aging 1070 and some new games only run between 50-70 fps at 1440p, but it looks great. Other games run above 100 fps, and at that point its very diminishing returns. Anyway, blurbusters.com is probably the best resource for this sort of thing.

Mr Logic27d ago

@meep

Which part of "Let's set aside adaptive sync/gsync/freesync for a second, because he never mentioned frame syncing." doesn't make sense to you?

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 27d ago
shaggy230327d ago

Ok, before you all loose your minds over this, just remember this is a CURRENT GEN game, you think a NEXT GEN game will be the same size textures? the same AI, the same sound quality etc. etc.

Im not saying that this sort of loading isn't impossible on next gen, just Ive been a gamer for a long time, and each generation they promise the world, and always under deliver.

Elwenil27d ago (Edited 27d ago )

Agreed, that is always a problem with this type of escalation. We get better hardware, but we always want them to push that better hardware with more graphics, effects, animations, bigger games, etc. It's a constant tug of war between what the hardware can do and how much the software pushes it. Developers are going to want to use that extra power and gamers are going to want the better graphics and FPS performance. A balance could be achieved, but the vast majority of the time graphics will win out over things like loading times. Flashy graphics and pushing boundaries will sell games, loading times? Not so much.

That's not to say there won't still be obvious improvements, but it will not be as noticeable as the comparisons with older games.

TheKingKratos27d ago

Was about to say the same thing tbh

CH33S327d ago

I think you could be looking at it wrong shaggy. You're right that load times on next gen titles will be a little longer. Not by much though.

The time it takes to load the level is just one part. It's about how fast you can change out your RAM from your drive. Geometry takes up very little space, but textures are getting pretty big. This'll allow for a much speedier draw in, alleviate texture pop-in at increased velocities (with much larger texture sizes) through the game world. Sound also has a relatively small bandwidth requirement compared to textures.

It has bog all to do with resolution or AI though. They're handled exclusively on RAM. You don't stream them from the drive.

Anyway. No shade.
Just pointing out the realities I'm personally looking for to from Nextgen gear.

Rude-ro27d ago

.8 seconds with the pro version of Spider-Man is something to get excited about.

What you are forgetting is there will be a lot more technology in next gen and not so much changing on games for the first 3 years.
Add cloud enhancements, uniquely designed ssd, etc...
if this was not addressed, just imagine how bad loading times could be.
So, 100% there will be load times... but just think of how much more data is allowed to slow it down since the pro version of Spider-Man, and open world game with said assets, takes .8 seconds on the next version of the PlayStation currently.

meep31627d ago (Edited 27d ago )

It helps if you understand the tech and how much better it really is, unless the dev tools are god awful next gen we will see some super fast load times period. Textures arent going to be 15 times more detailed, it wouldnt even make any sense for them to do that right now. This is also going to be a humungous upgrade to the cpu that we didnt get last gen, we also never got a significant upgrade to storage speed since the og xbox.

rainslacker27d ago (Edited 27d ago )

And? If next gen games were loading through the same bus, they'd just take longer. This is showing that load times are significantly increased by the new designs in technology. It's not promising that all games will load in less than a second. Obviously the design of the game, the compression of the data, the size of the assets, will all affect loading times, but filling 8-12GB is essentially going to take the same amount of time regardless of the size of the assets, as data is data, and it doesn't care if that individual data is 1MB, or 20MB, you're still filling a fixed pool.

This is showing that it can load, lets say 5.5GB. The amount available to games on the main part of memory in the PS4P, disregarding the controlled 1GB also available. If the PS5 has lets say 16GB available, it will have approximately 3 times the amount to fill. So, one can assume that time listed, will be three times higher.

It's still significantly faster.

DuckOnQuack3527d ago (Edited 27d ago )

Lmao do people not understand what an SSD does? Also welcome to pc load times, this is nothing new people.

meep31627d ago

@DuckOnQuack35 most of these people dont seem to understand anything and are just using the difference between specific consoles are their only reference. Do these people think next gen games are going to be nearly a Terabyte large each? Do they not realize we havent seen an increase in drive performance for two gens?

guyjean27d ago

"not saying that this sort of loading isn't impossible"
sure you got that right?

CH33S327d ago

Okay meep. Do me a favour. Can you tell me the difference between 4096x4096(4k textures) and 8182x8192(8k textures) in size? 8k runs you more than 50MB (compressed) per texture. More than 80MB uncompressed.
UE4 allows you to import 8k textures but converts them to 4k (default max MIP settings) without a workaround. How is it that they won't be bigger?

I want Nextgen to roll out so my PC isn't being held back by games that aren't designed to make use of what's in it already. (SSD, GPU that can handle 8k texture loads, etc)

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 27d ago
dumahim27d ago

There's no question it's a big improvement on loading speeds, but keep in mind, this a current gen game being loaded on next gen hardware. A next gen game will be loading more information, so it'll slow down a bit.

Suave_Langosta27d ago

One, it’s next gen so it better be miles better than what we have seen this gen.

Two, Xbox x was already named the “the beast”and that was already annoying then so you can kindly stop.

Lastly, you guys act like this is some kind of unbelievable entity that deserves upmost praise, but back to my first point, it’s next gen, so applaud it for what it is, but two to three years after it’s release, (micro and Sony) will again try to screw us with another round of midgen “upgrades.” So idk I’ve been an avid console gamer on all three big companies but this current gen is pushing me towards a PC. Just sayin

-volt-26d ago

These consoles are nothing but wanna-be PC's anyways. It's pretty obvious... I enjoy the Switch but because of its portability... Beyond that it is a silly cycle.

-volt-27d ago (Edited 27d ago )

Beast? Nothing new about SSD/ M.2/ etc.......

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 26d ago
Thundercat7728d ago (Edited 28d ago )

I already pre-ordered the PS5... In my soul.

SyntheticForm28d ago

Mine's pre-ordered in my heart.

bouzebbal27d ago

I have mine... In my dreams

kasu27d ago

Start your home business right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing <80$> per hr just on a computer. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.
Start here…....
https://bit.ly/2H4RzBH

UnSelf27d ago

Mine is already pre-loading Horizon: ZD 2.

Oh nvm it’s done loading ✅

Gaming4Life198127d ago

🤣🤣🤣 too funny.

As soon as pre orders go up for both systems I'm going to pre order at least 3 each and sell 4 pre orders and keep 2. I been doing this for a while now and I always make alot of money just for selling my pre orders.

Gaming4Life198127d ago

@Spartacus

Lol what's wrong with making extra money. I remember standing in lines back in the day and selling my spot and I wasnt the only one nor did I start it. The people that buy pre orders from me are always happy that I did this cause they wouldn't have got a system.

Love that show by the way.

PhoenixUp28d ago

Say goodbye to games with loading screen minigames

Jin_Sakai28d ago

Open world games will greatly benefit from this. Can’t wait!

sushimama28d ago

I am so sick of long loading screens

KyRo28d ago

Loading screens have pretty much become a thing of the past these days anyway? Outside of the inital load and when you die, games very rarely give you load screens anymore.

Neonridr27d ago

@KyRo - RDR2 is full of loading

rainslacker27d ago

The loading is still there, it's just masked with other things. Like in Uncharted and TLOU, they use cinematics with the loading in the background. If you skip the cinematics, you'll see the loading screen.

It's a common practice for a lot of games nowadays, because it can take some time to load that much memory and get the scene set up within the program itself.

UltraNova28d ago

Soulsborne games will greatly benefit from this, alleviating some of the frustrating waiting time from getting killed and waiting on a loading screen so you can go at it again, and again and again...

nitus1027d ago

With Souls/Borne games you do need to "git gud" 😉 so you don't get killed as often. Of course when you do teleport between bonfires/lanterns then loading can be annoying but then again you should not do this very often.

Bathyj27d ago

I like the loading screens in bloodborne. It gave you time to have a good hard think about yourself.

blackblades27d ago

I was thinking some certain games will still have the issues.

totalgaminglegend27d ago

I see Bethesda using this hardware for the next Elder Scrolls considering they said themselves, their goals cannot currently be met on current hardware.

Larrysweet27d ago

Hahahah skyrim looking crap can be met on ps3 since said using same tired engine

rainslacker27d ago

There is more to it than just loading the data into memory. It really doesn't take a huge amount of time to load in the amount of data being used for current gen games from disc to memory. Most of the time is actually from setting up the assets in memory to be displayed on the screen, as well as initializing parts of the program to run the game the way it's supposed to be.

Some developers are good about not having to do everything every time, others....not so much. Some games tend to reload the entire game scene every time it's needed, and they use heavy compression for the assets which have to be decompressed when loaded into memory. Other games, only load in the new stuff they need, and update the memory paths better, but don't initialize everything every time.

I'd imagine their "goals cannot be currently met" statement was more about the graphics, which is silly considering their games aren't usually graphical powerhouses, or the memory requirements not being high enough, because their game engine tends to be a memory hogs. Maybe they're getting better though....but they really need to revamp their game engine. While they can still keep the work flow in place, there are many antiquated processes within it, and while you can adapt it with new tools, it can be held back if core designs aren't brought up to date. Luckily, they have updated the rendering pipeline to at least this gens availability, but next gen there are some new practices which are pretty damn impressive from both DX and Vulcan.

darthv7227d ago

Load times never bothered me. Hell... I own a neo geo cd. you want to talk about "loading"... haha

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 27d ago