Support NeoGAF

[Dodkrake]

How do you think Quick Resume works?

I'll bite this one. It likely stores a "savestate" on the SSD which basically captures when the game is at the moment and all the textures, audio, etc. When you request the savestate, it loads in RAM. How fast is quick resume?

 

[jroc74]

I'll bite this one. It likely stores a "savestate" on the SSD which basically captures when the game is at the moment and all the textures, audio, etc. When you request the savestate, it loads in RAM. How fast is quick resume?

I agree with this.

I hope ppl dont think its unloading and reloading everything in the game from scratch....

Thats why comparing Quick Resume to game design is flawed to begin with. Quick Resume is save states, suspend/resume on steroids.

 

[reksveks]

I'll bite this one. It likely stores a "savestate" on the SSD which basically captures when the game is at the moment and all the textures, audio, etc. When you request the savestate, it loads in RAM. How fast is quick resume?

It wasn't a trick question but yeah, it dumps the memory to the ssd and that's its. It doesn't leave anything on the ram which is why it works after you disconnect your console.

My quick resume is kinda broken so that's something that they need to improve so can't really tell you what the time takes on average.

Comparing QR and a game design opportunity is inherently wrong.

I also think the other thing that Sony is great at is making the right decisions in terms of making games feel faster to load from the skippable starts, pre-loading some stuff to the animations around loading. It feels a more magic UX (feel like an apple salesman...)

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Because you desperately want to put XSX SSD on par with PS5 SSD. 6 or so is max. nothing more, nothing less. Cheers!

No, now you're just inventing things you wish I said. 6GB/s is the raw capabilities of the decompression hardware, not the Xbox SSD.

The maximum raw performance of the Series X SSD is 2.4GB/s. The guaranteed minimum raw speed at all times is 2GB/s when the OS or hardware may be doing some kind of maintenance across a 250ms window.

With compression the Series X SSD can achieve an effective 4.8GB/s. Not raw speed, just effective speed due to the benefits of texture compression. You toss in Sampler Feedback Streaming's 2.5x without compression and you're looking at an effective 5GB/s for Series X SSD, assuming the absolute minimum 2GB/s for the SSD. It would be 6GB/s effective with SFS at its rated max raw speed of 2.4GB/s.

Just like the theoretical high for the PS5 SSD with kraken decompression as stated by Cerny can reach as high as 22GB/s. That's effective speed thanks to compression, that isn't the SSD of the PS5 actually hitting 22GB for real, just as it also doesn't hit 8-9GB/s for real, but only after effective performance boosts through kraken decompression.

Here is a Microsoft graphics engineer who works on this stuff already stating Series X's ability to achieve performance equivalent to an "effective" 12GB/s



You're trying to spin like I'm saying the Series X SSD goes up to 6GB. I said no such thing and neither has Microsoft. Yes, they've stated their SSD can burst higher, but they've stated since the beginning they have only ever been comfortable telling people the expected real world figures rather than talking about a theoretical max figure. The reason for mentioning their decompression hardware's ability to deliver over 6GB/s is to highlight that in comparison to the notably slower SSD, you can be assured that decompression capability will never be a bottleneck in the Series X because it far outstrips the performance of the actual Series X SSD, which can only ever achieve 2.4GB/s raw and 4.8GB/s effective with compression.

If you think Series X SSD can't deliver performance beyond its raw spec with the tech Microsoft has in place, have a look for yourself. Remember Cerny's road to PS5 example of the PS5 being able to load 2GB in just 0.27 seconds?

Here is Microsoft doing the last gen equivalent of 2.68GB with sampler feedback streaming on Series X more than once in real-time in just 0.19 seconds & 0.17 seconds.

With SFS Series X never has to load anything close to 2.68GB into RAM. It instead loads just 565MB while using just 512MB of that.



Even in the optimized gen9 equivalent a lot more RAM is required, closer to 1.57GB, which Microsoft confirms is unrealistically efficient compared to what an actual game will be like, but even giving gen9 an unrealistic advantage, SFS on Series X still comes out 2.9x better than the gen 9 console streaming system with SSD.

I'm only using the information Microsoft has provided. If we can take Sony engineers and devs working on PS5 at their word, then we can take Microsoft engineers and devs working on Series X at their word. We already have the Dirt 5 technical director stating they can load FAR more data into RAM than what people think is possible with Series X, and he can do it without using compression, so take that for what it's worth.

Here it goes from an actual game experienced technical director of a major studio.

Dirt 5 PS5 Haptics Will Be Redone; Dev Says Series X I/O Can Push Over 5GB/s Uncompressed

Dirt 5 Technical Director David Springate talked about his experience with Xbox Series X fast storage and said PS5 haptics will be redone.

wccftech.com

We look at all of these things all of the time. I can't promise which stuff is going to come in future patches, because we have to balance loads of different things, but it might. That's the best I can do. In terms of fast storage on Series X, I think that hardware is great, I worked on it with Microsoft early on and provided some feedback to them. I looked at the speed that we could get from it, you can get 10GB in two seconds in my personal early tests, it may well be able to do way better than that.

And that was without the compression in the hardware, that was just raw.

Man said he can do 10GB in two seconds on Series X in his personal tests and said this was RAW without compression. Obviously Xbox Series X's I/O can is a bit better than you think, and there are actual industry experts who back that up. You're all too willing to accept praise on the PS5 side of things, but not as willing to accept it for Xbox Series X. It's "just marketing" when it's Xbox, am I right?

 

[SlimySnake]

There are some big, obvious features we can see in terms of the benefits of the PS5, like the fast load times or the rifts that pull you into a parallel world immediately. But are there any examples of smaller, less obvious things that are cool or that you’re really proud of that wouldn’t have been possible on the PS4?

With the SSD, it’s easy to say there are no load times, and look how fast we can load this other area, but it has all sorts of knock-on effects. ..... We unload the things literally behind you from a camera perspective. If you spun the camera around, we could load them before you see that. That lets us devote all of our system memory to the stuff in front of you right now, that you need to experience in that moment.

This is something Cerny talked about. Literally loading something into RAM as you turn the camera around. This should free up a lot of VRAM going forward. I wonder if this will give PS5 ports an edge since it will allow devs to cram in more detail in vram compared to the xsx and especially the xss.

It also begs the question of whether or not this 10 tflops GPU will act as a bottleneck when there is so much stuff in VRAM for it to render. It's great that the VRAM can house extra detail compared to the XSX, but can the GPU render it without a performance penalty?

 

[IntentionalPun]

Pretty sure it’s to do with the amount of memory reserved for the OS MS has already revealed, I think 3.5 gbs.

That's not for quick resume... console OS's take up a few GB...

Also think you are wrong either way? Isn't it 2.5GB? Isn't that less than PS5? Not that either is some bad number..

 

[SenjutsuSage]

For the SFS info, sorry, but that's not entirely correct. SFS does not apply to all data (audio is excluded, for example), and the 2.5X figure is likely an unrealistic scenario (more below on the PS5 section). Even so, this means that with certain data pools (let's say, 1GB), you can request 500MB instead of the total amount (or less), which can then be further compressed. The thing is, the decompression block only allows 4.8GB/s per MS's own data. This means that you can only decompress 4.8GB of data. Other anecdotal data points to "over 6GB/s", but that was not on the technical docs.

As for the PS5, it allows for a data throughput of 5.5GB/s without any compression. The decompression block allows for 22GB/s. This means you can throw 22GB of compressed data at it and it can decompress it in 1s (probably never gonna happen). With Kraken + Oodle Texture, they are seeing real world results of over 17GB/s of compressed data. Even in best case scenarios, the PS5 is close to twice as fast, and real world as shown it to be (when games are optimized for both platforms) 2 to 4x faster.

I'm ONLY ever comparing to TEXTURE data whenever I bring up Sampler Feedback Streaming. Textures are the biggest consumer of memory in games. Don't confuse my meaning. I've always stressed I'm referring to textures when I bring up sampler feedback streaming. Series X uses a different form of compression, Zlib (RFC 1950) for other types of data.

 

[onesvenus]

It's all about feeding the RAM/GPU caches, how fast you push them out and in PER FRAME! That demo was very light on the GPU, but was choking the whole 16GB RAM of the PS5. Stop trolling and being obtuse, it's not about GPU as PS5 isn't more powerful than most high end PC's!




This is SOLELY SSD>GPU feed.

Me trolling or being obtuse? You were saying that the Xbox could only render 4/5M polygons, and I was answering to that specifically, not about how fast the RAM was filled.
My point is that if you have everything in RAM, the number of polygons you are able to draw per frame (or PER FRAME if you want to shout) do not depend on that in any way.
In the best case, guessing the number of polygons Xbox is able to push only taking the I/O rate is wrong, In the worst case, saying there'll be a 4x to 5x difference in polygon budgets due to the I/O rate is trolling and doesn't make sense at all.

Now, leaving Bo aside, looking at the Ratchet previews, which look awesome, I want to point something out. People like him has been saying PS%'s I/O throughput will remove LOD transitions completely. I've said multiple times that won't necessarily be true as you might want to reduce polygonal detail on some objects to allow the GPU to do other things. Well, see LOD transitions in Ratchet and Clankon top of that flying monster on two consecutive frames of this video

 

[Finem Orientis]

─ I was surprised by the quality of the PS5 games. How do you think the game will evolve with the next generation of consoles?

I'm happy to say that the games are getting better with each new hardware generation. However, the quality of this game on PS5 is just the tip of the iceberg. Until now, game design has been a battle against the memory capacity of the hardware. What can be done within the limited memory capacity was one of the main pillars of game design, but that is no longer the case. In the future, when engines optimized for the PS5's structure come out, game design will change even more. (Mike Daly)

In the past, there were restrictions on the types of enemies that could appear in a stage, for example, if you wanted to have six different types of enemies, you could only use three. In this PS5 game, you can use as many enemies as you want in any stage you want, so the game design has changed quite a bit. (Adam Noonchester)

https://blog.ja.playstation.com/2021/05/12/20210512-ratchet/

 

[IntentionalPun]

I'm ONLY ever comparing to TEXTURE data whenever I bring up Sampler Feedback Streaming. Textures are the biggest consumer of memory in games. Don't confuse my meaning. I've always stressed I'm referring to textures when I bring up sampler feedback streaming. Series X uses a different form of compression, Zlib (RFC 1950) for other types of data.

Why are you ignoring my post about how Microsoft essentially outright said that they weren't comparing against PRT?

PS5 can likely perform some sort of PRT.. with much faster RAW/compressed data handling.

MS's solution appears slick.. and might outdo PS5 on some PRT specific things.. or PS5 could do something even better with it's more advanced caches.

We really don't know, as MS was comparing against last-gen streaming, and not PRT-based streaming (as it wasn't really used, despite it being the big buzz word.) And we don't know anything about PRT on PS5 because Sony hasn't specifically mentioned it... but considering their SDK supported it on PS4, and Sony's focus on i/o perf, it would be an odd omission.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Because Matt was one of the few basically saying the opposite in general terms?

Matt is one of the few that I would trust with their info, even if I didnt agree with it.

He never gave a number, just a percentage, and he always said XSX.

"Matt" has been wrong time and time again, and he still amazingly comes up in these discussions as a reputable source. Did he not say things about a PS5 smart delivery alternative that have thus far not proven remotely true? And it gets much worse from there, but I don't dig down that rabbit hole again. Why are we to take his word over what actual game developers and engineers say on either the xbox or playstation side? He has never shown himself to be anything other than heavily bias. At least when sony developers and microsoft developers do it, they actually bring some weight of experience and knowledge with them.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Me trolling or being obtuse? You were saying that the Xbox could only render 4/5M polygons, and I was answering to that specifically, not about how fast the RAM was filled.
My point is that if you have everything in RAM, the number of polygons you are able to draw per frame (or PER FRAME if you want to shout) do not depend on that in any way.
In the best case, guessing the number of polygons Xbox is able to push only taking the I/O rate is wrong, In the worst case, saying there'll be a 4x to 5x difference in polygon budgets due to the I/O rate is trolling and doesn't make sense at all.

Now, leaving Bo aside, looking at the Ratchet previews, which look awesome, I want to point something out. People like him has been saying PS%'s I/O throughput will remove LOD transitions completely. I've said multiple times that won't necessarily be true as you might want to reduce polygonal detail on some objects to allow the GPU to do other things. Well, see LOD transitions in Ratchet and Clankon top of that flying monster on two consecutive frames

Could you please point out WHEN DID I SAY RENDER!

And yes, Xbox can scale it down from 20 million polygons per frame to something manageable like 4-5 million polygons per frame to run the same demo.

Just admit it and take the L and move on. The RAM, SSD, and I/O can't keep up with pulling 20M polygons per 1ms!!! So it can go from 30-60fps while standing still to 1fps in motion, not because of GPU, but BECAUSE OF HOW IT CAN'T STREAM 20 MILLION POLYGONS PER 1ms (30fps) or 0.5ms (60fps)!

 

[IntentionalPun]

Me trolling or being obtuse? You were saying that the Xbox could only render 4/5M polygons, and I was answering to that specifically, not about how fast the RAM was filled.
My point is that if you have everything in RAM, the number of polygons you are able to draw per frame (or PER FRAME if you want to shout) do not depend on that in any way.
In the best case, guessing the number of polygons Xbox is able to push only taking the I/O rate is wrong, In the worst case, saying there'll be a 4x to 5x difference in polygon budgets due to the I/O rate is trolling and doesn't make sense at all.

You need to look into Nanite though.. it's all about streaming those micro-polygon models w/o needing that much GPU power.

Nanite geometry is streamed and scaled in real time so there are no more polygon count budgets, polygon memory budgets, or draw count budgets; there is no need to bake details to normal maps or manually author LODs; and there is no loss in quality.

The thing is I don't think the UE5 demo actually ever had 20 million polygons on screen.. their goal is to get down to 1 poly per pixel, and they say they were more like 2-3... and the demo was rendered at 1440p, which has 3.6 million pixels. The MODELS themselves were scaled to 4k fidelity for storage on disk, those then become the source models for their scaling technology... I think those source models were more like 20million polys in a given view.

What we don't know truly is how much streaming speed was really REQUIRED for the demo. We haven't seen any numbers.. just vague statements.

We do know their cache was really small, which is pretty crazy.. under 1GB.. so the rest of whatever memory it was using was for the scene.. but was it using all of PS5's RAM? If it was.. then the XSX likely couldn't fill the cache fast enough for what was shown. But it wouldn't result in that much of a quality drop.

If PS5 uses ~750MB cache (it was something like this) that means the scene is tuned to have to fill that quickly.. if Xbox can fill the cache at 1/3rd the speed for instance.. than the cache would need to be 2250 on Xbox.

SO it has 1500MB less RAM for what is on screen.

SO if on PS5 it was 12GB for rendering, 750 for cache.. on XSX it would be 9.5GB for rendering, 2260 cache or something like that.

So it would have about 25% less RAM for what is in view.. so maybe 25% less polygons.

 

[IntentionalPun]

The above was just pulled out of my ass, but logically I think it might be correct.

But be warned I'm just drinking my first cup of coffee.

 

[SlimySnake]

https://blog.ja.playstation.com/2021/05/12/20210512-ratchet/

I remember ND talking about how their animations in Uncharted were limited because of PS3's split ram architecture. I figured with the PS4 going up to 5 GB of RAM those kind of restrictions were a thing of the past. Just goes to show that even a 16x boost in RAM last gen wasnt enough, but the SSD is able to let them do mroe with just a 2x increase in RAM this gen.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Nope, because in order to start decompression in the XsX case (and PC too), the i/o cycle (read loop from ssd) must be completed. Otherwise, we will get unnecessary overhead and delay for GPU rendering. The i/o of XsX system, although it is unconditionally very fast, is far from the PS5 level, it's time to understand this and stop arguing.

Nope, you're not getting a pass with that piece of misinformation my friend. It decompresses directly into memory, just like the PS5 does. Do you not also realize that there are key differences in how Directstorage works on Series X compared to how it will work on PC? They are not exactly the same. Go actually read up on it. This overhead and delay for GPU rendering you speak of on Series X isn't there.

I've yet to see how it's FAR from PS5 level. All evidence suggests otherwise. Sampler Feedback Streaming real-time demo, actual technical directors stating they can move 10GB in 2 seconds into RAM without the compression hardware.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

You need to look into Nanite though.. it's all about streaming those micro-polygon models w/o needing that much GPU power.



The thing is I don't think the UE5 demo actually ever had 20 million polygons on screen.. their goal is to get down to 1 poly per pixel, and they say they were more like 2-3... and the demo was rendered at 1440p, which has 3.6 million pixels. The MODELS themselves were scaled to 4k fidelity for storage on disk, those then become the source models for their scaling technology... I think those source models were more like 20million polys in a given view.

What we don't know truly is how much streaming speed was really REQUIRED for the demo. We haven't seen any numbers.. just vague statements.

We do know their cache was really small, which is pretty crazy.. under 1GB.. so the rest of whatever memory it was using was for the scene.. but was it using all of PS5's RAM? If it was.. then the XSX likely couldn't fill the cache fast enough for what was shown. But it wouldn't result in that much of a quality drop.

If PS5 uses ~750MB cache (it was something like this) that means the scene is tuned to have to fill that quickly.. if Xbox can fill the cache at 1/3rd the speed for instance.. than the cache would need to be 2250 on Xbox.

SO it has 1500MB less RAM for what is on screen.

SO if on PS5 it was 12GB for rendering, 750 for cache.. on XSX it would be 9.5GB for rendering, 2260 cache or something like that.

So it would have about 25% less RAM for what is in view.. so maybe 25% less polygons.

No, just no lol. Stop saying what the Series X can and can't do compared to the PS5 in Unreal Engine 5 because you do not have the slightest damn idea, and neither do you know the exact I/O requirements and thresholds for the demo. I can't wait till that demo is public so a lot of this nonsense can be put to bed.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Why are you ignoring my post about how Microsoft essentially outright said that they weren't comparing against PRT?

PS5 can likely perform some sort of PRT.. with much faster RAW/compressed data handling.

MS's solution appears slick.. and might outdo PS5 on some PRT specific things.. or PS5 could do something even better with it's more advanced caches.

We really don't know, as MS was comparing against last-gen streaming, and not PRT-based streaming (as it wasn't really used, despite it being the big buzz word.) And we don't know anything about PRT on PS5 because Sony hasn't specifically mentioned it... but considering their SDK supported it on PS4, and Sony's focus on i/o perf, it would be an odd omission.

First of all, Microsoft has never said any such thing, period. If they are comparing to games running on Xbox One X, which absolutely use PRT, they are comparing SFS to games that use PRT. They put monitoring hardware on Xbox One X to analyze how the games are using memory. After analyzing this data, they determined SFS was 2-3x better.

You think they only monitored non-AAA, smaller games on Xbox One X that weren't using best in class texture streaming solutions? Think again.

 

[FatKingBallman]

"Matt" has been wrong time and time again, and he still amazingly comes up in these discussions as a reputable source. Did he not say things about a PS5 smart delivery alternative that have thus far not proven remotely true? And it gets much worse from there, but I don't dig down that rabbit hole again. Why are we to take his word over what actual game developers and engineers say on either the xbox or playstation side? He has never shown himself to be anything other than heavily bias. At least when sony developers and microsoft developers do it, they actually bring some weight of experience and knowledge with them.

Well... looks who's talking.

I've yet to see how it's FAR from PS5 level. All evidence suggests otherwise. Sampler Feedback Streaming real-time demo, actual technical directors stating they can move 10GB in 2 seconds into RAM without the compression hardware.

Still for some reason you trying to spin officially 4.8 GB/s compressed data.

 

[Boglin]

This discussion got lively lol

I'll address this the same way Microsoft did.

Inside Xbox Series X: the full specs

This is it. After months of teaser trailers, blog posts and even the occasional leak, we can finally reveal firm, hard …

www.eurogamer.net

We have to imagine Xbox One X titles were indeed using PRT. Their multipliers for SFS are almost certainly in comparison to PRT enhanced titles. Why would they ever monitor just titles that don't use PRT? Think about that. PRT wastes a lot of RAM because it's not intelligent enough to know which virtual memory pages or textures need not be inside video memory at all. That's where Sampler Feedback comes in to make it significantly more efficient. PRT, though it added efficiencies to the process for saving RAM, it has never been as efficient as Sampler Feedback Streaming.

I'm sure Microsoft monitored the few PRT titles there were. I have no doubts and do not dispute that. What's frustrating to me about our conversation is that we both agree that SFS is better than PRT but I can't articulate well enough to explain what my issue is.

I want to find out where our communication is breaking down. Do you agree that in the demo traditional texture streaming was defined as "loading entire detail levels at once"?

 

[jroc74]

"Matt" has been wrong time and time again, and he still amazingly comes up in these discussions as a reputable source. Did he not say things about a PS5 smart delivery alternative that have thus far not proven remotely true? And it gets much worse from there, but I don't dig down that rabbit hole again. Why are we to take his word over what actual game developers and engineers say on either the xbox or playstation side? He has never shown himself to be anything other than heavily bias. At least when sony developers and microsoft developers do it, they actually bring some weight of experience and knowledge with them.

Whats the definition of alternative?

Sorry but he has been right on too much to just dismiss him outright.

....he always gave the overall edge to XSX tho...

Well... looks who's talking.

lmao.

This discussion got lively lol



I'm sure Microsoft monitored the few PRT titles there were. I have no doubts and do not dispute that. What's frustrating to me about our conversation is that we both agree that SFS is better than PRT but I can't articulate well enough to explain what my issue is.

I want to find out where our communication is breaking down. Do you agree that in the demo traditional texture streaming was defined as "loading entire detail levels at once"?

Yeah...one could see this coming over the past few days...lol.

 

[Sinthor]

That's not for quick resume... console OS's take up a few GB...

Also think you are wrong either way? Isn't it 2.5GB? Isn't that less than PS5? Not that either is some bad number..

Yeah, I tend to agree with this. No way quick resume is using RAM. If anything, it affects the amount of SSD drive space left for games, unless MS has another "invisible" partition that's meant for this storage. Quick resume is just like the feature on Windows 10. A saved state. Very cool "bell and whistle" type of functionality but one that I think Sony has not chosen to add and probably wisely. The effort to engineer that likely outweighs the benefit to gamers. By that I mean that we all play one game at a time. Yes, you may switch to other games here and there but still only one active at a time. Frankly, all the real PS5 games so far like Spiderman and Demon's Souls load up so damn fast I don't see where a little speed edge would make an impact.

Not discounting what MS did in providing the feature. Like I said, I think it's cool. I just don't think it's a really important feature. This kind of speed difference LAST generation would have been stunning, but with how fast these new gen games load....just not really a big deal. I should mention that I exclude No Man's Sky from this list. Loading a saved game still takes about.....10 seconds or so? I don't understand why it takes that kind of time as compared to other games, but it does.

Anyway, I don't think that feature is something Sony should spend tie on, but that's just me.

 

[M1chl]

Yeah, I tend to agree with this. No way quick resume is using RAM. If anything, it affects the amount of SSD drive space left for games, unless MS has another "invisible" partition that's meant for this storage. Quick resume is just like the feature on Windows 10. A saved state. Very cool "bell and whistle" type of functionality but one that I think Sony has not chosen to add and probably wisely. The effort to engineer that likely outweighs the benefit to gamers. By that I mean that we all play one game at a time. Yes, you may switch to other games here and there but still only one active at a time. Frankly, all the real PS5 games so far like Spiderman and Demon's Souls load up so damn fast I don't see where a little speed edge would make an impact.

Not discounting what MS did in providing the feature. Like I said, I think it's cool. I just don't think it's a really important feature. This kind of speed difference LAST generation would have been stunning, but with how fast these new gen games load....just not really a big deal. I should mention that I exclude No Man's Sky from this list. Loading a saved game still takes about.....10 seconds or so? I don't understand why it takes that kind of time as compared to other games, but it does.

Anyway, I don't think that feature is something Sony should spend tie on, but that's just me.

Quick Resume is obviously stored on SSD, since it's absolutely same principle as in resuming virtual machines in vmware, so technically could have been here sooner, because MS is using this approach since X360, but I guess you would have to wait longer, even tho, even with old HDD, those big virtual machines full of programs could resume reasonably quickly, but saving 8GB at 50MB/s, yeah that takes a while.

There is still this hybrid approach, that last game played is resumed from the RAM, when the stand-by mode is activated on Xbox, but other games are resumed from the SSD. Which is not seen, as shown with that "ssd of XSX hacking" there are like 5 partitions, which only 1 is visible on console.

 

[jroc74]

Yeah, I tend to agree with this. No way quick resume is using RAM. If anything, it affects the amount of SSD drive space left for games, unless MS has another "invisible" partition that's meant for this storage. Quick resume is just like the feature on Windows 10. A saved state. Very cool "bell and whistle" type of functionality but one that I think Sony has not chosen to add and probably wisely. The effort to engineer that likely outweighs the benefit to gamers. By that I mean that we all play one game at a time. Yes, you may switch to other games here and there but still only one active at a time. Frankly, all the real PS5 games so far like Spiderman and Demon's Souls load up so damn fast I don't see where a little speed edge would make an impact.

Not discounting what MS did in providing the feature. Like I said, I think it's cool. I just don't think it's a really important feature. This kind of speed difference LAST generation would have been stunning, but with how fast these new gen games load....just not really a big deal. I should mention that I exclude No Man's Sky from this list. Loading a saved game still takes about.....10 seconds or so? I don't understand why it takes that kind of time as compared to other games, but it does.

Anyway, I don't think that feature is something Sony should spend tie on, but that's just me.

Quick Resume was my most requested next gen feature. I remember some telling me in speculation threads it was either not possible or will be hard. Few very said it was a possibility.

And I lost it when MS announced it, so happy it was confirmed. lol. I agree when folks say that feels next gen to them, I just havent used it yet. Maybe I'll turn on the XSX today.

I want Sony to do it too. If Sony cant do QR, so be it. If it takes away from what Sony goals are with the PS5, then dont do it.

It will just go on the list of pros n cons for the consoles, thats it.

 

[Red_Driver85]

Nope, you're not getting a pass with that piece of misinformation my friend. It decompresses directly into memory, just like the PS5 does.

The word "can" is defining here. The PS5 i/o system, which is built on the concept of data decompression directly into memory, it is equipped accordingly. The XsX system can do the same, in theory and for textures only, but I highly doubt game developers would dare to decompress on the fly large amounts of streaming data while reading from ssd. This will create an extremely undesirable load on the CPU, which still participates in sending and receiving requests for reading and management data, it is the CPU that must keep track all the time of where the data needs to be unpacked.

This overhead and delay for GPU rendering you speak of on Series X isn't there.

It's there, because dramless ssd controller not good enough for fast random reads, because i/o depends on the CPU.

I've yet to see how it's FAR from PS5 level.

Indeed, so far we have not seen anything at all, except blah-blah from Microsoft.

 

[IntentionalPun]

First of all, Microsoft has never said any such thing, period. If they are comparing to games running on Xbox One X, which absolutely use PRT, they are comparing SFS to games that use PRT. They put monitoring hardware on Xbox One X to analyze how the games are using memory. After analyzing this data, they determined SFS was 2-3x better.

You think they only monitored non-AAA, smaller games on Xbox One X that weren't using best in class texture streaming solutions? Think again.

Did you.. read my post?

They pretty clearly implied PRT was not used much at all on last gen.. right on the slide, right before their SFS demo.

So why would they have compared against a tech that was barely used?

 

[thewire]

You’re comparing an operating system feature, which requires over 3 gbs worth of memory, ranges from 8/12 seconds between games, to loading in new levels in 2 seconds game through portals & much more in an actual game. Where is the rachet & clank equivalent on Xbox? Not an OS feature that Sony will probably add some variant of in the future but actual game design feats that were possible before hand & showcase the I/O. We’ve seen instant loading on ps5 already and now we’re seeing real next generation new game design possibilities in rachet.
Where is the Xbox showcase, which you’ve been claiming before hand is a significantly superior, more powerful & faster than the ps5?

Yeah, I tend to agree with this. No way quick resume is using RAM. If anything, it affects the amount of SSD drive space left for games, unless MS has another "invisible" partition that's meant for this storage. Quick resume is just like the feature on Windows 10. A saved state. Very cool "bell and whistle" type of functionality but one that I think Sony has not chosen to add and probably wisely. The effort to engineer that likely outweighs the benefit to gamers. By that I mean that we all play one game at a time. Yes, you may switch to other games here and there but still only one active at a time. Frankly, all the real PS5 games so far like Spiderman and Demon's Souls load up so damn fast I don't see where a little speed edge would make an impact.

Not discounting what MS did in providing the feature. Like I said, I think it's cool. I just don't think it's a really important feature. This kind of speed difference LAST generation would have been stunning, but with how fast these new gen games load....just not really a big deal. I should mention that I exclude No Man's Sky from this list. Loading a saved game still takes about.....10 seconds or so? I don't understand why it takes that kind of time as compared to other games, but it does.

Anyway, I don't think that feature is something Sony should spend tie on, but that's just me.

Defo right, I was wrong it being stored on ram but rather the ssd storage, which I still think Sony will add but only to specific games as they have the switcher in the game bar and probably only for 2 games at a time. Matt from resetera has stated Sony were looking to implement it too.

 

[THEAP99]

According to Hermen Hulst, a Guerrilla cofounder whom Jim Ryan tapped to lead PlayStation Studios in 2019, the group has more than 25 titles in development for the PS5—nearly half of which are entirely new IP. “There’s an incredible amount of variety originating from different regions,” Hulst says. “Big, small, different genres.” https://www.wired.com/story/playstation-5-six-months-later/

 

[IntentionalPun]

No, just no lol. Stop saying what the Series X can and can't do compared to the PS5 in Unreal Engine 5 because you do not have the slightest damn idea, and neither do you know the exact I/O requirements and thresholds for the demo. I can't wait till that demo is public so a lot of this nonsense can be put to bed.

Did you even read that post dude?

What we don't know truly is how much streaming speed was really REQUIRED for the demo. We haven't seen any numbers.. just vague statements.

Seriously.. what is the point of letting people like you post in here? You don't read posts.. you don't actually respond to anything.. just act like a total douche about everything.

But thanks for so quickly letting me know how pointless it is to respond to anything you say.

 

[itsnotme]

The PS5 Is Starting to Look Like the Revolution It Promised

What’s happening with Sony’s latest console, now that it’s been out for six months? Supply issues aside, it’s proving to be much more than a simple evolution.

www.wired.com

Damm Sony is not holding back at all

 

[thewire]

"Matt" has been wrong time and time again, and he still amazingly comes up in these discussions as a reputable source. Did he not say things about a PS5 smart delivery alternative that have thus far not proven remotely true? And it gets much worse from there, but I don't dig down that rabbit hole again. Why are we to take his word over what actual game developers and engineers say on either the xbox or playstation side? He has never shown himself to be anything other than heavily bias. At least when sony developers and microsoft developers do it, they actually bring some weight of experience and knowledge with them.

He’s more right than you’ve ever been, and was largely right about how next generation has played out currently. He’s soo heavily biased that’s he primarily plays on Xbox, what a pony he is. When you have actual devs telling you ps5 I/O architecture is significantly superior to Xbox’s and showing you in actual games with the fastest load times like Spider-Man, returnal, etc and now to rachet actually demonstrating game play possibilities not seen before this early in a gen, the question is where is the actual game in proof on Xbox doing what rachet has done?

 

[3liteDragon]

 

[Loope]

He’s more right than you’ve ever been, and was largely right about how next generation has played out currently. He’s soo heavily biased that’s he primarily plays on Xbox, what a pony he is. When you have actual devs telling you ps5 I/O architecture is significantly superior to Xbox’s and showing you in actual games with the fastest load times like Spider-Man, returnal, etc and now to rachet actually demonstrating game play possibilities not seen before this early in a gen, the question is where is the actual game in proof on Xbox doing what rachet has done?

Why are you trying to compare a feature using exclusive games as comparison? How would you know? I believe devs, of course, but saying this and this games does it and Xbox doesn't is not saying much when you don't have to run those same games on the xbox console for comparison.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Did you even read that post dude?


Seriously.. what is the point of letting people like you post in here? You don't read posts.. you don't actually respond to anything.. just act like a total douche about everything.

But thanks for so quickly letting me know how pointless it is to respond to anything you say.

Real mature. I'm a douche because I disagree with you making up figures about what it takes to run things. I responded. You don't like the answer and that's my problem? Plz.

This is the quality of discussion on here. This is how mad some of you kids get whenever someone says something counter to what you want to hear. And what is the point of letting people like me post here? Go look at my previous posts where I cite evidence and direct demos and direct links from microsoft themselves, DF and from game developers. So people like me must mean *ding* *ding* xbox fan. Alright, this xbox fan will go back to enjoying his xbox and no longer post in the Playstation fan praise only thread. Bye now. Find it in your heart to forgive me?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Real mature. I'm a douche because I disagree with you making up figures about what it takes to run things. I responded. You don't like the answer and that's my problem? Plz.

This is the quality of discussion on here. This is how mad some of you kids get whenever someone says something counter to what you want to hear. And what is the point of letting people like me post here? Go look at my previous posts where I cite evidence and direct demos and direct links from microsoft themselves, DF and from game developers. So people like me must mean *ding* *ding* xbox fan. Alright, this xbox fan will go back to enjoying his xbox and no longer post in the Playstation fan praise only thread. Bye now. Find it in your heart to forgive me?

Twitter really did suit you more when you last had your tantrum on here

You were surrounded by your own kind who liked to pretend to know what they were talking about

 

[FrankWza]

Thanks for the post. This seems to be a very hard and painful fact to accept for some mysterious reason. The I/O situtation isn't remotely analogous to GPU one where both have slight advantages over the other.

Because the only thing that gets mentioned is load times whenever the SSDs are brought up.

He’s more right than you’ve ever been, and was largely right about how next generation has played out currently. He’s soo heavily biased that’s he primarily plays on Xbox, what a pony he is. When you have actual devs telling you ps5 I/O architecture is significantly superior to Xbox’s and showing you in actual games with the fastest load times like Spider-Man, returnal, etc and now to rachet actually demonstrating game play possibilities not seen before this early in a gen, the question is where is the actual game in proof on Xbox doing what rachet has done?

Same thing they don’t want to hear when series s gets called out by devs.

 

[elliot5]

Because the only thing that gets mentioned is load times whenever the SSDs are brought up.

Same thing they don’t want to hear when series s gets called out by devs.

The people pulling up Series S being called out by devs don't like it when there are an equal amount of devs saying Series S won't be a problem. Everyone just wants to stick to their own narratives.

 

[TheRedRiders]

Did you.. read my post?

They pretty clearly implied PRT was not used much at all on last gen.. right on the slide, right before their SFS demo.

So why would they have compared against a tech that was barely used?

I mentioned a while back that one of the reasons things like PRT and Virtual Textures not being adopted was because of the slow HDD however the low latency of the SSD’s will boost these features significantly and encourage developer adoption.

 

[onesvenus]

Could you please point out WHEN DID I SAY RENDER!

And yes, Xbox can scale it down from 20 million polygons per frame to something manageable like 4-5 million polygons per frame to run the same demo.

Just admit it and take the L and move on. The RAM, SSD, and I/O can't keep up with pulling 20M polygons per 1ms!!! So it can go from 30-60fps while standing still to 1fps in motion, not because of GPU, but BECAUSE OF HOW IT CAN'T STREAM 20 MILLION POLYGONS PER 1ms (30fps) or 0.5ms (60fps)!

Oh! Is that your point? That you never said render? So let me ask you a last question.
Why the fuck would you want to move 20M polygons per second to the GPU if you are not rendering them?
You make no sense Bo.

 

[onesvenus]

So it would have about 25% less RAM for what is in view.. so maybe 25% less polygons.

I agree with everything you said except this last point. You are making the same wrong assumption as Bo.
Memory ocupation is not directly related to the polygon count that's being rendered. If it has about 25% less RAM for what's in view means that it will have a 25% less unique polygons (i.e. different meshes), not rendered polygons. You can have a single mesh in memory and render it a million times. The number of polygons in memory does not limit the number of rendered polygons.

 

[assurdum]

Matt is reputable source

Like other sources who says " PS5 have more TF than XSX"....

Matt never said anything like that. Quite the contrary. He always claimed probably series X would be ended to be more powerful on the paper. The other person (I don't remind the name) who said ps5 was more powerful anyway never talked of TF, to be totally fair and he wasn't wrong at all if you look just to the faster frequency (frequency is very important for the whole GPU performance) but obviously have more CUs as series X is not exactly irrelevant.

 

[Tripolygon]

Speaking of next gen stuff and how the SSD is used in Ratchet and Clank

Mike Fitzgerald, the Core Tech Director on Rift Apart wanted to talk about how Insomniac is using the new hardware on PlayStation 5 to craft new experiences for the player. Moving past just using the SSD to speed things up, Insomniac is developing new and transformative content because of it. “While Ratchet & Clank is not considered an open-world game, in Rift Apart, we’ve set up the planets to constantly stream content like Spider-Man: Miles Morales,” says Fitzgerald. “This is despite the fact each world is physically much smaller than Manhattan, but because it streams so fast, we only load the content you need at that moment. This is true to a very small scale so even if you turn the camera, the textures behind you load out and the ones in front load in. We can do this in a matter of frames and because of that we pack more and more in every corner of the world. We are no longer locked to small palettes of textures and objects for an area, so it makes it easy to drop a massive robot in your path.”

In well under a second you go from one side of the galaxy and in the State of Play footage, it’s shown when you’re transported to a new area with all the characters joining you. Worlds are based on this mechanic in Rift Apart. Dubbed Sync Planets, there are two versions of the same planet in two dimensions and you’re jumping back and forth between them, each with full fidelity and taking advantage of the memory available to use with the console. There is no trace of the location when you aren’t physically there and when you switch between them, it happens in the swing of your hammer.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Oh! Is that your point? That you never said render? So let me ask you a last question.
Why the fuck would you want to move 20M polygons per second to the GPU if you are not rendering them?
You make no sense Bo.

You see, you're still having comprehension problems. It's per FRAME. Those are being pulled directly from the SSD, so how can you feed the GPU with 20M polygons per 1 millisecond or less when the I/O can't deliver it nor it has 32-64GB RAM? XSX and PS5 GPU can handle more than 20M polygons statically, but you need superior throughput, much more than what a theoretical 24GB/s RAID setup can deliver, which is galaxies ahead of XSX when combined with a threadripper CPU or with nVidia's 14GB/s I/O mimic.

How the fuck can you render 20M polygons per 1-0.5 millisecond if you're not being fed that to begin with!

 

[MasterCornholio]

Many "reputable sources" lie with number of TF in PS5. Why should I believe Matt?

What about this guy?

 

[jroc74]

Speaking of next gen stuff and how the SSD is used in Ratchet and Clank

Mike Fitzgerald, the Core Tech Director on Rift Apart wanted to talk about how Insomniac is using the new hardware on PlayStation 5 to craft new experiences for the player. Moving past just using the SSD to speed things up, Insomniac is developing new and transformative content because of it. “While Ratchet & Clank is not considered an open-world game, in Rift Apart, we’ve set up the planets to constantly stream content like Spider-Man: Miles Morales,” says Fitzgerald. “This is despite the fact each world is physically much smaller than Manhattan, but because it streams so fast, we only load the content you need at that moment. This is true to a very small scale so even if you turn the camera, the textures behind you load out and the ones in front load in. We can do this in a matter of frames and because of that we pack more and more in every corner of the world. We are no longer locked to small palettes of textures and objects for an area, so it makes it easy to drop a massive robot in your path.”

In well under a second you go from one side of the galaxy and in the State of Play footage, it’s shown when you’re transported to a new area with all the characters joining you. Worlds are based on this mechanic in Rift Apart. Dubbed Sync Planets, there are two versions of the same planet in two dimensions and you’re jumping back and forth between them, each with full fidelity and taking advantage of the memory available to use with the console. There is no trace of the location when you aren’t physically there and when you switch between them, it happens in the swing of your hammer.

What about this guy?

Nice.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

What about this guy?

But hey, he's also a liar.

 

[Boglin]

Well this seems pointless now that SenjutsuSage bailed. I genuinely wanted to find where our disconnect was regarding this demo. Maybe someone else can get something from this post.

These screenshots are from the asset streaming demo that Microsoft showed at Game Stack Live and show SFS increases texture streaming efficiency by 2.5-3x when compared to traditional texture streaming methods. Not compared to PRT.

This first screenshot shows that Microsoft defines traditional texture streaming as loading entire texture detail levels at once. PRT loads tiles which are only a fraction of a detail level so it doesn't fall under that traditional definition.

This imagine verifies that Microsoft is indeed using non-PRT streaming on an Xbox One X as the base of comparison.

Here it shows that adding an SSD(2.4GB/s?) while using traditional streaming is only about 2x as efficient as an HDD.
Read the bottom caption and remember SFS=PRT+Sampler feedback.

Spoiler: Interesting coincidence?

I can also verify anecdotally that adding a 500MB/s SSD to a PS4 only halfs the load times typically. This is further evidence that PRT was not used in the SFS demo because the efficiency gain should have been greater than 2x if it were being utilized.

This final screenshot shows SFS in all its glory and it really is impressive. 3x faster than an SSD using traditional streaming methods.

Now my original statement that lead to all this was only this: I'm unclear at how much more efficient SFS is than PRT because I haven't been able to find any comparisons. This demo did not clear that up because its purpose was not to make that comparison.

Edit: My TED talk is better than IntentionalPun because it has more slides.

 

[thewire]

Why are you trying to compare a feature using exclusive games as comparison? How would you know? I believe devs, of course, but saying this and this games does it and Xbox doesn't is not saying much when you don't have to run those same games on the xbox console for comparison.

The reason I’m using exclusive games is because they will demonstrate the best use of the hardware by devs, rachet for instance showcases the I/o capabilities of the the ps5, like returnal showcased haptics & 3d audio.
My point in reference to sage has been parroting on about how velocity architecture is better than the ps5’s I/o architecture and it’s significantly more powerful (also not true) than the ps5. One is showcasing in games it’s next generation technology, whilst the other has showcased absolutely nothing impressive unless you love Craig David the brute. He also compared quick resume to rachet’s.
We still haven’t seen what xbox series consoles can do but it’s not the ps5 strengths of faster clocks & the low latency data throughput monstrosity that will not be replicated by Xbox, so he should focus on Xboxes strength which it wider gpu with more compute, texture fillrate, better ray tracing through producing more lights sources & better machine learning.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Real mature. I'm a douche because I disagree with you making up figures about what it takes to run things. I responded. You don't like the answer and that's my problem? Plz.

No; it's your behavior that makes you "acting like a douche." I didn't call you a douche; your behavior is certainly douchey. Not sure what posts of yours you are reading, it should be obvious. Considering you clearly aren't reading the posts you respond to, maybe you aren't reading your own posts.

Calling not reading posts/ignoring anyone's logic "disagreeing" lol

 

[thewire]

The people pulling up Series S being called out by devs don't like it when there are an equal amount of devs saying Series S won't be a problem. Everyone just wants to stick to their own narratives.

If half the devs are complaining about it (ie remedy, Id tech, etc), then that’s not a good thing.