Support NeoGAF

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Variable frequency precisely means that is NOT capped, therefore it isn't always 10 teraflops.

Do you English?

'Capped' means they had to put an upper limit on the GPU frequency, therefore it is capped at 2230Mhz and not 'boosting up to' this frequency. Stop spreading FUD and wasting my time.

Running a GPU at 2GHz was looking like an unreachable target with the old fixed frequency strategy. With this new paradigm we’re able to run way over that. In fact we have to cap the GPU frequency at 2.23GHz to guarantee on-chip logic operates properly. 35 CUs at 2.23GHz is 10.3 teraflops and we expect the GPU to spend most of its time at, or close to, that frequency and performance.

 

[Batiman]

I was the same but thats the issue. When I joined and entertained the bait they'd report me and mind you I don't use personal attacks or anything like that.

Thats the thing here they bait you only to report you and you end up banned not them.

Ya I see what you mean.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

There's a tiny 2 tf difference between the systems... The games you're going to see on Series X will be MAYBE higher resolution version of PS5 games, but with checkerboard rendering most people will not be able to see a difference. You're not getting radically different versions of games next gen on the xbox, if anything variations will come with PS5's 123% difference in I/O.

Both systems can do checkerboard and reconstruction techniques, as well as VRS (well, the XSX can; PS5 will have its own API to use it but they won't call it VRS. Same with how the Geometry Engine is basically a rebranding of RDNDA2 tech).

That therefore would free up games on XSX to use GPGPU compute-orientated programming for the spare headroom, which can actually result in far more dynamic and innovative game design in terms of physics, AI etc. than the SSDs (which will mainly be useful for texture streaming of static assets and maybe some lower-priority, low-bandwidth text, speech, sound/audio data streaming too).

That isn't to downplay the SSDs at all: they will be important for next-gen. But a lot of people are completely downplaying or omitting GPGPU advantages, and that's an area the XSX has a pretty big lead in.

 

[LordOfChaos]

I was probably leaning towards buying a PS5 and even I'm tired of this.

I don't mind that the Xbox is more powerful on the two traditional metrics and Sony tried to do something else interesting. In the end we're all going to pick our favorite exclusives or the boxes our friends buy. Microsoft went hard this round, kudos to them, I'm interested in learning more about the architectures of both. Let's see launch prices, launch titles, the full BC story, etc.

 

[Psykodad]

I was the same but thats the issue. When I joined and entertained the bait they'd report me and mind you I don't use personal attacks or anything like that.

Thats the thing here they bait you only to report you and you end up banned not them.

OT, but this is bs. You've been one of the biggest shitposters this year.

 

[Sosokrates]

The major flaw in the "ps5 ssd will change game design" narrative is that while it maybe be possible to stream assets directly from the ssd, those assets are going to be limited to things like textures, but improving textures alone is going to hit a brick wall, its lighting, effects and polycount which make the bulk of computer graphics and its the CPU and GPU power which determine how good these things are.
For example if the PS4 had a the same ram + ssd setup as the ps5, loading times would be eradicated, textures would be far better but, the lighting, effects + polycount would still be the same.
Which is why cernys presentation on the ssd streaming section was misleading.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

There's a tiny 2 tf difference between the systems... The games you're going to see on Series X will be MAYBE higher resolution version of PS5 games, but with checkerboard rendering most people will not be able to see a difference. You're not getting radically different versions of games next gen on the xbox, if anything variations will come with PS5's 123% difference in I/O.

id very much prefer to not have another generation of CB rendering. I’d rather PS5 output at native 1800p in cases where it can’t hit 4k

 

[Chun Swae]

Both systems can do checkerboard and reconstruction techniques, as well as VRS (well, the XSX can; PS5 will have its own API to use it but they won't call it VRS. Same with how the Geometry Engine is basically a rebranding of RDNDA2 tech).

That therefore would free up games on XSX to use GPGPU compute-orientated programming for the spare headroom, which can actually result in far more dynamic and innovative game design in terms of physics, AI etc. than the SSDs (which will mainly be useful for texture streaming of static assets and maybe some lower-priority, low-bandwidth text, speech, sound/audio data streaming too).

That isn't to downplay the SSDs at all: they will be important for next-gen. But a lot of people are completely downplaying or omitting GPGPU advantages, and that's an area the XSX has a pretty big lead in.

Again, a 2 tf difference will result in the same compute shader effects on both systems. There will be no compute difference to be had which is what I was responding to. In my own opinion, PS5’s advantage will be in loading more and higher quality assets into your view which MOST people will immediately see a difference.

 

[ManaByte]

Both systems can do checkerboard and reconstruction techniques, as well as VRS (well, the XSX can; PS5 will have its own API to use it but they won't call it VRS. Same with how the Geometry Engine is basically a rebranding of RDNDA2 tech).

That therefore would free up games on XSX to use GPGPU compute-orientated programming for the spare headroom, which can actually result in far more dynamic and innovative game design in terms of physics, AI etc. than the SSDs (which will mainly be useful for texture streaming of static assets and maybe some lower-priority, low-bandwidth text, speech, sound/audio data streaming too).

That isn't to downplay the SSDs at all: they will be important for next-gen. But a lot of people are completely downplaying or omitting GPGPU advantages, and that's an area the XSX has a pretty big lead in.

Well you explained right there why people are downplaying GPGPU advantage.

 

[martino]

The major flaw in the "ps5 ssd will change game design" narrative is that while it maybe be possible to stream assets directly from the ssd, those assets are going to be limited to things like textures, but improving textures alone is going to hit a brick wall, its lighting, effects and polycount which make the bulk of computer graphics and its the CPU and GPU power which determine how good these things are.
For example if the PS4 had a the same ram + ssd setup as the ps5, loading times would be eradicated, textures would be far better but, the lighting, effects + polycount would still be the same.
Which is why cernys presentation on the ssd streaming section was misleading.

 

[Sosokrates]

That maybe mr sith lord, but ive yet to see any reasoning for why a 9gb/s can be used for anything more then texture streaming.
Dont get more wrong texture streaming is great, but textures can only get so good, it the lighting and shaders which make the real difference, just take a look at Minecraft Raytracing, the lighting completely transforms the way the textures look

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

In my own opinion, PS5’s advantage will be in loading more and higher quality assets into your view which MOST people will immediately see a difference.

Strange, I’ve seen DForce almost post this word for word. Hmmm

 

[martino]

That maybe mr sith lord, but ive yet to see any reasoning for why a 9gb/s can be used for anything more then texture streaming.
Dont get more wrong texture streaming is great, but textures can only get so good, it the lighting and shaders which make the real difference, just take a look at Minecraft Raytracing, the lighting completely transforms the way the textures look

i'm with you there
people missed at least half the things with assets and texture.

edit: but it would give an advantage with baked version of them

 

[Hobbygaming]

Skip to 8:00

After watching this video, it's very possible we see some 3rd party games skip the XSX due to the customizations in the PS5

 

[SleepDoctor]

OT, but this is bs. You've been one of the biggest shitposters this year.

Sure lol. Only when its criticizing ps but when I criticize something xbox related you "like" my comments. Run along now. As ive said before, i don't even acknowledge you. Might as well put me on ignore like the other fanboys

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Again, a 2 tf difference will result in the same compute shader effects on both systems. There will be no compute difference to be had which is what I was responding to. In my own opinion, PS5’s advantage will be in loading more and higher quality assets into your view which MOST people will immediately see a difference.

You're literally wrong. If a PS5 and XSX game go for visual/graphical parity in terms of most effects and especially framerate, and native texture resolution, that leaves the XSX with a 1.87 - 2 TF GPU advantage for GPGPU compute tasks ON TOP of all of that. That's up to 2 TF extra for physics, AI, game logic, etc. and that's not even accounting for things like DLSS and using ML for texture resolution upscaling that XSX has (and PS5 will most likely have, at least in its own implementations).

Also if you take, say, Moore's Law's video speculating XSX was designed with both gaming and server markets in mind, it might have additional compute tasks customized to it PS5 could be lacking, which would push its advantage for such tasks that much more. I don't see how this is up for contention, when we can basically agree that PS5 will have the raw SSD speed (and very likely SSD bandwidth) advantage and that's not even accounting for its optimizations there. XSX SSD will have lots of optimizations too but there's only so much the the SSD delta that will cover and PS5 should still have a notable SSD advantage all around.

XSX's GPGPU advantage is pretty much its version of PS5's SSD advantage, but it might actually be larger than that when you consider the advantages GPGPU compute brings to game design. Yes quicker loading times and potentially higher-quality assets will be more immediately noticeable (and are easily marketable), but if we're talking about next-gen game design influenced by substantive techniques and technologies, GPGPU has a lot more genuine potential to bring compared to the SSD advantages. That's just the reality of the matter.

Well you explained right there why people are downplaying GPGPU advantage.

Yeah, no kidding xD. It's getting ridiculous at this point. It's almost seemingly taboo to bring up GPGPU compute programming at all even if the PS4 leveraged that very thing for a lot of its 1st-party output. It's considered downright blasphemous by some to even imply it will have a bigger effect on game design than the SSDs, but that's the truth. The SSDs will be easier to leverage by comparison, however.

 

[LordOfChaos]

That maybe mr sith lord, but ive yet to see any reasoning for why a 9gb/s can be used for anything more then texture streaming.
Dont get more wrong texture streaming is great, but textures can only get so good, it the lighting and shaders which make the real difference, just take a look at Minecraft Raytracing, the lighting completely transforms the way the textures look

Part of it was also that if you have a deterministically fast SSD, it may change how you use RAM. Instead of storing several seconds worth of information on where the player might go, you can store 1-2s and make better use of the RAM bandwidth, rather than just streaming in more textures.

 

[Hobbygaming]

I’m not to big on power myself, but will easily pick the more powerful console for multiplats. Both will produce amazing looking games and that will be the XSX this gen whether the the difference is minimal or not. We will have to wait until comparisons. I still refuse to play any shooters with a DS4 though. Even if a game miraculously happens to run better on ps5, I’d choose the Xbox version if it’s a shooter. Can not play shooters with DS sticks for the life of me. Hope they make some changes with them this time.

I used to think I would hate the DS4 after being on Xbox for so long but it took me no time to adjust but yeah both will have fantastic looking games

 

[Snake29]

This is going to be a tough year for the xfans, if they are already butthurt.

 

[SleepDoctor]

This is going to be a tough year for the xfans, if they are already butthurt.

Looking at Era, most of them are guessing it’s 9TF. Personally i can’t believe it will such a big gap between those consoles.

Probably not as much as you were with Cernys presentation. Troll harder please

 

[DForce]

The major flaw in the "ps5 ssd will change game design" narrative is that while it maybe be possible to stream assets directly from the ssd, those assets are going to be limited to things like textures, but improving textures alone is going to hit a brick wall, its lighting, effects and polycount which make the bulk of computer graphics and its the CPU and GPU power which determine how good these things are.
For example if the PS4 had a the same ram + ssd setup as the ps5, loading times would be eradicated, textures would be far better but, the lighting, effects + polycount would still be the same.
Which is why cernys presentation on the ssd streaming section was misleading.

It's more than just textures.

 

[ManaByte]

This is going to be a tough year for the xfans, if they are already butthurt.

I think you're applying the butthurt to the wrong group.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Part of it was also that if you have a deterministically fast SSD, it may change how you use RAM. Instead of storing several seconds worth of information on where the player might go, you can store 1-2s and make better use of the RAM bandwidth, rather than just streaming in more textures.

But devs still have to create the assets for that SSD memory-mapped v-cache, and it's still only going to be mostly useful for static textures that don't need a lot of modification frequently, or at the bit-or-byte level.

That still fundamentally limits its effectiveness as a replacement for RAM or a comparative simultaneous solution, and it still mainly just means "prettier games with better texture quality". It doesn't cut down the workload for developers significantly in asset creation, and doesn't actually bring anything to the equation in terms of computational capabilities or features.

That's the main reason why I think the SSDs are being a bit oversold to gamers as being massive revolutions; we already got our revolution last gen in GPGPU, but it wasn't particularly easy to leverage except with 1st-party and some 3rd-party exclusives, and only offered a few gigaflops (in the case of PS4) if 3rd-party games were aiming for visual parity between PS4 and XBO (for PS4 exclusives still pushing visual strengths you probably saw maybe 200-300 gigaflops for GPGPU compute tasks to spare since a lot of the headroom would be going towards graphics rendering tasks).

So the SSDs have a freshness element to them that is well worth being appealing, but I think their hype is being a tad overblown. Whereas GPGPU compute is being pretty much ignored or at least strongly understated in what it brings for game programming in the future, since now the systems aren't anchored to shitty CPUs.

It's more than just textures.

It is more than just textures, but some people are overblowing its benefits in terms of game design paradigm shifts. GPGPU compute has the notably larger capability on that front, and that's one of XSX's strongest strengths over PS5.

I'd say ATM the SSDs are being a bit overstated and GPGPU compute is being strongly understated.

 

[Snake29]

I think you're applying the butthurt to the wrong group.

Well what are those cocky xfans doing here if it's not their business?

 

[Mista]

Thanks for the same 100th thread on the matter. We need more I guess since we don't understand

 

[ManaByte]

Well what are those cocky xfans doing here if it's not their business?

Where are they supposed to go? Every thread here since the reveal is some kind of grasping at strays to explain away how much less powerful the PS5 is.

 

[Elektro Demon]

Who is this guy? A random YouTuber?

I love his blog:

How to get 100K subscribers on YouTube – Coreteks

coreteks.tech

seriously though, do we really need a thread for every YouTube video and tweet? Why not a single OT with all the YouTube/twitter posts about SSD and call it a day?

Not a random dude. It's a high quality channel about tech. But not in a shitty mainstream way like Linustechtips and those other wannabe techies, this dude actually understands what he's talking about.

 

[SirTerry-T]

After watching this video, it's very possible we see some 3rd party games skip the XSX due to the customizations in the PS5

Somewhat premature a statement when those third parties don't yet have any sales figures yet to help them decide if targeting a specific feature of a specific console is worth their time and money, right?

 

[Jigga117]

Do you English?

'Capped' means they had to put an upper limit on the GPU frequency, therefore it is capped at 2230Mhz and not 'boosting up to' this frequency. Stop spreading FUD and wasting my time.

Even in the qoute your not seeing the contradiction to the whole "cap". In the presentation before and after his statement contradicts the cap like "the worst game" meaning the most demanding that will cause it to dip. Not what you percieve that dip to be but based on a game by game basis. His "worst game" comment translates to the most demanding games that utilize all that the system offers which means mostly the exclusives. Your stuck on one statement and either choose to or can't read and hear between the lines of what he is saying that we have caught on. It is variable for the reasons he stated which means Cap........is bullshit.

 

[Batiman]

I used to think I would hate the DS4 after being on Xbox for so long but it took me no time to adjust but yeah both will have fantastic looking games

I do like it for everything besides shooters. Might even prefer it.

I genuinely think >90% of Xbox fans here have refused to watch this video yet come in here to shit on CoreTeks for being a shill when he is nothing of the sort.

Won't listen to DF, won't listen to Cerny, won't listen to Moore's Law is Dead, won't listen to JS, won't listen to coreteks, NXgamer, won't listen to dozens of devs.

And I'm supposed to be the delusional one.

Xbox fans:

I just had a post deleted for something console wars related. Which I don’t really understand....

But posts like this continue throughout the thread.....

 

[CJY]

I do like it for everything besides shooters. Might even prefer it.

I just had a post deleted for something console wars related. Which I don’t really understand....

But posts like this continue throughout the thread.....

I just had two posts deleted too... There is no favoritism going on here which you seem to be implying.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

No amount of SSD speed will make up for the XSX hardware advantage. Is a slightly less powerful console that big a deal to Sony fans?

 

[Batiman]

I just had two posts deleted too... There is no favoritism going on here which you seem to be implying.

I had no console war shit in any of my posts in this thread. I’ll move on

 

[CJY]

I had no console war shit in any of my posts in this thread. I’ll move on

I dunno then.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Not a random dude. It's a high quality channel about tech. But not in a shitty mainstream way like Linustechtips and those other wannabe techies, this dude actually understands what he's talking about.

I'm curious if the bolded's over actually taking his opinions in general as something of merit, or if he just happens to be saying things people want to hear (confirmation bias, aligning with their own opinion) regards PS5.

Not directing that at you technically, I just tend to see that type of statement sometimes when people are referencing to certain personalities when it comes to next-gen discussion. I don't actually agree with Corelek's take here in most aspects but I do agree they're a very good channel for tech talk and discussion.

But I rarely see anybody say stuff like that when it comes to tech channels or personalities when they come to opinions that DON'T favor their chosen platform. Take all the vitriol directed at Digital Foundry here by certain folks; some even went out of their way to discredit DF altogether and drove John away from the boards, simply because they were a bit critical on aspects of PS5 (especially during the rumors phase before the reveal happened).

Imagine if those folks took a stance like yours even if they ultimately had a different opinion or take on things. Sure would've made that thread more bearable during the heated quibbling and attack moments

 

[Sosokrates]

The thing i dont get is how can rock textures look better then the textures on jagged rocks on the hellblade 2 demo, like the next step up from those is better lighting, texture quality returns will be so diminished, its comparing a 4k texture to a 8k texture.

 

[Hobbygaming]

Somewhat premature a statement when those third parties don't yet have any sales figures yet to help them decide if targeting a specific feature of a specific console is worth their time and money, right?

I think we can safely assume PS5 will sell more globally because of PS being the bigger brand but besides that, if they see some features in the PS5 architecture that makes their game possible, they might not want to port it to other consoles

 

[Chun Swae]

The major flaw in the "ps5 ssd will change game design" narrative is that while it maybe be possible to stream assets directly from the ssd, those assets are going to be limited to things like textures, but improving textures alone is going to hit a brick wall, its lighting, effects and polycount which make the bulk of computer graphics and its the CPU and GPU power which determine how good these things are.
For example if the PS4 had a the same ram + ssd setup as the ps5, loading times would be eradicated, textures would be far better but, the lighting, effects + polycount would still be the same.
Which is why cernys presentation on the ssd streaming section was misleading.

Your information is incorrect. 3D meshes, lightmaps, as well as textures can all be loaded at a much higher rate. The fast SSD will quite literally allow for higher poly counts to be loaded in. Where do you think the 3D models are stored?

id very much prefer to not have another generation of CB rendering. I’d rather PS5 output at native 1800p in cases where it can’t hit 4k

That would just be a waste of resources, as you can see from Xbox one games that do a native 4K with worse frame rates than PS4 pro. Checkerboard saves on frame time while looking indistinguishable especially at a high res. It’ll be this generations DLSS

 

[Hobbygaming]

No amount of SSD speed will make up for the XSX hardware advantage. Is a slightly less powerful console that big a deal to Sony fans?

It doesn't look to be that black and white, especially when you have developers saying PS5 is the most exciting hardware in 20 years

I think most of us are more excited about what these changes will do for Sony's IPs

 

[FranXico]

First tech channel I watched content from that actually knows what he is talking about. Going to go back and watch more of his stuff. Thanks.

 

[hyperbertha]

That maybe mr sith lord, but ive yet to see any reasoning for why a 9gb/s can be used for anything more then texture streaming.
Dont get more wrong texture streaming is great, but textures can only get so good, it the lighting and shaders which make the real difference, just take a look at Minecraft Raytracing, the lighting completely transforms the way the textures look

Except its not just textures that are streamed, the assets. Basically everything you see.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The thing i dont get is how can rock textures look better then the textures on jagged rocks on the hellblade 2 demo, like the next step up from those is better lighting, texture quality returns will be so diminished, its comparing a 4k texture to a 8k texture.

Hell sometimes I look at the rock textures in super-old games like Sonic Adventure and am pretty impressed at the level of detail those have. The rock textures in that game even compete with some modern titles in a few ways (at least on combined objective and subjective levels).

Your information is incorrect. 3D meshes, lightmaps, as well as textures can all be loaded at a much higher rate. The fast SSD will quite literally allow for higher poly counts to be loaded in. Where do you think the 3D models are stored?

That would just be a waste of resources, as you can see from Xbox one games that do a native 4K with worse frame rates than PS4 pro. Checkerboard saves on frame time while looking indistinguishable especially at a high res. It’ll be this generations DLSS

Don't you mean Xbox One X? Show me an XBO game that does native 4K and isn't a small indie title and I'd be impressed xD.

Anyways, I think you're misunderstanding how the SSDs will serve to function the pipeline for graphics assets. They won't affect much with the polygon models themselves; the polygon models still need the speed and bit/byte volatility of actual RAM. So yes, the SSDs are mainly going to be useful for texture asset streaming, and low-priority (low bandwidth, relatively low-speed) non-graphic data like some audio, text, sound stuff etc. (but those things are so low bandwidth and low-speed in this particular case that there'll be no discernible difference in their application between the PS5 and XSX; i.e "even" 2.4 GB/s raw speed is more than enough for those type of assets especially if even the 5.5 GB/s raw speed will relegate such tasks to just background objects or instances).

There's no reason to even bring the compressed rates into this because any extreme data compression will basically lower the quality of that data as it can be read in read-state from its compressed form, and the 22 GB/s compression figure given by Cerny only applies to very specific types of well-compressed data. That will excuse the majority of texture data, and probably pertain to some types of audio, text etc. data.

The case of using the SSDs for polygonal model streaming as you keep asserting will only be useful for static models that are background fodder to populate the game space/environment, and don't need to be updated a ton. For example, maybe for types of unbreakable statues or level props. Anything that needs more priority than that, still needs the RAM to be effectively used.. For example, it makes much more sense to store frames for a walking animation of even a background model in RAM rather than having the animation frames individually stored to the SSD and streamed in, because the SSD's low bandwidth (compared to the main RAM) will be a potential hindrance, as well as the slow speed (2.4 GB/s vs. 336 GB/s to 560 GB/s, 5.5 GB/s vs 448 GB/s).

Combine that with the fact data on the SSDs can only be read at the page level (over 4000x larger than a byte), and written at the block level (over 131,000x larger than a byte, over 1,000,000x larger than a bit), and, yeah...people need to put them in better perspective, even in the case of PS5.

Except its not just textures that are streamed, the assets. Basically everything you see.

Read the reply above your quote here. Helps put this a lot more into perspective. Again, people are overstating what the SSDs will bring (some are even thinking that only the PS5's SSD will be doing these things going by how they phrase it).

There are inherent limitations to the SSDs in both systems and that is down to the type of technology they use; no level of optimizations will change this unless they are not using NAND at all, which is impossible given what we actually know about them.

 

[Sosokrates]

Part of it was also that if you have a deterministically fast SSD, it may change how you use RAM. Instead of storing several seconds worth of information on where the player might go, you can store 1-2s and make better use of the RAM bandwidth, rather than just streaming in more textures.

Indeed, but if a dev was to use 2.4gb/0.5secs on xsx vs 4.5gb on PS5 I dont know if that would create a visable difference, ands thats not even taking into account the 112gb/s more ram bandwidth on xsx and new culling granularities not practical in the past.

The PS5s ssd advantage is being way over exaggerated. Sony have a habbit of doing these type of custom things, they implemented GPGPU physics calculations on the PS4 which did not amount to anything superior. There 4kcb tech on the PS4 pro was rarely used by 3rd parties.

Its kinda odd, cerny goes on about making the console easy to develop for but continues to implement custom tech, which is the opposite of easy for developers to utilise on a multiplatform business model.

 

[Jigga117]

Hell sometimes I look at the rock textures in super-old games like Sonic Adventure and am pretty impressed at the level of detail those have. The rock textures in that game even compete with some modern titles in a few ways (at least on combined objective and subjective levels).



Don't you mean Xbox One X? Show me an XBO game that does native 4K and isn't a small indie title and I'd be impressed xD.

Anyways, I think you're misunderstanding how the SSDs will serve to function the pipeline for graphics assets. They won't affect much with the polygon models themselves; the polygon models still need the speed and bit/byte volatility of actual RAM. So yes, the SSDs are mainly going to be useful for texture asset streaming, and low-priority (low bandwidth, relatively low-speed) non-graphic data like some audio, text, sound stuff etc. (but those things are so low bandwidth and low-speed in this particular case that there'll be no discernible difference in their application between the PS5 and XSX; i.e "even" 2.4 GB/s raw speed is more than enough for those type of assets especially if even the 5.5 GB/s raw speed will relegate such tasks to just background objects or instances).

There's no reason to even bring the compressed rates into this because any extreme data compression will basically lower the quality of that data as it can be read in read-state from its compressed form, and the 22 GB/s compression figure given by Cerny only applies to very specific types of well-compressed data. That will excuse the majority of texture data, and probably pertain to some types of audio, text etc. data.

The case of using the SSDs for polygonal model streaming as you keep asserting will only be useful for static models that are background fodder to populate the game space/environment, and don't need to be updated a ton. For example, maybe for types of unbreakable statues or level props. Anything that needs more priority than that, still needs the RAM to be effectively used.. For example, it makes much more sense to store frames for a walking animation of even a background model in RAM rather than having the animation frames individually stored to the SSD and streamed in, because the SSD's low bandwidth (compared to the main RAM) will be a potential hindrance, as well as the slow speed (2.4 GB/s vs. 336 GB/s to 560 GB/s, 5.5 GB/s vs 448 GB/s).

Combine that with the fact data on the SSDs can only be read at the page level (over 4000x larger than a byte), and written at the block level (over 131,000x larger than a byte, over 1,000,000x larger than a bit), and, yeah...people need to put them in better perspective, even in the case of PS5.

 

[Sosokrates]

Except its not just textures that are streamed, the assets. Basically everything you see.

Most things are drawn by the CPU and rendered by the GPU.

 

[hyperbertha]

Hell sometimes I look at the rock textures in super-old games like Sonic Adventure and am pretty impressed at the level of detail those have. The rock textures in that game even compete with some modern titles in a few ways (at least on combined objective and subjective levels).



Don't you mean Xbox One X? Show me an XBO game that does native 4K and isn't a small indie title and I'd be impressed xD.

Anyways, I think you're misunderstanding how the SSDs will serve to function the pipeline for graphics assets. They won't affect much with the polygon models themselves; the polygon models still need the speed and bit/byte volatility of actual RAM. So yes, the SSDs are mainly going to be useful for texture asset streaming, and low-priority (low bandwidth, relatively low-speed) non-graphic data like some audio, text, sound stuff etc. (but those things are so low bandwidth and low-speed in this particular case that there'll be no discernible difference in their application between the PS5 and XSX; i.e "even" 2.4 GB/s raw speed is more than enough for those type of assets especially if even the 5.5 GB/s raw speed will relegate such tasks to just background objects or instances).

There's no reason to even bring the compressed rates into this because any extreme data compression will basically lower the quality of that data as it can be read in read-state from its compressed form, and the 22 GB/s compression figure given by Cerny only applies to very specific types of well-compressed data. That will excuse the majority of texture data, and probably pertain to some types of audio, text etc. data.

The case of using the SSDs for polygonal model streaming as you keep asserting will only be useful for static models that are background fodder to populate the game space/environment, and don't need to be updated a ton. For example, maybe for types of unbreakable statues or level props. Anything that needs more priority than that, still needs the RAM to be effectively used.. For example, it makes much more sense to store frames for a walking animation of even a background model in RAM rather than having the animation frames individually stored to the SSD and streamed in, because the SSD's low bandwidth (compared to the main RAM) will be a potential hindrance, as well as the slow speed (2.4 GB/s vs. 336 GB/s to 560 GB/s, 5.5 GB/s vs 448 GB/s).

Combine that with the fact data on the SSDs can only be read at the page level (over 4000x larger than a byte), and written at the block level (over 131,000x larger than a byte, over 1,000,000x larger than a bit), and, yeah...people need to put them in better perspective, even in the case of PS5.

You seem to be talking about rendering directly from the SSD to GPU.
this post has so many inacurracies.

 

[hyperbertha]

Most things are drawn by the CPU and rendered by the GPU.

How is this relevant?

 

[geordiemp]

More efficient how? XSX will always guarantee 560 GB/s bandwidth for the GPU.

NO

Thats no how it works. Its a shared memory bus for all the chips, its not a like a PC where your statement would be true if that were a GPU only bus, and a SEPARATE bus for the CPU ...thats PC man.

BUS is shared on both consoles..

For XSX, IF 50 % of the GAME TIME use access is the slower RAM on XSX, then the bandwidth is 50 % of 560 + 50 % of 336 which is same as Ps5.. It does not matter what is being accessed on the slower RAM at all, could be CPU stuff, could be audio, could be your shopping list just depends on relative time.

MS confused you by saying the well put GPU stuff in the fast RAM, yes it will help, but still depends on time in each fast and slow pools of memory. Ps5 is consistent 446 (for good or bad, lets wait and see)

If the games are less than 10 GB TOTAL and 100 % of the time game is using the fast memory, then yes XSX will have a very big advantage of 560 , likely it will be propotionately less.

Big open world 4k high quality textures and quality audio...maybe not., butw e dont know. Neither do you.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The PS5s ssd advantage is being way over exaggerated. Sony have a habbit of doing these type of custom things, they implemented GPGPU physics calculations on the PS4 which did not amount to anything superior. There 4kcb tech on the PS4 pro was rarely used by 3rd parties.

On the contrary here; I'd say their GPGPU calculations actually pushed their PS4 titles to do things you couldn't do on XBO without scaling back on graphical fidelity. The main issue (if you can call it that) for PS4 was that the graphical bar also got raised a ton, leaving less actual GPU budget for GPGPU compute tasks.

I mean, look at a game like Days Gone. Graphically less impressive than something like, say, GOW4 or Horizon, but the sheer scale of zombies in that game (combined with the level of detail at that scale), that's something GPGPU compute was HEAVILY utilized for I'd assume (such as handling the physics calculations of the zombies as they collide and interact with each other and the environment), among other things in that game. People are overstating aspects of the SSDs but we shouldn't undersell GPGPU compute either. In fact, it's the more interesting of the two things for me when it comes to next-gen and how that can influence game design decisions.

NO

Thats no how it works. Its a shared memory bus for all the chips, its not a like a PC where your statement would be true if that were a GPU only bus.

Its shared.

If 50 % of the GAME TIME use access is the slower RAM on XSX, then the bandwidth is 50 % of 560 + 50 % of 336 which is same as Ps5.. Ut does not matter what is being accessed on teh slower RAM at all, could be CPU stuff, could be audio, could be your shopping list.

If the games are less than 10 GB TOTAL and 100 % of the time game is using the fast memory, then yes XSX will have a very big advantage.

Big open world 4k high quality textures and quality audio...maybe not., butw e dont know. Neither do you.

That's literally what I was implying. I know the memory is shared between the chips, and the CPU and GPU have to contest with each other for memory access on the bus. But you are greatly overstating the amount of game time that would be accessed on the slower RAM amount. It won't reach anywhere near 50%.

Both systems are SIMD and MS's implementation of the memory setup is not necessarily hard-wired to the specific tasks they've mentioned i.e you can have non-graphics data in the slower pool and audio data etc. in the faster pool. So most devs will probably optimize to have as much in the faster pool as possible and minimize use f the slower pool for such tasks.

Which, in actuality, isn't so much as "slower" as much as it is less bandwidth for the task. The speed per chip is the same (56 GB/s), but only on six of them, if in fact all six were being used simultaneously for such a task. So bandwidth per chip works out to the same ratio as on PS5. In tasks where the GPU would want the full 560 GB/s rate, it can do so, and with GPGPU-orientated tasks (and physical overhead with the larger GPU), that is an option for XSX that PS5 can't necessarily provide without paring down in other areas.

You're right, I don't claim to absolutely know everything on this front. Neither do you, however. Also in your case you do not take into consideration the same congestion and bandwidth conflict issues with PS5. If your example of 50% game time being CPU-bound to the slower 336 GB/s pool on XSX is true, spread across a similar setup on PS5 at similar physical GB amount (6 GB, 1 GB "lower" bound partitions of six 2 GB modules), then that's six of the eight modules not being used by the GPU, that leaves 112 GB/s effective bandwidth for the PS5 GPU on 4 GB of physical memory for those tasks. Which is why that wasn't a great example on your part, when you do the equivalent example for PS5.

Or, if an equivalent 6 GB of PS5 memory is dedicated to OS and CPU tasks, that leaves 5 chips for GPU. Or, 280 GB/s. Both systems have to deal with the shared bus issues, but implying use cases where you get 50% game time on the slower 336 GB/s bus is kind of ridiculous, especially when you work out the physical GB equivalence (and tasking equivalence) for PS5 to see where PS5's bandwidth would be for GPU operations only.

In that kind of scenario that is likely where XSX's additional GPGPU compute advantages could be leveraged, provided the data it has to work on is suited for types of parallelized tasks.

 

[Sosokrates]

How is this relevant?

How is it not relevant lol.

The cpu and gpu litteral dictate how sophisticated graphics will be.