jigglet
Banned
this is a good point. Even 1440 is relatively rare outside the hardcore circles.
Epic sheds light on the data streaming requirements of the Unreal Engine 5 demo
- Thread starter DynamiteCop!
- Start date
this is a good point. Even 1440 is relatively rare outside the hardcore circles.
bitbydeath
Member
No point arguing when you won't accept anything from Epic themselves.
bitbydeath
Member
Epic themselves said that were the case. People are just trying to twist it. Plenty here have called out how the OP is misinterpreting the data.
Dontero
Banned
5,5GB is SEQUENTIAL read when you know everything that will happen like in movie. Game do not operate like this, especially open world games.
Rate of transfer rate for 4k reandom read which is how games usually operate is about 100-200mb/s depending on how new SSD is. Naturally there can be mixed sequential with random read but like i said if sequantial read was so easy to use everyone would be doing this even for HDD let alone SSD because HDD has random 4k read of 0.5-5MB depending on "newness". While sequential transfer rate is about max 60MB/s.
People aren't really dumb to sit on for such "hack" for decades when they literally spend bilions of $$$ trying to get 1% faster something.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
Denying their words sounds a bit tinfoil hat to me. But hey why don't you go ask Tim directly?
Snake29
Banned
This is one of the use cases and we don't know how other devs will utilize this. And OP doesn't seem to remember that Unreal Engine is not the only graphics engine in the world that needs to run on these new consoles.
Last edited:
Stiflers Mom
Banned
Might be, that was certainly not how it was presented here in discussion about "dat SSD" over the last few months.
FranXico
Member
It's excessive for this demo, indeed. Claiming that it would run with any SSD from 5 years ago is a stretch though. It does need something that can push around 1GB/s.
Where has Epic stated outright that the demo couldn't run on the Series X at the same quality? I'd listen to that.
In the absence of that I'm not about to take your pro-Sony interpretation at face value. i know how marketing deals work, what they haven't said may be equally important in this case.
LeftThumbstick
Member
If that's not possible then why did Xbox go with an SSD thats nearly half the speed? Just curious if they were so exact on what they needed, how did the end up on two completely different spec'd SSD's?
That leaves us with either Xbox being completely under spec'd when it comes to i/o and or Sony being way over spec'd... surely theres an ideal middle ground?
Last edited:
TriSuit666
Banned
You're the one assuming, I made no link to the '700-ish mb' issue at hand, but I largely think the issue of it being shown on PS5 is a red herring considering the rest of the video talks about how they're aiming to make UE5 platform agnostic.
vaibhavpisal
Member
This much SSD speed is not required for conventional level traversal that demo had.
Doesn't mean we can't have some cool scenarios using it.
Imagine instant flashback scenes. Will take storytelling to new level.
Doesn't mean we can't have some cool scenarios using it.
Imagine instant flashback scenes. Will take storytelling to new level.
geordiemp
Member
Aceofspades
Banned
This statement can be applied to GPU or any differences between the PS5 and XsX. The thing is SSD has the biggest gap between the two specs wise, otherwise they are pretty similar and both are plenty capable machines.
bitbydeath
Member
PS5 SSD Is 'Far Ahead' of High-End PCs, Epic Games CEO Says - IGN
The PlayStation 5 breakthroughs on SSD and storage are ahead of any PC alternatives.
Stuart360
Member
I love how some of the radicals were accusing Dynamite of fanboying with this, even though its from Epic themselves. We have had 3 or 4 months of the most ludicrous SSD talk on here, with some things said that is beyond bizaare, but now prrof that its all bullshit, from Epic themselves, is 'fanboying and trolling'.
bitbydeath
Member
Just wait for MS's demos. People can then praise or laugh at them then.
ZehDon
Member
What?
You're posting in a thread that posits that the video you're describing expressly proves that you only need 700mb/S I/O streaming to run the PS5 demo.
You're replying to my post where I explain how they don't describe that in the video, where you said "Watch the whole video, they absolutely do".
To which I explained that they don't... and now you're talking about making "UE5 platform agnostic"... when it has been since the PlayStation 3 era.
Sorry, I'm just not following your posts. Did I miss something?
Oddvintagechap
Banned
According to DynamiteCop, PS5's SSD is way too FAST. Imagine if the SSD basically was DDR6 RAM. It would be so fast... SO SO fast. That it would be practically useless. What even is the point of memory improvements.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
If it was burning through huge amounts of data that fast it wouldn't be much of a solution to anything! Also there's the issue that if you wanted to push those sort of numbers keeping the data to be streamed laid out to minimize seek-times and other access latencies inflates the size (stored on disc) even further.
The point of the system Sony have put in place is to allow data stored at any arbitrary position on the SSD to be picked, transferred and unpacked into ram as fast as possible. Its about achieving transfer-rates equivalent to serialized raw data, with packed, scattered fragments and at minimal overhead to cpu/gpu cost.
The point of the system Sony have put in place is to allow data stored at any arbitrary position on the SSD to be picked, transferred and unpacked into ram as fast as possible. Its about achieving transfer-rates equivalent to serialized raw data, with packed, scattered fragments and at minimal overhead to cpu/gpu cost.
Last edited:
John Wick
Member
It's going to be a shocker for some and for others like me not so much, because I've been saying this for months now. I hate to break it to some of you but that demo's data streaming could be handled by a 5 year old SATA SSD.
768MB is the in view streaming requirement on the hardware to handle that demo, 768 MEGABYTES... COMPRESSED. And what was the cost of this on the rendering end?
Well, this is the result...
This confirms everything I've said, not that these SSD's are useless, because they're 100% not. That data streaming would be impossible with mechanical drives, however, and this is a big however. That amount of visual data and asset streaming is already bottlenecking the renderer, it's bringing that GPU to its knees. There's very little cost to the CPU as you will see below, but as noted about 100 different times on this website and scoffed at constantly by detractors; the GPU will always be the limiting factor..
I've maintained this since square one, Microsoft and Sony both went overkill on their SSD's. That amount of I/O increase is not capable of aligning with the rendering pipeline in terms of the on demand volume of data streaming these SSD allow.
So what's the point here? You've got two systems with SSD's far more capable than their usefulness, but one came at a particularly high cost everywhere else in the system. I'll let you figure out which one that is and where.
Sony and Microsoft engineers must be stupid? Developers were requesting a fast SSD as the number one priority. I guess they stupid too.
So what is it you do? Obviously you should be advising Sony and Microsoft because they clueless. I'm always amazed when Neogaf engineers think they know better than actual engineers.
TriSuit666
Banned
Yes, I think you're confusing things, best just to ignore my posts, as I'm acutally not interested in the the SSD fanboy-ism, I'm more excited at the toolchain improvments that UE5 may offer.
cireza
Member
Or it is simply a marketing argument, just like the Emotion Engine and the Cell before.
I asked "Where has Epic stated outright that the demo couldn't run on the Series X at the same quality? I'd listen to that."PS5 SSD Is 'Far Ahead' of High-End PCs, Epic Games CEO Says - IGN
The PlayStation 5 breakthroughs on SSD and storage are ahead of any PC alternatives.www.ign.com
So you link me to an article that says this...
"While Epic wouldn't comment on any potential performance differences between the PS5 and Xbox Series X"
and Geordiemp posts un unhelpful twitter exchange...
Where the 'no' either refers to there not being a large tech difference between the two, or that there is no deal with Sony. Well, we know at least one of those things isn't true.
Either way you two have failed (twice) to supply a direct quote from Epic saying that the UE5 demo wouldn't run just as well on the Series X.
Last edited:
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Sure, that demo didn't show super impressive streaming. The last part with the flying looks cool, but probably doesn't require insane IO speeds.
Now try doing the R&C demo on some old PC SSD. Yes, it could be done, but loading each new world when warping would take 10x as long.
Or something else that actual loads environment data in real time as you're turning around, like Cerny talked about.
We haven't seen anything REALLY take advantage of the full potential of the PS5 SSD yet. That will come. Doesn't mean it's "overkill".
Now try doing the R&C demo on some old PC SSD. Yes, it could be done, but loading each new world when warping would take 10x as long.
Or something else that actual loads environment data in real time as you're turning around, like Cerny talked about.
We haven't seen anything REALLY take advantage of the full potential of the PS5 SSD yet. That will come. Doesn't mean it's "overkill".
bitbydeath
Member
Yes. The article I linked refers to PC but XSX isn't better than PC.
funking giblet
Member
archangelmorph
Gold Member
It's going to be a shocker for some and for others like me not so much, because I've been saying this for months now. I hate to break it to some of you but that demo's data streaming could be handled by a 5 year old SATA SSD.
768MB is the in view streaming requirement on the hardware to handle that demo, 768 MEGABYTES... COMPRESSED. And what was the cost of this on the rendering end?
Well, this is the result...
This confirms everything I've said, not that these SSD's are useless, because they're 100% not. That data streaming would be impossible with mechanical drives, however, and this is a big however. That amount of visual data and asset streaming is already bottlenecking the renderer, it's bringing that GPU to its knees. There's very little cost to the CPU as you will see below, but as noted about 100 different times on this website and scoffed at constantly by detractors; the GPU will always be the limiting factor..
I've maintained this since square one, Microsoft and Sony both went overkill on their SSD's. That amount of I/O increase is not capable of aligning with the rendering pipeline in terms of the on demand volume of data streaming these SSD allow.
So what's the point here? You've got two systems with SSD's far more capable than their usefulness, but one came at a particularly high cost everywhere else in the system. I'll let you figure out which one that is and where.
Pure ignorance.
The 768MB working set of RAM dedicated to nanite streaming is so small, precisely because the I/O bandwidth is so high + they could leverage dedicated hardware compression.
What this means is you have a shit ton of headroom for everything else:
- Lumen acceleration structures, shaders, materials, BDRFs
- Non-nanite assets (mirror-reflective or translucent assets, skinned assets etc)
- Animation data, collision data, auxiliary physics data
- Audio data, gameplay scripts
- Niagra data, scripts, materials, anim data
- Everything else a modern game may need
Without the kind of I/O bandwidth next gen consoles provide that 768MB would likely be something like ~12-18GB to make up for the extreme latency, in-order to ensure you can stream the data to make available for rendering.
Last edited:
DarkestHour
Banned
I don't think they went overkill on anything other than the bullshit hype like it's some radical new tech that will bring anything new to the table.
Ascend
Member
Ok ok... Just throwing this out there... The streaming pool is the amount of textures that you are keeping in RAM, to stream to the GPU. The streaming pool size of 768MB is specifically for nanite, which means all the rest leaves your RAM free to load a bunch of other stuff into RAM. The slower your storage, the larger your streaming pool needs to be. If they are working to lower this size further, it means they can still squeeze more out of the storage transfer speeds.
The real amount of streaming from SSD to RAM can unfortunately not be derived from this. At least, not without some calculations to estimate it, and as of now, I don't have time to do this estimation.
The real amount of streaming from SSD to RAM can unfortunately not be derived from this. At least, not without some calculations to estimate it, and as of now, I don't have time to do this estimation.
Last edited:
Darius87
Member
This thread is all wrong because streaming in the picture says NANITE that's just for 1 type of assets which is NANITE which is geometry and geometry is meshes(triangles) which takes 768mb per POV to stream if you include textures, audio anything else data for streaming would be much higher.It's going to be a shocker for some and for others like me not so much, because I've been saying this for months now. I hate to break it to some of you but that demo's data streaming could be handled by a 5 year old SATA SSD.
768MB is the in view streaming requirement on the hardware to handle that demo, 768 MEGABYTES... COMPRESSED. And what was the cost of this on the rendering end?
Well, this is the result...
This confirms everything I've said, not that these SSD's are useless, because they're 100% not. That data streaming would be impossible with mechanical drives, however, and this is a big however. That amount of visual data and asset streaming is already bottlenecking the renderer, it's bringing that GPU to its knees. There's very little cost to the CPU as you will see below, but as noted about 100 different times on this website and scoffed at constantly by detractors; the GPU will always be the limiting factor..
I've maintained this since square one, Microsoft and Sony both went overkill on their SSD's. That amount of I/O increase is not capable of aligning with the rendering pipeline in terms of the on demand volume of data streaming these SSD allow.
So what's the point here? You've got two systems with SSD's far more capable than their usefulness, but one came at a particularly high cost everywhere else in the system. I'll let you figure out which one that is and where.
Makoto-Yuki
Banned
The whole SSD thing is just marketing bullshit that people have fell for.
SSD is great and I'm happy consoles are gonna use it but it's not a "game changer" in the slightest. It will allow better performance in games, of course, in terms of faster loading times and quicker asset streaming but that's it.
I blame Sony for this. Everyone thinks the SSD will be some magical thing that will make games a mind blowing experience. As good as SSDs are...they will just make things feel a bit snappier and smoother.
It was no wonder developers asked for SSD but Sony, it seems, took that and fucking ran with it. They put in a beefed up SSD and skimped on the rest. There really was no need for it. Microsoft has the more balanced specs. Instead of going crazy with SSD they put in a reasonable one and managed to get a better GPU, faster cpu, and of course a more efficient cooling system.
SSD is great and I'm happy consoles are gonna use it but it's not a "game changer" in the slightest. It will allow better performance in games, of course, in terms of faster loading times and quicker asset streaming but that's it.
I blame Sony for this. Everyone thinks the SSD will be some magical thing that will make games a mind blowing experience. As good as SSDs are...they will just make things feel a bit snappier and smoother.
It was no wonder developers asked for SSD but Sony, it seems, took that and fucking ran with it. They put in a beefed up SSD and skimped on the rest. There really was no need for it. Microsoft has the more balanced specs. Instead of going crazy with SSD they put in a reasonable one and managed to get a better GPU, faster cpu, and of course a more efficient cooling system.
JeloSWE
Member
You clearly don't understand how Lumen works. It' only uses low resolution Voxels for far away geometry, closer up and medium sized ones uses Signed Distance Fields and the the finer details uses Screen Space GI. Also the GI has infinite bounces by doing a new bounce each frame and constantly accumulating over time. This solution will require little to NO effort on the artists side and will just work. They are aiming for 60fps on next gen and is very likely an achievable target.
The Hamburglar
Banned
Xbox fans just love to hear their machine choice is slightly more graphically capable. Any bit of news that confirms what we already know makes them orgasm.
While a faster ssd might improve other aspects, the ps5 will never match series x graphically regardless of the secret sauce drive.
Only mongoloids would care about native 4K over 1440p or 1800p. As time and time again we see how much of a waste 4K is in terms of resources.
While a faster ssd might improve other aspects, the ps5 will never match series x graphically regardless of the secret sauce drive.
Only mongoloids would care about native 4K over 1440p or 1800p. As time and time again we see how much of a waste 4K is in terms of resources.
Psykodad
Banned
As far as I can follow all the tech discussions, these two posts are the only ones that seem to make sense (compared to OP) and seem to fall in line with what Cerny explained during Road to PS5:
That PS5 architecture (specifically the SSD) is designed to reduce the need for RAM keep a pool reserved. Freeing up RAM for all other tasks.
Also, nobody said the tech-demo can't run on other platforms. The entire point of UE5 is to make it scale automatically to match the hardware capabilities.
Last edited:
oldergamer
Member
its almost like when people won't accept anything from microsoft themselves.
funking giblet
Member
There are 30-60 frames in a game, per second!so with no compression at all, the Series X could load the required data per second ~3.5 times and about 6 times or more when actually using compression.
BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT ONLY THE PS5 CAN DO THAT!
You read the thread, and watched the video and this is your take?
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
Well Mate that's how discussion works. One side brings up a point supported by something, then the other side disputes it with points supported by something.
Throwing insults without substance comes off as fanboyism. Guys like you are the ones who have hyped up the PS5 SSD system and act like the MS SSD system is a mouse on a wheel with cheese. He presents facts from a video by Epic, one that has new information, and you presented none.
JeloSWE
Member
You are double quoting the sama post
Thugnificient
Banned
Can you post the direct quote you're referring to?
Psykodad
Banned
Lol yeah, thanks for pointing it out. Fixed it.
Faithless83
Banned
Wasn't the 768mb value the ram usage due to the SSD stream being so fast?
Am I the only one that understood it that way? Can we have one of the "tech guys" to clarify this?
EDIT: looks like @
archangelmorph
saw it too.
Am I the only one that understood it that way? Can we have one of the "tech guys" to clarify this?
EDIT: looks like @
archangelmorph
saw it too.
Last edited:
funking giblet
Member
No, it works like this.
Someone "matter of factly" misrepresents the "facts" as you say, while fanboys quote it and +1 it. It's terrible.
I especially love the "Ha, just as I predicted" overtones. As if anyone cares
funking giblet
Member
Generally having a smaller pool of any resource is a Good Thing. Whether that is a pre-allocated resource, or a enumeration of things like, connections and so forth. The idea is you use them up as quickly as possible and return them to / reuse the pool. It conserves the underlying resource.
Last edited:
losslessFlac
Member
Okay, but that's just Nanite. What is the read bandwidth that is demanded during a typical gaming session?