Even then, the latency is 3 orders of magnitude lower for DRAM vs NVMe. They simply aren't comparable.
Well, you just compared them...
I kid.
Even then, the latency is 3 orders of magnitude lower for DRAM vs NVMe. They simply aren't comparable.
That's ridiculously trolling. 5.5 GB/s is the bare minimum as the raw speed of the drive for data that doesn't compress at all. A 1.5:1 compression ratio would see a typical 8-9 GB/s , and as data compresses higher, the transfer rate increases. Median transfer rate may be 9 GB/s, with the mean quite possibly going higher than that.between 5 and 9gb/s, perhaps, seems more realistic.
This is a game data test from a 2019 games and probably a best case utilisation but here for this set of texture the speed reach 17.4 GB/s. This is compression it will vary from games to games but maybe Mark Cerny and Sony engineering teams did not overengineered the data decompressor.
Median transfer rate may be 9 GB/s, with the mean quite possibly going higher than that.
That's still lower then PS3's ram setup though?
Or maybe Sony did not test games with oodle texture for the road to PS5 video but only with Kraken. This is another possibility.
No. The SSD is not as fast as PS4's RAM. It's not as fast as PS3's RAM. If you massage the numbers as much as possible, accept a typo of 'PS4' for 'PS3', and pick the worst case example of the average obtained transfer rates for PS3...Or maybe Sony did not test games with oodle texture for the road to PS5 video but only with Kraken. This is another possibility.
No. The SSD is not as fast as PS4's RAM. It's not as fast as PS3's RAM. If you massage the numbers as much as possible, accept a typo of 'PS4' for 'PS3', and pick the worst case example of the average obtained transfer rates for PS3...
...with 'as fast as PS3' being 15.5 GB/s, the latency of SSD is still an order of magnitude off. It's a nonsense statement that cannot sanely be rationalised. If you really want to argue it's not nonsense and the guy just said the wrong thing, try suggesting he meant Cell Read Speed from Local Memory.
Seriously, no-one should be trying to justify this one. It's plain wrong.
PS2 has 9.6GB/s texturing bandwidth in the eDRAM and 3.2GB/s to main memory.Maybe a typo and he was thinking PS3... At least on GPU side the memory bandwidth theorical maximum is comparable 22 GB/s for PS5 SSD and 22,4 GB/s for RSX to VRAM.
That's ridiculously trolling. 5.5 GB/s is the bare minimum as the raw speed of the drive for data that doesn't compress at all. A 1.5:1 compression ratio would see a typical 8-9 GB/s , and as data compresses higher, the transfer rate increases. Median transfer rate may be 9 GB/s, with the mean quite possibly going higher than that.
I've read nothing to suggest that PS5's SSD read speed is limited only to sequential data. In his Road to PS5 presentation, Mark Cerny referenced the Spider-man technical port-mortem and how data had to be organised in sequentially both for streaming games and as it related patches to games take longer to install because PS4 tries to keep certain data in sequential chunks and this issues were not raised as being issues for PS5, not does it make sense for this to be the case. Sequential reads are about avoiding seeks, which is moving a physical HDD head and waiting for a disc to spin, neither of which exist with solid state storage.Isn't 5.5 GB/s the peak maximum speed of the drive, because it's the sequential speed, not random reads?
We always describe storage specs in terms of peak ability to provide data. If there's management overhead, that can reduce the average data rate you obtain in use, but that's a moot data-point applicable to all storage tech. In comparing PS4's SSD to XBSXs to a PCIe 4 M2 on PC, the ratio is something like:Isn't 5.5 GB/s the peak maximum speed of the drive, because it's the sequential speed, not random reads?
hmm... I think even standard RAM won't do non-sequential as fast either.I've read nothing to suggest that PS5's SSD read speed is limited only to sequential data. In his Road to PS5 presentation, Mark Cerny referenced the Spider-man technical port-mortem and how data had to be organised in sequentially both for streaming games and as it related patches to games take longer to install because PS4 tries to keep certain data in sequential chunks and this issues were not raised as being issues for PS5, not does it make sense for this to be the case. Sequential reads are about avoiding seeks, which is moving a physical HDD head and waiting for a disc to spin, neither of which exist with solid state storage.
Memory controllers always read more than the specific data that is being accessed but when it comes to storage, 64kb of data here, or there, or 1mb here or there, or hundreds of megabytes here or there, makes very very little difference.hmm... I think even standard RAM won't do non-sequential as fast either. Which is why we moved to Structure of Arrays vs Array of Structures if we want higher performance from our memory.
I don't understand the math here if you guys want to help me out.Memory controllers always read more than the specific data that is being accessed but when it comes to storage, 64kb of data here, or there, or 1mb here or there, or hundreds of megabytes here or there, makes very very little difference.
I don't understand the math here if you guys want to help me out.