• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Microsoft Explains The Xbox Series X's High-Speed Secret Sauce

Look I'll break it down for you as simply as I can:

A promising approach is to encode bits of information using nanoscale spin textures, such as chiral domain walls or skyrmions that can be translated by currents across racetrack-like wire devices. One technological and scientific challenge is to stabilize small spin textures and to move them efficiently with high velocities, which is critical for dense, fast memory. For the past decade, work has focused on using ferromagnetic heterostructures to host chiral spin textures. However, ferromagnets have fundamental limitations that inhibit further progress: large stray fields limit bit sizes and precessional dynamics limit operating speeds.

By using ferrimagnets, the fundamental limits of ferromagnets can be overcome, realizing order-of-magnitude improvements in both size and speed. Using metallic, ferrimagnetic Pt/Gd₄₄Co₅₆/TaOx films with a sizeable Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI), we realize a current-driven domain wall motion of 1.3 km s⁻¹ near the angular momentum compensation temperature and room-temperature-stable skyrmions with diameters close to 10 nm near the magnetic compensation temperature.

And so by utilizing the ultra-low damping nature of Bi-YIG and an in-plane field, we can drive domain walls in GSGG/Bi-YIG/Pt at near relativistic velocities exceeding 4.0 km s-1, where the domain wall velocity is no longer limited by a velocity plateau defined by the in-plane field, but the magnon group velocity in Bi-YIG. These results show that multi-sublattice ferrimagnetic films are a promising materials system for next-generation data storage, paving a path forward for the field of spintronics.

Hope that clears it up. /thread
 
No, but a more apt analogy is that a car that goes 100mph can go further if the road is straight and smooth. The same car on a road full of turns and potholes won't be used to it's full potential.
So why were microsoft so conservative with there figures for compressed and uncompressed? If it can reach 12gb/s?
 
I asked for the link where it is believed XSX SSD is lower latency ? Where is this stated ?

MS we are 2.5 x faster .....and instant. That is not scientific. Instant is not a scientific term.

Also your using strawman.

Cerny said 100 x faster than Ps4, 5.5 Gbs up to 22 Gbs max decompress, average 8-9. That is correct terminology.

MS said 2.4 Gbs and 4.8 Gbs with textures possible, max 6 Gbs, and maybe 2.5 x faster than something something.

You cannot answer as you dont know, so continue with teh attacks, strawman first, then make it personal.

Yawn.
When someone starts with personal attacks instead of answering your question, it usually means they dont know what the feck they're talking about.
It's very amusing to watch from that user and he does it in every thread.

The tech in both consoles is good and should mean great games for both Ms and sony. The only clear winner hear is us the gamers.
 
Last edited:
So why were microsoft so conservative with there figures for compressed and uncompressed? If it can reach 12gb/s?

Because it can't, and nobody is saying it can. It's about efficiencies. They're saying with the whole of Velocity, it is the equivalent of 12gb/s.

If Ms were to claim 12, they'd be lying. What they're saying is they don't need 12.
 
So why were microsoft so conservative with there figures for compressed and uncompressed? If it can reach 12gb/s?
Because even now, using conservative numbers, they are being labelled as PR peddlers and liars. Everything MS says is being dissected and analyzed. Sony's statements are not doubted as much.
 
Because even now, using conservative numbers, they are being labelled as PR peddlers and liars. Everything MS says is being dissected and analyzed. Sony's statements are not doubted as much.
So a billion dollar company used conservative figures because everything they say is being dissected on neogaf. Have a word with yourself mate.
 
So a billion dollar company used conservative figures because everything they say is being dissected on neogaf. Have a word with yourself mate.
Believe it or not, there's a world outside Neogaf (reddit, the other forums, youtube, etc). Fanboys is not a Neogaf exclusive.
 
Gamers have to be open to the possibility that they'll still be loading times, it's possible loading times will be off the table, I don't think anyone actually believes what these guys are saying until the consoles are in peoples hands in the fall.
 
Because it can't, and nobody is saying it can. It's about efficiencies. They're saying with the whole of Velocity, it is the equivalent of 12gb/s.

If Ms were to claim 12, they'd be lying. What they're saying is they don't need 12.
Lol what's the difference between being equivalent to 12gb/s and being 12gb/s?
 
It was funny when people where saying that Xbox was less "engineered or balanced" than PS5

Easy to tell who have never seen or heard a One X or surface, Microsoft have gotten REALLY good at hardware

Excited for the showcase next week!
 
So as usual consoles will have to settle for medium-high settings and everything will run just fine. Or use some tricks like GT7 with quarter resolution for RT effects.
With Machine learning Series X might be able to upscale 1080 p images to 4k. I'm not sure if that's possible but I'm hoping so.
 
Lol what's the difference between being equivalent to 12gb/s and being 12gb/s?

I mean, one is a raw figure, the other is reached by chipping away at stuff that isn't needed. The Series X will never be as fast physically as the ps5, but if what ends up on the screen is the same - and that's a big if - then what's the difference?

But we're on like page 5 of this discussion now, so you know that.
 


Watch the answer for SFS from ~5:15 above. Jason Ronald actually managed to fit 14 actually/actual's in to a one minute answer :D.

Great sounding tech though, looks like it's going to be something that ramps up through the generation as developers learn how to use it.
 
That's literally virtual ram. Windows 95 had this. Heck, it's prior to my usage of computers, but I'd say windows 3.1 had this.

And the GPU grabbing info from the SSD or RAM does not circumvent the SSDs speeds, which are still not impressive.

No its not virtual Ram.
The Xbox Architect was asked that question and he stated it is not the same as virtual Ram.
Do some research.
 
This thread is still chasing the wrong rabbit for the most part. While theoretical bandwidth maximums are interesting, latency is the king parameter. And so far XSX does not seem to have much dedicated silicon for that while the PS5 has its two I/O co-processors plus cache scrubbers with the sole purpose to decrease latency as in asking for textures from the SSD and have them available for the GPU.

Looking forward to the MS hardware disclosure in August but my assumption is that they have a fairly straight forward PC-like solution and limited dedicated hardware here. The net result will be a very large difference between the two platforms in terms of actual performance to deliver assets to the GPU.

So when the Xbox Architect says they have dedicated hardware for decompression, hardware customizations to reduce I/O latency, HW customizations that allows the SSD to only load what it needs to Ram without any waste (thus the 2.5X MP), HW customizations for ML, etc. you somehow infer that to meaning they have none.
 
Last edited:
So your'e implying that the PS5 loads lot`s of «junk» into memory just to get to what it really needs?

Did Sony implement a method of seeing how much of Ram is actually wasted on past hardware like MS did with the XB1X?

MS built into the XSX hw a customization that allows the XSX to only stream assets it needs to Ram from the SSD.

The XB1X hw allowed them to see this to better improve the XSX hw.
 
So when the Xbox Architect says they have dedicated hardware for decompression, hardware customizations to reduce I/O latency, HW customizations that allows the SSD to only load what it needs to Ram without any waste (thus the 2.5X MP), HW customizations for ML, etc. you somehow infer that to meaning they have none.

I have never said they have none. Both systems have hardware decompression which is very important. However, beyond that the MS reveal so far is much more straight forward than the PS5 and all the developer leaks speak of the same. Fundamentally, the XSX has the CPU with drivers (such as direct storage/velocity architecture) run the I/O show. This means by default that the latency is higher due to driver overhead. Both systems are competent and the XSX has a clear Tflops advantage. My point is that the PS5 has a clear I/O advantage that is also meaningful. That is all. The OP tried to argue that the I/O advantage is meaningless which is simply not true.
 
I have never said they have none. Both systems have hardware decompression which is very important. However, beyond that the MS reveal so far is much more straight forward than the PS5 and all the developer leaks speak of the same. Fundamentally, the XSX has the CPU with drivers (such as direct storage/velocity architecture) run the I/O show. This means by default that the latency is higher due to driver overhead. Both systems are competent and the XSX has a clear Tflops advantage. My point is that the PS5 has a clear I/O advantage that is also meaningful. That is all. The OP tried to argue that the I/O advantage is meaningless which is simply not true.

AFAIK the CPU stack reserved for the I/O implementations is 1/10th of the OS-reserved core. So either they've managed to consolidate all of that to simply that amount of resources (highly unlikely), or they have dedicated hardware on the system for other parts of XvA, which is much more likely and already confirmed in some cases.

To the things you mention regarding PS5:

1) Cache Coherency Engines: These are required by Sony's specific design because they have a core I/O dedicated processor handling DMA on the memory bus for data going between storage and RAM. It brings a benefit to Sony's design, but they are not a requirement in and of themselves for maintaining cache coherency in a system architecture. There are many other standards in existence that can do this, such as CCIX.

2) Cache Scrubbers: These are legitimately interesting and do serve a greater purpose. However, Xbox One already had some hardware for cutting down stalls for the GPU called executeIndirect. A couple of other Nvidia cards had hardware support for this as well. There are multiple ways to cut down on GPU stalls and Sony have chosen cache scrubbers. MS have, most likely, gone with some ARM coprocessors within the APU design extending executeIndirect style functions.

If you're wondering about the ARM coprocessors, refer back to the Indian AMD employee LinkedIn posting. It's probably 6 months old at this point if not older, but they explicitly mention ARM cores as part of their work in the Series X APU design. Since such a thing for simple background tasks (like how PS4 Pro used it's small ARM block, which was separate of the APU) wouldn't really facilitate that type of mention (certainly not the way that employee did), there's a stronger chance this is something in relation to a GPU modification or at least some main APU modification.
 
No its not virtual Ram.
The Xbox Architect was asked that question and he stated it is not the same as virtual Ram.
Do some research.

Say again?


Thanks to their speed, developers can now use the SSD practically as virtual RAM. The SSD access times come close to the memory access times of the current console generation. Of course, the OS must allow developers access that goes beyond that of a pure storage medium. Then we will see how the address space will increase immensely - comparable to the change from Win16 to Win32 or in some cases Win64.

You should check yourself before you reck yourself.
 
Say again?




You should check yourself before you reck yourself.

Xbox Architect states that the velocity architecture is different than just using Virtual Ram.
Sure it can be used as virtual Ram but you stated that its the same when the Architect stated otherwise.

So no your still wrong.

Velocity Architecture is different from just Virtual Ram and has hardware customizations in order to work.
 
Xbox Architect states that the velocity architecture is different than just using Virtual Ram.
Sure it can be used as virtual Ram but you stated that its the same when the Architect stated otherwise.

So no your still wrong.

Velocity Architecture is different from just Virtual Ram and has hardware customizations in order to work.

Cool, I just quoted the executive vice-president at microsoft gaming, and I'm wrong.

You paraphrased a dev with no proof, you're right.

Gotcha.
 
Cool, I just quoted the executive vice-president at microsoft gaming, and I'm wrong.

You paraphrased a dev with no proof, you're right.

Gotcha.

You stated "thats literally vitrual Ram" and proceeded to compare it to a 1995 PC.
I stated its not vitrual Ram. Not in the sense thats its the same as a 1995 PC.
If you watch the Video on page 1 they'll explain the differences.

James Stanard Graphics Optimization R&D and Engine Architect @ Microsoft:
"We don't stream *from* virtual memory, but you can reserve virtual memory for very large textures and only commit the pages you have streamed in from SSD."

Its fair to say that James Stanard knows a little bit more about this than we do and he states "We don't stream from Virtual Memory" "but you can reserve Virtual memory for large textures"


 
Last edited:
You stated "thats literally vitrual Ram" and proceeded to compare it to a 1995 PC.
I stated its not vitrual Ram. Not in the sense thats its the same as a 1995 PC.
If you watch the Video on page 1 they'll explain the differences.

James Stanard Graphics Optimization R&D and Engine Architect @ Microsoft:
"We don't stream *from* virtual memory, but you can reserve virtual memory for very large textures and only commit the pages you have streamed in from SSD."

Its fair to say that James Stanard knows a little bit more about this than we do and he states "We don't stream from Virtual Memory" "but you can reserve Virtual memory for large textures"
Where's the source? You wrote something.
 
All this lovely but other than load times can someone give examples of where this extra benefit has taken away from my experience as a gamer? Besides being able to load the game faster and getting rid of "cute" loading screens show me example in a game where these load times crippled the experience. Don't get me wrong its nice but Xbox's superior computational power has me much more excited.
 
show me example in a game where these load times crippled the experience.

From my experience with Bloodborne those long loads after you die often hurt the experience for me. I don't think either console will have loads that long. Also Skyrim was another game that bugged me with it's load times as well as the Witcher 3.
 
Did Sony implement a method of seeing how much of Ram is actually wasted on past hardware like MS did with the XB1X?

MS built into the XSX hw a customization that allows the XSX to only stream assets it needs to Ram from the SSD.

The XB1X hw allowed them to see this to better improve the XSX hw.
What if Direct X was to blame for the unnecessary loading in the first place?
I´m only implying here, not stating facts, but that would not surprise me actually.
 
Like Dual Sense or Tempest Engine, oh wait...
i wont count those as 'tons' of..

also for controller name it common..even nintendo throw names..tempest engine indeed actual new tech they created...but the rest...they didnt even put name to their fast ssd patent tech
 
From my experience with Bloodborne those long loads after you die often hurt the experience for me. I don't think either console will have loads that long. Also Skyrim was another game that bugged me with it's load times as well as the Witcher 3.

We can only hope that the next Bethesda game doesn't have an excessive number of loading screens. Does every interior really need a loading screen? I doubt it (games like RDR2 and Witcher 3 showcase that you don't). BGS are just really bad at optimization.
 
We can only hope that the next Bethesda game doesn't have an excessive number of loading screens. Does every interior really need a loading screen? I doubt it (games like RDR2 and Witcher 3 showcase that you don't). BGS are just really bad at optimization.

With extremely fast streaming openworld games should be seamless.
 
With extremely fast streaming openworld games should be seamless.
I'm not talking about open-world games in general. I'm talking about Todd Howard's games. His team is a bit on the technologically incompetent side. They definitely know how to design fun games though.
 
Last edited:
I'm not talking about open-world games in general. I'm talking about Todd Howard's games. His team is a bit on the technologically incompetent side. They definitely know how to design fun games though.

Could be due to how outdated the engine is. On the other hand they have ID Software which is a really competent team.

Just so weird that Zenimax isn't using that engine with their other studio.
 
Why are you ignoring what was already said? Not only said, but replied directly to you... Quoting myself;



Obviously the decompression block will only be decompressing what will be loaded. If you are loading a third of what you would normally load, obviously it is effectively a 3x bandwidth increase. Microsoft has chosen 2.5x, which is fine. There are always some losses and no numbers are truly constant. And we have James Stanard, which is a Graphics Optimization R&D and Engine Architect at Microsoft, confirming that they stack. That you wish to deny this is your problem. It is still the truth that decompression and SFS stack.
According to what Mark Cerny said during The Road to PS5 presentation, the PlayStation 5 is capable of "Just In Time" loading, meaning that it loads only what's in the camera's view and therefore does not load anything else. This implies that the PlayStation 5 is also - as is the XSX - loading only what data will be used rather than what data may be used. So, the XSX has no advantage in this regard.

Go to 10:10 to 10:30.

 
Last edited:
Top Bottom