• 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.

Xbox Series X’s BCPack Texture Compression Technique 'might be' better than the PS5’s Kraken

TBiddy

Member
Mar 16, 2015
3,121
1,809
540
Denmark
Really dude? Like... really? :pie_eyeroll:
Really. Instead of acting like a 14-year old, please point me in the right direction. I'm well aware of the compressed speeds in the PS5 and the XSX, but do you (or anyone) know that these are the average speeds we can expect or are we talking best case scenarios?

And yes, I know it says "typical" in the spec sheet, but that isn't really useful.
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
14,821
3,652
1,995
And we don't know nothing about MS technique. So saying nothing can match Sony ssd is stupid
The problem is that yet again you either conceptualise total enemy obliteration, to the point you end up making up less and less realistic scenarios up, or you seem to start seeing red.

They said BCPack, for textures, and zlib, for everything else, and MS quoted in their specs sheet 4.8 GB/s of compressed bandwidth and that the BCPack encoder cannot push out more than a theoretical throughput of 6 GB/s.
So we have a good idea about both and literature is out there around all these compression approaches, you are looking for magic.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
14,821
3,652
1,995
Really. Instead of acting like a 14-year old, please point me in the right direction. I'm well aware of the compressed speeds in the PS5 and the XSX, but do you (or anyone) know that these are the average speeds we can expect or are we talking best case scenarios?

And yes, I know it says "typical" in the spec sheet, but that isn't really useful.
Likely best case scenarios for both considering an ideal mix of data. If developers found a way to abuse the HW and get a bit more it would not be unheard of.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TBiddy and lynux3

lynux3

Member
Oct 17, 2005
2,226
727
1,390
Really. Instead of acting like a 14-year old, please point me in the right direction. I'm well aware of the compressed speeds in the PS5 and the XSX, but do you (or anyone) know that these are the average speeds we can expect or are we talking best case scenarios?

And yes, I know it says "typical" in the spec sheet, but that isn't really useful.
Yes, these are considered ideal speeds in ideal conditions. The source is Mark Cerny's "The Road to PS5" GDC presentation. Xbox Series X's SSD specifications are also considered as such with the source being Microsoft.
 

TBiddy

Member
Mar 16, 2015
3,121
1,809
540
Denmark
Yes, these are considered ideal speeds in ideal conditions. The source is Mark Cerny's "The Road to PS5" GDC presentation. Xbox Series X's SSD specifications are also considered as such with the source being Microsoft.
That was what I figured. So the average speeds will probably be somewhat lower than that on both consoles.
 

lynux3

Member
Oct 17, 2005
2,226
727
1,390
That was what I figured. So the average speeds will probably be somewhat lower than that on both consoles.
It's possible. It's hard to say without knowing what the benchmark was for the results they've obtained. Some studios could probably push it a few notches up and some not. It makes it more the interesting, IMO. Who can take the most advantage of the toys they have in front of them. :messenger_winking:
 

Goliathy

Banned
Mar 18, 2020
368
1,073
280
Do you have a source for that? I know the numbers, but do you have a source that says it's 8-9GB/s on average?

00:16:53,700
let's talk compression for a moment PlayStation 4 used Z live as its compression format. We decided to use it again on PlayStation 5 but on my 2017 tour of developers I learned about a new format called Kraken from rad game tools. it's like Z libs smarter cousin simple, similar types of algorithms but about 10% better compression which is pretty big.
that means 10% more game on the UHD blu-ray disc or on the SSD. kraken had only been out for a year but it was already becoming a de-facto industry standard. half of the teams I talked to or either using it or getting ready to evaluate it.
So we hustled and built a custom decompressor into the i/o unit, one capable of handling over 5 gigabytes of crack and format input data a second after decompression that typically becomes eight or nine gigabytes
Source:
 

-kb-

Member
Jun 17, 2019
358
376
235
That was what I figured. So the average speeds will probably be somewhat lower than that on both consoles.
For SSDs its actually not that hard to get the max speed provided the file is large enough. I would expect the actual average speed to be better than expected.
 

DynamiteCop!

Banned
Mar 3, 2018
3,988
8,613
585
These aren't considered "theoretical" in the least. These are considered "ideal" conditions; literally the baseline for each SSD. If these were theoretical we'd be seeing 22GB/s for PS5 and 6GB/s for XSX both based on their physical limits and whatever compression methods they're touting whether that be Kraken or BCPack. It's only "fuck all" in the end because its not in favor of your preferred system. Who are you trying to kid here?

However, of course you have zero idea of expectations or expectations of others because you have no idea in the first place.
The irony in this is palpable, because not one, and I mean NOT ONE of you guys stanning for this SSD nonsense ANYWHERE on the internet can quantify where it would provide some kind of development divergence. Not even just a meaningful divergence, an actual divergence of any kind.. You guys also gloss over the rendering implications like it hasn't been brought up fifty different ways.

Not even a real loading advantage is a given here because of speeds we're talking about not only in general but comparatively. Sony keeps going on about eliminating loading in its entirety, I mean what's the multiplication of load time on effectively zero? This shit is going to eat you guys alive in the end.

This mess is an overengineered marketing tool and you're like flies on shit just soaking it up. You don't even understand it but because X number is higher than Y you just run with it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: darrenskywalker

TBiddy

Member
Mar 16, 2015
3,121
1,809
540
Denmark
For SSDs its actually not that hard to get the max speed provided the file is large enough. I would expect the actual average speed to be better than expected.
Do you expect the game files to be one big file or a large amount of small files?
 

sinnergy

Member
Jun 16, 2007
3,052
1,000
1,135
I am just laughing hard to all these SSD talks. At the end of the day,the GPU will draw everything not an SSD. I hate to break you but XSX is significantly superior than PS5 on that department. The customizations which MS made on XSX’s SSD will be MORE THAN ENOUGH when you combine it with better GPU,CPU and memory. An SSD will not be enough to save the day if you have inferior GPU,CPU and memory.
And that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

But for 399 the PS5 is a terrific deal!
 

lynux3

Member
Oct 17, 2005
2,226
727
1,390
The irony in this is palpable, because not one, and I mean NOT ONE of you guys stanning for this SSD nonsense ANYWHERE on the internet can quantify where it would provide some kind of development divergence. Not even just a meaningful divergence, an actual divergence of any kind.. You guys also gloss over the rendering implications like it hasn't been brought up fifty different ways.

Not even a real loading advantage is a given here because of speeds we're talking about not only in general but comparatively. Sony keeps going on about eliminating loading in its entirety, I mean what's the multiplication of load time on effectively zero? This shit is going to eat you guys alive in the end.

This mess is an overengineered marketing tool.
Just because you have zero clue as to the possibilities of an SSD (and I'm not just talking about PS5 here) doesn't mean there isn't an advantage compared to today's game design and development. Now whether that translates into an advantage on the PS5 vs. XSX from 3rd parties is TBD, but I suspect it'll be about as large as it is in compute power going by your skepticism (ie: negligible).

I think your problem is that the SSD advantage is not on Series X thus it is "fuck all". If it were turned around we wouldn't hear the end of it. The reality is only few studios out of the majority will be able to answer this question and it just so happens that a lot of the discourse around here use them as ammunition. First party studios are everything if you're a warrior.

Additionally, I think you need to pay less attention to the marketing and more to the developer comments. Forget about the buzzwords and acronyms; they're the easiest ticket to shillville. There have been multiple developers excited about the streaming capabilities (of both boxes), loading times and even a few skeptical about zero load times because, well lets be real, not every studio is equal and their designs are different then the intention.
 
Last edited:

DynamiteCop!

Banned
Mar 3, 2018
3,988
8,613
585
Just because you have zero clue as to the possibilities of an SSD (and I'm not just talking about PS5 here) doesn't mean there isn't an advantage compared to today's game design and development. Now whether that translates into an advantage on the PS5 vs. XSX from 3rd parties is TBD, but I suspect it'll be about as large as it is in compute power going by your skepticism (ie: negligible).

I think your problem is that the SSD advantage is not on Series X thus it is "fuck all". If it were turned around we wouldn't hear the end of it. The reality is only few studios out of the majority will be able to answer this question and it just so happens that a lot of the discourse around here use them as ammunition. First party studios are everything if you're a warrior.

Additionally, I think you need to pay less attention to the marketing and more to the developer comments. Forget about the buzzwords and acronyms; they're the easiest ticket to shillville. There have been multiple developers excited about the streaming capabilities (of both boxes), loading times and even a few skeptical about zero load times because, well lets be real, not every studio is equal.
I think I'm going to maintain what I've said because it remains a constant, and what also remains as a constant if none of you can quantify how this bandwidth difference would actually translate into a tangible divergence in game development that wouldn't equally apply to both.

It's fast, but they're both fast. They're both an order of magnitude beyond anything which is really even necessary. This also comes right back around to the rendering implications, what is going to be loading in to such a magnitude that this GPU could even handle displaying? It's pure and total nonsense.

I couldn't give less of a shit what developers are saying because if you actually sift through these tweets they all link back to a heavy connection related to either manufacturer. It's shill marketing in full force, it's worse than here because these smart idiots know better but they still have to back their brand.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: draliko

lynux3

Member
Oct 17, 2005
2,226
727
1,390
I think I'm going to maintain what I've said because it remains a constant, and what also remains as a constant if none of you can quantify how this bandwidth difference would actually translate into a tangible divergence in game development that wouldn't equally apply to both.

It's fast, but they're both fast. They're both an order of magnitude beyond anything which is really even necessary. This also comes right back around to the rendering implications, what is going to be loading in to such a magnitude that this GPU could even handle displaying? It's pure and total nonsense.

I couldn't give less of a shit what developers are saying because if you actually sift through these tweets they all link back to a heavy connection related to either manufacturer. It's shill marketing in full force, it's worse than here because these smart idiots know better but they still have to back their brand.
On the contrary, you've yet to demonstrate how it won't quantify as a tangible difference (if any) other than "just because this is how I see it" despite developer reactions. I mean if you have some information you're withholding to the public or know better please do enlighten us.

Consider this. The baseline is being uplifted from 20-100MB/s to 2.4-5.5GB/s. That's pretty sick.

While there have been developers from both camps doesn't mean their opinions/thoughts on the matter make it any less relevant. There have also been developers outside of those camps praising it. The idea here push developers to rethink the possibilities without being confined to 20-100MB/s. They've been stuck to that standard for over a decade. There's been plenty of examples on design philosophy around the new standards versus the old lately made public and I'm sure there are a shit ton more that aren't.

With that said, I don't think this is going to change over night, as in within the next 2 years, this is something that's going to be done after cross-gen transition is completed. I think both Sony and Microsoft's first party studios are conjuring up a storm of amazing ideas.
 

TBiddy

Member
Mar 16, 2015
3,121
1,809
540
Denmark
The best case scenario Cerny talks is 22GB/s.

8-9GB/s is the average/typical.
It's highly unlikely that 8-9GB/s is the average speed, if Sony presents the speed as "typical". As a few others posted above, this is likely under ideal circumstances - just like on the XSX.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Goliathy

ethomaz

Member
Mar 19, 2013
29,993
12,124
980
37
Brazil
It's highly unlikely that 8-9GB/s is the average speed, if Sony presents the speed as "typical". As a few others posted above, this is likely under ideal circumstances - just like on the XSX.
Under ideal circumstances Cerny said they could reach 22GB/s.
That average is not even that impressive... 8-9GB/s is only 30-40% compression.
It is lower compression than Xbox average.
 
Last edited:

TBiddy

Member
Mar 16, 2015
3,121
1,809
540
Denmark
Under ideal circumstances Cerny said they could reach 22GB/s.
That average is not even that impressive... 8-9GB/s is only 30-40% compression.
It is lower compression than Xbox average.
I suspect the 22GB/s number is about as trustworthy as Microsofts XB1 memory bandwidth of 272 GB/s.
 

ethomaz

Member
Mar 19, 2013
29,993
12,124
980
37
Brazil
I suspect the 22GB/s number is about as trustworthy as Microsofts XB1 memory bandwidth of 272 GB/s.
You quoted me about the best case scenario.
That is what they got in Lab with some ideal data that not reflect 90% of what games uses.
 
Last edited:

TBiddy

Member
Mar 16, 2015
3,121
1,809
540
Denmark
You said the best case scenario.
That is what they got in Lab with some ideal data that not reflect 90% of what games uses.
Best case scenario is about the 9GB/s in my mind. I don't care much for theoretical limits of any given hardware, just like I thought the bandwidth claim from Microsoft was bogus. It's marketing and no-one should fall for that.
 

ethomaz

Member
Mar 19, 2013
29,993
12,124
980
37
Brazil
Best case scenario is about the 9GB/s in my mind. I don't care much for theoretical limits of any given hardware, just like I thought the bandwidth claim from Microsoft was bogus. It's marketing and no-one should fall for that.
8-9GB/s is average of what devs can get.
What that means what most game data will compress... 30-40% compression.

Theoretical limit is way over 22GB/s... 80% compression gives you about 25GB/s for example... 90% compression give you 55GB/s... for example text data that had over 80% compression ratio even with non light compression algorithms.

22Gb/ is what they got in the best scenario with some game data but that is really very rare.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EDMIX

TBiddy

Member
Mar 16, 2015
3,121
1,809
540
Denmark
8-9GB/s is average of what devs can get.
What that means what most game data will compress... 30-40% compression.
Until we see actual numbers, I consider all specs from Microsoft and Sony to be best case scenario for developers.
 

ethomaz

Member
Mar 19, 2013
29,993
12,124
980
37
Brazil
So were the numbers from Microsoft with their bandwidth. When I say actual numbers, I mean actual measured numbers from a 3rd party, not marketing numbers.
I don’t believe you will ever get that... it is not that important.

MS give you numbers too they algorithm can average with game data at 4.8GB/s (50% compression) and can in best case scenario with game data reach 6GB/s (60% compression).
 

ethomaz

Member
Mar 19, 2013
29,993
12,124
980
37
Brazil
Of course it is important. Otherwise people will start accepting any numbers as gospel, because someone from their favorite company said it.
The compression numbers are reliable... there is nothing out of this world.
 
Last edited:

TBiddy

Member
Mar 16, 2015
3,121
1,809
540
Denmark
The compression numbers are reliable... there is nothing out of this world.
We're not talking compression ratios here. If you wish to accept marketing numbers as the truth, feel free to do so, but I don't think you did the same when Microsoft added the bandwidth of the ESRAM and the DDR together. Did you?
 
  • LOL
Reactions: ethomaz

Goliathy

Banned
Mar 18, 2020
368
1,073
280
So aside from SSD, what advantage does the ps5 really have over the beast XSX?
The SSD is just on paper better. It will make loading times a little bit shorter. Other than that it will not provide any difference for Multiplatform games.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: luca_29_bg

it_wasn't_me

Banned
May 22, 2017
1,991
3,109
395
People are downplaying TF and hardware power so. Lol


And we don't know nothing about MS technique. So saying nothing can match Sony ssd is stupid
Don't waste your time. You can't win against blind fanboys.

They just imagining that PS5 SSD will change everything and XSX is doomed
Difference is small. Does that bothers you, hm? Btw. we already know which solutions XSX has for compression. BCpack and Zlib, that's why you get 4.8 GB/s for SSD in XSX.
 
Last edited:

48086

Member
Jan 10, 2017
621
1,085
500
Difference is small. Does that bothers you, hm? Btw. we already know which solutions XSX has for compression. BCpack and Zlib, that's why you get 4.8 GB/s for SSD in XSX.
You don't know to what extent BCPack has been optimized to work with the xsx hardware.
 

it_wasn't_me

Banned
May 22, 2017
1,991
3,109
395
You don't know to what extent BCPack has been optimized to work with the xsx hardware.
We have the numbers for both. Didn't MS said before that their SSD will work as virtual RAM? Yes, they did, last year. Also, they've mentioned that Velocity tech too and how BCpack and Zlib works.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
4,289
1,355
510
Not even a issue.

All sony tries to do is emulate ram and that's about it. They won't be able to render anything from that SSD on the fly into the v-ram at the speeds that the gpu and cpu needs, so they have to park the data in the v-ram pool anyway which is the ultimate problem with the concept people are championing for here. SSD's just aren't remotely fast enough to do it on the fly.

This is also why cerny stated that its pure for loading speeds improvements because on the fly isn't possible.

All u will see next gen is probably a bit more ram requirements on PC and that's about it. But that's normal for PC market.

a SSD connected to ram that can swap data in out freely and reserve it for the gpu/cpu that needs it is far more superior and frankly consoles don't have the ram for it.
They showed on the fly asset loading in the spiderman demo.
 
Last edited: