Would you say it's going to improve bandwidth availability ?
General Next Generation Rumors and Discussions [Post GDC 2020]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
Be realistic, SSD is much slower than memory. At 5 GB/s it cannot hold up to RAM speeds. We don't use SSD the same way we use RAM. It doesn't have the round trip latency that RAM does even if it were to have the bandwidth (but it doesn't). SSDs are not not scratch pads. They aren't caches. They are long term storage.
Their job is to move stuff into memory. Which means the limitation is still how much you can fit into your memory as well. Your'e not going to be hot swapping 16 GBs every frame. The SSD isn't capable of that either. But even if it were, it would still need to seek around for all this stuff and move it up.
You're talking about an impossible game design situation.
You've taken what is a fast speed and stretched its capabilities well beyond the limits of how things actually work.
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
It will be use to speed up streaming, not like RAM, and thats what they are explaining us.
Yes, but all streaming still has buffering. In both cases XSX or PS5 they will be able to stream so fast you will not see pop in. The extra speed provided by PS5 will be used extensively for reducing load times.
I would call complete bullshit on a developer if they said that they could no longer design a game with less than PS5 SSD speeds because the SSD was too restrictive. We literally ran off DVD last generation and didn't have any hard drive at all.
AbsoluteBeginner
Regular
Biggest advantage of SSDs will be the fact that designers and artist will not have to think about asset streaming 24/7. Will ~5GB/s be little if they go for 8-9GB/s I dont know, I would wager it wont be.
I am more inclined to believe MS then Sony tbh, alot of their bets never payed of in a way they should have or they implied they would (VUs, Cell, FP16, HW checkberboard rendering, even aysnc compute).
Talk of "whole new world of possibilities" that faster SSD will bring in relation to XSX seems a bit overhyped, but doesnt surprise me considering they have to play on this card. I will wait for them to deliver on this first.
I am more inclined to believe MS then Sony tbh, alot of their bets never payed of in a way they should have or they implied they would (VUs, Cell, FP16, HW checkberboard rendering, even aysnc compute).
Talk of "whole new world of possibilities" that faster SSD will bring in relation to XSX seems a bit overhyped, but doesnt surprise me considering they have to play on this card. I will wait for them to deliver on this first.
I disagree, I think they had a clear target of 5GB a second and there was a reason for it. That they got it to 5.5GB is just pure gravy but I don't think for a second someone like Cerney especially concerning a console and it's strict budget control would just say what the hell let's go for 5GB/s for shits and giggles.
The target was to reduce load times.
What? Where have you been in the last 20 years?
AbsoluteBeginner
Regular
Yes, and there must have been a reason why MS thought 2.4GB/s will do just fine.
Its on Sony to prove difference will result in something much more tangable then load times.
Remember, these devs have pushed out things like GTAV while running on DVD and RDR2 while streaming from HDD, that is 50x slower then NG drives (at least).
Xbox 360 required hard drive for games?
Maybe but I got the feeling that it's more than that from the reveal in fact a whole lot more time was given to streaming than just load times.
We will see though.
AbsoluteBeginner
Regular
Because this is their advantage over Xbox, and this is a card they have to play on.
There is a reason why MS is pushing compute while Sony is pushing SSD and Audio.
In fact, more time was spent on audio then CPU/GPU, when just CPU will bring 5x more palpable increase then audio (no matter how good).
Depends on the game. Some games did indeed require a hard drive, including many AAA games:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/927749-xbox-360/71938986
Are you seriously stating that there is not a large advantage in having an SSD? Ok....
I personally think it's close enough to not cause too much of a problem and if the Xbox ssd is dealt with as the lead platform, even more so.
But it's still conjecture as there's much we don't know, and there is a distinct speed difference.
GPU and CPU are ballpark and in terms of gpu scalable.
To be clear, I suspect it won't hold devs back too much in comparison to ps5, but still early to say if it wouldn't for certain.
I never said that. I'm stating that developers have decades of experience dealing with streaming and low speed hard drive speeds. if suddenly 2.4 GB/s is not sufficient enough based upon how we used to have so much less with games, 100x will be the make or break difference?
An arbitrary line drawn in the sand. The only reason people are now drawing it there is because it exists. No one was explicitly seen any implementation of it. it doesn't make any sense at all.
It will be on Sony to prove that 5.5GB/s can actually do something that 2.4GB/s cannot. I'm sorry. I'll change my mind when they can prove otherwise.
Most of those 'required HDD' games, require it to allow recording of gameplay. You can 'play' the games without.
I got that feeling as well.
Clearly not. Drastically reducing load times didn't need the solutions both MS and Sony went to. Fast, standard SSD and a bit of IO work is all that's needed to get minute loads down to seconds. With all this compression stuff and pushing drive speeds, both MS and Sony have clearly turned to the storage to reduce pressure on RAM and make it as dynamic-read as possible.
Sure, but there are upper limits to that. Because your end state is still to interact with RAM. Whatever is being rendered on screen has to be resident in RAM. Unless you're suggesting we can stream off SSDs now and by-pass memory altogether.
Similar threads
