take care of yourself man and your familyNormal will be 8-9GB/s. But SONY uses its own protocol that supports 6 Tiers of data priorities instead of 2 of NVMe, together with the inclusion of the Kraken chip for hardware accelerated decompression that is integrated in the main SoC, they can manage to handle rates of up to 22GB/s at best.
Scuffed LOD transitions = Ugly textures
the demo of it looked so damn good too. i see why they had to downgrade itWell, FF15 was one of the shittiest looking games this gen with the worst draw distance ever, and played it on performance instead of resolution on PS4 Pro. Still, I give it 9/10 and squeezed every bit of it!
I haven't played it yet, but I saw the texture pop-in in the DF video two days ago and It did look pretty bad... You could almost feel the slow HDD seeking. Next-gen can't come soon enough.Scuffed LOD transitions = Ugly textures
edit: not sure they'll fix it but im hoping they do
the demo of it looked so damn good too. i see why they had to downgrade it
They sleep. I can't.take care of yourself man and your family
Do those numbers matter to a developer at all? I would guess you would care about the number of guaranteed sustained GB/S, so you can know how much data you can actually rely on having available. And I think somebody said that was 7.4GB/s.Normal will be 8-9GB/s. But SONY uses its own protocol that supports 6 Tiers of data priorities instead of 2 of NVMe, together with the inclusion of the Kraken chip for hardware accelerated decompression that is integrated in the main SoC, they can manage to handle rates of up to 22GB/s at best.
It's not just the speed that's important. It's the latency. It doesn't matter if your bandwidth is enough to stream an asset off the SSD if it can't do it when you need it. That's why the PS5's SSD controller has 6 priority channels while the XSX likely only has 2. The XSX simply wasn't designed to be used as a substitute for RAM. It was designed to load ram fast, not replace it.Your speculating that streaming assets directly off of ssd requires more than 1.5-2GBps which and has shown to be adequate.
SSD didn't fix it, seems to be an issue with UE4 borked LOD transitionsI haven't played it yet, but I saw the texture pop-in in the DF video two days ago and It did look pretty bad... You could almost feel the slow HDD seeking. Next-gen can't come soon enough.
yes it does matter. check the road to ps5 12:08 time of road to ps5Do those numbers matter to a developer at all? I would guess you would care about the number of guaranteed sustained GB/S, so you can know how much data you can actually rely on having available. And I think somebody said that was 7.4GB/s.
Guaranteed throughput is 5.5GB/s for PS5 and 2.4GB/s XSXDo those numbers matter to a developer at all? I would guess you would care about the number of guaranteed sustained GB/S, so you can know how much data you can actually rely on having available. And I think somebody said that was 7.4GB/s.
What I'm saying is that the theoretical max speed or even the most common speed of the SSD doesn't matter, because those are not sustained numbers you can rely on. What matters is the minimum speed guaranteed, because that's the speed at which you can actually be sure the data is going to be available.who said it and where?
cernys push for it was sending textures and objects out in a half second and removing them just as fast. so to a dev yes it would matter if youre streaming in textures and loading them in a half second and removing them in a half second with out the user being able to notice
I thought SSD on PS4 doesn't improve loading speeds because the SATA and USB share a controller.SSD didn't fix it, seems to be an issue with UE4 borked LOD transitions
That too but this seems like a engine issue, i agree it should be fixedI thought SSD on PS4 doesn't improve loading speeds because the SATA and USB share a controller.
Anyway, it does look like something that can be fixed through a patch... I'll hold off getting it until they do. Thanks for the headsup.
A developer isn't going to leave performance on the table by coding to minimum I/O bandwidth specs. What they'll do is use memory as an SSD cache to average out I/O bandwidth requests. That way the game can be designed around the average I/O bandwidth. That's why bandwidth is so important. The more of it you have, the less RAM you need to waste being used as a cache.What I'm saying is that the theoretical max speed or even the most common speed of the SSD doesn't matter, because those are not sustained numbers you can rely on. What matters is the minimum speed guaranteed, because that's the speed at which you can actually be sure the data is going to be available.
If you design your game around having 8 GB of assets streamed every second and sometimes the speed is 7.something, there are assets that are not going to be there on time. You would be seeing textures appearing in front of you.
Normal will be 8-9GB/s. But SONY uses its own protocol that supports 6 Tiers of data priorities instead of 2 of NVMe, together with the inclusion of the Kraken chip for hardware accelerated decompression that is integrated in the main SoC, they can manage to handle rates of up to 22GB/s at best.
It is always important to have a good margin of maneuver. Especially in a system like PS5 designed to be as efficient as possible from the beginning. Variable speeds, SmartShift, ...Do those numbers matter to a developer at all? I would guess you would care about the number of guaranteed sustained GB/S, so you can know how much data you can actually rely on having available. And I think somebody said that was 7.4GB/s.
I’m still intrigued by the number of priority levels mentioned. Anything more than two levels (high, low) hasn’t really been viable - without using a ring-bus - because a bridged type bus at saturation is so preoccupied with binary-back-off collisions for accessing the bus that providing any sort of isochronous throughput is too difficult at high load. I will be surprised if the PS5 doesn’t have at least one ring bus to accommodate those 6 levels of priority under heavy load.
Data priorities allow urgent data requests to jump to the head of the line. It allows the SSD to be more fully utilized. As a simple example, lets compare two phone systems. One with two priority levels and the other with only one. Now imagine you are expecting an important call. The caller knows its important so if they call and the line is busy, they'll call again.I'm struggling to understand what you mean by data priorities. It seems like a pretty important feature but I just don't understand it.
Could you please give an explanation?
I would really appreciate it.
Where has anyone said that? Please post a link?From my understanding , the main issue is that in XSX the RAM pool is unified. So we are not talking about 10 GB of RAM working at 560 GB/s and 6 at 336 GB/s. If the console needs to access more than 10 GB of RAM at any given moment, all RAM is accessed at 336 GB/s, even the faster 10 GB pool.
This is why just saying XSX's RAM runs at 560 GB/s is really not a good approximation, since that is only true when the console uses less than 10 GB at one time, and we simply don't know how things will turn out in practice. For all we know, for 20%, 50%, 80%+ of the time XSX's RAM could effectively be operating at 336 GB/s.
From my understanding , the main issue is that in XSX the RAM pool is unified. So we are not talking about 10 GB of RAM working at 560 GB/s and 6 at 336 GB/s. If the console needs to access more than 10 GB of RAM at any given moment, all RAM is accessed at 336 GB/s, even the faster 10 GB pool.
This is why just saying XSX's RAM runs at 560 GB/s is really not a good approximation, since that is only true when the console uses less than 10 GB at one time, and we simply don't know how things will turn out in practice. For all we know, for 20%, 50%, 80%+ of the time XSX's RAM could effectively be operating at 336 GB/s.
When you have near just in time access to any data in the 825GB SSD, you don't need a 100GB partition of virtual memory.I'm looking for that info in bold. I'm also looking for the PS5 having access to anything in 100Gb worth of SSD as a Virtual Ram pool sitting behind Video Ram but before it has to stream from the SSD. Point it out for me so that I can read up on it.
There's low level and high level access and game-makers can choose whichever flavour they want - but it's the new I/O API that allows developers to tap into the extreme speed of the new hardware. The concept of filenames and paths is gone in favour of an ID-based system which tells the system exactly where to find the data they need as quickly as possible. Developers simply need to specify the ID, the start location and end location and a few milliseconds later, the data is delivered.
This combination of hardware and software to enable near instant access of data is what Microsoft termed "Velocity Architecture" only Sony does not give it a fancy name and PS5 is faster at it based on specs of the storage and IO.With latency of just a few milliseconds, data can be requested and delivered within the processing time of a single frame, or at worst for the next frame.
I don't think he was saying ps5 can't do that as well. He was responding to the suggestion that XSX couldn't stream data off of it's SSD like ps5 can.
Scuffed LOD transitions = Ugly textures
edit: not sure they'll fix it but im hoping they do
When you have near just in time access to any data in the 825GB SSD, you don't need a 100GB partition of virtual memory.
This combination of hardware and software to enable near instant access of data is what Microsoft termed "Velocity Architecture" only Sony does not give it a fancy name and PS5 is faster at it based on specs of the storage and IO.
AMD GPUs use the "combined scatter" and "combined gather" methods.Data is spread across all chips evenly, for GPU to access data from the 16bit half it would limit bandwidth to 280GB/s and CPU to 168GB/s
This is an undesirable outcome
edit: and the net results the same 160GB used 80GB gained= 80GB/s used for average CPU access of 48GB/s
This is XSX's CG render die shot and PCB. This is not the real world PCB and die shot.Look it'd be neat if they did something like this to work around that possible quirk, but the problem is we've seen the chips on the XSX motherboard and they're arranged three to one side, three to the other side, and four along the top. The graph here doesn't match up with the actual PCB's chip layout, and we can assume the four chips along the top are the 1 GB modules.
I'm not completely dismissing your general idea, but it wouldn't be using what's suggested in that graph because the module layout on the graph doesn't match the actual module layout on the real motherboard.
Thanks for your correction.And it can hit around ~20GB/s randomly as well as seen by our friend BGs.
That I say that the theoretical peak is +20GB/s does not mean that it is a constant or that I have seen it. Let's try not to read beyond my words.
Damn, right on the money!XSeX SSD and I/O is manifestly a lot slower than the one in the PS5. The Crytek developer affirmed this when he confirmed that XSeX loading is not instant and still at the realm of about 5-10 seconds (he used the xbox official video as an example to avoid NDA).
The same bottleneck in the PC is present in XSeX (probably sped it up a little).
PS5 has 6 custom chips to ensure loading is INSTANT. XSeX only has one custom chip, the decompressor, which is not even as fast as the one in the PS5.
Xbox Velocity Architecture is a marketing talk. No wonder developers are not talking about it and not excited about it. It's the same slow ass architecture in PC sped up a little.
XSX's SSD area has two hardware decompressors which areXSeX SSD and I/O is manifestly a lot slower than the one in the PS5. The Crytek developer affirmed this when he confirmed that XSeX loading is not instant and still at the realm of about 5-10 seconds (he used the xbox official video as an example to avoid NDA).
The same bottleneck in the PC is present in XSeX (probably sped it up a little).
PS5 has 6 custom chips to ensure loading is INSTANT. XSeX only has one custom chip, the decompressor, which is not even as fast as the one in the PS5.
Xbox Velocity Architecture is a marketing talk. No wonder developers are not talking about it and not excited about it. It's the same slow ass architecture in PC sped up a little.
From DF, PS4 Pro's 1620p is checkerboard.Mate, you're trying to diss Cerny for saying full 4K gaming needs 8TF... RE3 released on X1X with terrible framerates. It got patched today and the resolution was reduced down to 1620P. Same as the PS4 Pro version. Do you not think if X1X had 8TF it would have been able to run RE3 at full 4K/60? I do.
I think the way it's going to work will be: your friend is playing a game, you go into their profile. On PS4 you can see what game they're playing and in some games what mode/level (doesn't work that well too, sometimes it's outdated info). To see the game itself, you have to ask for shareplay. On PS5, the system will quickly load the game your friend is playing (provided you have it too, of course) and show you exactly what they're seeing. Then you can join or shareplay. The difference is, this won't be streaming video you see but in-engine graphics. This would mean, with good internet connection the lag would be exactly the same you have in multiplayer games, so not noticeable. And for people who have datacaps - huge savings in transfer.Tht shit would be bonkers lol I still sit in awe of what thy accomplished with share play. Playing a game and passing the controller to a friend to play tht same game or adding them to mp without them having the game is fucking crazy and works great on my connection.
![]()
Xbox Series X 'Texture Compression BCPack' Reportedly Better Than The PS5's Kraken
Microsoft revealed the complete specs for Xbox Series X earlier this month. Today, we might have something really interesting - Xbox Series X BCPack.www.thegamepost.com
Why would they if their own BCPack is better?What’s MS holding back to also use Kraken and switch now to it?
For Zlib, as it seems kraken is better suited for general purpose.Why would they if their own BCPack is better?
Why would they if their own BCPack is better?
In hardware?What’s MS holding back to also use Kraken and switch now to it?
I think it's clear the I/O and SSD set up in PS5 is manifestly superior.
What’s MS holding back to also use Kraken and switch now to it?
Which game do you think will show it off best?