Its not just an ssd they have proprietary ssds used as vram buffers at even 5.5gb/s on ps5 thats faster than any ssd on the market, they are more like ssgs, solid state graphics n dont kid yourself that just because u have something called ssd on ur pc then its the same as the ssds on this consoles its miles apart bro and itll take an arm and a leg to even afford those ssds when they come out for ur pc
most people are fine and dandy with games right now all they want is 4k gaming at 60fps and thats not all that i reqyire from a next gen console its not just more resolution, more fps its the quality of assets per frame its the effects more triangles more volumetrics more physics, not the same old same old but just with high res
That's exactly why I don't complain about specs the games will blow our minds everyone just needs to wait.
Before I disapprove you for the 4th or 5th time today, are you saying that ps5 ssd is the fastest ssd in existence? What if I told you there is 7gbps, from 2019? Would you still feel like you are correct in this matter? Hate to say it, but several things are already beaten, before they even release, because of the evolution of pc hardware. But as a graphic designer, you would know this, right?
Ps5 is 5.5gb raw and 9-10gb compressed plus it has other features to cut off latency your 7gb/s ssd translates to 3.5gb/s in actuall performance
Cause ram is all that ever mattered most in graphics you can have 100tf but with 8gb a 6tf machine with 10gb of fast ram would display more data on screen than you can ever dream of
Is it? You sure it's not 7 uncompressed, 14 compressed? Or do you even know what ssd I'm talking about? Or, you're just pulling numbers out your rear again.... I'm just gonna drop it now lol. Your a funny guy. Not the brightest, by far, but a funny guy. I'll give you that.
They will look phenomenal but i still feel 16gb isnt enough 8gb on a ps4 was expected 16gb wasnt everybody thought its 24gb minimum so were are below expectations here
Bring that ssd up its not just about raw and compressed there is so much latency in pc ssds like i said these ssds on consoles are ssgs solid state graphics they are engineered to speak directly to the cpu and gpu this is why they use them as vram buffers they arent your typical ssd
It's obviously a troll.
Its clear you have no idea whatsoever of how graphics work.
You have to keep in mind the cost for publishers making graphically competitive games for such a machine though. Keeping the generation's graphical expectations within profitable range of production is the balancing act of profit. There simply comes a point where the cost of making advanced AAA graphics outweighs the gain. This is only offset by contemporary tools and libraries that expedite the process, but such aids focus on available equilibrium driven by technological homogeneity.
He thinks he's getting something 2x as powerful as an RTX Titan ($2500 USD), for $600 or less. Of course he's trolling. No one can be that dense, yet call themselves a graphic designer, smh.
Yeah there isn't that salivating for next gen like last time. PS3 and 360 people were ready to move on from. Maybe it's all the VR and pro models but it feels like it could use another year or something
If you are talking to me, I was willing to pay up to 800£ if the leap was worth, no problem I'll keep staying on PC playing cheap-box- bottlenecked games
The pandemic may create a delay or shortage, but nothing has to do with the console project and them play cheap and comfort zone
Would they be able to change power at all with a delay? I'm guessing it would just be to get costs down on the already made design.
Its actually the other way around, better hardware makes games cheaper, disney had to spend millions in render farms to create a frame of toy story today people can create toy story on their pcs, most budget in video games is spent on optimising everything to run on strict poor memory budgets on consoles its the reason games like the last of us or big triple a games take time its because they have a vision of making them cgi as possible but have to cut iterate optimise and delete certain features because the machines wont let them have the luxury to put them,
I didnt say you dont need a cpu so stop creating fantasies like ur talking to urself, i said what matters most is ram literally since computer graphics existed, your entire experience on screen is whats in memory, companies spend millions of budget to iterate and optimise visuals to deal with memory budgets, a fast cpu cant do shit with poor low memory your gonna make a cpu do fractions instead of calculus with low memory, cpus are already fast enough its the memory thats low. Literally sony and ms all had to invent special ssds and all this technologies to work with their strict memory budgets efficiently, most innovations in realtime graphics are always to deal with memory budgets, virtual texturing, instancing, asset occlusion, adaptive tesselation, lods, the new vrs, mesh shading, you name it even loading times are there because of memory. The xbox one had a faster cpu than the ps4 but completely brutaly got beaten because of its shit weird and slow memory.This thread is full of misinformation.
Whatever amount of RAM any device has, is nothing without the CPU that will actually process the information. Meaning, it doesn't matter if you have an unlimited amount of memory if your CPU is not processing it fast enough. Let's use an example:
Imagine we are playing a platforming game. To keep it simple let's reduce the elements of the game to: environment, character and music. When you first load the game, a certain amount of data is going to come from the storage device (optical, magnetic or solid), will be processed by the CPU, and sent to RAM. CPU means Central Processing Unit and it's not a coincidence, everything that happens in the device has to go through the CPU in one way or another. In this case, the CPU will be in charge of moving information back and forth from memory. So if you have a lot of memory and a slow CPU, your RAM is going to be bottlenecked and it doesn't matter how fast it can go because the CPU won't keep up. That's why frequency and timings in RAM matter.
Meaning that instructions that are in memory are just waiting to be fetched, decoded (or processed) and sent back to memory in order to be used by another part of the computer, like the GPU. Memory doesn't work by itself, it just temporarily stores data for the CPU to process. You need a really powerful CPU to actually make use of really fast RAM, otherwise it's just wasted.
Furthermore, the GPU will come into play when the information needs to be "painted" in the screen. Once again, this is an operation where the CPU is involved. When the player inputs something through the controller or any other device, the interface controller talks to the CPU which in turn submits the signals to all the relevant devices through memory. Was your input a jump? Well, now that input has to be fetched, processed, sent to RAM so the GPU can paint the animation of your character jumping and the sound interface can make the "jump" sound. Currently there is no way to go around this. Your CPU can bottleneck your really fast RAM and your really fast GPU because it can process it's data fast enough.
This diagram should better ilustrate the point better:
So as you can see the CPU is in the middle of everything and if it's not fast enough then it doesn't matter how huge is the buffer that you have on any side. Everything is related so what you want to do is avoid spending too much on any component that could be bottlenecked by another component because it's just a waste that makes the device more expensive and it turns out most gamers are price sensitive folk. The ones that aren't, play on PC (4X Titans and BS like that).
It sounds to me that you are a graphical designer and granted, a higher amount of RAM allows you to work with bigger images better but if you want to actually modify that image with say a filter that requires some processing, you won't be able to tell the difference between an i3 CPU with 16 gb of RAM and the same CPU but with 32 gb of RAM. It works the other way around too, though. It's a waste to have a really fast CPU with the minimum amount of RAM because then more reads and writes from static storage come into play.
Personally I think next gen consoles are not as gimped as PS4 and XBO where when they released (in comparision to what was available on the PC market back then). Depending on the price they could offer pretty good value.
But as always, PC is always an option although a bit more expensive which could tell anyone interested why consoles can't have the cutting edge. Instead they need to do their best to find the best balance between price and performance.
That's true. I have a GTX 780 that I bought around the time that the PS4 released and nowadays games run worse on the card than the PS4. The 3gb of vram on that card certainly didn't help either.
In the video they are complaining of the 512mb of vram available at the time and having to optimise a 2gb frame to run on 512mb this was 7 years ago and its still the problem today, developers want more things on screen but cant because of tight memory budgets.
3gb ps4 uses 5-6gb of vram
That's a load of bollox.
Yeah but does Mark Cerny post on here if not he obviously doesn't know anything.How about you wait and see it in action before you pretend your smarter than Mark Cerny
So what happens when a gpu that is about 2 years old, performs better than next gen consoles (which aren't even out yet), with higher refresh rates, higher resolution textures, better raytracing, etc. Does a difference in architecture matter in that case, if the end result isn't better?
