Next Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [pre E3 2019]

[Mihailjones]

I wonder can we use usb hdds anymore because they would be so slow vs inner hdd

 

[seahorsesaw]

Naw, I say the sentence could still be deconstructed as "bigger (physical media) capacity". The english grammar allows the ambiguity!

It is bigly bad that we cannot use big as a comparative adverb without being accused of being an idiot. Sad.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I wonder can we use usb hdds anymore because they would be so slow vs inner hdd

It's almost certain you can, but games would have to be (partially) copied from external storage rather than access directly.

 

[Xbat]

It's almost certain you can, but games would have to be (partially) copied from external storage rather than access directly.

That's what I'm hoping for or even just the option to backup individual games to.

 

[Jay]

I'm pretty sure you'll be able to backup games, the issue will come from not being able to play directly from backup drives.

I suspect that it may allow some form of quick start whilst it's still copying over the rest of the game, where applicable.
So backing up to SSD would allow you to start playing a lot quicker than HDD.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It shouldn't be long times at all. Depending on the speed of your external HDD, copying across a few GBs to start could be tens of seconds. And eventually, those external drives can be replaced with cheaper, faster SSDs in five years' time.

 

[Jay]

It shouldn't be long times at all. Depending on the speed of your external HDD, copying across a few GBs to start could be tens of seconds. And eventually, those external drives can be replaced with cheaper, faster SSDs in five years' time.

Yep.
In most circumstances, if it's a game that's making heavy use/designed around its high speed SS, then it may take longer to get enough of the assets copied, due to size and speed of fast travel for example.
In the grand scheme of things I think 90% of people would be ok with it though.
Just won't be the sub second game launching

 

[Deleted member 13524]

So then what is their message for all those currently using their own external drives on PS4s and Xbox Ones? Are they now told they cant use them on nextgen unless they are SSDs?

Don't the current gens demand a USB 3 drive with a quick performance check before hand to determine if they're suitable to be used for streaming games?

All they have to do for next gen is demand USB 4 (which is thunderbolt with 4x PCIe lanes), and require a performance check to see if it's using a decent NVMe controller with fast enough NAND.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

People with a couple TBs already of external storage probably aren't in need of more, fast external storage, so it should be a choice. If the external drive is slow, copy it over. If fast enough, stream from it. Making fast storage a requirement would be rather sucky and costly for those already invested in external storage. For one thing, I imagine XB1 owners would like to just plug their existing HDD into their XBN and play games from it without having to copy those games over onto a whole new drive.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

People with a couple TBs already of external storage probably aren't in need of more, fast external storage, so it should be a choice. If the external drive is slow, copy it over. If fast enough, stream from it. Making fast storage a requirement would be rather sucky and costly for those already invested in external storage.

When the PS4 and XBone came out, lots of people already had a couple TBs in USB 2.0 drives, yet those were nonetheless forced to buy a new USB 3.0 drive if they wanted to increase their storage through external means.
It was probably sucky to those too, but the intended experience should come before allowing people to use their decade-old peripherals.

 

[Jay]

Slight difference being that those usb 2.0 drives was never full with games already.
They was just being repurposed.

Did this gen even start with allowing external storage? Don't think so.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Slight difference being that those usb 2.0 drives was never full with games already.

Perhaps they could keep those games and use them in the new consoles, as long as they only have PS4 / XBone titles.

What Sony or Microsoft shouldn't do is pass on the "instant loading" feature because some people might want to use their old external drives to store some games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What Sony or Microsoft shouldn't do is pass on the "instant loading" feature because some people might want to use their old external drives to store some games.

Of course they shouldn't and there's no need to. Offer instant loading on drives that support it, and caching for slower drives. That's a win/win. Disallowing existing libraries on slow drives to ensure instant loading is supported on external drives is a win/lose. Why would that be preferential?

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Of course they shouldn't and there's no need to. Offer instant loading on drives that support it, and caching for slower drives. That's a win/win. Disallowing existing libraries on slow drives to ensure instant loading is supported on external drives is a win/lose. Why would that be preferential?

Because using TLC and QLC for caching would shorten the cells' lifespan, and designing such a caching system may be either automated with low performance or manual with too many man hours needed for each game.

Sounds like a bunch of inconveniences for a feature that I don't know if a lot of people use (I personally don't know anyone who uses external storage with their console, but I live in a city with fast internet speeds).

 

[Mihailjones]

Because using TLC and QLC for caching would shorten the cells' lifespan, and designing such a caching system may be either automated with low performance or manual with too many man hours needed for each game.

Sounds like a bunch of inconveniences for a feature that I don't know if a lot of people use (I personally don't know anyone who uses external storage with their console, but I live in a city with fast internet speeds).

I dont know about statistics, but many/most of my friends have external hdd's with their ps4's, I would not say that the reason is that we dont want to download games again and again because of time it takes, as internet speeds are fast at Finland, and 100/10 connections cost only 9.90e/month on lowest and no data caps.

Bigger reason is to own many games, I buy mainly physicals but have tons of digital ones too and I rarely finish games at all or it takes year or two while playing many games in the same time or just one a lot.

So, I have too many games installed to fit 1tb internal, I have 1tb usb disc and it is full too.

AKA too many unfinished games to fit internal disc, must have usb disc too unless we want to reinstall stuff too often, it still takes some time even with 100mbps download.

Like 10-15 AAA-games = 1tb disc is full.

 

[function]

You are right. I was a bit off on the SLC endurance. SLC right now costs ~$4/GB on the spot, and promises ~100000 writes per cell. So assuming 500-write endurance for the 1TB drive, you'd need ~5GB at ~20$ (currently) to match it. So there still is ~4x cost advantange for writes in SLC.

On dram exchange, it looks like SLC is about the same price per GB as DDR4. Ouch. I guess that's why it's used primarily for large, none volatile caches that fit in small spaces.

I should post less when tired. You are absolutely correct, a factor of 1000 snuck up there somehow.

I occasionally forget console memory is in GB and not MB these days. Throws my sums off ... :/

Note that Intel is sandbagging a little there. The chips in that drive have a stated lifetime of 500 writes, but Intel has a reputation of their consumer drives being more reliable than advertised to watch out for, so they promised a lower number.

That or they're afraid write leveling will burn more than half of their write allotment...

Yesterday I checked out Samsung's (unfortunately only Sata) QVO SSD's. They rate those SSD's with a lifetime of 360 writes. That means their 2TB drives are a pretty decent looking 720 TB of write endurance.

Though it's interesting that Intel may be as good, just more conservative with their claims.

Back on the subject of caching from external ...

At some point using flash as a cache for games (as opposed to say rolling surveillance footage) will reward size over write endurance. If you can write twice as much, but need to erase and and re-write a game three times as often, the less durable but larger option will actually win out in terms of durability.

A big 1TB QLC cache drive that could store 10~20 games would naturally keep resident the games you are likely to play again. Total write endurance isn't the whole picture.

 

[function]

I think the flash will be soldered in. The device is going to be an integral part of the memory/storage system, Sony will want predictable, and high, performance from it. If they can get a device with 4-6 GB/s sequentiel bandwidth and 400k iops, they can reduce the amount of DRAM needed and reduce overall costs.

How much dram do you see being paired with such a system? Even 12 GB could be decent - you wouldn't need as large a system reserve, and you wouldn't need to use half of your game memory storing assets you won't see for another five seconds.

It might be connected via a PCIE 4 link because that's what (future) off the shelf controllers use. However if the controller is integrated, it should just talk infinity fabric instead of converting back and forth to PCI4, which does come with a power consumption price.

Also means you can cut out the SSD supplier and buy flash direct. That could be a nice little saving.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Also means you can cut out the SSD supplier and buy flash direct. That could be a nice little saving.

The economics generally don't work out that way. You're competing with massive volume buyers so can end up paying more. It's why volume middle men haven't disappeared in most supply chains.

 

[MrFox]

How do we calculate the TF if boost clocks are enabled for next gen?

 

[anexanhume]

How do we calculate the TF if boost clocks are enabled for next gen?

I’m fine using boost clocks if they’re indefinite boosts. If they’re not indefinite, it just sounds maddeningly frustrating because your “bin” of console will determine your sustained FPS. People will return consoles and repastes will become a lot more common.