www.tweaktown.com
Watch the road to PS5?
What you're seeing is PC overhead. Series X removes a lot of the overhead that PC has so it is able to exploit the speed of the SSD better than a PC can.
It was in the LinkedIn profile page of a Phison software engineer who put it on his page that he worked on it. His profile is now private.
That is the max sequential read/write speed of the controller assuming you are using NAND modules capable of achieving those speed. Microsoft has stated their raw speed as 2.4GB/s so they are probably using 4 256GB NAND modules at ~800MT/s to achieve a theoretical 3.2GB/s and accounting for overhead and their sustainable throughput brings them down to 2.4GB/s.
The bus is not the limiter, the NAND module is. The controller supports 1200MT/s per channel and they are using PCIE 4.0 which is really fast.
Google Translate
Microsoft TranslateThis SSD has been analyzed very thoroughly, and there is no special "black technology". Everything is the result of a special adaptation for the scene of the game console. In theory, the cost is not high, and it may even be better than The SSD cost of the Xbox Series X is even lower.
That's right, more than twice the speed, but in theory the cost is still low, why?
Because the SSD's main control is actually very cheap, the main function is to differentiate pricing for manufacturers. In fact, the high-end main control takes the price of the goods and the low-end main control is not much different. However, good horses and good saddles, high-end SSDs on PCs often have to be paired with a small DDR cache to store the address lookup table (LUT), and that's it.
If you want to use a pile of 64GB of flash memory to build a 1TB hard drive, you can use 16 channels, each channel put a piece of flash memory, so the fastest speed, 16x64GB = 1024GB, and then we can be regarded as 16X.
The PS5 is such a design, 12 channels, each channel 64GB, 12x64 = 768GB. Converted from 1024 to 1000 is 825G. The speed is regarded as 12X.
XSX has only 4 channels, but each channel can stack multiple chips, so 4x4x64GB = 1024GB, but only 4X speed. So if you look at the original speed, 5.5GB / s vs 2.4GB / s, which is about 2.3 times the gap. Why not 3 times? Because 64GB of flash memory does not run on a single channel, multiple chips will use the channel bandwidth more completely when stacked.
This is why the 8-channel E16 main control of the group can run to 5GB / s, while the 12-channel main control of the PS5 can only run to 5.5GB / s. In fact, the incomplete utilization of channel bandwidth by a single flash memory causes a certain amount of waste.
Of course, there is another possibility that the MT / s per channel value of the PS5 main control may be lower. In other words, the upper limit of the speed of each channel on the main control is lower, but this just saves money ...
===================================
The main control of PS5 is DRAM-LESS, which is also critical because it saves money.
Sony uses a large data block to reduce the total amount of block addresses, thereby reducing the size of the LUT table mentioned above from the usual GB level to the current KB level, so it can be installed in a small SRAM cache, which saves I lost 1GB of DRAM. Don't underestimate this 1GB DRAM, the total of zero zero is reflected in the total cost, and it can save almost a dozen dollars.
Memory access is simplified by address + offset. The map you use in your daily life will only show the XX building, not the XX room XX in the XX building, right? In the traditional PC SSD, the address table is equivalent to a map accurate to the XX floor, while the PS5 address table is equivalent to a map accurate to the XX cell. So obviously, the map of PS5 will be much smaller and easier to fit in your pocket.
Then, the rest is the offset. For ordinary PC, it is room XX, XX, and for PS5, it is room XX, XX building XX building ... However, this has little effect on the reading speed.
While writing, you can think of it as a fire drill. The writing of the PC is the fire drill by the people of "XX Building XX Building XX", while the writing of the PS5 is the fire drill by the people of "XX Community" In other words, the latter is more laborious. However, the impact on the game console scene is not great.
Therefore, a design like PS5 is not only more expensive than XSX, but it is also likely to be cheaper than XSX SSD. Because the capacity of the hard disk is smaller, you can spend less than 4 flash memory. Four 64GB flash memories are a lot of money, which is much more expensive than a higher-end SSD master ...
====================================
As for how to treat it? Quite simply, Sony's design goal is to save money, not (higher than competitors) high performance. High performance is just a matter of doing it. As mentioned earlier, you have saved 1/4 of the capacity, and the cost is much lower. If you don't add any more, won't you be killed by the player? So I did such a thing. It was more expensive to switch channels, but it wasn't much expensive. It wasn't the main control of the cost, and that's all.
The bandwidth required by the graphics card for page swapping is under the current GDDR6 bandwidth level. Unless it is deliberately forced, there cannot be a scenario where SSDs above 2GB / s cannot be satisfied. In the normal game scene, most things should be in video memory and memory. Only in extreme cases (such as spaceships performing jumps) will mass exchanges be required. However, even if it is a mass exchange, 5.5GB / s SSD can't open the gap with 2.4GB / s SSD, because the entire memory space used for the game is only about 13GB, and a large amount of it will be stored in memory There is no need to exchange the items in it. Actually, there will be at most swap GB. You can't design a scene for the player to jump back and forth in order to use this 5.5GB / s. Do you want the player to trigger photosensitive flicker epilepsy ((
In addition, Virtual Geometry and Virtual Texture are essentially materials in picture format (VG is a geometric model saved in picture format). There are a lot of very efficient compression algorithms that can be directly addressed. This is also for both Mao PS5 and XSX. A hardware decompression chip is added, which can not only release the CPU, but also realize ultra-low latency material exchange. What do you mean, usually you use WinRAR to decompress the 1024 younger sister files in a package are made with CPU, and now with hardware, not only high bandwidth but low latency (and the delay is estimated and predictable, which is stable The number of frames is very important!) In addition, you can also directly access the corresponding younger sister without having to fully decompress. So Sony said that this is revolutionary for console game development, because rounding this is the virtual memory used by the game royal friends. It can be directly addressed, and the delay can be expected, which means that developers with brains can directly access almost any material they need at any time, and they can do a lot of access in advance, which largely hides the delay (although Not all).
=====================================
Next, answer the specific questions of the subject:
Will the memory advancement of the next generation become a bottleneck if it is small?
meeting. This problem will be more obvious in the light chase scene. Whether it is light chase, 4K, 60-120fps or noise reduction, which one is not a big video memory owner? All are memory destroyers. 448GB / s, 560GB / s, to a certain extent, has already set the upper limit of the next generation game memory access capacity. The gain of SSD is only capacity, not bandwidth.
We know that streaming technologies such as megatexture and virtual texture can save a lot of memory, but the bottleneck is hard disk IO, so can hard disk IO with ps5 up to 8-9GB / s solve this bottleneck?
This depends on how you define the bottleneck. The original Mega Texture and the current virtual texture streaming were two dishes in one dish. The bottleneck can be said to be the hard disk IO, not to mention the 8-9GB / s hard disk, even the 1GB / s hard disk is enough. Even if you have a SATA 3 SSD, you wo n’t see anything you ca n’t load in most games. Because the biggest bottleneck of virtual texture streaming is [random read and write speed], this is why games with linear levels generally use virtual textures casually, and you ca n’t see the card loading. Because linear levels are rarely read randomly, and open world games are different, a large number of random reads will instantly drag the entire game. On the other hand, both PC and PS4 use the CPU to decompress and read, so a lot of reading will also drag the CPU and cause unstable frame generation.
Of course, the above-mentioned violence theory is for PC 1440P and the following scenes. When it reaches 4K, it will rise appropriately> 2 times. However, the next generation is starting at 2.4GB / s, and there is hardware decompression, which can be said to have solved the problem perfectly at a certain cost.
Can such a high-speed SSD help improve the performance of the picture, thereby making up for the shortcomings of 15% of the floating point performance of Microsoft's xsx?
No, the picture performance improvement depends on the bandwidth of the entire data path. On the surface, PS5 is only "2TFlops lower" in floating-point performance, but if you look at the essence:
Overall, the data path bandwidth of XSX from memory to CU is much higher (between 25-50%, depending on the specific scenario), but even then I do n’t think XSX can run UE5 ’s demo at 4K 60FPS. Because the essence of this Demo is to show "you can see that I can make such a thing without good optimization", not "you see me this thing is very good than other things. Especially Lumen, Lumen is actually SSGI + coarse mode reflection + sparse voxel tracking GI, Lumen's coarse mode reflection and voxel tracking part is not actually implemented with light chasing acceleration hardware, completely do not understand why, do not know API Not ready or Epic has personality, anyway, DXR can accelerate voxel tracking. Anyway, it's fascinating. Is it better to save the performance and improve the resolution?
- The memory bandwidth is 25% less, and the difference is 112GB / s, which is more scary than 9GB / s. Of course, I am just scaring you (escape
- WGP-level caches such as LDS and L0 are 44% less, and L2 is 25% less. L1 is uncertain but should be less (otherwise XSX will easily feed the CU). For scenes like GPUs, the size of the cache is far more important than the frequency. The RTX 2070 Super is 40 SMs, 1.77GHz, but it ’s still the same as lifting 40 CUs, 1.9GHz 5700XT (Of course, this is just an analogy used to scare you. In fact, Turing efficiency is the same as Teraflops There are many factors that are higher than RDNA1. One of the main factors is that the data path of the N card is actually more efficient, and the buffer size allocated to each stream processor is more solid than the RDNA1 graphics card.) In the words of lazy people, to a certain extent, the performance gain brought by the increase in cache capacity is much greater than the frequency increase. Because your cache at the same level is faster, at most twice as fast as others? However, the time overhead caused by each slow external access is more than ten times the normal cache access (
- Now you should be able to understand why the demo of UE5 can only run to 1440P 30FPS. Because whether it is Nanite or Lumen, it actually eats more video memory bandwidth (rather than video memory capacity), or more, the GPU's ability to use video memory.
Another example is that Nanite does not use Mesh Shader, of course, this is also expected, after all, PS5 is nothing like this. XSX's geometric performance is much higher than 2080Ti under good optimization. After using mesh, 2080Ti can actually render 50M + triangles and people still> 30fps. Nanite said in this demo that it actually renders triangles around 20M and still 30fps. It's embarrassing:
Mesh Shader running at 2080Ti, 45fps, 48M real drawn triangle, 4K resolution
If it is reduced to 20M solid-drawn triangle like UE5 Demo, or to 1440P, it can save a lot of resources for pixel shading and improve performance. Rounding up> 60fps is no problem (
As I said before, I once again confirmed that PS5 does not support Mesh Shader. The geometric performance is still limited by Primitive Shader with insufficient parallelism.
So do n’t have too high expectations for things that save money as the main design purpose, so it is not good for fans or manufacturers. . . If in the end it's really 399, isn't it really fragrant ...
This SSD has been thoroughly analyzed, and there is no particular "black tech", everything is specifically adapted to the console scene results, in theory, the cost is not high, or even more likely than the Xbox Series X SSD cost.
Yes, more than twice the speed, but in theory the cost is low, why?
Because SSD's main control is actually very cheap, the main role is to give manufacturers to distinguish pricing, in fact, high-end master take the price and low-end master control is not a few dollars. However, a good horse with a good saddle, the PC high-end SSD often with a small DDR cache to store the address finder table (LUT), and so is it.
If you want to build a 1TB hard drive with a pile of 64GB of flash memory, you can use 16 channels, one piece of flash per channel, so the fastest, 16x64GB s 1024GB, and then the speed we can put as 16X.
The PS5 is such a design, with 12 channels, 64GB per channel, 12x64 x 768GB. From 1024 to 1000 that is 825G. Speed is considered 12X.
XSX only has 4 channels, but each channel can be stacked with multiple chips, so it's 4x4x64GB . . . 1024GB, but only 4X speed. So if you look at the original speed, 5.5GB/s vs 2.4GB/s, about 2.3 times the difference. Why not three times? Because 64GB of flash running is not satisfied with a single channel, the channel bandwidth utilization is more complete when multiple chips are stacked.
This is also why the group's 8-channel E16 master can run to 5GB/s of reading, while the PS5's 12-channel master can only run to 5.5GB/s. In fact, incomplete utilization of channel bandwidth for a single flash resulted in a degree of waste.
Of course, there is another possibility that the MT/s per channel value of the PS5 master may be lower, in other words, the speed limit of each channel on the master is lower, but this saves money...
===================================
The PS5's masterised is DRAM-LESS, which is also critical because of the savings.
Sony uses large blocks of data to reduce the total block address size, thus reducing the size of the LUT table as mentioned earlier from the usual GB to the current KB level, so that it can be installed in a small SRAM cache, thus saving 1GB of DRAM money. Don't look down on this 1GB DRAM, zero total reflected in the total cost, almost can save a dozen knives.
The simplicity of the visit is through the address plus offset. The map you use in your daily life will show only XX Building, not XX Building XX Room XX, will it? Traditional PC SSD, address table is equivalent to a map accurate to the XX floor, and PS5 address table is equivalent to a map to xx district accurate. So obviously, the PS5 map will be much smaller and easier to put into the pocket.
The rest, then, is the offset. For ordinary PC is XX ROOM XX, AND FOR PS5 IS XX BUILDING XX FLOOR XX ROOM XX ... However, this has little effect on read speed.
While writing, you can think of it as a fire drill. PC's writing is "by XX District XX Building XX Building" people unified fire drills, and PS5 writing is "by XX District" people unified fire drills. In other words, the latter is more labor-conscious. But it's not a big influence on the console scene.
So the PS5's design is not more expensive than the XSX, but is likely to be a little cheaper than xSX's SSD. Because the hard drive is smaller, you can spend four less flash memory. Four 64GB flash memory is a big deal, much more expensive than a higher-end SSD master...
====================================
As for what to think? Quite simply, Sony's design goal is to save money, not to achieve higher performance than its competitors. High performance is just the way it is done. As said before, you have saved 1/4 of the capacity, the cost is also much lower, if not add edgy, will not be sprayed by the player? So did such a thing, change the channel more points but actually not much expensive and the root is not the main cost of the main control, that's all.
The bandwidth required for page switching of the graphics card is not possible to meet the situation of SSD s2GB/s unless it is deliberately forced. In a typical game scenario, most things should be in memory and memory, and only in extreme cases (such as a ship jumping) will require massive exchanges. But even if it is a massive exchange, 5.5GB/s SSD can not and 2.4GB/s SSD to open the gap, because the entire memory space used for the game is only about 13GB, which has a large number of things stored in memory do not need to exchange, the actual maximum swap will be a GB. Can't you design a scene to make the player jump back and forth in order to fill this 5.5GB/s, do you want the player to trigger the light-sensitive flashepilepsy (((
In addition, Virtual Geometry, Virtual Texture these things are essentially picture format footage (VG is a geometric model saved in the picture format), there are a large number of very efficient, and directly addressed compression algorithms, which also for the gross PS5 and XSX have added a hardware decompression chip, not only to release the CPU, but also to achieve ultra-low latency material exchange. What does it mean, usually you use WinRAR to unzip 1024 little sister files in a package are made with CPU, and now do with hardware not only high bandwidth and low latency (and the delay can be estimated, predictable, which is critical to the stable number of frames!) ), also can also go hand in direct access to the corresponding small sister, do not need to fully unzip. So Sony says it's revolutionary for console game development, because rounding it is game-free virtual memory ah friends. Direct addressing, and the latency can be expected, meaning that a braindeveloper can have direct access to almost any material they need at any time, and can pre-empt a large amount of access, largely hiding the delay (though not all).
=====================================
Next, answer the question's specific question:
Will the small progress of memory in the next generation be a bottleneck?
Yes. This problem is even more obvious in the light-chasing scene. Light chase is also good, 4K is also good, 60-120fps is also good, noise reduction is also good, which is not a large memory? It's all memory bandwidth destroyers. 448GB/s, 560GB/s, to some extent, has been set the upper limit of next-generation game access. The gain of the SSD is limited to capacity, not bandwidth.
We know that megatexture, virtual texture and other streaming technology can save a lot of memory, but the bottleneck lies in the hard disk IO, then the ps5 up to 8-9GB/s hard disk IO can solve this bottleneck?
It depends on how you define the bottleneck. Mega Texture and now the virtual texture streaming is a dish two, the bottleneck can be said to be the hard disk IO, not to mention 8-9GB/s hard drive, even if it is 1GB/s hard drive is enough. Even if you have a SSD for SATA 3, you won't see anything that can't be loaded in most games. Because the biggest bottleneck of virtual texture streaming is "random reading and writing speed", which is why the game of linear levels are generally casually used virtual texture, you can not see the card loading. Because linear levels are rarely read randomly, and open-world games are different, a large number of random reads instantly drags down the entire game. On the other hand, both the PC and PS4 use the CPU to extract the read, so a large number of reads can also drag the CPU to cause frame generation instability.
Of course, the above-mentioned tyrannical theory is directed at PC 1440P and the following scenarios. At 4K, it will be appropriate to float up to 2 times. However, the next generation is 2.4GB/s start, and hardware decompression, it can be said that has been at a certain cost to solve the problem perfectly.
Can such a high-speed SSD help improve picture performance and make up for microsoft's xsx 15% of floating-point performance?
No, the picture performance boosts the bandwidth that depends on the entire data path. On the face of it, the PS5 is only "2TFlops" lower in floating-point performance, but if you look at the essence:
Overall, XSX's data path bandwidth from memory to CU is too high (between 25-50%, depending on the scenario), but even then I don't think XSX can run UE5 demo 4K 60FPS. Because the essence of this Demo is to show that "you see I can make such a shy thing without good optimization" instead of "You see i'm more shy than anything else". In particular, Lumen, Lumen is actually SSGI and coarse-mode reflection and sparse-based carnitin tracking GI, Lumen's crude-mode reflection and carnouscan tracking part is not actually using light to speed up hardware to achieve, completely do not understand why, do not know is API is not ready or Epic has personality, anyway, DXR can accelerate the hormone tracking. In short, very crazy. It's not good to save point performance to improve point resolution (
- The memory bandwidth is 25% less, the difference is 112GB/s, this number can be more scary than 9GB/s, of course, I am just scare you (escape)
- WGP-level caches such as LDS and L0 are 44% less, L2 is 25%, and L1 is uncertain but should be less (otherwise XSX will easily feed the CU). For a GPU scenario, the size of the cache is far more important than frequency. The RTX 2070 Super is 40 SMs, 1.77GHz, not the same as lifting 40 Cu, 1.9GHz 5700XT hammer (which, of course, is just a analogy to scare you. In fact, Turing has a lot more of the higher rDNA1 factor than the RDNA1 in comparison to Teraflops, one of the main factors being that the N-card's data path is actually more efficient, with a cache size that is more solid for each stream processor than the RDNA1 graphics card). In lazy words, the performance gains from the increase in the size of the cache capacity are much greater than the frequency increases to a certain extent. Because you're faster at the same level, at most, twice the speed of someone else? But the time overhead of each reprieve is more than ten times that of access within a normal cache (
- Now you should be able to understand why UE5 this Demo can only run to 1440P 30FPS. Because whether it's Nanite or Lumen, it actually eats more memory bandwidth (rather than memory capacity) and more cpus use of memory.
Nanite, for example, is not mesh Shader, of course, this is also to be expected after all PS5 moed this thing. XSX's geometric performance is much higher than 2080Ti under the optimized condition, and 2080 Timesh can actually render the triangle of 50M plus and people are still 30fps, Nanite in this demo is actually rendering about 20M triangle sand and 30fps, which is very embarrassing:
2080 Ti Run Mesh Shader, 45fps, 48M real-painted triangle, 4K resolution
If you drop down to a 20M painted triangle like the UE5 Demo, or down to 1440P, you can save a lot of resources for pixel shading, which can improve performance. Rounding 60fps is no problem (
As I've said before, this proves once again that PS5 does n'go of Mesh Shader. Geometric performance is still limited by The precision of parallelism, Primitive Shader.
So don't expect too much of what's the main design purpose of saving money, either for fans or for the manufacturer... In case the last real 399, is not really fragrant ...
All I can conclude at this point is that Google Translate sucks;
This is why I use Microsoft Translate for East Asian Languages like Chinese/Japanese.
Yeah I saw that you posted both.
www.resetera.com
What's the point of the shiny new Velocity, SFS or trying to prove how SSD is more effective than PS5 SSD when Matt said this to you :
Tom Warren: Developers are saying CPU and SSD are key to next gen, not teraflops, Lockhart won't hold back games
Ms had many cross gen games on 360. Titanfall, FH2, Rise of Tomb Raider, Magic Max... Coupled with some late gen games such as Halo 4 and Gears Judgment, almost all on that list pushing the hardware a lot.
Your posts here are pretty interensting from 14th page onwards. Later you have backpedalled.
If I create a thread saying ps5 is actually 11.98 tf and not 10.28 then u r allowed to tell me if TF is so important to me I should get xsx and I would agree.
Who gives a fuck what Matt says?Seeing your other posts in that thread, further explanations aren't needed.
Nobody is denying that XSX is more powerful. But what i'm seeing here ( or in the thread which i have posted), there is a need also to overstating XSX SSD speed in any possible way to show how XSX SSD is more efficient than PS5 SSD. XsX SSD specs are what they are, nothing more or less.
Especially when this guy in that thread said that GPU capabilities in XSX are bit above PS5 and PS5 SSD is significantly faster than XSX SSD. Further explanation aren't needed.
Seeing your other posts in that thread, further explanations aren't needed.
Nobody is denying that XSX is more powerful. But what i'm seeing here ( or in the thread which i have posted), there is a need also to overstating XSX SSD speed in any possible way to show how XSX SSD is more efficient than PS5 SSD. XsX SSD specs are what they are, nothing more or less.
Especially when this guy in that thread said that GPU capabilities in XSX are bit above PS5 and PS5 SSD is significantly faster than XSX SSD. Further explanation aren't needed.
Yikes.You sound like a fan boy urself so no wonder you like these baseless illogical discussions ."sony pony" . How old are you ?
Please tell me where in the OP I said What is important to me ? All it does explains the Xbox Velocity Architecture with statements from MS and quotes from devs.
MS literally said 6 GB/s, its in the OP.
Here is the next gen thread console war template. Deal with it.
The irony
Thats the ceiling for hardware and ps5 ssd ceiling is 22gb/s and if I see a ps5 fan saying ps5 ssd is 22 gb/s I will call them out as well.
Zhihu is like Chinese Quora. I dont know him but he seems very knowledgeable about what he is talking.Thank you for the post it sheds a lot about the SSDs.
1.) I have a question, who is this person? They seem very credible in terms of what they are saying. I like how they explained the controller being cheaper than NAND flash. That should have been obvious but I never thought of it that way.
2.) How did you find out about them and whats this site?
3.) It also explains this chart from Bloomberg. The XSX SSD costs the same as the PS5 according to Bloomberg. I always wondered why but this sheds light.
Why are you making stuff up now ? Who said that ? 4.8 Gb/s compressed is for the SSD in general not the custom hardware decompression block. They never said anything about any locked numbers.
Next-gen speculation threads are one helluva drug.
Lol I just spent an inordinate amount of time looking for it, but do you remember the DMC we almost beat 2 stages before the PS3 was installed video.
The decompression blocks of he XsX and PS5 can output up to 6GB/s and 22GB/s, respectively. That does not mean that the data is actually going to get streamed at those rates. Those limits are theoretical.
In my opinion will be much bigger than it looks . Time will tell. End of discussion for now. We come back to it after a year when we see how the ui and games work on each system.
The custom hardware decompression block is the backbone of the Xbox Velocity Architecture. Nothing to do with PS5's "theortical max".
❤