Thank you for the clarification!
Next gen just keeps getting more and more interesting...
Indeed it does, and we don't even have to dive into magic sauce or invisible secondary chips.
Next Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]
- Thread starter DavidGraham
- Start date
-
- Tags
- john sell
- Status
Indeed it does, and we don't even have to dive into magic sauce or invisible secondary chips.
No an Xbox podcast last week.
Last edited:
Next gen just keeps getting more and more interesting...
Next year Intel, AMD and NV with new things, consoles too. DF has something to do 2020
Going to be fun watching sony and ms warriors claiming they have the best against each other
Do you have a link to the podcast? From what he is saying there, it seems he is saying that the I/O in XSX could be faster than anything on PC while the one in PS5 definitely is. Am I getting that right?
That is what he is saying.
XSX possibly faster than anything on PC.
PS5 proven time be faster than anything on PC.
Stop you're going to jinx it!
So unless I am getting this wrong, is I/O and speed of SSD connected? I ask because if they are then I don't see how the XSX is faster assuming the rumored speed of 2gb/s which isn't as fast as max PCIE 3. Of course this assumption goes out of the window if the stated speed of 2gb/s is incorrect or if I/O speed is different from SSD speed.
Related.
there is speed of accessing the data. then there is how many blocks you can access simultaneously how many different types of actions you can do concurrently.
If everything was done serially; then speed is the only thing that matters. But once you open it up for jobs to be done in parallel; then the speed is determined by how much can be done in parallel and how fast.
Why would you need a controller when the SSD "cold storage" only job is to load to the "warm storage"?
Rootax
Veteran
I wonder if Sony solution can help with cpu impact on loading. I mean, i'm sure you've all see that, but on pc, with a fast ssd, cpu became the bottleneck again sometime with loading time (decompression, some compilation stuff,etc). So yeah, I'm all for very good i/o system, but the whole système has to be able to handle it.
On MS side we might be looking at 64-128gb of virtual RAM where devs can uncompress data. Decompression bottleneck eliminated.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
That escalated quickly...
I never mentioned production cost nor subsidy rates.
I just think 600€ one year from now wouldn't be that big of a deal. Certainly not as game breaking as 600€ in 2006.
The 2013 consoles were developed during a massive financial crisis within the western countries. Next generation consoles were not, so we should all expect higher launch prices.
Save for a low end SKU with less RAM and slower GPU (that I still think is a bad idea BTW), we shouldn't expect any console to cost less than €500.
I don't take pleasure in people getting banned. Do a pledge bet instead.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
That was expected as an option. Other options were customized firmware (small cost increase) or custom controller (larger cost increase). That's at the hardware level, the changes at the software level (OS) are a given.
All options which would make upgrading the SSD pool with off the shelf NVME SSDs not doable, as you can't disable most of their capabilities with any current consumer retail SSD.
So, in order to support upgrading the SSD pool it would be via adding a secondary storage pool or for Sony to sell custom SSDs (alternatively Sony licensed custom SSDs).
Regards,
SB
You have an idea though how much that is? I mean MS surely is not buying a top of the line off the shelf SSD for cost reasons.
Problem with pc is gigantically software related today. Fast ssd's do very little to loading times versus regular "slow" sata ssd. Sony/MS solution is likely as much good API's and forcing developers to optimize as it's great HW. Hopefully the sw side optimizations carry over to pc in every level of sw stack(drivers, os, middlewares, games). Below is graph between pretty fast nvme ssd, regular sata ssd and old fashioned hdd.
https://www.tomshardware.com/features/ssd-vs-hdd-hard-drive-difference/2
https://www.tomshardware.com/features/ssd-vs-hdd-hard-drive-difference/2
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Problem with pc is gigantically software related today. Fast ssd's do very little to loading times versus regular "slow" sata ssd. Sony/MS solution is likely as much good API's and forcing developers to optimize as it's great HW. Hopefully the sw side optimizations carry over to pc in every level of sw stack(drivers, os, middlewares, games). Below is graph between pretty fast nvme ssd, regular sata ssd and old fashioned hdd.
https://www.tomshardware.com/features/ssd-vs-hdd-hard-drive-difference/2
Just developer's optimizing for SSDs will help significant as can be seen when Star Citizen re-wrote their engine to specifically take advantage of SSDs. Been watching some streams of Star Citizen lately, and the game is progressing in leaps and bounds ever since they rewrote their IO layer.
I've gone from being skeptical that it was ever going progress from being a playable BETA into a finished product. But I have to say, I'm truly astonished by some of the things they are doing in that game now. And as one Streamer noted, you can see how polished something are getting (the parts that will be used for Squadron 42 like the Gladius). Heck, the planets that are currently in game took them over 2 years to put in. They've completely redone the planets from the ground up in 2 months and added a new planet.
On the latest patch, you can even see the cities on the planets from space...AND if someone in that city is in your party, you can see their general location in the city (or anywhere on the planet) from space. Argh, I'm flying off on a tangent, but I'm seriously impressed by how the game is progressing now. They've even apparently finally gotten some people that are at least competent WRT to netcode. Player deaths from bad netcode rubber banding are almost a thing of the past.
Anyway, point being. Even if PC doesn't directly benefit on the OS side (there's a lot of things a consumer and enterprise OS have to do on the IO side that game consoles don't), PC gamer's should still get significant benefits from this move...as long as they have their games on an SSD.
I'm intrigued as to whether MS will be willing to risk user data loss in order to move many of the fail safe features of SSDs (notably over provisioning and wear leveling) into the Windows OS. People already get angry at the difference in how GB/TB is used at the OS level and HDD level. Now add on if the OS is also removing more of the storage pool for over-provisioning.
I can see them doing it for the Xbox console as the storage pool isn't usually user upgradable, and any potential data loss in a console is far less devastating than it is on a PC.
That said, you still don't want it to happen even on a console, but if you're going to take a risk on something like that, a console is going to cause people far less grief than their PC.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
1TB read/write, 5000mb/s, that disk might or is perhaps as fast as Sony's solution. Wonder about the cost of that thing though. What about Intel Optane, could MS get a deal with Intel, and that way be faster then Sony?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
