jackets with pockets
Banned
There's no such thing as "next-gen" in the PC world.
- Status
There's no such thing as "next-gen" in the PC world.
Nope. It's the same time frame: 16/32 ms (depends on target fps)
Therefore with a similar graphics quality similar RAM usage.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
Maybe I'm setting myself up for disappointment but between what Mark Cerny said and the DF article about the PS5 SSD, all games should take advantage of the SSD I/O speed?
ANIMAL1975
Member
Wow!... You have been jumping the gun really fast recently, not everything is a fight man!
You said this:
What does it look like? That you are implying that this big sylver tower could be hiding a pc or something...
hence my response to you, saying that Cerny informed the Wired guy, that there was a early low-speed devkit (Ariel 1.8GHZ maybe, as in low-speed clock?) inside that sylver box! _ An actual ps5 devkit inside, perhaps to hide the form factor, and not a PC like you seemed to be insinuating...
Where the fuck did i compared loading speeds with XSX or talked about optimized, unoptimized demos!???
Because you were in that fight with other users, you immediately assume that anyone talking to you also wants to get in the same shit,,,, and you go all warrior mode lol
D
Deleted member 775630
Unconfirmed Member
I agree, I think I was mixing you up with someone else. My bad!
Insane Metal
Member
Since I'm fairly convinced that the consoles are somewhat based on Ryzen 2 Mobile, here's Hardware Unboxed review of Ryzen 4000 series vs. Intel's 9th and 10th gen. Spoiler: it eats Intel's CPUs for breakfast
NextGen Games will look better than this. Trust me!
Metroiddarks
Member
And that's a claim, an idea, or why I because never said that in the post.
What we have are generations of games and that in particular is the closest thing we have to games optimized for SSD,
usually that term is use for the games in consoles because those are base for most the games which after are ported to pc,
I know SC is not the case but is a good example.
MasterCornholio
Member
I just read a few articles and you're right about that. I guess we have to wait for a multiplat before we can compare the two.
Evilms
Banned
Unreal Engine 4 is now ready for next gen consoles.
www.unrealengine.com
Unreal Engine 4.25 released!
New features include next-gen console support, updates to Niagara VFX and Chaos physics, a new high-quality media output pipeline, and much more.
www.unrealengine.com
Last edited:
Neo Blaster
Member
If it cannot load a game with smaller assets in reasonable time and with all that pop-in, what can you expect about next gen games?
Hawking Radiation
Member
JerryinSoCal
Member
I just wish people would stop acting as if everyone who plays on PC has the newest most powerful rig, most people do not but whenever console is compared to PC it's always against the top of the line not what the average PC gamer has.
Bladed Thesis
Member
Steam stats tell a very clear story about "normal" pc specs.
Gamernyc78
Banned
Stats say most pc gamers aren't even playing at 4k or with HDR. A very small percentage have that capability but you know on here everyone has titans and crossfire
Metroiddarks
Member
Just be ready to the end of this year and start of the next see the pc forums full of people saying things like:
-"This game is not optimized"
-"Lazy devs"
-"Poor PC port"
Instead to think than maybe the problem is your pc you know that which is fraction of power than the new consoles and still use a HDD.
Last edited:
marvifrom
Member
I wish I could load something that fast.
The fastest SSD in the west.
Gamernyc78
Banned
Just 1.74% of PC gamers have adopted 4K
The new mid-gen consoles heralded the beginning of the 4K era, brining UHD gaming to the masses. Sure, you could argue that few games consistently run at the target resolution natively. Some games instead use dynamic resolution scaling or rendering techniques. That techno-disclaimer aside, a...
www.criticalhit.net
Just wow!!! Less than 2 percent
lets keep hearing those stories of master race with 8k gaming at 120 fps
Last edited:
B_Boss
Member
Thanks a ton for the explanations guys. I was wondering if that compression occurs in real-time as you play or not. At what stage, either in development (if applicable) or during gameplay does this compression occur was the thinking behind my question earlier. Appreciate the responses.
This is my pure speculation but I'd think that PS5 game sizes was certainly a primary consideration when Cerny's Team decided to aim eliminating all (if not most) bottlenecks.
.......care to elaborate?
Is he serious?? Lmaooo
Yikes
....
sircaw
Banned
Unreal Engine 4 is now ready for next gen consoles.
Unreal Engine 4.25 released!
New features include next-gen console support, updates to Niagara VFX and Chaos physics, a new high-quality media output pipeline, and much more.
I bloody hate car games, but Jesus those cars look like works of art on that engine.
Ascend
Member
Yes. That's how it went. But, remember that the sleep state is for multiple games rather than one. The game state is saved and has to be loaded from storage, not from RAM like is currently the case. Or do you really think they have 4-5 games in RAM at the same time?
And if we know it is loading from SSD, how can those game states be loaded in 5-6 seconds, but loading from zero requires almost double that?
The simple answer is that one is more optimized. One is leveraging the new tech, and the other is not.
But essentially, you're right, you can't really compare the two, just like you can't compare the Spiderman PS5 demo to either of the two above. They are completely different things, because one is optimized and one is not. But that doesn't stop people from making the comparisons. They take the Spiderman demo and compare it to the slowest loading they can find for the Xbox. And that was my point. We need to compare apples to apples. Not apples to eagles or apples to comets. But I guess we can't expect better when people are only interested in boosting their own ego with their preferred brands.
Last edited:
Gamernyc78
Banned
You do alot of these type of responses. Don't you get tired? No disrespect to you and I'm not trying to be edgy but ppl are going to believe what thy want to believe, some will actually be right, some will be wrong. We all know Psv SSD situation trumps Xbox, thts not even debatable no matter how ppl try to rationalize it.
martino
Member
percentage don't tell the whole story.Just 1.74% of PC gamers have adopted 4K
The new mid-gen consoles heralded the beginning of the 4K era, brining UHD gaming to the masses. Sure, you could argue that few games consistently run at the target resolution natively. Some games instead use dynamic resolution scaling or rendering techniques. That techno-disclaimer aside, a...
Just wow!!! Less than 2 percent
it's 1% from an unknown number of people accepting review in 1 billion total account.
Last edited:
JerryinSoCal
Member
Graphically that looks nice until he starts running, the whole thing looks off because of how slow he's going and the animation in general.
Fake
Member
I guess neither steam tell the whole story, but Steam numbers are very used for any argument.
MasterCornholio
Member
Maybe that State of Decay Demo is already optimized.
What I mean by that is that it's the XSX very first time loading the game. Once you load the game for the very first time and save it in a state, the next time the game is loaded it should be much faster.
This could also be the same for the PS5 as well.
DrKeo
Member
It depends on the file system but NTFS, for instance, doesn't really take space on the HDD. NTFS uses 12.5% of the free space for MFT but you still see this 12.5 % as free space on your drive. When your drive gets too full, data start writing over the MFT and performance drop (that's why when you drop below 12.5% free space on a drive in windows it starts appearing in red).
So getting back to the subject, take a look at your 1TB drive in your PC. Under "Capacity" you will see the actual number of available bits. Just like the IEEE standard says, you will see that your 1TB drive is actually 1TB and not 1TiB. For instance, my 970 Evo Plus is 999,679,545,344 Bytes (and my 6TB drive is 6,001,039,241,216 Bytes and my old SATA 250GB SSD is 248,565,985,280 Bytes) and it's not because of formatting, it's because that's the actual number of active bytes on my SSD. Convert that to GiB, and you get 931.024GiB, just like most 1TB (not TiB) ever since the IEEE convention.
To me, it's not that simple because if 4.8GB/s is the weighted average between the typical Zlib and BCPack decompression, it means the typical BCPack decompression is ~6GB/s. What I have a problem with calling the 6GB/s max is that if your typical is ~6GB/s, how the hell is your max 6GB/s? BCPack varies wildly depending on the content of the textures, so how can 6GB/s be both average and max? It doesn't make any sense, unless what MS meant was that 6GB/s was the typical BCPack decompression in the block and when you average it with the Zlib it yields 4.8GB/s typical. 6GB/s max doesn't add up mathematically.
I think you are oversimplifying the loading process. The CPU has a lot of work to do during loading and it varies depending on the game. Loading isn't just vomiting data from storage to memory, it's also building data structures, preparing all sorts of things by the CPU, and so on. On top of that, you have no idea if Spider-man was updated in order to use the SSD or not in that demo. You can't really judge until you see two versions of a well-implemented 3rd party game running on both XSX and PS5.
SSD speed doesn't help memory bandwidth. It's actually the other way around, when you stream data faster, you actually take more bandwidth from the memory.People are still having their mindset stuck in the HDD era. With 5.5-22GB/s SSD speeds you have 4,621-54,355% (mininum-max compared to 40.4-116.5MB/s of PS4) more data to transfer per one second, assuming both having zero bottlenecks theoretically. So you would need less cycles to transfer that data, not to mention 12 channels, 6 priority levels, and GPU cache scrubbers (less offloading/uploading= more efficient).
If 448GB/s was good for RTX2080 with loads of bottlenecks, then it should be an overkill for PS5 that's optimized like no other.
Both console memory bandwidth is a disappointment IMO. Sony should have gone with 16Gbps and MS should have gone with full 20GB for unified 560GB/s.
1) MS is streaming to the next frame, not the next 10 frames, that's the principle behind their "velocity architecture". Considering Sony should have ~x2 faster transfer rates, I'm sure Sony is going for the next frame too.
2) Animations tax the CPU, higher quality models tax both CPU and GPU (and ray tracing performance), textures and texture filtering tax memory bandwidth and so on. In the end, it doesn't matter what you stream, if you intend on streaming x2 more/better assets, you will tax other parts of the system like the CPU, GPU, memory, or memory bandwidth. Somewhere these systems will have to strike a balance, XSX has more CPU/GPU/memory bandwidth so it can handle more/better assets but has a slower SSD that won't be able to stream them while PS5 has a better SSD that is able to stream more/better assets but weaker CPU/GPU/memory bandwidth in order to display them on screen. Each system with its' own bottlenecks and it will be interesting to see how things pan out when we start seeing third party games coming out on both.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
Yes, and there's no such thing as needing a special coding type to take advantage of an SSD either. I'm not sure why people keep repeating this.
xacto
Member
Did you also notice the frame rate drops? If this game will ever be released on consoles, I'd like to give it a try though.
Just wait and see what polyphony digital will be able to with their proprietary game engine. We have already had a glimpse of GT sport with ray tracing at 8k 120fps
MasterCornholio
Member
I'm hearing the speculation that games have to optimized for the SSD.
What does that mean?
Gamernyc78
Banned
It'll be insane if Sony were just showing us a prelude back then of how psv bc could enhance a ps4 game. I know I'm dreaming but imagine.
bitbydeath
Member
The only thing I can think of is the compression method applied. The game code itself would be no different.
MasterCornholio
Member
Weird because compression is used with traditional HDDs as well. Except this time around these systems have hardware based decompression systems.
Maybe it has to be compressed in a specific manner to take advantage of them?
Gediminas
Banned
of course it is optimized. these xbox trying so hard to downplay it.
m$ spends millions on PR, misleading, half truth, spin off, advertisement everywhere, game awards and so on...
they had time, man power and big budget and they suddenly will make a rookie mistake and records and release unoptimized version of older game to SHOWCASE loading and showcase the new xbox SX tech which will make them billions or will cost them billions? yeah, right. sounds like naive fairy tales for children.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
I don't know what to tell you DrKeo. Only Microsoft can answer this. What I'm confident about is that if the figure is more than 4.8GB/s as you believe, don't you think they would've said so on the spec sheet?
Edit: Unrelated random question for anyone that might know. On the XSX DF article it lists specs for all the recent Xbox consoles and XSX but I noticed that the One S SoC is listed as 227mm^2 but I remember when it came out it was said to be 240mm^2......How did it shrink?
Last edited:
1. That's not achievable (on XBSX). Velocity or no velocity.
If MSFT ever said that, they probably referred to SFS which indeed works on the basis of the previous frame. But it means: pop-in.
There are various strategies for SFS, The "next-frame" one means that you construct your "mip-level map" for the next frame, and when next frame comes you have loaded parts of a higher mip texture.
There is also a "triple-pass" one, where you render the frame two times actually, first time with coarser assets to get the mip-level mapping and next time with the real assets.
It's all there in the SFS docs.
Again it doesn't mean that the "next frame" is targeted, it's just a specific case implementation of a specific tech.
PS5 can target "next frame" or even the same frame (cache scrubbers are there for a reason). But latency is gonna be grim. They will probably just target a blind reload without a feedback on a scene-graph basis.
I.e. calculate LoD with a game-specific algorithm and just blindly schedule new assets for loading SDD->VRAM.
2. Animations are blended on GPU nowdays, if it taxes CPU you're doing it wrong. (Yes, there are a lot of people who do it wrong, but they should listen to ND and learn).
Textures do not tax memory bandwidth you're still sampling exactly the same amount of samples per pixel of the output.
RT scales with the output resolution only too, there is no dependency on the scene complexity (that's the main "selling point" of RT). But again RT will die on random memory access much much earlier anyway.
Anyway the only thing that will tax GPU significantly when more assets are loaded per unit of time is if different shaders are implemented that use more assets than the other system.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
I remember a while back Phil Spencer said he had the retail console at home and was playing games on it. That indicates to me that the hardware was already finalized a really long time ago.
They should have had enough time to prepare optimized demos for it. With that said I find it hard to believe that they would demonstrate the SSDs capabilities with a poorly optimized demo. I know that they are not that incompetent.
Which is also why it's possible that the demo was already optimized for the XSXs I/O solution.
Gamernyc78
Banned
Ppl are just trying to grasp at straws to find a way to say tht Xbox ssd solution and speed is on par with psv solution and we all know thts just a fairy tale.
MasterCornholio
Member
I don't think people are saying that. What they are saying is that the final results will be better than the State of Decay Demo. I haven't really seen anyone on Gaf claim that the XSX SSD is as capable as the PS5 or even better than it.
Snowdonhoffen
Member
Interesting...
MasterCornholio
Member
Radical_3d
Member
Actually it does. Let's take a cross-gen game as example. That game has the levels designed to stream assets from the old drives. So, if you just use that code it'll load those assets faster but it won't load any more than what is parametrised to do. So, you can take advantage of the GPU only to an extend, since those 10-12TF will be starving for more memory utilisation.
Ascend
Member
Not as tired as I get reading nonsense and deliberately deceiving comments. Yeah. Maybe I should just leave these threads. I guess I'm hoping to find some new juicy details here, but all there is, is green vs blue. It's not even green vs blue really... More like teal vs cyan.
Wow. Someone actually understands. Good.
It has also been shown that Gears 5, without any code alterations, loads 4x as fast on the XSX compared to the X1X. That falls in line with the State of Decay Demo. So it's only logical to expect better for games that are coded to leverage the SSD.
People forget that all they've shown for the XSX is 'older' games running on it. They were focusing on backwards compatibility, and basically plug and play for your older games and older hard drives. They talked about their new architecture, but the only thing that seems to be leveraging it still, is the quick resume demo. The games in quick resume take about 6 seconds to load. Technically, if the same thing is done on the PS5 in the same way, they should take 3 seconds instead.
Gamernyc78
Banned
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 775630
Unconfirmed Member
Would be great. Happy Microsoft pushed for "no generations" anymore, because this is what you get out of it.
MasterCornholio
Member
I still think it's weird that the demonstrated the SSDs capabilities with an unoptimized demo.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Well I don't know what you even really mean by that; I think it's pretty much factual that those SSD speeds can produce an unreasonable amount of detail when it pertains to game file sizes. That will also greatly vary on the game type; like any generation fighting/racing games can do things that open world games can't for instance.
Not a bad thing; my point is devs can do just about anything they want with detail SSD speed wise but the real bottleneck is just the size on disk + just general feasibility of designing that level of detail for open world games.
Ascend
Member
Well, if it really is 'slow' like that for all games, we'll find out soon enough.
- Status