Support NeoGAF

[Mod of War]

Let's move on from the, this fanboy and that fanboy and which one is worse meta snipes placed in walls of what would be quality posts otherwise. Thank you.

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

They look like smaller numbers in relative comparison, but also keep in mind there are things along the I/O, controller, file system etc. pipeline (plus other features in terms of modifications to certain aspects of the GPU and features within the silicon) that are working alongside those numbers.

This goes for both systems, but in XSX's case I don't think their team would've settled on those performance numbers if they didn't feel them sufficient for data loading and streaming purposes, both on their platform and in general with where the role of SSDs will fall for serving use-case purposes for the consoles. MS and Sony have just seemingly taken some different approaches but, hey, like other things, paper specs don't tell the whole story.




I think something important to keep in mind with the MS numbers, too, is that those are sustained performance figures, if we take their words at face value. They're the numbers they are guaranteeing the SSDs will perform at, at all times. And the reason they have to stress that is because they're also positioning XSX for server markets, where sustained/constant performance is a necessity. If they have peaks notably higher than that, but they're random and inconsistent, then there's no reason for them to mention that

With Sony's numbers, I'm going to assume those are sustained, but all I will say is that they don't necessarily have a market reason to stress if the numbers are sustained or not, since for that type of thing the consumer market has different standards and needs vs. data and business server markets. So is there a chance they could be speaking of peak numbers? Well, the possibility always exists, but I'd personally put it within a margin of error, if not 0%.

One thing I hope Sony clarifies if how the SSD (especially in addition to an optional NVMe drive sitting in the expansion bay) impacts the variable frequency setup in the system. The internal one alone is going to need a decent bit of power, let alone if an approved 3rd-party drive is sitting there alongside it. So if there are instances where power needs to be reduced among other system components to keep the GPU at max frequency, will the SSD(s) factor into that and by how much? Would a 2% frequency drop result in a 2% speed drop for one SSD, both SSDs, or each SSD? Would the speed drop be 2% or greater?

Those kind of questions pop up, because just with the internal drive that is a decent number of high-speed NAND modules and a decent amount of power needed to them and other parts of the SSD, and it multiplies by a factor of 2 when you throw the 3rd-party optional drives in there, as well.



It depends on the quality of the NAND. SLC NAND will remain the best at P/E cycle endurance ratings and speed, while QLC will remain the worst in these aspects. However, wear-leveling technologies and programs have improved a ton since several years ago, and you can get pretty good mileage out of QLC NAND drives now provided you don't need them for servers or environments where write-heavy operations are the norm.

I'd suspect both systems are using either TLC or QLC NAND, and no small pool of SLC or MLC as a cache (i.e SLC and MLC NAND will be absent in them). Neither have DRAM caches, either, tho PS5 will have an SRAM cache (probably around 32 MB - 64 MB; if it's PS-RAM it could be larger while still staying affordable), and XSX will probably use a portion of the reserved 2.5 GB GDDR6 OS memory for caching of its SSD.

For replacements on PS5, you'll need a minimum 7 GB/s drive, to get the same performance as the internal 5.5 GB/s one. On XSX, the expansion storage card just plugs into the back and has similar use-case to a memory card, but offers the exact same performance as the internal drive. We probably don't need to worry about the systems going kaput if the internal storage gets used up beyond further use.



Right. The sacrifice MS made was in regards to going all 2 GB modules or a mix of 2 GB and 1 GB. I expect their RAM to be more expensive though not just because of more modules (10 vs 8), but because MS have added ECC to their memory which to my knowledge Sony isn't doing and they wouldn't have a need tbh since they aren't making PS5 for server markets in addition to the console market.

One thing they could both still do is go with somewhat faster chips, but with it about to be May I doubt any changes that big will come into swing.

Just curious: how much time did it take to you to write this?

 

[rntongo]

Funny how Xbox fanboys are struggling so hard to close the SSD gap using compression. Just accept it, SX got the flops/CUs, PS5 got the SSD/I/O.

I'm a Sony fan. Never owned an Xbox. And the PS5 SSD is superior to the Series X. My argument is the Series X SSD has a high enough throughput to deliver any game possible on the PS5. The target throughput was 5GB/s on the PS5. It has now achieved 7-9 GB/s. The Series X is 4.8Gb/s with a possiblity of upto 6Gb/s once BCPack is finalized. We're going to find out soon enough what the actual numbers are for the Series X since they are still working on XBTC.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Just curious: how much time did it take to you to write this?

About 10 minutes. Including fetching the posts, too and watching a Youtube vid.

Gotta keep busy for bursts during these lockdown quarantine times dude

 

[The Mad Draklor]

I was talking about texture data which is what comprises the largest amount of game data.

Largest amount =/= All data. Not everything is textures.

 

[rntongo]

Largest amount =/= All data. Not everything is textures.

Correct.

 

[ethomaz]

The 4.8GB/s doesn't factor in BCPack!! They're still working on it to increase the throughput.
You cannot use BCPack compression ratios on


Noooooo!


Why are you using 50% yet BCPack is being optimized to go higher than that? And also you'd have to use BCPack and Zlib combined to calculate the throughput.

Richard was talking about Kraken's ability to compress texture data relative to BCPack not all data like you're doing. So you're using wrong figures. You're comparing Kraken to Zlib which are both for general game data. Which is correct but if we factor in BCPack, you'll have a higher throughput than the 4.8GB/s for the Series X due to a higher compression ratio.

Because MS shared that lol.

4.8GB/s is what you get with BCPack in Xbox... 50% compression ratio.

Using Zlib and BCPack in the same data makes no sense at all and tow decompression in render time is basically unviable.

You keep spreading false data and do you say I'm using wrong figures? lol

 

[Radical_3d]

Spoiler

Sorry. Wrong thread.

 

[Gamernyc78]

This thread has taken a turn for the worse. A long time ago to be honest.

Let's just put 'er down like Old Yeller and wash our hands of it?

Too many know it alls. Seriously this thread isn't even enjoyable anymore. You would think some know more than Cerny himself.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Because MS shared that lol.

4.8GB/s is what you get with BCPack in Xbox... 50% compression ratio.

Using Zlib and BCPack in the same data makes no sense at all and tow decompression in render time is basically unviable.

You keep spreading false data and do you say I'm using wrong figures? lol

This is just my personal opinion. Bigger numbers are always better to market. So if Microsoft could have gave us something larger they would have. That's why at the moment I'm sticking to the numbers that they already announced because that's what the console is capable of. They are not going to lie about them because that would be false marketing.

If they do update us in the future then I will accept their new figures.

 

[ethomaz]

I'm a Sony fan. Never owned an Xbox. And the PS5 SSD is superior to the Series X. My argument is the Series X SSD has a high enough throughput to deliver any game possible on the PS5. The target throughput was 5GB/s on the PS5. It has now achieved 7-9 GB/s. The Series X is 4.8Gb/s with a possiblity of upto 6Gb/s once BCPack is finalized. We're going to find out soon enough what the actual numbers are for the Series X since they are still working on XBTC.

Wrong again.

You try to downplay PS5 compression at the same time you overestimate the Xbox one.

There is no 7-9GB/s... stop to made up... there is 8-9GB/s that is what Sony devs got in typical cases.
MS shared 4.8GB/s that already include the use of BCPack... Zlib can't reach 50% compression sorry.

That 6GB/s is the same as PS5's 22GB/s... best case scenario with very specific type of data.

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

About 10 minutes. Including fetching the posts, too and watching a Youtube vid.

Gotta keep busy for bursts during these lockdown quarantine times dude

Eh, I know, just finished Zeno Clash 2.
Search it if you don't know what it is, you'll discover something... particular.

 

[Corndog]

PS5 is better.
Japanese cars are the best (especially Nissan Patrol).
Apple is overrated.
Audio is the next big thing.
Talking to them is like talking to religious persons, while it is 100% clear that they are wrong, delusional and making things up from their imagination, it is not possible to talk sense to them as they repeat their faulty logical circle of "god is real because book said it, book is real because god wrote it!"

Had to settle down to a laugh emoji

I have a hard time believing audio will be the next big thing considering the quality of music people listen to today. I am all for better audio but I don't see it as a deciding factor for a console.

 

[ethomaz]

This is just my personal opinion. Bigger numbers are always better to market. So if Microsoft could have gave us something larger they would have. That's why at the moment I'm sticking to the numbers that they already announced because that's what the console is capable of. They are not going to lie about them because that would be false marketing.

If they do update us in the future then I will accept their new figures.

Exactly official specs where shared if Xbox could really reach 6GB/s then MS should have posted 6GB/s instead 4.8GB/s.

Same for PS5 Sony choose to share 8-9GB/s instead 22GB/s for obvious reason.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Because MS shared that lol.

4.8GB/s is what you get with BCPack in Xbox... 50% compression ratio.

Using Zlib and BCPack in the same data makes no sense at all and tow decompression in render time is basically unviable.

You keep spreading false data and do you say I'm using wrong figures? lol

Even if we just run with the XSX's best case 6 GB/s, that's still lower than the PS5's "typical case" (i.e. developers not doing anything with the Kraken algorithms) 8-9 GB/s. And if developers want to improve the Kraken algorithms, the boost in transfer rates will not just apply to textures, but everything else too.

Touting how awesome BCPack is is kinda moot if developers have to put in resources and time to realize that best case scenario that is still worse than the "If the developers did nothing with Kraken" scenario.

 

[rntongo]

Because MS shared that lol.

4.8GB/s is what you get with BCPack in Xbox... 50% compression ratio.

Using Zlib and BCPack in the same data makes no sense at all and tow decompression in render time is basically unviable.

You keep spreading false data and do you say I'm using wrong figures? lol

How is that possible yet BCPack isn't yet finalized? They are still optimizing the Texture compression!

The 4.8GB/s is a baseline.

And here it is:

MSFT still optimizing texture compression

Unless they optimize below 4.8GB/s which would be absurd, it should be higher and at least hit the 5GB/s PS5 target or even go higher closer to the 6GB/s they have marketed thus far.

 

[Neo Blaster]

I'm a Sony fan. Never owned an Xbox. And the PS5 SSD is superior to the Series X. My argument is the Series X SSD has a high enough throughput to deliver any game possible on the PS5. The target throughput was 5GB/s on the PS5. It has now achieved 7-9 GB/s. The Series X is 4.8Gb/s with a possiblity of upto 6Gb/s once BCPack is finalized. We're going to find out soon enough what the actual numbers are for the Series X since they are still working on XBTC.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Exactly official specs where shared if Xbox could really reach 6GB/s then MS should have posted 6GB/s instead 4.8GB/s.

Same for PS5 Sony choose to share 8-9GB/s instead 22GB/s for obvious reason.

What I don't understand is this speculation that Microsoft is working on their I/O solution so that it will be even better at launch. The hardware had already been finalized for the most part. People just have to accept that Microsoft can't match Sonys I/O solution just like Sony can't match the CU count in the Series X.

Each system will have their own strengths against the other. Neither one will be superior in every single way when their are compared to the other.

It's up to gamers to decide which advantages that they want the most.

 

[Bladed Thesis]

Too many know it alls. Seriously this thread isn't even enjoyable anymore. You would think some know lore than Cerny himself.

Exactly. Nobody understands how anything works but everybody is measuring their guess against the next guess.

"No you're interpreting it wrong, here's what they said"

It's like COVID telephone. I'd say chinese telephone but that's supposedly racist.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

How is that possible yet BCPack isn't yet finalized? They are still optimizing the Texture compression!

The 4.8GB/s is a baseline.

And here it is:

MSFT still optimizing texture compression

Unless they optimize below 4.8GB/s which would be absurd, it should be higher and at least hit the 5GB/s PS5 target or even go higher closer to the 6GB/s they have marketed thus far.

You do realize the 5GB/s is raw right?

It can hit the 5GB/s and could achieve more than 6GB/s

Same way the PS5 could go over 9GB/s and achieve 22GB/s

 

[Ascend]

I bet that the "typical" 8-9GB/s is just as "typical" as 2.35GHz, 3.5GHz and 10.3TF.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I bet that the "typical" 8-9GB/s is just as "typical" as 2.35GHz, 3.5GHz and 10.3TF.

So typical then?

 

[MasterCornholio]

So typical then?

I guess he's saying that 99% of the time it will be that way.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

I bet that the "typical" 8-9GB/s is just as "typical" as 2.35GHz, 3.5GHz and 10.3TF.

And you'd be correct. A fixed power draw makes heat production more predictable and the only variance you need to take into account is ambient temperature.

 

[rntongo]

Even if we just run with the XSX's best case 6 GB/s, that's still lower than the PS5's "typical case" (i.e. developers not doing anything with the Kraken algorithms) 8-9 GB/s. And if developers want to improve the Kraken algorithms, the boost in transfer rates will not just apply to textures, but everything else too.

Touting how awesome BCPack is is kinda moot if developers have to put in resources and time to realize that best case scenario that is still worse than the "If the developers did nothing with Kraken" scenario.

You got some figures wrong. The speeds you talk about of 8-9GB/s are compressed using Kraken. Without it, they would be 5.5GB/s. The PS5 target is 5GB/s raw uncompressed such that they can push 2GB in about 0.27 seconds(roughly a quarter the time). 2GB /5GB.s/1.5(compression ratio) = 0.2667. That is roughly 8GB/s per second. The XSX can do half this at 4.8GB/s as of now with the possibility of getting closer to 6GB/s once the compression algorithms are finalized. So compression ratios really matter. Despite the PS5 having 200% the raw read write speeds, this can be brought down to 133% by having better compression algorithms.

But remember there are diminishing marginal benefits at such high speeds. If there is only 13-14GB allocated for Games in either console, and you're actually using about 12Gb for the game you're playing then it won't make much of a difference if one machine is 1 or two seconds behind in terms of filling up the RAM. One interesting thing is if the PS5 can do 22Gb/s for certain data, then where would you place that data if the system has only 16GB of RAM.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

You got some figures wrong. The speeds you talk about of 8-9GB/s are compressed using Kraken. Without it, they would be 5.5GB/s. The PS5 target is 5GB/s raw uncompressed such that they can push 2GB in about 0.27 seconds(roughly a quarter the time). 2GB /5GB.s/1.5(compression ratio) = 0.2667. That is roughly 8GB/s per second. The XSX can do half this at 4.8GB/s as of now with the possibility of getting closer to 6GB/s once the compression algorithms are finalized. So compression ratios really matter. Despite the PS5 having 200% the raw read write speeds, this can be brought down to 133% by having better compression algorithms.

But remember there are diminishing marginal benefits at such high speeds. If there is only 13-14GB allocated for Games in either console, and you're actually using about 12Gb for the game you're playing then it won't make much of a difference if one machine is 1 or two seconds behind in terms of filling up the RAM. One interesting thing is if the PS5 can do 22Gb/s for certain data, then where would you place that data if the system has only 16GB of RAM.

Did you not read my comment? Note how I mentioned developers not doing anything else to the Kraken decompression algorithms. And if you want to make an apples-to-apples comparison, then we should be comparing the PS5's 5.5 GB/s raw speed vs the XSX's 2.4 GB/s raw speed.

 

[Imtjnotu]

I bet that the "typical" 8-9GB/s is just as "typical" as 2.35GHz, 3.5GHz and 10.3TF.

That's discord talk

 

[rntongo]

You do realize the 5GB/s is raw right?

It can hit the 5GB/s and could achieve more than 6GB/s

Same way the PS5 could go over 9GB/s and achieve 22GB/s

Yes which shows the PS5 SSD is superior it's raw read write speeds are slightly above 200% the XSX SSD . But if the XSX has better decompression and is able to hit 6GB/s then you're looking at a reduction to 133% advantage for the PS5. This isn't huge considering both systems only have about 13GB-14GB of RAM for games.

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

One interesting thing is if the PS5 can do 22Gb/s for certain data, then where would you place that data if the system has only 16GB of RAM.

Well, I'm really no expert, but the same question could be made with the overall speed of RAM: where do I put 560 GB/s if I only have 10 GBs? lol
If RAM can transfer data with 400-500 GB/s on both consoles I don't see why 22 should be a problem, by your reasoning I would need to keep RAM speed the same as quantity.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

I have a hard time believing audio will be the next big thing considering the quality of music people listen to today. I am all for better audio but I don't see it as a deciding factor for a console.

It gives you surrounding awareness, can be extremely creepy for horror games, and can be critical for MP gaming and shooters. Things like Rainbow Six Siege can benefit a lot from it, and DICE is now working on it along with other 3rd party devs according to several reports so far.

We won't grasp the meaning of it until we try it by ourselves.

 

[RaZoR No1]

You don't need to be concerned about the write limits of an SSD for gaming

It depends on the quality of the NAND. SLC NAND will remain the best at P/E cycle endurance ratings and speed, while QLC will remain the worst in these aspects. However, wear-leveling technologies and programs have improved a ton since several years ago, and you can get pretty good mileage out of QLC NAND drives now provided you don't need them for servers or environments where write-heavy operations are the norm.

I'd suspect both systems are using either TLC or QLC NAND, and no small pool of SLC or MLC as a cache (i.e SLC and MLC NAND will be absent in them). Neither have DRAM caches, either, tho PS5 will have an SRAM cache (probably around 32 MB - 64 MB; if it's PS-RAM it could be larger while still staying affordable), and XSX will probably use a portion of the reserved 2.5 GB GDDR6 OS memory for caching of its SSD.

For replacements on PS5, you'll need a minimum 7 GB/s drive, to get the same performance as the internal 5.5 GB/s one. On XSX, the expansion storage card just plugs into the back and has similar use-case to a memory card, but offers the exact same performance as the internal drive. We probably don't need to worry about the systems going kaput if the internal storage gets used up beyond further use.

Thanks for clearing this up.

Really exited for the new consoles and cannot wait to get them both.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Yes which shows the PS5 SSD is superior it's raw read write speeds are slightly above 200% the XSX SSD . But if the XSX has better decompression and is able to hit 6GB/s then you're looking at a reduction to 133% advantage for the PS5. This isn't huge considering both systems only have about 13GB-14GB of RAM for games.

In which that 6 GB/s is achieved if the developers take the time and resources to reach that number. In contrast, developers can not touch the Kraken algorithms, but still achieve a higher transfer rate. You're also assuming that developers won't take the time to improve the Kraken decompression. But of course, as soon as you acknowledge that this is probable, it makes your (best case) 6 GB/s argument moot.

 

[Dodkrake]

Yes which shows the PS5 SSD is superior it's raw read write speeds are slightly above 200% the XSX SSD . But if the XSX has better decompression and is able to hit 6GB/s then you're looking at a reduction to 133% advantage for the PS5. This isn't huge considering both systems only have about 13GB-14GB of RAM for games.

17% tflop difference: YUGE
133% read write speeds: not huge

 

[rntongo]

Did you not read my comment? Note how I mentioned developers not doing anything else to the Kraken decompression algorithms. And if you want to make an apples-to-apples comparison, then we should be comparing the PS5's 5.5 GB/s raw speed vs the XSX's 2.4 GB/s raw speed.

Yes. Sony relied more on HW acceleration but MSFT is relying on a combination of both hardware and software. The advantage is that Sony is now done while MSFT still has to optimize the software. On the other hand, developers won't have anything to do with this. All they can do is make better compression algorithms for fitting games onto the discs. The speeds you see for Sony are final and impressive while we wait for the XSX figures. The latter should go higher once BCPack is finalized. So conservatively:

PS5:
7-9GB/s
XSX:
5-6GB/s

For the raw read write speeds, they are still impressive for both systems. A game written for a system that has effective throughput of 5.5GB/s no IO bottlenecks can work on a 2.4GB/s system. Possibly with a few tweaks. It's just twice the IO bandwidth. Not twice the CUs.

 

[Aceofspades]

You got some figures wrong. The speeds you talk about of 8-9GB/s are compressed using Kraken. Without it, they would be 5.5GB/s. The PS5 target is 5GB/s raw uncompressed such that they can push 2GB in about 0.27 seconds(roughly a quarter the time). 2GB /5GB.s/1.5(compression ratio) = 0.2667. That is roughly 8GB/s per second. The XSX can do half this at 4.8GB/s as of now with the possibility of getting closer to 6GB/s once the compression algorithms are finalized. So compression ratios really matter. Despite the PS5 having 200% the raw read write speeds, this can be brought down to 133% by having better compression algorithms.

But remember there are diminishing marginal benefits at such high speeds. If there is only 13-14GB allocated for Games in either console, and you're actually using about 12Gb for the game you're playing then it won't make much of a difference if one machine is 1 or two seconds behind in terms of filling up the RAM. One interesting thing is if the PS5 can do 22Gb/s for certain data, then where would you place that data if the system has only 16GB of RAM.

This is the post that expose your extreme lack of knowledge about the matter.

Writing lots of words doesn't mean you are knowledgeable. You say PS5 is capable of 5.5GB/s raw then you apply random compression to it for some reason then divide that before adding and subtracting randomly...WTF are you doing?

Accept the actual figures and move on for God's sake.

When will Sony reveal anything new for this madness to stop?!

 

[magnumpy]

this makes the actual pricing of these consoles all the more interesting. if they both launch at the same price that's a big statement

 

[rntongo]

In which that 6 GB/s is achieved if the developers take the time and resources to reach that number. In contrast, developers can not touch the Kraken algorithms, but still achieve a higher transfer rate. You're also assuming that developers won't take the time to improve the Kraken decompression. But of course, as soon as you acknowledge that this is probable, it makes your (best case) 6 GB/s argument moot.

What developers are you talking about? Do you understand that the Kraken Decompression is hardware accelerated? And game developers won't have anything to do with it. Sony has optimized the hardware and software for decompression and the results have been 7-9GB/s. MSFT is using a different approach with a higher emphasis on Software than Sony and they haven't yet finalized the BCPack software. Once it's done there's no reason going back unless they can do something major. Which is unlikely to happen for either consoles.

So the final figures are:
PS5:
7-9GB/s
XSX(Before BCPack finalized):
4.8-6GB/s

My prediction After XBTC finalized:
XSX:
5-6GB/s

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

What I don't understand is this speculation that Microsoft is working on their I/O solution so that it will be even better at launch. The hardware had already been finalized for the most part. People just have to accept that Microsoft can't match Sonys I/O solution just like Sony can't match the CU count in the Series X.

Each system will have their own strengths against the other. Neither one will be superior in every single way when their are compared to the other.

It's up to gamers to decide which advantages that they want the most.

Its not really the same thing. The reason CU count and certain GPU features can't be changed so easily is because of the scope of those changes in terms of engineering and the impact they'd have on the rest of the system. They would require massive revisions setting things back by several months each. We kind of saw this in effect with the Oberon revisions in the testing data, tho I wouldn't say those were "setting things back"; if anything those were intentional for incrementing performance across the platform.

Now, I'm no exactly sure how "easy" it is by comparison to adjust the flash memory controllers, but I'd assume it's easier than what Sony had to do in adjusting the PS4 for 8 GB GDDR5 by implementing clamshell mode. And there's still technically time for it since the systems won't be going into manufacturing until the middle of summer. I wouldn't put it past MS or Sony if they are still fine-tuning these sort of things regarding the SSD and I/O; that also includes the compression/decompression software and hardware stack.

So even if the case remains MS can't match Sony's SSD I/O (which, unless the raw physical components were switch out in terms of the flash memory controller, etc., would be impossible), but could they be fine-tuning aspects of the software and hardware stack to push optimization of what they have as far as possible? Certainly. Could Sony be doing likewise? Sure. But similar to how MS is probably comfortable enough in the GPU area to not be considerate of a clock increase at this time, I'd assume Sony's comfortable enough with their SSD I/O setup to not consider needing going through any strenuous extra work in further optimizing that might return minuscule improvements compared to the time invested.

Once things get closer towards end of summer any other changes MS or Sony have made will probably be more or less known and that's when we can assume the specs are fully locked in, unless of course one of them (or both!) delay to 2021.

Eh, I know, just finished Zeno Clash 2.
Search it if you don't know what it is, you'll discover something... particular.

That is one of the weirdest looking game I've seen in a while just looking at the images . But it's always a good thing to have them around. Will give it more of a look, hopefully try it out if able.

 

[rntongo]

This is the post that expose your extreme lack of knowledge about the matter.

Writing lots of words doesn't mean you are knowledgeable. You say PS5 is capable of 5.5GB/s raw then you apply random compression to it for some reason then divide that before adding and subtracting randomly...WTF are you doing?

Accept the actual figures and move on for God's sake.

When will Sony reveal anything new for this madness to stop?!

Those figures are from Cerny's presentation!!

Figures I used

 

[xacto]

This thread has taken a turn for the worse. A long time ago to be honest.

Let's just put 'er down like Old Yeller and wash our hands of it?

I was thinking the same... is it like this every console generation or is this whole lockdown thing taking a heavy toll on people in general?

 

[TLZ]

M6 2007
X5 50i 2016
ML 350 CDI 2013

The v10 M6 is a fucking drug. The X5 is pretty beefy for a SUV btw. But, that's all unrelated to reliability.

I have a 2016 x5 50i also. Holy hell I love that engine. An SUV has no right to hustle like it does with a bm3 tune.

Had a Porsche Cayenne in the mid 00's and man there was nothing like it that I drove before or after. What a sweet ride. Such power and stability. Compared to the Range Rover for example, even though it was comfortable, it felt like I was driving a bus

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

That is one of the weirdest looking game I've seen in a while just looking at the images . But it's always a good thing to have them around. Will give it more of a look, hopefully try it out if able.

Dunno what you exactly saw but it's probably just a tiny part, the game has a lot of different places and creatures, and they are all completely fucked up.
The game runs poorly on PS3 and it isn't particulary competent in general, but it has original ideas for combat, story and art style which is worth any other problem.

 

[MasterCornholio]

In which that 6 GB/s is achieved if the developers take the time and resources to reach that number. In contrast, developers can not touch the Kraken algorithms, but still achieve a higher transfer rate. You're also assuming that developers won't take the time to improve the Kraken decompression. But of course, as soon as you acknowledge that this is probable, it makes your (best case) 6 GB/s argument moot.

Software can be improved overtime with updates. I'm pretty sure Sony isn't going to do nothing with the decompression software once they release the system. Improvements will be made overtime just like Microsoft with their decompression software. What can't be changed is the actual hardware though. So if it's inferior to Sonys SSD on a hardware level it will always be that way. Just like Sony can't do anything to add CUs to the PS5.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Those figures are from Cerny's presentation!!

Randomly deducting a GB from the PS5 while simultaneously adding an extra GB to the XSX isn't good optic for you, you know

 

[rntongo]

You do realize the 5GB/s is raw right?

It can hit the 5GB/s and could achieve more than 6GB/s

Same way the PS5 could go over 9GB/s and achieve 22GB/s

Yes I understand that 5.5GB/s is raw which is impressive because the XSX can only achieve that through decompression. The thing is, by having a higher compression ratio, they can cut this down from 200% to 133%. If we're using the 9GB/s and 6GB/s figures. At the end of the day the compressed figures are what matter not raw read write speeds.

 

[Dory16]

Had a Porsche Cayenne in the mid 00's and man there was nothing like it that I drove before or after. What a sweet ride. Such power and stability. Compared to the Range Rover for example, even though it was comfortable, it felt like I was driving a bus

How's its all wheel drive?
Range all the way

 

[rntongo]

Randomly deducting a GB from the PS5 while simultaneously adding an extra GB to the XSX isn't good optic for you, you know

What do you mean? where did I add and subtract? It's 2GB of data at 5GB/s divided by a compression factor of 1.5 to get 0.2666 seconds.

 

[Ascend]

You got some figures wrong. The speeds you talk about of 8-9GB/s are compressed using Kraken. Without it, they would be 5.5GB/s. The PS5 target is 5GB/s raw uncompressed such that they can push 2GB in about 0.27 seconds(roughly a quarter the time). 2GB /5GB.s/1.5(compression ratio) = 0.2667. That is roughly 8GB/s per second. The XSX can do half this at 4.8GB/s as of now with the possibility of getting closer to 6GB/s once the compression algorithms are finalized. So compression ratios really matter. Despite the PS5 having 200% the raw read write speeds, this can be brought down to 133% by having better compression algorithms.

But remember there are diminishing marginal benefits at such high speeds. If there is only 13-14GB allocated for Games in either console, and you're actually using about 12Gb for the game you're playing then it won't make much of a difference if one machine is 1 or two seconds behind in terms of filling up the RAM. One interesting thing is if the PS5 can do 22Gb/s for certain data, then where would you place that data if the system has only 16GB of RAM.

Interesting question. But games (and thus consoles) don't work on the 'second' level, but on the millisecond level. What this means?

Let's assume the games will be 4K 60 FPS. 60 FPS means you have to have a new 4K frame at the latest every 16.7 ms. How large is a 4K frame? If we assume 32 bit color depth, a non-compressed 4K frame would be around 33.2 MB.

So by that metric, the transfer rate of the PS5's SSD amounts to 91.7MB per frame (raw), or 133.3MB - 150 MB per frame (compressed).
What about the XSX? 2.4 GB/s raw would be 40 MB per frame (raw). As for the compressed value, ignoring BCPack and using only the given compressed number by MS, it would net you 80 MB per frame.

So what do we get from this? The raw SSD transfer speed of the XSX is already enough to transfer a full uncompressed 4K image from the SSD to your display in less than 16.7ms, allowing you to have 60 fps. Add compression, and you can transfer two frames per 16.7 ms, which basically means it is fast enough to transfer a 4K image directly from your SSD to your display at 120 FPS. The PS5 is beyond that.
But what does this all mean? It means that the SSD of the XSX is theoretically fast enough to do what Sony is advertising, which is, not requiring loading times. The speed of the SSD in the XSX allows faster loading than the max time that a frame has available for construction.

Another simple way of looking at it is, if a 4K frame is 33.2 MB (raw), and you need 60 every second, you need a transfer of 33.2 x 60 = 1992 MB = 1.992GB every second. The XSX has 2.4 GB. Note that this is for formed frames only though. You'll need to load multiple textures and other assets to form the full image. And for the Xbox, that's where SFS comes into play.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

What developers are you talking about? Do you understand that the Kraken Decompression is hardware accelerated? And game developers won't have anything to do with it. Sony has optimized the hardware and software for decompression and the results have been 7-9GB/s. MSFT is using a different approach with a higher emphasis on Software than Sony and they haven't yet finalized the BCPack software. Once it's done there's no reason going back unless they can do something major. Which is unlikely to happen for either consoles.

And Mark Cerny said that if the data is very well compressed, the Kraken decompression can hit speeds up to 22 GB/s. This has already been stated to you. Ignoring it does not make your argument any more credible.

So the final figures are:
PS5:
7-9GB/s

XSX(Before BCPack finalized):
4.8-6GB/s

8-9 GB/s on a typical scenario with the best case scenario being 22 GB/s.

My prediction After XBTC finalized:
XSX:
5-6GB/s

Of which the lossiness of BCPack is to be determined and best case scenario, only beats out the PS5's raw bandwidth. But sure, let's pretend that only improvements are made to BCPack and developers will totally not try to improve the way data is compressed on Kraken.

 

[ethomaz]

How is that possible yet BCPack isn't yet finalized? They are still optimizing the Texture compression!

The 4.8GB/s is a baseline.

And here it is:

MSFT still optimizing texture compression

Unless they optimize below 4.8GB/s which would be absurd, it should be higher and at least hit the 5GB/s PS5 target or even go higher closer to the 6GB/s they have marketed thus far.

PS5 target?
PS5 has 5.5GB/s RAW performance... no compression required for that.
8-9GB/s is using compressions.

Xbox baseline is 2.4GB/s RAW and 4.8GB/s with compression... they are probably optimization to be close these 4.8GB/s target not to reach these bullshit 6GB/s.

You are fooling yourself with that 6GB/s lol
But if you wish to okay that game PS5 can do 22GB/s.