I'm not sure how much room will be saved by using a SSD but games can be smaller when you use a SSD because the devs don't have to worry about seek time so they don't have to pad the game with usless data to speed up loading & so on. will this be enough to replace the compressed data with uncompressed data? I don't know but it's something.
-
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.
- Status
Any games that has wowed you yet? Give us some insider scoops on unannounced games
The one he is playing with Neogaf lol
VFXVeteran
Banned
Me waiting for a proper real verified insider be like
No one that's actually working at these companies (game companies) are going to leak that info. Especially not the actual specs of the hardware. I'm not understanding why you guys can't just take "approximate" specs. Why does it have to be the type of RAM used, how many CUs it has, what's the clock speed of the CPU, etc.. ? I would never ask my sources for those kinds of details. A general comparison should be good enough.
Last edited:
Imtjnotu
Member
So what's your general comparison between ps5 and Xbox sex
And this is also one of the problems with the insiders that do give their opinion based off of lose information.
You're willing to share inside info without actually asking for basic specs?
Norse
Member
They want the info so they can beat their chests on how their system of choice is the most powerful. Legit or not, if they like the info, it must be true. This entire thread is proof enough.
If I were MS I'd spread false info that ps5 was most powerful just to watch fanboys implode if it turned out not to be the case.
If I were MS I'd spread false info that ps5 was most powerful just to watch fanboys implode if it turned out not to be the case.
bitbydeath
Member
You shouldn’t get worked up, whoever is ahead the differences will be minimal.
Gamernyc78
Banned
But not vice versa
bcus you know there's only one side of fanboys. You'd be surprised what sides would really implode given past history. Boy you can't make up the shit you read on here
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Like some others have kinda said, it'd basically be an application-specialized processor. Since the main task would be decompressing data, integrated DSP cores could be useful for decompression purposes, with a few general-purpose cores to aid in directing that (I'd assume). It'd be a sub-processor interfaced with the main processor, similar to how GPUs interface with CPUs in PCs.
Preferably, you'd want to consolidate this type of stuff to the APU itself and it's not like SoCs don't have built-in compression/decompression cores so if those have them there's no reason the APU can't unless there's a lack of flexibility there. While PS5 and XSEX will have 8 cores, I figure at least one of those cores will always be reserved for OS tasks, and another core would probably be used by the game for system I/O tasks like scheduling out calls to access data from storage.
From there I figure the system would automate a lot of the process in pointing to the storage devices, drawing up the data, and the decompression/compression hardware integrated to the APU doing what it's built to do. So while the decompression/compression hardware does its thing, the core that originally initiated everything is pretty much free to be used for other tasks. And even beyond that, there's thread task scheduling which is just a natural thing in multicore X86 processors by now that do a lot of the hard work mostly invisible to the programmer and the written application at large ("written" as in high-level language written; all high-level language program code is translated to assembly (which itself is translated to machine code) by the processor anyway at runtime).
But yeah to answer the question as best as I can: custom IC logic built into the APU for decompression/compression of data tasks. The APU itself would already have the required bandwidth and lane connections to the storage devices; just a couple of low-power ARM-based cores with maybe a few DSP cores coupled with them would be more than enough. I do NOT claim to be a computer expert whatsoever though; I'm using a lot of inference and logic deduction on my end to guess at how this would work.
It just makes the most sense the APU would have the needed hardware built onto it, similar to how lots of SoCs have things like hardware encode/decode built into the SoC instead of some off-chip ASIC (there may be an argument that an off-chip ASIC could have advantages to this type of thing particularly in relation to a system like the PS5 and the size of data it would be moving; just know that it would also be the more expensive option).
Last edited:
Rightisright
Banned
For me I'm really interested to see what secret sauce they both come up with like this, and what effect it has.
megreotsugua
Banned
I reorganized my thoughts about this, here it is again.
I do not see any scenario where the above bolded part would happen in a PS5 with 16gb - 24gb of RAM if:
But I do see a scenario where it could happen if:
How small and fast could it be though?
Aside from the unoptimized content that the dev said would lead to long load times, if the cache is used to store insane details of immediately-needed data then it could lead to a situation where fetching from HDD/SSD will create long load times if not managed properly.
I do not see any scenario where the above bolded part would happen in a PS5 with 16gb - 24gb of RAM if:
- SSD is 4gb/s used as cache to stream uncompressed data. (No HDD cold storage)
- SSD is 2gb/s used to stream compressed data with a powerful ASIC decompression chip.
But I do see a scenario where it could happen if:
- SSD speed is not as fast as hyped. Fast loading times is achieved through the same method today.
- PS5 RAM is unbelievably huge. Perhaps using large amount of DDR4 or Intel Optane at the same speed as DRAM.
- A relatively small amount of ultra highspeed SSD is used as cache and paired with an HDD/SSD. - (exactly like the early "leaks")
How small and fast could it be though?
- If it is used as cache then it should be really really fast otherwise a 1TB SSD would make better sense.
- It should also have good write endurance otherwise it will not last long.
- May I suggest 3DXpoint PCM by Intel as a good candidate for this cache. Maybe they can make a deal to use it with AMD CPUs.
Aside from the unoptimized content that the dev said would lead to long load times, if the cache is used to store insane details of immediately-needed data then it could lead to a situation where fetching from HDD/SSD will create long load times if not managed properly.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
I think the differences between the ssd's will not be a big deal at all.
Why? Think about it, MS have already said there will be virtually no loading times and a 40x improvement over X1X hdd speeds. How can it be any better then that? It's like a company trying to come out with a better mirror, it does not matter if Somone makes a mirror which has 50% better clarity because the mirrors we already have reflect our image perfectly.
Why? Think about it, MS have already said there will be virtually no loading times and a 40x improvement over X1X hdd speeds. How can it be any better then that? It's like a company trying to come out with a better mirror, it does not matter if Somone makes a mirror which has 50% better clarity because the mirrors we already have reflect our image perfectly.
demigod
Member
You might as well say all GPUs are the same then.
SgtCaffran
Member
This is the kind of thinking pattern that people had when they said mankind will never fly, reach the moon, computers will not be big, etc.
Lort
Banned
His example wasnt great but the law of diminishing returns sure applies in games.
1080p to 4 k is not that big of a jump ( i sit 2 m from my 60 inch Panasonic 4k oled).
24 bit audio is barley any better than 16 bit.
120 hz is not that much better than 60hz.
All these examples were chosen because they do make a difference but just a very small one ... and anything better again will basically not be noticeable in a blind test.
The question is how much difference will a faster SSD make... a very good question indeed.
Under a normal game engine .. a game loding going from 10 seconds to 1 second (50 mB a sec to 500 Mbytec). Is an awesome increase !! Going from 1 second to 0.1 seconds ( 500 mbytes a sec to 5 gbytes a sec) is noticeable but less of a radical improvement.
Going from 2gBytes a sec to 4 gBytes a sec will fill the 16 gig of ram up in 4 seconds rather than 8. In reality games have start screens and cut scenes so your not likely to notice loading on either anyway.
It will be interesting if theres new streaming techniques that could not have been done before ... as u can now have massive textures ... thats great except noone can afford the hard drive space let alone the SSD cost.
If u consistently streaming textures from SSD you will fill ram in 4 .. seconds and If your game is 160 gigs your game would be able to play for 40 seconds !
We dont need faster SSDs we need much bigger SSD’s.
Side note we ALREADY have compressed textures that can be used by the GPU directly .. all this debate about that shows a huge lack of understanding about basic game technology.
Like from um 1998 graphics cards https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_Savage to Original xbox ( see gpu section)
Xbox technical specifications - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Kenpachii
Member
Besides that he's right.
Windows load time.
Tomb raider:
SSD M.2 - Samsung 970 EVO 500 GB (3400/2300 )
SSD SATA3 - Samsung 860 Evo-Series 500GB HDD ( 550/520 )
Western Digital Blue 7200rpm 1TB ( faster then PS4 )
Reducing 1 minute towards 1 second needs 60x the performance. Even if after that u get a SSD that's 3000 times faster. U will only gain 1 second of load speed advantage over that 60x. Which makes it completely pointless.
This makes 5400rpm > sata 3 ssd huge while sata 3 ssd > nvme not so much.
This is the issue that SSD's have and why i said earlier on even nvme ssd's are overkill for those consoles. Xbox series x kinda stole the thunder from sony by announcing a 2gb's ssd that no matter what sony does isn't going to move away from much noticeable as they are limited by pci-e 4.0 which is 5gb's.
Any exotic hardware design they are planning to push out to capitalize on that SSD performance in exotic ways will be ignored entirely if the rest of the market won't join it. Much like blu-ray in the PS3 area. So it will just be for there first party efforts which frankly don't even remotely need it at all. Just a waste of space.
Last edited:
demigod
Member
Besides that he's right.
Windows load time.
Tomb raider:
SSD M.2 - Samsung 970 EVO 500 GB (3400/2300 )
SSD SATA3 - Samsung 860 Evo-Series 500GB HDD ( 550/520 )
Western Digital Blue 7200rpm 1TB ( faster then PS4 )
Reducing 1 minute towards 1 second needs 60x the performance. Even if after that u get a SSD that's 3000 times faster. U will only gain 1 second of load speed advantage over that 60x. Which makes it completely pointless.
This makes 5400rpm > sata 3 ssd huge while sata 3 ssd > nvme not so much.
This is the issue that SSD's have and why i said earlier on even nvme ssd's are overkill for those consoles. Xbox series x kinda stole the thunder from sony by announcing a 2gb's ssd that no matter what sony does isn't going to move away from much noticeable as they are limited by pci-e 4.0 which is 5gb's.
Any exotic hardware design they are planning to push out to capitalize on that SSD performance in exotic ways will be ignored entirely if the rest of the market won't join it. Much like blu-ray in the PS3 area. So it will just be for there first party efforts which frankly don't even remotely need it at all. Just a waste of space.
And you're wrong.
Kenpachii
Member
And you're wrong.
That agree's with me. so no i am not wrong. on the right side.
The left side is complete bullshit. i don't notice much difference booting my PC up on a nvme or SSD sata 3, not the way that presents it.
Last edited:
megreotsugua
Banned
If the PS5 will have ultra-fast SSD like that Sony ReRAM is preparing to commercialize, then it will be a game-changer. It will not only be about "no loading times". This is what a game dev told me:
demigod
Member
You are wrong, look at how the optimized is faster than SSD right now. I even said this back when it was revealed by wired that Sony surely did something to make the SSDs faster than what is currently on PC between SSD and NVMe. Again, you are wrong, stop trying to downplay consoles.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
It's actually hard thinking of a product that can't be improved.
But when talking about ssd's there will be a point of diminishing returns.
I mean, you can't really improve apon "no loading times"
It's something I don't get about the ps5 having a better ssd discussion, what good is having a better ssd on paper when in use it's no better then the xsx's slower one.
CyberPanda
Banned
NVidia at GTC presentation slide claims : RTX 2080 > next gen console !
at 21:16
He’s stating the obvious, and I can’t wait to see Ampere.
Kenpachii
Member
U make no sense. Instead of shouting "u are wrong to people because sony told me so" start to actually come up with arguments. Because there is sea's of proof and benchmarks + demonstrations out there that showcase u exactly what i say.
U know how i have this knowledge, i own the drives myself.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
Tommy FlopperI told you guys Tommy Fisher == TF
Hey I posted immediately after Tommy's first post in this thread for 6 months to ask if we can't trust someone with the initials 'TF' who can we trust!
demigod
Member
I have the drives too. And I showed why you were wrong. You chose to be ignorant and ignored it.
Kenpachii
Member
U didn't show anything sorry mate. your insults are void.
demigod
Member
NVidia at GTC presentation slide claims : RTX 2080 > next gen console !
at 21:16
He's lying. 2080 on a laptop is underclocked. 2080 Max Q is even worse than a 2070 laptop.
megreotsugua
Banned
PC problem is not SSD bandwidth speed. That's why there's seemingly diminishing returns in having faster SSDs.
Games are heavily compressed due to consideration that many gamers still use HDDs. Decompressing those game assets are what stalling PC games from achieving faster loading times.
If you ran a simple google search, this is what people-in-the-know would actually tell you. PC is bottlenecked by compression used in games because of slow HDDs.
Look up Neumann bottleneck.
Stuart360
Member
The SSD's in the next gen consoles may be faster than a standard PC SSD, but they will be pushing better graphics and 4k assets etc. I think if you accept 5-10 second loading times (like on PC now with a good SSD and current gen games), then there will be no need for any hyperbole when the next gen consoles come out and we still get loading.
megreotsugua
Banned
Anyone curious why loading times in PC doesn't get better even if you put NVMe SSD.
Read this.
WHAT'S THE NEW BOTTLENECK WITH REGARDS TO LOAD TIMES?
(before you dismiss that it's a reddit forum, take a look first who are the people giving their input and if what they say actually make sense)
Read this.
WHAT'S THE NEW BOTTLENECK WITH REGARDS TO LOAD TIMES?
(before you dismiss that it's a reddit forum, take a look first who are the people giving their input and if what they say actually make sense)
megreotsugua
Banned
Let me quote one answer there that laid it our very nicely.
CyberPanda
Banned
Ignore them. Trolls will be trolls.
Ya, but could be a misprint. The guys who make these slides always screw up.
Last edited:
rsouzadk
Member
None of that games or app are optimized for ssds,Besides that he's right.
Windows load time.
Tomb raider:
SSD M.2 - Samsung 970 EVO 500 GB (3400/2300 )
SSD SATA3 - Samsung 860 Evo-Series 500GB HDD ( 550/520 )
Western Digital Blue 7200rpm 1TB ( faster then PS4 )
Reducing 1 minute towards 1 second needs 60x the performance. Even if after that u get a SSD that's 3000 times faster. U will only gain 1 second of load speed advantage over that 60x. Which makes it completely pointless.
This makes 5400rpm > sata 3 ssd huge while sata 3 ssd > nvme not so much.
This is the issue that SSD's have and why i said earlier on even nvme ssd's are overkill for those consoles. Xbox series x kinda stole the thunder from sony by announcing a 2gb's ssd that no matter what sony does isn't going to move away from much noticeable as they are limited by pci-e 4.0 which is 5gb's.
Any exotic hardware design they are planning to push out to capitalize on that SSD performance in exotic ways will be ignored entirely if the rest of the market won't join it. Much like blu-ray in the PS3 area. So it will just be for there first party efforts which frankly don't even remotely need it at all. Just a waste of space.
And, you are missing the point on nvme ssds.
megreotsugua
Banned
Now PS5 will address that bottleneck by having an ultra-fast SSD to where games will be unpacked and decompressed. Games assets that are now decompressed will stream from that ultra-fast SSD which means no more CPU bottleneck AT ALL.
Remember the early PS5 leaks were pointing to an SSD cache system. Now I personally believe that that SSD cache will be ReRAM. Sony ReRAM can achieve 25gb/s and even higher. At that speed it can stream uncompressed data in less than a second. That's why PS5 will be "NO LOADING TIMES".
Remember the early PS5 leaks were pointing to an SSD cache system. Now I personally believe that that SSD cache will be ReRAM. Sony ReRAM can achieve 25gb/s and even higher. At that speed it can stream uncompressed data in less than a second. That's why PS5 will be "NO LOADING TIMES".
demigod
Member
You wanna dispute samsung's slide or just call people trolls for no reason?
Agnostic2020
Member
Faster ssd is not just for load time but rather faster stream of assets for games especially open world ones . If ps5 is 4 gb/s and xsx as mentioned by windows central is 1.5 gb/s There will advantages and not just in loading times but rather in the way games are designed for ps5 regardless of u liking it or not or calling it diminishing returns or not .
Last edited:
SgtCaffran
Member
See, that's what everybody is assuming based on current use of SSDs in PC systems. We see that SSD speed improvements show dimishining returns and directly project that on any future console/SSD improvements.
It's important to look at future possibilities. If Sony manages to completely remove the CPU, decompression, bandwidth limits with the PS5, talented and creative game developers will take these tools and use them to create scenarios or games that we can't even begin to imagine at this point in time!
Let's try not to be held back by statements based on past or current thinking or statements that if Xbox doesn't have something then Playstation can't have something.
Last edited:
Aceofspades
Banned
megreotsugua
Banned
I know why XSX's SSD is just 2GB/s.
Because their hardware ASIC decompressor can only decompress 2 gigabytes worth of data per second on the fly. WHAT'S THE POINT OF GOING HIGHER!?
PS5 will have a ReRAM cache that will stream DECOMPRESSED game assets at 25.6GB/s. At 25.6gb/s, it can fill the main RAM in less than a second without ever needing to go through the hoops of decompressing the data.
"NO LOADING TIMES" is real.
I think I've cracked the code guys.
Because their hardware ASIC decompressor can only decompress 2 gigabytes worth of data per second on the fly. WHAT'S THE POINT OF GOING HIGHER!?
PS5 will have a ReRAM cache that will stream DECOMPRESSED game assets at 25.6GB/s. At 25.6gb/s, it can fill the main RAM in less than a second without ever needing to go through the hoops of decompressing the data.
"NO LOADING TIMES" is real.
I think I've cracked the code guys.
Last edited:
Lort
Banned
Should i be surprised noone dares respond to my post full of technically specific limitations .. and instead congratulates each other on things they dont understand.
Theres no point being able to stream so fast that you run out of textures in 40 seconds.
Also the xbox one already HAS external non cpu hardware to run decompression using its move engines. Its hilarious you think your inventing something that only Sony could deliver and yet the xbox One already HAS it.
Move engine 1
Plain copy, swizzle/unswizzle (title exclusive use)
Move engine 2
Plain copy, swizzle/unswizzle (title exclusive use)
Move engine 3
Plain copy, swizzle/unswizzle, Lempel-Ziv (LZ) lossless encode/decode (title exclusive use)
Move engine 4
Plain copy, swizzle/unswizzle, JPEG decode (title/system shared use)
You all know jack.
Theres no point being able to stream so fast that you run out of textures in 40 seconds.
Also the xbox one already HAS external non cpu hardware to run decompression using its move engines. Its hilarious you think your inventing something that only Sony could deliver and yet the xbox One already HAS it.
Xbox One SDK Leak Part 3 | Move Engines & Memory Bandwidth Performance | Tech Tribunal
In part three of our SDK leak analysis we look at the Xbox One's DMA Data Move Engines and the consoles Memory Bandwidth in various scenarios
www.redgamingtech.com
Move engine 1
Plain copy, swizzle/unswizzle (title exclusive use)
Move engine 2
Plain copy, swizzle/unswizzle (title exclusive use)
Move engine 3
Plain copy, swizzle/unswizzle, Lempel-Ziv (LZ) lossless encode/decode (title exclusive use)
Move engine 4
Plain copy, swizzle/unswizzle, JPEG decode (title/system shared use)
You all know jack.
I was talking about Lockhart actually...Yeah it will be:
PS5>2080>XsX
Lort
Banned
So after 4 seconds ... and youve used all 100 gigabytes of game data... you going to then insert another blue ray disk ? Or just keep downloading 100 gig ever 4 seconds over your internet.
You are not half as smart as you think you are.
megreotsugua
Banned
Meh. Why would devs do that when the other console has only 13GB of RAM. They can add details to the PS5 version but not at the point of using 100 gigabytes of the cache to SUPER INSANITY DETAILS. Developers will fit what's necessary and what's practical.
megreotsugua
Banned
Oh that's what you mean. What part of "cache" did you not understand??
PocoJoe
Banned
Cant you read or understand?
That pic is from scenario with OPTIMIZED nvme, not from your bullshit PC.
Are you really so self-centered that you think that your PC = only thing on this world?
Point is that on "normal pc world" software must run on slow ass HDD, SSD and NVME.
So, it is not optimized to take all benefits from nvme and be as fast as it is possible.
On consoles they dont have to think of somebody with ancient HDD so software/games can be coded that in mind.
Same with PC, if there would be only super fast nvme drives = things would be faster than now with mixture of slow and fast drives, even when using that fastest one.
How it can that hard to understand?
On motorway there can be slow cheap cars and expensive super cars, all have the same max speed under the rules. Does that mean that fiat Punto is fast as ferrari on a race track? Aka "average conditions vs optimized"
PC OS/software just probably cant keep up with nvme, so when ssd already maximises speed that software can handle, adding more speed doesnt show up unless making software to take advance of that additional speed.
I have noticed real differences between ssd and nvme on my pc, so it can already happen in the right conditions
Last edited:
Lort
Banned
What i mean is ... given Americas crappy internet its unlikely games will be over 100 gigBytes ( at least for a couple of years) ... so constantly streaming new textures sounds great until you realise youll run out of textures in 4 seconds.( 25gbytes a sec * 4 )
- Status