Playstation 5 [PS5] [Release November 12 2020]

There is almost no relation between storage I/O bandwidth and the RAM "cost" of next-gen titles. Storage I/O is just one of those numbers where bigger is always better rather than being something you need to scale because of render targets.

In a lot of ways that's why it has been somewhat neglected for ages, the relative speed up from 5400 rpm to 7200 rpm was negligible so Sony and MS pinched pennies and the abysmal loads on some current gen titles are the result. Both have bet on SSD being a game changer, Sony appears to have bet more on SSD than MS who took some of that investment and put it in the APU instead.
 
So I do not anything about this, but i assumed that the video frame is just the pixel info that gets pushed from the console to the screen and that is fixed size.
But all the stuff goes into making that frame actually is what takes up most of the ram.
 
I read from another place that said something like the PS5's APU cannot handle 5.5GB/S and said it was a waste.

Nah, they're just being silly.

The two framerates we'll generally see this generation are 30 and 60. Some 90-120fps VR games will see release. A vanishingly small number of non-VR 120fps games will see release.

30fps = 5,500/30 = 183.33
60fps = 5,500/60 = 91.67

So 30 and 60 fps games can expect to be able to stream 183 and 92 MB of data per frame, respectively. That amount of data per frame will go completely unutilised in some games. In the games in which that amount of data can be required per frame, it won't be for every single frame.

Almost every game will benefit from being able to fill the system memory in just over 2 seconds.

Mark Cerny, in his Road to PS5 presentation, gave the example of a player's view turning 180 degrees in a set number of seconds (I can't remember the exact figure he gave.) The SSD speed of 5.5GB/s is sufficient to not have any assets directly behind the player stored in memory, but to stream them in as they turn 180 degrees as quickly as possible. For games without Resident Evil's quick turn, that is.

Games will load quickly, fast travel will be fast, and streaming in a whole bunch of high quality assets will be doable when a game calls for it e.g. expect seamless transitions from exterior to interior environments in open world games.

We'll start to see more novel uses of both the PS5 and XSX's SSD's as the generation progresses, and things like animations or assets - such as buildings in varying states of destruction - are streamed in on demand.

Storage has once again become the bottleneck. I predict we'll see a game this generation that is predominantly playable via streaming, but which will also be available to buy and install at a crazy file size e.g. 500GB. Only the most hardcore will buy the local version.
 
Storage has once again become the bottleneck. I predict we'll see a game this generation that is predominantly playable via streaming, but which will also be available to buy and install at a crazy file size e.g. 500GB. Only the most hardcore will buy the local version.
At that point in time, the PCI-e4.0 SSD fast enough for the PS5 should hopefully be relatively cheap so people will be buying expanded storage i.e. 2TB or 4TB.
 
Storage has once again become the bottleneck. I predict we'll see a game this generation that is predominantly playable via streaming, but which will also be available to buy and install at a crazy file size e.g. 500GB. Only the most hardcore will buy the local version.

So if you need that fast streaming from SSD, how does that lineup with added latency of streaming from the net?

Also deduplication of assets on the storage will save a bunch of space. Unless you expect it to go onto the storage uncompressed?
 
At that point in time, the PCI-e4.0 SSD fast enough for the PS5 should hopefully be relatively cheap so people will be buying expanded storage i.e. 2TB or 4TB.

Aye, hopefully. My PS4's 4TB external HDD filled up much quicker than I expected, so I'll be wanting a sizeable SSD at a sensible price ASAP.

So if you need that fast streaming from SSD, how does that lineup with added latency of streaming from the net?

Sorry, I don't know if I've made my prediction properly clear. Just to ensure we're singing from the same hymn sheet: I predict that there will be a game which is rendered on a PS5, and predominantly streamed via PSNow. It will predominantly be streamed via PSNow because the installation size of the game will be so large that it will be prohibitive for most gamers.

The speed of the SSD will be heavily utilised for rendering. Latency introduced by streaming will be the same as it is on PSNow. Owing to that latency, it won't be a fast paced twitch shooter, but rather, something akin to the pace of TLoU2.

Also deduplication of assets on the storage will save a bunch of space. Unless you expect it to go onto the storage uncompressed?

That's true, and for the most part we'll see two things:
  1. Games of this generation's scope, fidelity, and asset variety will have a smaller installation size.
  2. Games of this generation's installation sizes will have some combination of greater scope, fidelity, and variety.
But an SSD that, with compression, can stream between 8-20GB/s will IMO really shine when it's able to stream unique assets of varying LoD's.

Asset duplication won't exist in the same sense - that of having to have the same tree in multiple places on the HDD so it can be streamed into memory at a reasonable speed. It will take on a new form of that same tree existing in 20 different levels of detail so that it can be streamed into and discarded from memory as is appropriate for its distance.

There will be developers who come up with all kinds of ingenious forms of compression. But there will be at least one group of mad hatters out there who will build something like a city where every building is unique, has 10 states ranging from pristine to destroyed, and each of those states has 20 LoD's. Extrapolate that same madness out through character textures, models, and animations.

There was a lot of interesting discussion around this very matter in the Unreal Engine 5 thread, in which it was generally determined that the solved problem of geometry will necessitate large amounts of storage for sizeable games. That said, one of the UE5 developers made mention of the fact that they've done some interesting stuff with compression, but they're not yet ready to share.

So I could be way off in my prediction. But I'm sticking to it anyway.
 
There was a lot of interesting discussion around this very matter in the Unreal Engine 5 thread, in which it was generally determined that the solved problem of geometry will necessitate large amounts of storage for sizeable games. That said, one of the UE5 developers made mention of the fact that they've done some interesting stuff with compression, but they're not yet ready to share.

They said in a recent stream a million poly object is equal to a 4k texture at the moment (it probably is a 4k texture if they're using geometry images). What that means for overall game size, which you can have 100000's of those assets in a scene, who knows.
 
PSman1700 said:
I think we have an answer as to where the huge TF gains from NV. RTX IO tech.

I haven't read up on RTX IO. I just briefly skimmed an article or two mentioning it. Does it essentially allow the GPU to directly access the SSD?

If so, that's great news for those who buy this new line of RTX cards, as they'll not only have adequate power to slap around the PS5/XSX, but they'll be able to keep up with any rendering techniques that the consoles I/O systems can produce.

It's also great news for console gamers because a feature will see more widespread use and experimentation if it's on a wide variety of platforms.
 
They said in a recent stream a million poly object is equal to a 4k texture at the moment (it probably is a 4k texture if they're using geometry images). What that means for overall game size, which you can have 100000's of those assets in a scene, who knows.

Cool. I stopped going into the UE5 thread a fair while ago. There was a lot of related content I needed to read up on, and a lot of the engine was such a series of unknowns that I thought I risked educating myself in the irrelevant.

Thanks for the update.
 
I haven't read up on RTX IO. I just briefly skimmed an article or two mentioning it. Does it essentially allow the GPU to directly access the SSD?
I think that's what they want people to believe. My personal opinion. The new 3000 Series RTX have a huge amount of memory. I think the Nvidia drivers will move a lot of the assets into GPU memory and run it from there instead of hoping gamers have fast enough SSD's to utilize streaming from the drives. Yes, people who buy the new GPU's will likely have better motherboards that have for example PCI4.0 and multiple slots for NVMe 7.0GBps drives, but there are likely to be people with older tech i.e. PCIe3.0 and slower 2.4GBps or SATA SSD's and even HDD's which might hamper those speeds Nvidia had in their graphs.

That why I feel they will put a lot into their memory and run things from there as that will provide the fastest way assets can load onto the screen.
 
They should just stick an SSD on the GFX card. Stop all this messing around with antique architecture. Actually there used to be a GFX card with a hard drive on it but I can't remember what that was now :/
 
How feasible would it be for Nvidia to release an adapter that sits between a PCI slot and its NVME drive, and connects to the GPU via NV Link?

I've not really kept up with PC's in a good few years, so I could really be talking out of my arse here.
 
How feasible would it be for Nvidia to release an adapter that sits between a PCI slot and its NVME drive, and connects to the GPU via NV Link?

I've not really kept up with PC's in a good few years, so I could really be talking out of my arse here.

RTX IO has already been announced. Part MS DirecStorage. Going into preview next year so probably EOY 2021 when it's out in the wild with any software that takes advantage of it.
 
With just 2-3 months until release it's interesting that we still have not seen what a pure next-generation console game looks like. Ratched & Clank: Ripped a Fart does not count, in my opinion, apart from the level loading times, of course.
 
Xbox Series S at $299 and Series X at $499, both supposedly Nov 10.

Not confirmed but seems to be heading that way.

Since MS jumped, Sony may show their cards or would they try to put together some event?
 
Back
Top