Inside Dev sources revelation on PS5 to XSX performance difference will make SW tech experts have a meltdown

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for ellos
ellos

2259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#151  Edited By ellos
Member since 2015 • 2259 Posts

@Uruz7laevatein:

Yeah that is what I'm trying to get at. I hope this is a new environment. Since devs asked Cerny for it, I hope they have more ideas than what we current see in our normal pc environments.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

39081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 66

User Lists: 0

#152  Edited By Pedro
Member since 2002 • 39081 Posts

@ellos said:

Yeah technically there is always going to be loading. Initial loading and dependent of developer design. The question do you have enough speed for those buffers to be very very small. To the point of I don't know you can be loading enough stuff while the player is looking the other way. Erm those long long Uncharted climbing sequences can have more gameplay mechanics lol. Maybe one day the dream is loading will just be a part of the installation.

Its all based on the design of the game. If you look at a game like Inside in which no loading was critical to the design. And that game is on every platform with varying specs.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for cdragon_88
cdragon_88

1668

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#153 cdragon_88
Member since 2003 • 1668 Posts

Last it was the power of the cloud, now its the speed of the SSD. LOL. At least it provides some interesting SW material. I'm more interested in the prices of both system tbh.

Avatar image for madsnakehhh
madsnakehhh

16605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#154 madsnakehhh
Member since 2007 • 16605 Posts

And ... ??? Games will look pretty much the same, just like they have in the past couple of gens regardless of what console is more "powerful" "friendly to develop" or "optimized" ... feels like such a waste of time to even discuss this.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

30900

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#155  Edited By tormentos
Member since 2003 • 30900 Posts

@04dcarraher said:

Sony is just using using PR to sell their product because its their only real selling point hardware wise over MS's XSX.

Here is the thing, that the SSD in the PS5 is vs PCI-E 4.0 NVME is only 500-550mb/s faster. Its not the bandwidth that matters in gaming loading times but the memory's access times or "IOPS". The difference between a good sata ssd "550mb/s" vs M.2 NVME upto 5gb/s is very minor and there is as much as 4450 mb/s difference between them. What the PS5 SSD in its environment is trying to do is create and secondary caching system to stream in more data more fluidly into the main system ram. When it comes to gaming loading times the PS5 isnt going to outclass any descent SSD.

Now this is sad..

For years PC ellitist such as your self have brag here about how great SSD is,and how console are behind always,now comes sony with a SSD that is faster than what you usually have on PC and some how sony is just using PR.

That bold part is not quite true.

We've seen Microsoft's proprietary drives but Sony is sticking with its strategy of allowing users to buy off-the-shelf parts and fit them into the console themselves - so yes, NVMe PC drives will work in PlayStation 5. The only problem is that PC technology is significantly behind PS5. It'll take some time for the newer, PCIe 4.0-based drives with the bandwidth required to match Sony's spec to hit the market.

And then, Sony needs to validate them to ensure that they will work properly. The PS5 will have an NVMe slot, but drive compatibility will be paramount. It's not just a bandwidth issue either, though clearly that is a factor. PS5's spec delivers six priority levels to developers, while the NVMe spec has just two.

"We can hook up a drive with only two priority levels, definitely, but our custom I/O unit has to arbitrate the extra priorities - rather than the M.2 drive's flash controller - and so the M.2 drive needs a little extra speed to take care of issues arising from the different approach," says Cerny. "That commercial drive also needs to physically fit inside the bay we created in PS5 for M.2 drives. Unlike internal hard drives, there's unfortunately no standard for the height of an M.2 drive, and some M.2 drives have giant heat sinks - in fact, some of them even have their own fans."

In short, expandable storage is possible and you won't need proprietary drives from Sony to get the extra space you want. However, in the short term at least, the advice is simple: don't buy an NVMe drive without Sony validation if you plan to use it in PlayStation 5. Also remember that extreme bandwidth PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives are likely to be very expensive - in the short term, at least.

You can't just slap any NVME drive for that reason,it has to be at least as fast as the PS5 one,and need to be certified by sony.

Considering this storage solution are costly on PC i say sony did the right balance between power and speed on its system,i think some here are not giving then a fair view.

Now all that say if by any chance sony's tech doesn't deliver i am willing to let them have it and eat crow you can book mark that.

@ronvalencia said:

The argument "Which is why sony exclusives looked better" is subjective i.e. artwork style differences

Xenos has a tessellation unit that doesn't exist for RSX. For PS3, this function needs to be emulated on SPUs**. Tessellation hardware feature arrives with PC DX11 GPUs. DX10 GPUs have geometry shaders that reduce the available shader resources.

Xenos has greater vertex shaders resources when compared to RSX. For PS3, this function needs to be emulated on SPUs**.

Xenos has MSAA with FP HDR that doesn't exist for RSX. For PS3, this function needs to be emulated on SPUs**.

Xenos has full speed FP32 compute while it's gimped on RSX. For PS3, this function needs to be emulated on SPUs**.

Xenos has a reasonable shader branch capability while it's gimped on RSX. For PS3, this function needs to be emulated on SPUs**.

Xenos has ROPS with ROV (Rasterizer Order Views) like feature that doesn't exist for RSX. For PS3, this function needs to be emulated on SPUs**. Xbox 360 game programmer reveals functionality when contributing for Xbox 360 emulator for PC. Xenos ROPS functionality was directly remapped to DirectX 12_1's ROV feature.

**PS3 incurs cumulative latency penalties when ping-pong between SPEs and RSX.

There's a reason for RT cores are placed inside SM or CU designs.

Xbox 360's PPE X3 remapped to PS3's PPE + two SPUs, hence leaving four SPUs to patch RSX GPU.

Against your "Cell+RSX > Xenon+ Xenos" argument from IBM itself.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132297/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php

Every modern unified shader GPU has its design template from ATI Xenos i.e. AMD owns the unified shader GPU patent.

Xenos GPU is specifically designed for triangles and pixel graphics processing.

Continuing from Xenos hardware tessellation evolution, the next evolution is mesh shading. Both Turing RTX and RDNA 2 GPUs have been loaded with additional accelerated hardware functions.

Man stop.

GT6 is 1440x1080p and almost hit 60FPS has weather and day and night driving.

Forza 4 is 720p no weather no day night racing because the developer admited it would hit performance.

Games such as uncharted 3 have a level of physics totally missing on xbox 360 exclusives aside of the graphics,so not only uncharted 3 look better than Gears 3 is freaking blew it away in physics department so go cry art work else where.

Cell pissed all over the xbox 360 CPU and was good enough to run GPU task,which the CPU on 360 could not do,the 360 had a more capable GPU that had to do everything for self.

And i fact i believe what really hurt the PS3 was the dificulty of programing for it,a game took 1 year to triangle compare that to the PS1 and PS4 which took 3 months,hell the PS5 is say to take 1 month.

Many games didn't even use SPE well,in fact by the time GTA 5 hit both machines were at parity in resolution when rockstart games always were higher resolution on xbox 360.

You compare Killzone 2 to Halo 3 and they don't even appear to be the same damn gen.

Your hate for Cell is just stupid man let it go that gen is over.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#156  Edited By ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

@tormentos said:

@ronvalencia said:

The argument "Which is why sony exclusives looked better" is subjective i.e. artwork style differences

Xenos has a tessellation unit that doesn't exist for RSX. For PS3, this function needs to be emulated on SPUs**. Tessellation hardware feature arrives with PC DX11 GPUs. DX10 GPUs have geometry shaders that reduce the available shader resources.

Xenos has greater vertex shaders resources when compared to RSX. For PS3, this function needs to be emulated on SPUs**.

Xenos has MSAA with FP HDR that doesn't exist for RSX. For PS3, this function needs to be emulated on SPUs**.

Xenos has full speed FP32 compute while it's gimped on RSX. For PS3, this function needs to be emulated on SPUs**.

Xenos has a reasonable shader branch capability while it's gimped on RSX. For PS3, this function needs to be emulated on SPUs**.

Xenos has ROPS with ROV (Rasterizer Order Views) like feature that doesn't exist for RSX. For PS3, this function needs to be emulated on SPUs**. Xbox 360 game programmer reveals functionality when contributing for Xbox 360 emulator for PC. Xenos ROPS functionality was directly remapped to DirectX 12_1's ROV feature.

**PS3 incurs cumulative latency penalties when ping-pong between SPEs and RSX.

There's a reason for RT cores are placed inside SM or CU designs.

Xbox 360's PPE X3 remapped to PS3's PPE + two SPUs, hence leaving four SPUs to patch RSX GPU.

Against your "Cell+RSX > Xenon+ Xenos" argument from IBM itself.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132297/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php

Every modern unified shader GPU has its design template from ATI Xenos i.e. AMD owns the unified shader GPU patent.

Xenos GPU is specifically designed for triangles and pixel graphics processing.

Continuing from Xenos hardware tessellation evolution, the next evolution is mesh shading. Both Turing RTX and RDNA 2 GPUs have been loaded with additional accelerated hardware functions.

Man stop.

GT6 is 1440x1080p and almost hit 60FPS has weather and day and night driving.

Forza 4 is 720p no weather no day night racing because the developer admited it would hit performance.

Games such as uncharted 3 have a level of physics totally missing on xbox 360 exclusives aside of the graphics,so not only uncharted 3 look better than Gears 3 is freaking blew it away in physics department so go cry art work else where.

Cell pissed all over the xbox 360 CPU and was good enough to run GPU task,which the CPU on 360 could not do,the 360 had a more capable GPU that had to do everything for self.

And i fact i believe what really hurt the PS3 was the dificulty of programing for it,a game took 1 year to triangle compare that to the PS1 and PS4 which took 3 months,hell the PS5 is say to take 1 month.

Many games didn't even use SPE well,in fact by the time GTA 5 hit both machines were at parity in resolution when rockstart games always were higher resolution on xbox 360.

You compare Killzone 2 to Halo 3 and they don't even appear to be the same damn gen.

Your hate for Cell is just stupid man let it go that gen is over.

That's not apple to apple comparisons like BF3 which also used deferred render lighting with SPUs on PS3 and ALU shader mode on Xbox 360 GPU.

Just for you https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-gran-turismo-6

GT6 has 1440x1080p frame buffer with morphological (MLAA) solution.

As with GT5, an optional, faster 1280x720 mode can be engaged by selecting this as the maximum supported resolution from the PlayStation 3's XMB. MLAA persists in this mode as well, however, failing to offer the same level of clarity afforded by the previously used 4x MSAA in Gran Turismo 5's 720p mode.

....

When we tested the Academy Demo we were concerned with the lacklustre performance when operating in 1080p, but as it was just a demo, there was still hope that things would improve by launch. After all, the removal of more demanding MSAA should theoretically free up enough resources to allow for faster performance. Unfortunately, the 60fps target is regularly missed, resulting in screen-tear and image judder far more often than we'd like.

....

There is a workaround to these performance issues, however. As with GT5, engaging the 720p mode manages to solve most of the more severe frame-rate problems. Tearing and slowdown still occur using this mode, but the game manages to hit the intended 60fps much more consistently. Image quality definitely takes a hit - especially in terms of the MLAA, which has fewer pixels to work with - but the performance improvement is worth the sacrifice.

....

If Gran Turismo 6 is the final last-gen title from Polyphony Digital, it could be suggested that the developer still hasn't met its objective set forth almost a decade ago: to deliver a 60 frames-per-second racing simulation at 1080p on PlayStation 3

...

We still have elements in the game remaining from the PS2 generation and the gold standard 60fps update clearly hasn't been met with the consistency we would have liked. While the resolution boost is welcome, the move to MLAA from multi-sampling feels like a retrograde step (especially in 720p mode) that doesn't particularly suit the style of the game.

...

Try again.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-analysis-forza-motorsport-4

From a rendering perspective, the game still operates at native 720p, but the locked 2x multi-sample anti-aliasing of the previous Forza titles has been altered to allow for an improved 4x MSAA implementation which we think is tied into the game mode selected: time-trial gives better edge-smoothing, while the more processing intensive race modes seem to be using the same 2x solution.

There are no major surprises from Forza 4 in terms of the performance - Turn 10 has always targeted a locked 60 frames per second with v-sync engaged, and the new game is no exception to the rule

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

30900

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#157 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 30900 Posts

@ronvalencia said:

That's not apple to apple comparisons like BF3 which also used deferred render lighting with SPUs on PS3 and ALU shader mode on Xbox 360 GPU.

Just for you https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-gran-turismo-6

GT6 has 1440x1080p frame buffer with morphological (MLAA) solution.

Try again.

I don't have to try again buffoon i even stated my self that they manage to get close to 60FPS and the game does hit it in consistent form many times,the Forza doesn't even have nigh or day racing or weather even at 720p because the impact would be to great.

Pixel pushing alone talking the game is pushing allot more than Forza.

Oh and that without comparing Uncharted 3 to gears 3.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#158 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

@tormentos said:
@ronvalencia said:

That's not apple to apple comparisons like BF3 which also used deferred render lighting with SPUs on PS3 and ALU shader mode on Xbox 360 GPU.

Just for you https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-gran-turismo-6

GT6 has 1440x1080p frame buffer with morphological (MLAA) solution.

Try again.

I don't have to try again buffoon i even stated my self that they manage to get close to 60FPS and the game does hit it in consistent form many times,the Forza doesn't even have nigh or day racing or weather even at 720p because the impact would be to great.

Pixel pushing alone talking the game is pushing allot more than Forza.

Oh and that without comparing Uncharted 3 to gears 3.

GT6 needs 720p with MLAA to solve most of the more severe frame-rate problems. LOL

For apple to apple comparison with the same workload and artwork processing targets, Xbox 360 beats PS3 in BF3 despite PS3 using SPUs for deferred render lighting.

Unlike GT6, Forza 4 is not using PS2 elements LOL

Try again.

Avatar image for SecretPolice
SecretPolice

35909

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#159 SecretPolice
Member since 2007 • 35909 Posts

lol :P

Avatar image for Livecommander
Livecommander

1235

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#160 Livecommander
Member since 2009 • 1235 Posts

@ronvalencia: apple to apple ? The cell is more like a pineapple.

If bf3 dev's knew the cell more the ps3 version would look way better. It would still preform worse in certain situations because xbox has more screen ram for social menu purposes lol

Plus exclusives are the main things that matters when It comes to graphics comparisons.

The 360 hasnt had that crown since like the 1st gears of war.

I laugh when lems can only resort to third party games for bragging rights. It just shows the little effort their 1st/sec party makes.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#161  Edited By ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

@Livecommander said:

@ronvalencia: apple to apple ? The cell is more like a pineapple.

If bf3 dev's knew the cell more the ps3 version would look way better. It would still preform worse in certain situations because xbox has more screen ram for social menu purposes lol

Plus exclusives are the main things that matters when It comes to graphics comparisons.

The 360 hasnt had that crown since like the 1st gears of war.

I laugh when lems can only resort to third party games for bragging rights. It just shows the little effort their 1st/sec party makes.

Different games have different artwork workload targets. My argument is from PC master race's industry-standard method on hardware benchmarking.

From https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1460125/

------------------------

"I could go on for pages listing the types of things the spu's are used for to make up for the machines aging gpu, which may be 7 series NVidia but that's basically a tweaked 6 series NVidia for the most part. But I'll just type a few off the top of my head:"

1) Two ppu/vmx units

There are three ppu/vmx units on the 360, and just one on the PS3. So any load on the 360's remaining two ppu/vmx units must be moved to spu.

2) Vertex culling

You can look back a few years at my first post talking about this, but it's common knowledge now that you need to move as much vertex load as possible to spu otherwise it won't keep pace with the 360.

3) Vertex texture sampling

You can texture sample in vertex shaders on 360 just fine, but it's unusably slow on PS3. Most multi platform games simply won't use this feature on 360 to make keeping parity easier, but if a dev does make use of it then you will have no choice but to move all such functionality to spu.

4) Shader patching

Changing variables in shader programs is cake on the 360. Not so on the PS3 because they are embedded into the shader programs. So you have to use spu's to patch your shader programs.

5) Branching

You never want a lot of branching in general, but when you do really need it the 360 handles it fine, PS3 does not. If you are stuck needing branching in shaders then you will want to move all such functionality to spu.

6) Shader inputs

You can pass plenty of inputs to shaders on 360, but do it on PS3 and your game will grind to a halt. You will want to move all such functionality to spu to minimize the amount of inputs needed on the shader programs.

7) MSAA alternatives

Msaa runs full speed on 360 gpu needing just cpu tiling calculations. Msaa on PS3 gpu is very slow. You will want to move msaa to spu as soon as you can.

Post processing

360 is unified architecture meaning post process steps can often be slotted into gpu idle time. This is not as easily doable on PS3, so you will want to move as much post process to spu as possible.

9) Load balancing

360 gpu load balances itself just fine since it's unified. If the load on a given frame shifts to heavy vertex or heavy pixel load then you don't care. Not so on PS3 where such load shifts will cause frame drops. You will want to shift as much load as possible to spu to minimize your peak load on the gpu.

10) Half floats

You can use full floats just fine on the 360 gpu. On the PS3 gpu they cause performance slowdowns. If you really need/have to use shaders with many full floats then you will want to move such functionality over to the spu's.

11) Shader array indexing

You can index into arrays in shaders on the 360 gpu no problem. You can't do that on PS3. If you absolutely need this functionality then you will have to either rework your shaders or move it all to spu.

Etc, etc, etc...

Refer to http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=552774

Read Jawed's post

For example texture fetches in RSX will always be painfully slow in comparison - but how slow depends on the format of the textures.
Also, control flow operations in RSX will be out of bounds because they are impractically slow - whereas in Xenos they'll be the bread and butter of good code because there'll be no performance penalty.

Dependent texture fetches in Xenos (I presume that's what the third point means), will work without interrupting shader code - again RSX simply can't do this, dependent texturing blocks one ALU per pipe

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23421

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#162  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23421 Posts
@tormentos said:

Now this is sad..

For years PC ellitist such as your self have brag here about how great SSD is,and how console are behind always,now comes sony with a SSD that is faster than what you usually have on PC and some how sony is just using PR.

That bold part is not quite true.

You can't just slap any NVME drive for that reason,it has to be at least as fast as the PS5 one,and need to be certified by sony.

Considering this storage solution are costly on PC i say sony did the right balance between power and speed on its system,i think some here are not giving then a fair view.

Now all that say if by any chance sony's tech doesn't deliver i am willing to let them have it and eat crow you can book mark that.

I didn't know saying how far behind consoles have been with their measly 5400rpm 2.5" drives "bragging" Its about time consoles have made it to solid storage tech. I'm glad that MS and Sony have finally made the move.

But at the same time I can give two shits about the PS5 having a SSD that has 5.5gb/s transfer speeds. Anyone that knows about tech its the memory access speeds that matter in loading times and not transfer rates....

The whole point of the ultra fast ssd is really for a 2nd tier caching system to help free up memory by quickly swapping and help stream in new data when its needed on the fly, instead of buffering it 10's of seconds ahead. With the PS3 and Xbox 360 the hard drives and dvd/bluray drives were able move enough data to keep the split PS3 512mb pool and xbox 360's 512mb pool feed as they had to swap out data all the time because there wasn't enough to go around.

That is the reason why Sony whats NVME with equal or greater transfer rates because of the caching system not for "game load times".

Its Sony's PR when their only piece of tech in the PS5 that actually competes with PC and surpasses XSX is the SSD.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23421

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#163 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23421 Posts

@Pedro said:

@04dcarraher: I decided to checkout loading of existing games with varying SSD performance and the results are as expected. It all depends on the game.

Yea, like I said before vast majority of the time the difference is less than a second and at most a couple of seconds. Transfer rates mean nothing, its the access times or IOPS of the ssd that matters. I think Linus did a blind ssd test last month with a sata ssd, gen 2 nvme ~1500 mb/s, and gen 4 ~4950 mb/s and whats funny is that the people picked the sata drive as the faster choice.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

39081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 66

User Lists: 0

#164 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 39081 Posts

@04dcarraher said:

Yea, like I said before vast majority of the time the difference is less than a second and at most a couple of seconds. Transfer rates mean nothing, its the access times or IOPS of the ssd that matters. I think Linus did a blind ssd test last month with a sata ssd, gen 2 nvme ~1500 mb/s, and gen 4 ~4950 mb/s and whats funny is that the people picked the sata drive as the faster choice.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for shellcase86
shellcase86

4748

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#165 shellcase86
Member since 2012 • 4748 Posts

We'll have to see this fall. I feel game design will matter most, though. After seeing the Gears 5 demo, I was kind of let down at the jump.

Avatar image for Zero_epyon
Zero_epyon

14053

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#166 Zero_epyon
Member since 2004 • 14053 Posts

@04dcarraher said:
@Pedro said:

@04dcarraher: I decided to checkout loading of existing games with varying SSD performance and the results are as expected. It all depends on the game.

Yea, like I said before vast majority of the time the difference is less than a second and at most a couple of seconds. Transfer rates mean nothing, its the access times or IOPS of the ssd that matters. I think Linus did a blind ssd test last month with a sata ssd, gen 2 nvme ~1500 mb/s, and gen 4 ~4950 mb/s and whats funny is that the people picked the sata drive as the faster choice.

Those people must be....blind

Avatar image for Zero_epyon
Zero_epyon

14053

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#167 Zero_epyon
Member since 2004 • 14053 Posts

@04dcarraher said:
@Pedro said:

@04dcarraher: I decided to checkout loading of existing games with varying SSD performance and the results are as expected. It all depends on the game.

Yea, like I said before vast majority of the time the difference is less than a second and at most a couple of seconds. Transfer rates mean nothing, its the access times or IOPS of the ssd that matters. I think Linus did a blind ssd test last month with a sata ssd, gen 2 nvme ~1500 mb/s, and gen 4 ~4950 mb/s and whats funny is that the people picked the sata drive as the faster choice.

kidding aside. I have all four types of drives in my desktop right now. An HDD, SATA SSD, gen 2 nvme and gen 4 nvme.

I have games installed across all solid-state drives. There's a noticeable difference to loading times, with the gen 4 being the fastest. Maybe I'll time them one day when I'm not too busy.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

39081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 66

User Lists: 0

#168 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 39081 Posts

@Zero_epyon said:

kidding aside. I have all four types of drives in my desktop right now. An HDD, SATA SSD, gen 2 nvme and gen 4 nvme.

I have games installed across all solid-state drives. There's a noticeable difference to loading times, with the gen 4 being the fastest. Maybe I'll time them one day when I'm not too busy.

Bases on some of the benches I have seen and posted the difference can be as low as a fraction of a second.

Avatar image for Uruz7laevatein
Uruz7laevatein

133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#169 Uruz7laevatein
Member since 2009 • 133 Posts

@Pedro: In my experience running SSDs via NVME raid with RAM caching still feels a bit "slow" for the hardware, the limitations are mostly in software protocols catered to spinning HDDs, and limitations in decompression algorithms.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23421

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#170  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23421 Posts

@Zero_epyon:

If you can really notice the differences, my question then becomes what SSD's are you using? I wonder if one or more are low end or dram-less models.

Because I have 4 SSD's in my system ranging from Samsung 840 EVO to Corsair MP600. And with the game I'm playing the most right now is on my Crucial MX500, Doom Enteral takes about 4 seconds to load.

*edit*

Just threw Doom on my MP600 and wasn't even a sec quicker.

Then I tried BF5 that's on my MP600 and then moved to my Mushkin Reactor Sata SSD and the NVME was only 2 seconds quicker.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

30900

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#171  Edited By tormentos
Member since 2003 • 30900 Posts

Ok here is the problem i see here,people comparing SSD now vs what sony will have games today are not design to only run on SSD they simply aren't,some games take advatage better over other games but is based on multiple configurations in fact endless ones basically,not only between mechanical ones,but even between SSD them self with multiple and different configurations.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/devs-react-to-ps5-specs-twitter-edition.175980/page-52

Now i was one of the first to claim bullshit on the 8K 120FPS crap that first sony claim then MS also claim as well,and i am not trying to over sell the damn thing,but you people have nothing like this on PC,your mother boards are not design to cut bottlenecks like this machine is,and the SSD is blasing fast even compare to what we have on PC now.

So comparing games that are design for multiple devices will never perform like one that is created to use just 1,just like i think that if Sony comes and make a game only taking into mind a 2080TI that game would be further ahead of what we have know because it just exploit the best in 1 hardware.

Now i am willing to eat crow if this doesn't deliver and please book mark it,but i think some of you are been unfair to this simply because is sony.

Avatar image for i_p_daily
I_P_Daily

16123

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#172 I_P_Daily
Member since 2015 • 16123 Posts

@tormentos: You get owned all the time, and one would have to be a sad fucking person to bookmark threads, I mean who's that one sad individual on here that does stupid shit like that, having booked marked threads from 10+yrs ago? hmmmm I can't remember his name, do you tormy lol.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23421

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#173 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23421 Posts

Digital Foundry's Alexander Battaglia

"Unfortunately, however, the PlayStation 5 SSD isn't a miracle in the guise of some sweet tech. According to Digital Foundry's Alexander Battaglia, the PS5 SSD won't allow for different looking open-world games, despite that being something that fans have been imagining in social media discourse since the reveal. Detailing his opinion on ResetEra, Battaglia pointed out that SSDs simply don't function in a way that will meaningfully impact open-world game design"

"Basically, procedural data doesn't live on the PlayStation 5 SSD itself, which means that it won't be significantly affected by the technological breakthroughs of the device. It's not that the PS5 SSD is unimpressive - it's just that it won't be a factor in the way that many imagined it would be, simply because of the way developers approach open-world game design currently"

"No SSD - even one as impressive as the device housed inside the PlayStation 5 - is going to win the next-gen's battle for the best without a strong set of exclusives to help carry it there."

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#174  Edited By ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

@tormentos:

Claim: The memory bandwidth gap between XSX and PS5 increases with higher CPU usage

XSX CPU has ~937 GFLOPS at 3.66 Ghz with SMT or ~973 GFLOPS at 3.8 Ghz with no-SMT

PS5 CPU has ~896 GFLOPS at 3.5 Ghz (variable) with SMT

GFLOPS in FP32.

Scenario 1:Near GPU only memory access with maximum CPU-to-GPU fusion link usage and maximum respect CPU cache boundaries programming tricks i.e. X86 CPU can be programmed like a CELL SPE.

XSX GPU has 25% memory bandwidth advantage over PS5 GPU.

----

Scenario 2: Zen 2 CPU consumes 40 GB/s memory bandwidth which exceeds PS4 CPU's 20 GB/s memory access IO

Equivalent to PC CPU with 128 bit DDR3-2600, Intel Ivybridge i7-3770K that crushed PS4's "Super Charged PC".

XSX GPU: 520 GB/s

XSX CPU: 40 GB/s

VS

PS5 GPU: 408 GB/s

PS5 CPU: 40 GB/s

XSX GPU has 27.45% memory bandwidth advantage over PS5 GPU.

----

Scenario 3: Zen 2 CPU consumes 60 GB/s memory bandwidth which exceeds PS4 CPU's 20 GB/s memory access IO

Equivalent to PC CPU with 128 bit DDR4-3800 or close to yesteryear's 256-bit DDR3-2133 register for MMO servers.

XSX GPU: 500 GB/s

XSX CPU: 60 GB/s

VS

PS5 GPU: 388 GB/s

PS5 CPU: 60 GB/s

XSX GPU has 28.86% memory bandwidth advantage over PS5 GPU.

----

Scenario 4: Zen 2 CPU consumes 80 GB/s memory bandwidth which exceeds PS4 CPU's 20 GB/s memory access IO

Equivalent to PC CPU with 128 bit DDR4-5000 e.g. Corsair’s Vengeance LPX DDR4 5,000 MHz kit (pair of 8GB modules) or close to 256-bit DDR4-2666 register for MMO servers.

XSX GPU: 480 GB/s

XSX CPU: 80 GB/s

VS

PS5 GPU: 368 GB/s

PS5 CPU: 80 GB/s

XSX GPU has 30.4% memory bandwidth advantage over PS5 GPU.

Raytracing is a memory bandwidth extensive operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeboyd_Games

Zeboyd Games is a developer of 8-bit and 16-bit-style 2Drole-playing games that was created by Robert Boyd with William Stiernberg. It is most known for its two 2D role-playing games, Breath of Death VII and Cthulhu Saves the World. Most recently, they've developed and released the third and fourth installments of the Penny Arcade Adventures series, as well as the science fiction RPG Cosmic Star Heroine

Zeboyd Games does NOT support Xbox One! Zeboyd Games hasn't released a game for Xbox since Xbox 360! Zeboyd Games' recent game console release is for PS4 and Switch.

PC world already has a large scale game world simulation that powers MMO server-side game engines and they are mostly powered Intel Xeon servers with at least quad-channel memory controllers.

Avatar image for BlackShirt20
BlackShirt20

1642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#175 BlackShirt20
Member since 2005 • 1642 Posts

@tormentos: You are absolutely losing your damn mind. You are so delusional that at this point it’s sad. In one thread you claim you won’t claim some secret sauce or magic feature in the PS5 is going to change the balance between these consoles............

Now you’re here saying that the SSD in the PS5 is revolutionary and that it’s going to be the focal point. That somehow Sony is gonna be able to develop games for the PS5 that just won’t be possible on Xbox Series X. Which is total fantasy for you. Here you are inventing excuses for for the PS5 and making up BS that makes you think the PS5 can somehow out perform the better, superior gaming console Xbox Series X.

Wake up. Outside of loading a game there is nothing PS5 will do better than the 20-30% more powerful game console Xbox Series X.

Avatar image for miguelespinoza
MiguelEspinoza

1

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#176 MiguelEspinoza
Member since 2020 • 1 Posts

Lets take to talk about a game called need for madness its a racing car crashing game its pretty fun I like how you can do flips and stuff try it

Avatar image for Zero_epyon
Zero_epyon

14053

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#177 Zero_epyon
Member since 2004 • 14053 Posts

@04dcarraher said:

@Zero_epyon:

If you can really notice the differences, my question then becomes what SSD's are you using? I wonder if one or more are low end or dram-less models.

Because I have 4 SSD's in my system ranging from Samsung 840 EVO to Corsair MP600. And with the game I'm playing the most right now is on my Crucial MX500, Doom Enteral takes about 4 seconds to load.

*edit*

Just threw Doom on my MP600 and wasn't even a sec quicker.

Then I tried BF5 that's on my MP600 and then moved to my Mushkin Reactor Sata SSD and the NVME was only 2 seconds quicker.

I have the following drives:

Samsung 850 Evo SSD

Samsung 950 Pro NVMe Gen 3 (thought it was gen 2)

Gigabyte Aorus NVMe Gen 4

Avatar image for dxmcat
dxmcat

3149

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#178 dxmcat
Member since 2007 • 3149 Posts

inside bullshit leaks bullshit info about a bunch of bullshit that really doesnt amount to anything.

#consoles

Avatar image for Uruz7laevatein
Uruz7laevatein

133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#179 Uruz7laevatein
Member since 2009 • 133 Posts

@ronvalencia:

Lol and XSX due to split RAM design as a consequence has spend extra CPU/GPU cycles in dealing with duplicate data resulting in less available bandwidth even before/after CPU/GPU contention.

XSX also has less addressable memory as more is memory space is wasted on duplicate data (worse case scenario of 6.5GB out of 10GB available to graphics) , PS5 also has at least 35 to 40% more available memory after OS. (13.5 - 14GB vs 10GB). (GTX970 3.5 GB RAM galore!)

It is like PS360 all over again with the roles reversed, with the XSX marginally higher TFLOPs/Bandwidth (which only offer 10% higher performance at best lol) and Dedicated-Vramz being the new Cell and XDR/GDDR3.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

39081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 66

User Lists: 0

#180 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 39081 Posts

@Uruz7laevatein said:

@ronvalencia:

Lol and XSX due to split RAM design as a consequence has spend extra CPU/GPU cycles in dealing with duplicate data resulting in less available bandwidth even before/after CPU/GPU contention.

XSX also has less addressable memory as more is memory space is wasted on duplicate data (worse case scenario of 6.5GB out of 10GB available to graphics) .

What is the cause of this duplication?

, PS5 also has at least 35 to 40% more available memory after OS. (13.5 - 14GB vs 10GB). (GTX970 3.5 GB RAM galore!)

Where are you getting this information about the PS5? The Series X would have 13.5GB dedicated to games since 2.5GB is reserved. So, how does the PS5 have more available memory?

Avatar image for nepu7supastar7
nepu7supastar7

5748

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 51

User Lists: 0

#181 nepu7supastar7
Member since 2007 • 5748 Posts

@boxrekt:

It's pretty much already a given that ps5 will have prettier games. I've yet to have seen a sinlgle ms developer utilize the power of the console hardware like Naughty Dog has on ps4. It takes more than specs, you need craftsmanship and artistry!! 😤

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

30900

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#182 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 30900 Posts

@04dcarraher said:

Digital Foundry's Alexander Battaglia

"Unfortunately, however, the PlayStation 5 SSD isn't a miracle in the guise of some sweet tech. According to Digital Foundry's Alexander Battaglia, the PS5 SSD won't allow for different looking open-world games, despite that being something that fans have been imagining in social media discourse since the reveal. Detailing his opinion on ResetEra, Battaglia pointed out that SSDs simply don't function in a way that will meaningfully impact open-world game design"

"Basically, procedural data doesn't live on the PlayStation 5 SSD itself, which means that it won't be significantly affected by the technological breakthroughs of the device. It's not that the PS5 SSD is unimpressive - it's just that it won't be a factor in the way that many imagined it would be, simply because of the way developers approach open-world game design currently"

"No SSD - even one as impressive as the device housed inside the PlayStation 5 - is going to win the next-gen's battle for the best without a strong set of exclusives to help carry it there."

In regard to that theory from DF.

If you have a scenario were PC has the same characteristics as the PS5,same bandwidth,same i/o same hardware to aids compression and same fixes in place to eliminate coherency problems share them.

Even more on a game that is solely created for that hardware,i am open to read about it.

But people are using data on games develop for multiple hardware configurations.

If you want to exploit speed on SSD completely you can't do that without screwing up those with mechanical drives.

Is funny how more than double the speed of the xbox one SSD is nothing but 17% power is the greatest gap ever for some sites and people.🤷‍♂️

@i_p_daily said:

@tormentos: You get owned all the time, and one would have to be a sad fucking person to bookmark threads, I mean who's that one sad individual on here that does stupid shit like that, having booked marked threads from 10+yrs ago? hmmmm I can't remember his name, do you tormy lol.

WTF are you doing in this thread you don't care about performance or graphics.lol

@BlackShirt20 said:

@tormentos: You are absolutely losing your damn mind. You are so delusional that at this point it’s sad. In one thread you claim you won’t claim some secret sauce or magic feature in the PS5 is going to change the balance between these consoles............

Now you’re here saying that the SSD in the PS5 is revolutionary and that it’s going to be the focal point. That somehow Sony is gonna be able to develop games for the PS5 that just won’t be possible on Xbox Series X. Which is total fantasy for you. Here you are inventing excuses for for the PS5 and making up BS that makes you think the PS5 can somehow out perform the better, superior gaming console Xbox Series X.

Wake up. Outside of loading a game there is nothing PS5 will do better than the 20-30% more powerful game console Xbox Series X.

No i am not,and i don't agree with the SSD rising power or closing the gap in anyway,but is impossible that the PS5 with more than double the damn speed of the xbox series X SSD will not be considerably faster.

And this coming from the freaking moron who dare claims 17% GPU gap translate into a 4.2TF gap,i would not even dare if i were you,you are as derange was blackace and i would not be suprise to learn you are his alt.

My argument is not about power,my argument is about speed of the SSD which will be considerably faster because it has more that double the speed.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23421

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#183  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23421 Posts
@Uruz7laevatein said:

@ronvalencia:

Lol and XSX due to split RAM design as a consequence has spend extra CPU/GPU cycles in dealing with duplicate data resulting in less available bandwidth even before/after CPU/GPU contention.

XSX also has less addressable memory as more is memory space is wasted on duplicate data (worse case scenario of 6.5GB out of 10GB available to graphics) , PS5 also has at least 35 to 40% more available memory after OS. (13.5 - 14GB vs 10GB). (GTX970 3.5 GB RAM galore!)

It is like PS360 all over again with the roles reversed, with the XSX marginally higher TFLOPs/Bandwidth (which only offer 10% higher performance at best lol) and Dedicated-Vramz being the new Cell and XDR/GDDR3.

Developers should have access to the 13.5GB of unified memory. Just the ladder part of the 3.5GB of that memory is just lower bandwidth. There should be a way of keeping certain data in the faster pool for vram,less critical data in the slower section to allow other resources to dynamically allocate memory from the faster section.

It shouldn't be like the GTX 970 debacle, since the slower pool is only 336GB/s vs 560GB/s.... vs 970's 32GB/s vs 224GB/s which was like 86% drop in bandwidth for that last 500mb of vram.

Avatar image for Uruz7laevatein
Uruz7laevatein

133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#184  Edited By Uruz7laevatein
Member since 2009 • 133 Posts

@Pedro:

1. Extra data that is fed from Storage to System RAM to VRAM, duplicate data is there so it doesn't have to be rewritten again from the system RAM by CPU (otherwise precious cycles/bandwidth is spent to rewrite the data again).

2. XSX only has up to 10GB addressable at 560 GB/s addressable to GPU, if it addresses more than you run into performance impact when drawing from slower 6GB pool. PS5 GPU can address more without the CPU to feed it from a separate pool or take a hit. (PS360 scenario)

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

39081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 66

User Lists: 0

#185 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 39081 Posts

@tormentos said:

If you want to exploit speed on SSD completely you can't do that without screwing up those with mechanical drives.

This is false. Designing a game for SSDs would not do that. We are just talking about managing the flow of data. That is all SSDs will speed up and not the actual processing of data. In order to get seamless to no loading, developers will have to balance the streaming of data and the processing of data. You can dump everything needed for a game in memory in 0.00001 seconds but the it would not alleviate the processing time of the data, such as start up routines, object activation or whatever game play elements that are reliant on the CPU. This is why no loading times is a combination of data transfer and the processing of the virtual objects in the game. SSDs solves part of the equation and not all of it. It is also the reason some games benefit more from SSDs over other games.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

39081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 66

User Lists: 0

#186 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 39081 Posts

@Uruz7laevatein said:

@Pedro:

1. Extra data that is fed from Storage to System RAM to VRAM, duplicate data is there so it doesn't have to be rewritten again from the system RAM by CPU (otherwise precious cycles/bandwidth have to rewrite the data again).

2. XSX only has up to 10GB addressable at 560 GB/s addressable to GPU, if it addresses more than you run into performance impact when drawing from slower 6GB pool. PS5 GPU can address more without the CPU to feed it from a separate pool or take a hit. (PS360 scenario)

1. Storage to VRAM is direct. It doesn't need to copy itself to the slower RAM prior to the faster RAM. That is simply false.

2. I am not sure why you think that 10GB of faster RAM and 3.5GB of slower RAM is going to cause and issue. Developers would simply be task with managing their memory. They have a budget and they work within their memory budget. No one develops a game without constraints in mind. Also both PS5 and Series X can address RAM without the CPU feeding the data into the RAM.

Avatar image for Martin_G_N
Martin_G_N

1979

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#187 Martin_G_N
Member since 2006 • 1979 Posts

@04dcarraher: It's not that the PS5 SSD is unimpressive - it's just that it won't be a factor in the way that many imagined it would be, simply because of the way developers approach open-world game design currently"

This...currently. Developers need to work and think differently with fast SSD's. Remember the PS2 days? 4MB video memory, 32MB RAM@3.3GB/s, and 5.3MB/s read speed from the DVD drive. Basically Rockstar and other devs could stream in data from the DVD as you were moving around the city without problems. They could fill up the memory pretty quickly. These generations after, devs would have to duplicate data on both the BD rom and the HDD to get the data transfer speeds up, still it hasn't been easy. To be able to fill up the video memory in 2 sek is pretty impressive. And for some of the less important processes you can probably use it as virtual memory for the CPU, with compression it's faster than DDR2 was. Just imagine how much you can have going on in a open world game, like the random events in GTA.

Avatar image for i_p_daily
I_P_Daily

16123

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#188 I_P_Daily
Member since 2015 • 16123 Posts

@tormentos said:

@i_p_daily said:

@tormentos: You get owned all the time, and one would have to be a sad fucking person to bookmark threads, I mean who's that one sad individual on here that does stupid shit like that, having booked marked threads from 10+yrs ago? hmmmm I can't remember his name, do you tormy lol.

WTF are you doing in this thread you don't care about performance or graphics.lol

Why, surely you can't be that stupid right???

Its obvious to everyone but you cows, its to make fun of you, because you do CARE lol.

By the way that sad person who hoards threads is you tormy.

I bet you have thumb drives labelled with lems names on them sitting in many a desk draw just waiting for them to be used, yeah you're that fucking sad LOL.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23421

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#189  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23421 Posts

Like I said before the PS5 SSD will be like a 2nd tier caching system for texturing streaming and asset streaming. But the problem is that the within the 16gb pool you are still going to be limited by a set amount of memory for the decompressed and rendered graphical data. I wonder Andrew ether read DF guy's quote wrong. Because being able to script the graphical data quicker and for efficiently for better looking game isnt going to change the current fundamental design of open world RPG's which was the article was about. Even with NVME speeds open world RPGs with advanced AI routines and dynamic events will be determined by the speed of the cpu.... Which means PS5 will still have loading screens with more complex games.

Between Variable rate shading, Machine learning based super sampling, better compression and decompression methods ray tracing etc is going to be a good generation of hardware and more complex and detailed games.

Avatar image for Uruz7laevatein
Uruz7laevatein

133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#190  Edited By Uruz7laevatein
Member since 2009 • 133 Posts

@Pedro:

1. It can be but it's still faster to copy from system ram to vram than it is to storage to vram (it's just more juggling).

2. It's more of a worse case scenario in like in the later period PS360 era in games desperate for memory (like Bf3/Crysis3/etc) where PS3 ran into more memory problems than the 360. Of course another example is where the larger memory pool of the X1X allowed it spread it wings a little more on the GPU side.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#191  Edited By ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

@Uruz7laevatein said:

@Pedro:

1. Extra data that is fed from Storage to System RAM to VRAM, duplicate data is there so it doesn't have to be rewritten again from the system RAM by CPU (otherwise precious cycles/bandwidth is spent to rewrite the data again).

2. XSX only has up to 10GB addressable at 560 GB/s addressable to GPU, if it addresses more than you run into performance impact when drawing from slower 6GB pool. PS5 GPU can address more without the CPU to feed it from a separate pool or take a hit. (PS360 scenario)

1. From EA DICE, apples to apple comparison

From https://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/framegraph-extensible-rendering-architecture-in-frostbite lecture.

----

Pre-DX12 version

----

DX12 version with aliasing memory layout

PC DirectX12 (with aliasing memory layout mode) does NOT double copy resource assets.

----

PS4 version

----

XBO version

'

---

PC DirectX12 DirectML metacommands are MS's official hardware access API. DirectX12 DirectML has higher efficiency when compared to Compute Shaders!

AMD's vendor specfic direct hardware access API for gaming PCs.

Loading Video...

RDNA's GCN backwards compatibility is due to AMD's Shader Intrinsics in both PCs (with AMD GCN) and game consoles. NVIDIA's GPUs has Gameworks.

2. When compared to PS3, modern PC GPUs do NOT need workarounds from the CPU (with vector math engines) i.e. the CPU is not rendering raster graphics workloads.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

39081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 66

User Lists: 0

#192 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 39081 Posts

@Uruz7laevatein said:

@Pedro:

1. It can be but it's still faster to copy from system ram to vram than it is to storage to vram (it's just more juggling).

2. It's more of a worse case scenario in like in the later period PS360 era in games desperate for memory (like Bf3/Crysis3/etc) where PS3 ran into more memory problems than the 360. Of course another example is where the larger memory pool of the X1X allowed it spread it wings a little more on the GPU side.

1. Yes! But why would you copy data from the SSD to system RAM only to copy it to the faster RAM when you can just copy it to the faster RAM? You are adding a step that is absolutely unnecessary and a step that no developer would actually do.

2. The PS360 era was working with 512 MB. This is 10GB. I don't see any developer in the foreseeable future running into issues with this. Even if they do, there a methods of alleviating such a issue if it does arrive. Still, we are talking about a scenario in which a game actively needs more than 10GB of VRAM.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23421

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#193  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23421 Posts

@Martin_G_N said:

@04dcarraher: It's not that the PS5 SSD is unimpressive - it's just that it won't be a factor in the way that many imagined it would be, simply because of the way developers approach open-world game design currently"

This...currently. Developers need to work and think differently with fast SSD's. Remember the PS2 days? 4MB video memory, 32MB RAM@3.3GB/s, and 5.3MB/s read speed from the DVD drive. Basically Rockstar and other devs could stream in data from the DVD as you were moving around the city without problems. They could fill up the memory pretty quickly. These generations after, devs would have to duplicate data on both the BD rom and the HDD to get the data transfer speeds up, still it hasn't been easy. To be able to fill up the video memory in 2 sek is pretty impressive. And for some of the less important processes you can probably use it as virtual memory for the CPU, with compression it's faster than DDR2 was. Just imagine how much you can have going on in a open world game, like the random events in GTA.

Ive already stated something like this with PS3 and Xbox 360 where the harddrive and dvd/bluray was able the stream in data quick enough to keep the 512mb pools in both consoles to overcome the lack of memory. People are over hyping the PS5 SSD more than what it really is. People are overlooking the other bottlenecks in the system . Open world RPGs with advanced AI routines and dynamic events will be determined by the speed of the cpu and will introduce artificial boundaries and loading screens.

Avatar image for Uruz7laevatein
Uruz7laevatein

133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#194  Edited By Uruz7laevatein
Member since 2009 • 133 Posts

@Pedro:

1. Depends on what kind data would be prioritized, less prioritized data can be written to vram from storage (i.e. cutscenes). Other things like game logic being fed to vram by CPU are more prioritized. It's matter of balancing.

2. PS360 came out in a time when PCs were running with 2GB of RAM which then spiked up to 8GB then 16GB. Well it's no worse than the "memory issues" on PS5 in a future worse case scenario, it's just that Sony wants to completely avoid a scenario like that ever again (which was more complained about than t3h Cell). It's always ideal to have your computing power always being the main limiter and not some other aspect that gets in the way (of hitting closer peak TFLOPs/performance).

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#195  Edited By ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts
@Pedro said:
@Uruz7laevatein said:

@Pedro:

1. Extra data that is fed from Storage to System RAM to VRAM, duplicate data is there so it doesn't have to be rewritten again from the system RAM by CPU (otherwise precious cycles/bandwidth have to rewrite the data again).

2. XSX only has up to 10GB addressable at 560 GB/s addressable to GPU, if it addresses more than you run into performance impact when drawing from slower 6GB pool. PS5 GPU can address more without the CPU to feed it from a separate pool or take a hit. (PS360 scenario)

1. Storage to VRAM is direct. It doesn't need to copy itself to the slower RAM prior to the faster RAM. That is simply false.

2. I am not sure why you think that 10GB of faster RAM and 3.5GB of slower RAM is going to cause and issue. Developers would simply be task with managing their memory. They have a budget and they work within their memory budget. No one develops a game without constraints in mind. Also both PS5 and Series X can address RAM without the CPU feeding the data into the RAM.

2. PC CPU can feed data to GPU via AGP fast writes protocol which bypass main memory access.

Fast Write is a feature that accelerates memory write transactions from the chipset to the AGP device. Fast Write allows the AGP device act like a PCI device. This allows it to bypass the main memory and directly access the data which improves AGP read performance

PCI-E still supports AGP fast writes protocol since PC CPU still has integrated northbridge with a directly wired PEG 16X slot.

PC CPU can perform compute with main memory access while directly sends resulting data to GPU via AGP Fast Writes (i.e. PCI-E X16 slot aka PCI-E Graphics (PEG) slot). The GPU can use it's superior DMA engines to fetch texture data from system memory. CPU shouldn't be used to push large data sets to the GPU i.e. it's slower.

You need a CPU with AVX-512 scatter function for large scale data writes. At this time, CPU should be handling gameworld simulation with AI and physics can be accelerated via GPU's DirectML and RT cores (includes collision and BHV search tree hardware).

Zen 2's AVX2 has gather instruction which is a larger scale data fetch instruction.

Avatar image for BlackShirt20
BlackShirt20

1642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#196 BlackShirt20
Member since 2005 • 1642 Posts

@tormentos: Please stop. Holy$&@# you are absolutely losing your marbles. You think this SSD is going to be a complete game changer. It’s not. Again, Sony cannot do anything that MS cannot do with the Xbox.

Yes, the SSD is double that of the Xbox Series X. But you’re still talking about a few seconds. There is no magic game or some game world that is only possible on PS5. All games will perform better on Xbox, regardless of game design. Fact. Deal with it.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

30900

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#197 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 30900 Posts

@Pedro:

No is not man,a game that is design to freaking load fast will have problems on a system with slow loading.

Example let's say you will enter a multiplayer,and you have an SSD and I have a 5200rpm HDD,you will load your assets and be ready to go much faster than me,but you can't start alone playing,so you have to wait until I load.

This is one simple example of this.

Why you insist in arguing that something that is develop for 100 different hardwares will perform exactly as good as something done to 1 hardware?

Hell one of the biggest problems GPU had for years was abstraction,windows been easy to code for,but holding back your hardware,even DX12 weren't on the level of the PS4 programing tools for a reason.

If you find a PC hardware with the same specifications as the PS5 hardware and you show me a game made for that hardware that doesn't benefit allot then you have a point,other wise you are assuming and using data which is related to hundreds of storage devices.

Even on PS4 some games don't even benefit at all from SSd and load the same as the slow ass PS4 HDD that should tell you something.

Avatar image for i_p_daily
I_P_Daily

16123

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#198  Edited By I_P_Daily
Member since 2015 • 16123 Posts

I mean this tech talk is great and all but have any of you seen a breast, no not one that is found in a KFC bucket lol.

Avatar image for Martin_G_N
Martin_G_N

1979

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#199 Martin_G_N
Member since 2006 • 1979 Posts

@04dcarraher: Yeah, but that was 512MB RAM, now it's 16GB. 1GB/s SSD wouldn't have made much difference for developers going into next gen with even more detailed worlds. Doing it properly at the start is important. Instead of doing it like MS with the X360 and forcing people to buy a HDD later on to play games because they started with forced install, even though it was sold without one. Just because they cheaped out and didn't include a HDD at the start.

With SSD we also get less data on the disc. I wonder how much of those 100GB of RDR2's data is duplicated to keep the read speed up? The game would probably be around 60-70GB without the duplication. I think first party developers at Sony will be able to do stuff PC developers won't be able to, at least for a few years until games require 32GB RAM to run. They will be able to utilize the memory much more efficiently, and use less time developing the game.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

30900

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#200 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 30900 Posts

@ronvalencia said:

GT6 needs 720p with MLAA to solve most of the more severe frame-rate problems. LOL

For apple to apple comparison with the same workload and artwork processing targets, Xbox 360 beats PS3 in BF3 despite PS3 using SPUs for deferred render lighting.

Unlike GT6, Forza 4 is not using PS2 elements LOL

Try again.

Go cry apple to apples elsewhere Forza Lakc day night racing and dynamic weather for a reason it would hit performance PERIOD,unless you want to argue now that dynamic weather is penalty free.

1440x1080p + weather + night racing vs 720p Forza no weather no night racing you tell me who was doing a hell of allot more.

@Pedro said:

1. Yes! But why would you copy data from the SSD to system RAM only to copy it to the faster RAM when you can just copy it to the faster RAM? You are adding a step that is absolutely unnecessary and a step that no developer would actually do.

2. The PS360 era was working with 512 MB. This is 10GB. I don't see any developer in the foreseeable future running into issues with this. Even if they do, there a methods of alleviating such a issue if it does arrive. Still, we are talking about a scenario in which a game actively needs more than 10GB of VRAM.

Just read man you are not reading.

He is saying that he is not talking about load times in the classic way,he is saying that his assets are HUGE and so are its draw distances but that hard drives can't keep up

If sony doesn't deliver fine,lets burn the village but many of you like always are downplaying this simply because it is from sony.

@BlackShirt20 said:

@tormentos: Please stop. Holy$&@# you are absolutely losing your marbles. You think this SSD is going to be a complete game changer. It’s not. Again, Sony cannot do anything that MS cannot do with the Xbox.

Yes, the SSD is double that of the Xbox Series X. But you’re still talking about a few seconds. There is no magic game or some game world that is only possible on PS5. All games will perform better on Xbox, regardless of game design. Fact. Deal with it.

So 100% +advatage in ssd is nothing but 17% in gpu side is the greatest ever..🤣

How do you know that you you try both consoles to know? Oh you are assuming ok carry on.

I am not sying that sony will do things that are impossible on xbox stop your bitter tears man.