Uh, no... They said 40% of the total load time recorded is due to decompression... not that it's utilizing 40% of the CPU..... cmon now..
Forspoken retail does not use the GPU for decompression.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
Forspoken retail does not use the GPU for decompression.
davis.anthony
Veteran
Uh, no... They said 40% of the total load time recorded is due to decompression... not that it's utilizing 40% of the CPU..... cmon now..
Forspoken retail does not use the GPU for decompression.
Uh, no... They said 40% of the total load time recorded is due to decompression... not that it's utilizing 40% of the CPU..... cmon now..
Yep the numbers sum to 100%. It means 40% of the time was spent on decompression not that decompression uses 40% of the CPU.
That's breaking down the CPU usage of the various stages of the loading process... Decompression accounts for 40% of the loading process on the CPU.... not the overall CPU utilization....
I'mDudditz!
Newcomer
The game can be buggy/unoptimized and use immense decompression at the same time. The developers are still at fault here. But don't mix two issues as one.
The context of what he was referring to with ratchet is widely understood with the ssd loading in a new level into memory. At best, you didn't do your homework before responding, at worst you tried to pull a fast one. Either way you were wrong here.
Man from Atlantis
Veteran
Does DLSS/FSR too break VRR?Yes, res. scale is broken with VRR. Don't use it.
Lmao.
Thankfully no!
Inuhanyou
Veteran
I think they will continue to do what they have been doing. But their PC priority won't go away. So they need to figure out how to port their PS5 content to PC more competently.
Which is why I say the devs doing porting effort from the PC should be different. PCs have different strengths and weaknesses from the console platform. take advantage of them. Cut off HDD if you need to. From what I know in most cases PS5 will run out of CPU long before the full power of the SSD bandwidth would ever be utilized so it's just future proofing and to erase it as a bottleneck completely.
Meaning maxing out PS5 in such a way is impossible to begin with and PC should with direct storage anyway should still be able to replicate what PS5 does even at the lower level
Inuhanyou
Veteran
It's tricky proposition though. Cause the PS5 was created in a vacuum to make development easier for devs. So it would not matter if devs could cheat by using ps5s "secret sauce" if the game is only on PS5 and that's the result people see. But porting that to other platforms becomes more of an issue.
Essentially it's saying games would have to still be designed in a certain way to account for other platforms when that realistically shouldent be the goal as closed platform. Let the porting studio after the fact figure out how to best make the game work on PC. There are plenty of options
Silent_Buddha
Legend
One interesting thing is that I tend to have far less technical problems with early access indie and AA developer releases on PC than I do with so called AAA quality releases. Granted there are also some really janky indie/AA releases, but I tend to have far less problems with them than AAA developer released games.
It is actually a bit shameful for some of the AAA devs releasing their titles in such a state on PC.
Regards,
SB
Man from Atlantis
Veteran
Not many preorders for Indie/AA games, but AAA games receive huge preorders.
@Silent_Buddha A lot of indie games do early access and extensive betas so by the time 1.0 rolls around they're pretty stable. But generally I agree. Rarely have issues with indie games. They also don't really stress computers to the same degree, so PCs can brute force performance.
Its more of a PC issue anyways not how Sony devs make games. Its not like PC isn't a clusterfuck right now. The PC has been seeing a ton of newly released high profile titles commonly displaying issues at release that PC gamers find unacceptable. If anything Sony' first party devs are the least prepared for the current realities of the PC development.
PC development has some issues to work out and once it does Sony devs will probably have no more issues than your average dev supporting the PC platform.
That's odd. It's definitely working on my end and in sync with the monitor OSD.Yes, res. scale is broken with VRR. Don't use it.
Lmao.
Weird. You on Windows 11, or 10? Might be certain issues with certain monitors then.. Mine is gsync anyway.. but if it's working for some and not others, then that even shows more why some people have issues and others not.
Hmmm, I want to query; do you have "windowed + fullscreen games" ticked in NVCP? Mine is only on "only fullscreen games." Maybe... that's the problem?
Yes... So res scaling needs "windowed mode" Gsync setting active. It works on my end now too. But I usually disable windowed Gsync because it can be problematic in certain apps...
@Remij Ticking Fullscreen+Windowed in Gsync settings made the VRR work with res. scaling.
Why would data be struggling to get to where it needs to be on a properly equipped PC and application? Like I'm seriously asking you to explain the bottleneck here in terms of interfaces, bandwidth and processing capability vs workload because all I'm hearing are wild claims about PS5 superiority without any technical details to back them up.
Obviously a PS5 is going to outperform an ill-equipped PC in this respect, (and as we've seen, if the application isn't properly utliising a correctly equipped PC, the result will be the same), but lets take an PCIe 4.0 NVMe equipped system utilising Direct Storage 1.1 with GPU decompression as a baseline along with a CPU and GPU that is at least a match for those in the console. And as a preview I will say that a little more CPU power on the PC side should be required for a similar result, but I'll leave you to explain the detail of why...
Why would Direct Storage be unable to keep up? As with my above point, please explain this in terms of interfaces, bandwidth and processing capability vs workload. We already have benchmarks showing decompression throughput far in excess of the known limits of the hardware decompressor in the PS5, so what is it that you think will not be able to keep up, and why?
Perhaps it's the GPU's ability to keep up with the decompression workload at the same time as the rendering. Which begs the question of how much data are you expecting to be streamed in parallel to actual gameplay? Even a modest GPU of around PS5 capability can decompress enough data to fill the entire VRAM of a standard 8GB GPU in less than 1 second. And you're never going to completely refresh you're VRAM like that mid gameplay. If I recall the Matrix awakens demo was streaming less then 150MB/s and I think @HolySmoke presented some details for Rifts Apart here before which show even that has modest streaming requirements on average.
Of course there will be full scene changes which including load screens or animations (which includes ultra short loads animations like the rift transitions in Rifts Apart) where a relatively large amount of data will be loaded from disk in a very short period, but you aren't actually rendering much of anything on the GPU at those points and so the entire GPU resources can be dedicated to the decompression much in the same way that the hardware block on the PS5 is used.
For normal, much more modest streaming requirements, async compute is used targeting the spare compute resources on these GPU's as a GPU is very rarely 100% compute limited.
You realise that describing one as a "cobbled together Software solution" and the other "hardware array" (lol) isn't going to make anyone here think that one is faster than the other? For that we need, details, specifications, and ideally tests.
We know the VRAM used. As stated here, the default staging buffer size is 32MB, but the optimal size is 128MB. More can be added for larger VRAM pools. So it's very minimal compared with the available VRAM size on any modern GPU.
We can also draw some conclusions around GPU resources required given the link I posted above shows the 6600XT pushing in excess of 10GB/s. So if we were to assume a HUGE streaming speed of 1GB/s then that would take at most around 10% of the compute resources of a 6600XT - via async compute. Obviously faster loading speeds could be utilised during initial or fast travel loads which would use more GPU resources but at those times the GPU isn't needed for rendering meaning 100% of it is available for decompression.
As to latency. The latency of all the various busses and memory components (DDR, GDDR) in this solution are orders of magnitude lower than that of the NVMe drive in the PS5 (and PC) and so there's no reason to expect that to be adding any appreciable latency over the PS5's end to end transfer latency which will be almost entirely made up by the NVME drives latency itself.
So to address your final point, what's your definition of "brute forcing" here? 128MB more VRAM? 10% more GPU compute power in the corner cases where a GPU's compute limits are 100% maxed out? Doesn't sound like much to worry about to me.
Oh jeez... that makes sense. Yea I just had fullscreen.. I installed new drivers and hadn't changed it back. LOL the game only runs in borderless window so naturally it will need Fullscreen+windowed checked off.
I feel dumb.
Glad we got that solved though!
- Status
Similar threads
