I didn't need an article to tell me that SSD speed doesn't affect FPS, just load times.
Sony effed up by sourcing a slower GPU from AMD than Microsoft did. Sony was concerned that AMD's GPU architecture would continue to have parts of the GPU sit idle intermittently. The one way to elevate that was to go for a faster-clocked GPU. Microsoft, on the other hand, placed their bet on the fact that this 'architectural deficiency' will be resolved by the time AMD's GPU made it into the consoles. This deficiency, was, in fact, resolved. MS went for the larger, but slower-clocked GPU. Sony went for the smaller GPU, but running at higher clocks. The result is that current Xbox has better performing GPU than PS5, and it probably runs cooler too. A disaster for Sony's marketing department. To spin this whole story, Sony focused on the fact that they have a faster SSD than MS, and the BS'ed us about the benefits it will bring, and BS'ed some more about it's small capacity, that it won't matter because with these 'great SSD' speeds will translate to smaller game sizes because of faster asset load times. I didn't buy into this crap, and at the end, it turns out that the game install sizes actually go bigger not smaller. Sonny effed up badly, put a fast SSD inside the console so they could claim a marketing win, at least on SSD aspect, but fast SSD meant a small SSD, because they needed to keep the console cost down.
This is why I will not buy a PS5, until they have a refresh a few years from now. By then, all the current PS5 titles will be in the bargain bin too. Until then, PS4 it is.