• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Digital Foundry: Faster hard drives boost Xbox One Fallout 4 performance

ViciousDS

Banned
Just gonna put this here, might do well in the OP too.


6zjh4kv.jpg

NICE!

I got a SSD in my PS4.....nice to see some areas almost halved in loading time.
 

Atolm

Member
Wonder how it will perform on my SSD PS4, with streaming-heavy games like FFXIV the difference is VERY noticeable.
 
Watching the Giant Bomb quicklook (which was the PS4 version), there's a very definite stutter at around the 47m mark that seems to be similar to the ones DF saw on the Xbox version.

Knowing Bethesda it's probably some kind of save game issue that builds up over the hours as you get deeper into the game and your save files bloat up.

Yeah, Jeff has said that the framerate got worse and worse the longer he played the game. Does sound fairly similar to the problems with Skyrim though hopefully not as severe this time.
 
Intriguing, and SSD's aren't that expensive anymore.



You are still doing the signature thing? lol

Granted. But it is fucking ridiculous if you have to buy an extra piece of hardware to make a game run good on a console. Might as well go PC at that point.
 

ElFly

Member
I don't quite understand why are loading times on PC still much quicker than on consoles this generation, when everything is installed on a HDD, despite using HDDs of similar speeds. I've been told before that it's due to the slow/shit CPUs on the consoles, but then the loading speed wouldn't get that much better with a SSD if the cpu was the bottleneck, would it?

most people won't have a 5400 rpm disc in this day. It's SSD or 7200 rpm.

also, a bunch of people will have 8gb of RAM, so maybe the pc can keep around more stuff before sending it off to the video card, whereas consoles have to share 5gb for the world and the video data
 

ViciousDS

Banned
most people won't have a 5400 rpm disc in this day. It's SSD or 7200 rpm.

also, a bunch of people will have 8gb of RAM, so maybe the pc can keep around more stuff before sending it off to the video card, whereas consoles have to share 5gb for the world and the video data

yes......the RAM thing is the only thing I can think of.

While the Consoles use a shared pool of RAM for gaming....the PC only uses the VRAM on the GFX card for graphics while the DDR3/DDR4 is used for storing data.....hope I got this correct lol. While the Xbox One and PS4 basically us there RAM for BOTH.

GDDR5 in PS4 for graphics and temp data......DDR3 for temp data and the little ESRAM pool for data streaming/GFX in the X1.


Someone else will correct this....please do!
 
I've played this for ten hours now on Xbox One, and haven't seen any of the microstutter Richard is documenting. I've got video captures too if he wants to see.

I've no idea why I don't see it.

Edit: my Xbox runs the Win10 OS, which launches Thursday.
Are you running it from an external hard drive?
 

ViciousDS

Banned
Would SATA3 make a difference in consoles instead of SATA2 and is the cost difference that much?

I think a SSD in Sata II makes more a difference than a 5400 or 7200rpm drive in Sata III. Can spinning drives even hit the 3GBps threshold on a Sata-II port?
 

Kezen

Banned
Would SATA3 make a difference in consoles instead of SATA2 and is the cost difference that much?

Yes, there is a big difference between SATAII and SATAIII, but the former does not bottleneck traditional hard drives at all. SSDs do benefit from the third generation of SATA, in fact many are actually too fast for this standard.

No idea about the cost but my surprise was genuine when I learned that consoles are still limited to an old SATA standard, bearing in mind SATAIII debuted in 2012 I think. I remember my old MB having 3 SATAIII ports.
 
Sounds like I've got nothing to worry about with my external 7200rpm drive then. Wonderful.

I did question this in the other, meltdown of a performance thread.
 

jelly

Member
I think a SSD in Sata II makes more a difference than a 5400 or 7200rpm drive in Sata III. Can spinning drives even hit the 3GBps threshold on a Sata-II port?

Yes, there is a big difference between SATAII and SATAIII, but the former does not bottleneck traditional hard drives at all. SSDs do benefit from the third generation of SATA, in fact many are actually too fast for this standard.

No idea about the cost but my surprise was genuine when I learned that consoles are still limited to an old SATA standard, bearing in mind SATAIII debuted in 2012 I think. I remember my old MB having 3 SATAIII ports.

So maybe no difference for a 5200rpm hard drive with SATA3?
 
D

Deleted member 80556

Unconfirmed Member
I really have to get a SSD for my PS4. Sorry for posting this here, but is there any good 1TB SSD that can work on PS4? Should I worry that it will die on my within 5-10 years?
 

thelastword

Banned
So is performance on X1 better than PS4 under those circumstances?
No, why would it. An HDD is not a GPU. An SSD will pretty much decrease on loadtimes or harddrive related/cache issues in any game. The amount of performance gains will vary per game obviously.

Still, I hope people are not expecting an HDD to improve their framerate overall. Rushing to purchase an expensive SSD is not a practical solution for most persons anyway and we have seen stock drives perform admirably in many open world games including witcher 3 (on PC of course).

In essence, people should not take these tests as being a fix, Bethesda has many performance issues they need to fix with this game, so please allow them to address
those, you did not pay $60.00 just to pay another $200.00 to eliminate macro stutters, your $60.00 is more than enough for this type of performance to have never appeared in your game in the first place. There are many performance issues they need to sort out, all GPU related.

Problems with Alpha on PS4
Gun Switching on all platforms
Performance issues indoors
bugs galore
et etc etc....
 

Vinc

Member
No, why would it. An HDD is not a GPU. An SSD will pretty much decrease on loadtimes or harddrive related/cache issues in any game. The amount of performance gains will vary per game obviously.

Still, I hope people are not expecting an HDD to improve their framerate overall. Rushing to purchase an expensive SSD is not a practical solution for most persons anyway and we have seen stock drives perform admirably in many open world games including witcher 3 (on PC of course).

In essence, people should not take these tests as being a fix, Bethesda has many performance issues they need to fix with this game, so please allow them to address
those, you did not pay $60.00 just to pay another $200.00 to eliminate macro stutters, your $60.00 is more than enough for this type of performance to have never appeared in your game in the first place. There are many performance issues they need to sort out, all GPU related.

Problems with Alpha on PS4
Gun Switching on all platforms
Performance issues indoors
bugs galore
et etc etc....

I'm aware of that, but the main problem with the X1 version seemed to be the hitches, which are now resolved via the HDD. In places other than DF, it seems like results showed that X1 had better performance in similar scenarios. And in their own face-off, they mentioned alpha effects on PS4 being more problematic than X1, so with the hitches resolved it's not that crazy to think that that version might be better now. And I already have a 7200 rpm external drive on X1, which I would be using anyway.
 

Shin-Ra

Junior Member
Here's a quick look at our data, showing that PS4 also has a loading time advantage over Xbox One in a straight stock drive comparison. Switching to an SSD lops 30 to 50 per cent off the time taken to get back into gameplay. Loading times aren't really intrusive to the Fallout 4 experience, but it is safe to say that when they do appear, the momentum of play is compromised - and the faster we're back in the game, the better. What's also curious here is that running the Xbox One game from a solid state drive actually provides faster loading times than doing the same from PS4, and this may well be a matter of contention: the Microsoft console still has its internal drive to use for OS tasks, while the Sony hardware is running everything from the internally mounted SSD.
This isn't really reflected in the very limited supporting data.

 

Broank

Member
Interesting. I have an external hd (7200 rpm Touro S) and went with Xbox One for Fallout.

Only gotten the chance to create my character and go through the intro last night, hopefully I won't have the stutters.
 

thelastword

Banned
So is performance on X1 better than PS4 under those circumstances?

I'm aware of that, but the main problem with the X1 version seemed to be the hitches, which are now resolved via the HDD. In places other than DF, it seems like results showed that X1 had better performance in similar scenarios. And in their own face-off, they mentioned alpha effects on PS4 being more problematic than X1, so with the hitches resolved it's not that crazy to think that that version might be better now. And I already have a 7200 rpm external drive on X1, which I would be using anyway.
Just as the macro stutters are eliminated with a better harddrive, so will it be eradicated with a patch for your stock drive.

Just as those issues are going to be fixed, so will the issue with heavy alpha scenes on the PS4 version, that too is a bug or an engine issue and it will be fixed. In essence, it's impossible for a better GPU to underperform in contrast to an inferior GPU in heavy alpha scenes, so don't expect this to be sustained for too long, it will be patched and the superior GPU will pull ahead in those scenes when it is.
 

Vinc

Member
Just as the macro stutters are eliminated with a better harddrive, so will it be eradicated with a patch for your stock drive.

Just as those issues are going to be fixed, so will the issue with heavy alpha scenes on the PS4 version, that too is a bug or an engine issue and it will be fixed. In essence, it's impossible for a better GPU to underperform in contrast to an inferior GPU in heavy alpha scenes, so don't expect this to be sustained for too long, it will be patched and the superior GPU will pull ahead in those scenes when it is.

We have no confirmation as to whether or not those will be fixed, so I'd rather make sure I purchase the version that performs the best in real world terms right now.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Holy shit those stock loading times.

Not even once.

Good lord, you weren't joking. Upwards of 40+ seconds? That is just insane. Even on an SSD, 28 seconds? Ugly.

With this and The Witcher 3, it seems like some devs are just not doing a good job on the console versions of multiplatform games.
 

tuxfool

Banned
wow... @ those loading times. I really need to put a SSD in my PS4.

This is somewhat amusing, considering putting a SSD of any considerable size would almost cost you as much as the console.

What makes it even worse is that the consoles cannot even maximise the potential provided by an SSD.
 
Just as the macro stutters are eliminated with a better harddrive, so will it be eradicated with a patch for your stock drive.

Just as those issues are going to be fixed, so will the issue with heavy alpha scenes on the PS4 version, that too is a bug or an engine issue and it will be fixed. In essence, it's impossible for a better GPU to underperform in contrast to an inferior GPU in heavy alpha scenes, so don't expect this to be sustained for too long, it will be patched and the superior GPU will pull ahead in those scenes when it is.
You're living in a fantasy world where Bethesda gives a shit about optimisation. The stutter will most likely be fixed, but that other stuff? Don't get your hopes up.
 
Top Bottom