Sony's SSD

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

1 minute ago, lynux3 said:

Look at it this way... if the PS5 was 2.4GB/s raw throughput and the XSX was 5.5GB/s raw throughput the PS5's SSD would only be a "paltry" 2.4GB/s in comparison and developers would love it.  

Or look at it the way I said it and not like a fucking idiot as you are. 

[lynux3 2,067]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

Or look at it the way I said it and not like a fucking idiot as you are. 

Pick my poison I guess... look like a fucking idiot as you say or look at it the way you said and look like a bigger fucking idiot.  

[Remij 4,672]

2 hours ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Well is it though? I mean if Microsoft's system is already loading things up near or instantaneously wouldn't that basically just be clout for the sake of clout and not actually a useful performance figure? It's 2x faster, but what does that actually mean in all reality? 2x faster relative to something that's already insanely fast seems like a gigantic diminished return. 

 

@Remij_ Curious what you think about this as well. 

Here's what I think:

 

First... it's important to remember... these are sequential read speeds...  random reads are far more important... so It's not necessarily true to say that one will have 2x the capability over the other in actual practice.  With sequential reads performance, you're talking more about moving large sets of sequential data.. like copying files.  So I don't think it's an accurate, definite measure of 2x the performance in all cases.

 

But for arguments sake...

 

2.5GBs/5GBs is already a MONUMENTAL leap over current platforms that I don't think any developer is really going to be restricted by storage throughput this coming gen.

 

For 3rd parties... I doubt PS5 is really going to be doing anything with that 2x bandwidth outside of faster loading times... and I've already said at that point it's basically like 2 sec loading vs 5 sec... not nearly as big of a deal as it would be if it was like 15sec vs 30sec.  I think there's already more than enough bandwidth there on both consoles that you're going to have entire levels loaded in on the fly, so what's possible on one, will be possible on the other, and there's not going to be any real palpable difference.

 

For 1st parties... I think Sony's studios will do some impressive stuff with that extra bandwidth.  I still struggle to think of what could be done with one that isn't really possible on the other... as I think a lot of developers would.  But the best of the best out there will obviously find ways to put that bandwidth to use.  I can imagine Sony studios doing things that really push it... such as say having a game with 2 or more worlds that you have to switch between on the fly to solve puzzles and shit, and watch the entire game world change before your eyes instantly.  Being able to stream that data in almost instantly could allow developers to have multiple world states ready to access at any time.  

 

I still think all that stuff is possible on MS' machine too though.. so I dunno.  They're both huge advancements over what has come before.

 

We don't really know the whole picture yet though.  They both have 16GB of RAM.. 13.5 is available on Series X, with 10GB of that being a bit higher bandwidth than what's on the PS5 and 3.5GB being a bit slower.  We still don't know exactly how much of that RAM on PS5 will be usable by the developers. (or at least as far as I know)  So it could be that Series X has slightly more RAM to use.. or possibly slightly less.  Both consoles have new hardware capability in how polygons are drawn and culled, new technologies requiring FAR less memory to be required to store textures as they'll only load the part of the texture visible at a given mip level.

 

Everything is all MUCH more efficient across the board.  Both will be fucking fantastic.

[Remij 4,672]

24 minutes ago, lynux3 said:

First thing Mark Cerny came out and said was, "developers number one request was a faster SSD" and yet you can't comprehend how developers will utilize 5.5GB/s of raw throughput; followed by wishful thinking.

 

A faster SSD... instead of a harddrive... not "a faster SSD than the Series X".... just an important distinction.  

Edited March 19, 2020 by Remij_

[lynux3 2,067]

Just now, Remij_ said:

A faster SSD... instead of a harddrive... not "a faster SSD than the Series X".... just an important distinction.  

True, but you get the picture. Developers wanted faster storage period.

[jehurey 3,230]

I think a game with fast motion in loading the environment is going to benefit from this feature.

 

I think this will be a perfect opportunity for car driving games to show off what its all about.

[Purist 134]

So it comes down to 15% power difference vs 100% speed difference. Personally, I'll take the speed.

[Remij 4,672]

4 minutes ago, lynux3 said:

True, but you get the picture. Developers wanted faster storage period.

Yep.  Devs always want more.  It might not always translate into a palpable difference though.  In a lot of cases I could see that extra bandwidth basically just be a method of removing the stress of managing memory very efficiently from the developer.. making life easier for them as they have so much bandwidth that they can just kinda brute force it.

 

[lynux3 2,067]

24 minutes ago, Pureis said:

So it comes down to 15% power difference vs 100% speed difference. Personally, I'll take the speed.

At the end of the day this is what it comes down to.

 

24 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

Yep.  Devs always want more.  It might not always translate into a palpable difference though.  In a lot of cases I could see that extra bandwidth basically just be a method of removing the stress of managing memory very efficiently from the developer.. making life easier for them as they have so much bandwidth that they can just kinda brute force it.

 

Pretty much. The only negligible difference for 3rd parties will be load times with the occasional studio who gets the wild hair to take more advantage of each system's capabilities.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

38 minutes ago, Pureis said:

So it comes down to 15% power difference vs 100% speed difference. Personally, I'll take the speed.

It's not a 15% power difference, you have no fucking idea what you're saying. 

 

• 10.28 TF is at the PS5's PEAK boost, i.e. it won't be sustained and will ride in the 9's.
• 3.5Ghz is the PS5's PEAK CPU boost, i.e. it won't be sustained. 

 

• 12.155 TF is sustained on the Series X
• 3.6Ghz/3.8Ghz is sustained on the Series X
• Series X has 44% more CU's i.e. 44% more RT hardware coupled to the shaders

 

It's a substantially more capable piece of hardware. 

[lynux3 2,067]

42 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

It's not a 15% power difference, you have no fucking idea what you're saying. 

 

• 10.28 TF is at the PS5's PEAK boost, i.e. it won't be sustained and will ride in the 9's.
• 3.5Ghz is the PS5's PEAK CPU boost, i.e. it won't be sustained. 

 

• 12.155 TF is sustained on the Series X
• 3.6Ghz/3.8Ghz is sustained on the Series X
• Series X has 44% more CU's i.e. 44% more RT hardware coupled to the shaders

 

It's a substantially more capable piece of hardware. 

Mark Cerny said that he expects PS5's GPU to operate at 2.23GHz "most of the time". He also said they get better performance with fewer CUs at higher frequency from occupancy for the equivalent ALU TF sum. This just tells me that it was the design choice from the beginning so now I really expect an "exotic" thermal solution to keep temperatures in check. The way I see it is that it essentially means PS5 and XSX can't be compared 1:1 in terms of TF which is not something I expected.

 

The most damning thing still is how insane his SSD design is. 12 fuckin' channels @ 5.5GB/s raw, 8-9GB/s compressed, 22GB/s uncompressed. Additionally, they still went ahead and pulled the trigger with standard NVMe support... pretty ballsy, but the best move for consumers. I expect Sony to work with vendors to label PS5 compatible NVMe SSDs or Sony repackaging them as PlayStation branded ones.

 

The reality is how does this translate into the real world? What is the true average of the CPU/GPU frequency? The peak boost figure is just that... a peak boost figure at which the system can operate continuously until thermals kick in or SmartShift starts pulling power (like its supposed to do).

[jehurey 3,230]

That Digital Foundry video explained that the 10.28 TF is a "constant boost" mode, so its jumping in and out of boost at a constant rate.

 

And I don't if I understood their description of the hardware cooling, but they said that performance will be constant in every environment, like as if the CPU and GPU is operating in an enclosed controlled environment and outside ambient temperature does not affect it.

 

So, like its own mini-environment? If that's the case, its very exotic what they are doing with the cooling solution.

[lynux3 2,067]

33 minutes ago, jehurey said:

That Digital Foundry video explained that the 10.28 TF is a "constant boost" mode, so its jumping in and out of boost at a constant rate.

 

And I don't if I understood their description of the hardware cooling, but they said that performance will be constant in every environment, like as if the CPU and GPU is operating in an enclosed controlled environment and outside ambient temperature does not affect it.

 

So, like its own mini-environment? If that's the case, its very exotic what they are doing with the cooling solution.

I'll have to watch it. I'm behind.

[madmaltese★ 2,555]

We already know what every DF thread next gen is going to be. Dyno trying to convince everyone that a 20% TF difference is massive and such a huge upgrade while a 100% SSD difference is negligible and hardly noticeable  

[Playstation Tablet 1,725]

8-9 Gbps SSD transfer rate is so insane, I really believe in it acting as "virtual ram" for scenes with controlled cameras speeds.

[TLHBO 2,162]

7 hours ago, Goukosan said:

Not translate to much? 

 

bigger worlds, more dynamic worlds, more detailed worlds etc.... that's considered not much now? 

 

 

I don’t care for technical jibber jabber but the fact that Deeno has said this wont amount to much basically confirms it’s going to be HUGE  he’s been wrong about everything else so far, I don’t see why he would stop now.

[lynux3 2,067]

2 minutes ago, TLHBO said:

I don’t care for technical jibber jabber but the fact that Deeno has said this wont amount to much basically confirms it’s going to be HUGE  he’s been wrong about everything else so far, I don’t see why he would stop now.

Exactly.  

[Remij 4,672]

3 hours ago, lynux3 said:

Mark Cerny said that he expects PS5's GPU to operate at 2.23GHz "most of the time". He also said they get better performance with fewer CUs at higher frequency from occupancy for the equivalent ALU TF sum. This just tells me that it was the design choice from the beginning so now I really expect an "exotic" thermal solution to keep temperatures in check. The way I see it is that it essentially means PS5 and XSX can't be compared 1:1 in terms of TF which is not something I expected.

 

The most damning thing still is how insane his SSD design is. 12 fuckin' channels @ 5.5GB/s raw, 8-9GB/s compressed, 22GB/s uncompressed. Additionally, they still went ahead and pulled the trigger with standard NVMe support... pretty ballsy, but the best move for consumers. I expect Sony to work with vendors to label PS5 compatible NVMe SSDs or Sony repackaging them as PlayStation branded ones.

 

The reality is how does this translate into the real world? What is the true average of the CPU/GPU frequency? The peak boost figure is just that... a peak boost figure at which the system can operate continuously until thermals kick in or SmartShift starts pulling power (like its supposed to do).

lol wut?  22GB/s uncompressed?  lmao... where are you getting that?

[lynux3 2,067]

3 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

lol wut?  22GB/s uncompressed?  lmao... where are you getting that?

Do the math, learn something. I already held your hand once, not anymore.

[Playstation Tablet 1,725]

Cerny's arguement is high clocks with less CUs to hit the same tflop gives higher performance because it makes other parts of the GPU operate faster.

 

Then we hear about number of CUs and ray tracing. Something is really off.