Next Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [2018]

[function]

I know it's unlikely given how size and cost conscious console vendors are, but a 2TB 7200 3.5 inch (single platter) mechanical HDD would give about twice the throughput of the 1TB drives in Pro/X and have lower access times to boot (shorter seeks, lower rotational latency).

For any given HDD technology, the 3.5 7200 drive will always have a big increase in throughput and lower access times (so long as data is arranged remotely sensibly on the HDD).

So for an extra $10 you double HDD throughput, and negate the need for an SSD, but you would require a slightly larger case. And most USB drives wouldn't be fast enough then to act as external storage.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You don't negate the need for an SSD. Any HDD is still horrifically slow by comparison - if that weren't the case, replacing your PC HDD with an SSD wouldn't make much difference. Ithink the choice is between something like 24+ GBs RAM and a large HDD, or 16 GBs RAM and a smaller SSD, and the latter will provide overall a better user experience. I suppose there's a third option of HDD + more RAM + on-board flash for OS keeping that responsive, but then you're adding complexity and costs.

As I said before though, I think the moment you have a platform with a guaranteed SSD, devs will target it in ways they wouldn't target an HDD. As such, speed comparisons at the moment aren't much use. We're comparing HDD-designed performance on an HDD versus HDD-designed performance on an SSD. You could potentially load less to begin with because the streaming in of assets will be faster, or use better procedural content (create once on the fly but save for later use) with simultaneous streaming and writes to storage which would mess up the head movement and seek rates on HDD.

 

[function]

I have my windows install on an SSD, and game installs on an old 1TB HDD. Loads are massively faster than on console (though CPU is no doubt a factor) and transfers to/from it are much faster than a laptop drive. Same for my 1TB USB3 drives - the full phat drive is more than twice as fast.

A fast mechanical HDD doesn't offer all the benefits of an SSD, but it removes the "need" ("need" as opposed to "desire") to have an SSD to reach bare minimum acceptable transfer rates.

Games are already breaching the 100GB barrier. Any SSD enabled system will require a mechanical drive. If you have to change over the contents of your SSD cache when you change games, you're going to be limited by the mechanical drive anyway.

A laptop drive needs an SSD going forward, IMO, but a 2~3x faster mechanical drive can survive without one.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

So here's the set-up I'd like to see released:

PS5 processing cartridge:
- 8 core Zen 2 CPU. 1 core reserved for the system, the other 7 cores should be given to the devs with some flexibility: clock higher without SMT, or lower with SMT.
- Vega 64 or greater level of GPU, albeit Navi/next gen.
- 16GB LCHBM. Four two-layer stacks, for 800GB/s bandwidth.

Home dock:
- UHD Blu-ray drive
- 1TB HDD
- 64GB m.2 drive
- ARM based SoC, which handles all apps, and can overlay them onto the game feed.
- One USB 3.1 port at the rear, for external HDD's.
- One HDMI 2.1 port for standard TV-out.
- Another HDMI 2.1 port positioned next to a USB 3.1 type-c, for the PS5 camera.
- Two USB 3.1 type-c ports at the front.
- A cartridge slot for the PS5 processing cartridge. Something like the PS1 and top loading cassette players.

Portable dock:
- Similar to the above, but without an optical drive.
- Laptop form factor, including keyboard and trackpad.
- The processing cartridge knows when it's in the portable dock, so lowers its clocks and/or deactivates some number of CU's. PS4Pro performance would be great, but that might be cutting it a bit fine, as it would likely require at least ~70W. And that's assuming GloFo's 7nm predictions pan out.

PS5 camera:
- Connects to the dock via HDMI 2.1 and USB 3.1, and functions like the PS4 camera, but also transmits the VR feed wirelessly to PSVR2.

Both docks can be used when the processing unit isn't plugged into them, but only for apps or, in the case of the home dock, playing CD's, DVD's, and BRD's.

Sell the docks separately, making it cheaper and easier for people to, effectively, have multiple consoles dotted around their home.

 

[iroboto]

Looking for some help on a hypothetical Ray Tracing Build, basically need APU with tensor cores and big bandwidth but also have a limitation of 359mm^2 @ 7nm
8c Ryzen
7-8 TF Single Precision
500-600 Tensor Cores 80TF Tensor Performance
16GB HBM

seems weak though. The tensor just takes up too much space. I think we're looking at roughly 1/2 die space. Could this really still support 4k@30 with ray tracing? All the demonstrations we saw were at 1080p quality.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I have my windows install on an SSD, and game installs on an old 1TB HDD. Loads are massively faster than on console (though CPU is no doubt a factor) and transfers to/from it are much faster than a laptop drive. Same for my 1TB USB3 drives - the full phat drive is more than twice as fast.

A fast mechanical HDD doesn't offer all the benefits of an SSD, but it removes the "need" ("need" as opposed to "desire") to have an SSD to reach bare minimum acceptable transfer rates.

It depends what one considers the needs to be. If to populate a big lump of RAM, yes, an HDD might suffice. But an SSD could be used more dynamically, requiring less dumping ahead and more on-the-fly access. Again, you're comparing performance of HDD games on a PC which aren't going to operate the same as games designed for an SSD enabled console.

 

[mrcorbo]

It depends what one considers the needs to be. If to populate a big lump of RAM, yes, an HDD might suffice. But an SSD could be used more dynamically, requiring less dumping ahead and more on-the-fly access. Again, you're comparing performance of HDD games on a PC which aren't going to operate the same as games designed for an SSD enabled console.

Which would enable developers to make bigger, more detailed and more dynamic game worlds. The benefits of SSDs in next-gen consoles go far beyond faster load times.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

I know it's unlikely given how size and cost conscious console vendors are, but a 2TB 7200 3.5 inch (single platter) mechanical HDD would give about twice the throughput of the 1TB drives in Pro/X and have lower access times to boot (shorter seeks, lower rotational latency).

For any given HDD technology, the 3.5 7200 drive will always have a big increase in throughput and lower access times (so long as data is arranged remotely sensibly on the HDD).

So for an extra $10 you double HDD throughput, and negate the need for an SSD, but you would require a slightly larger case. And most USB drives wouldn't be fast enough then to act as external storage.

You have a point. Simply getting a full size hdd in there and a great cpu will improve console load times dramatically. So it's not as simple as a choice between a slow laptop drive + garbage cpu or great cpu + a full ssd. Certainly the 3.5 hdd choice will save a lot of money.

That said, people are underestimating the possibilities. I would not be shocked to see a single ssd at a lower size, with the expectation of users managing their data while ssd’s grow in size throughout the generation ; like the launch ps3. Which will be easier than ever looking at ps4s external hdd backup. I think the hybrid solutions are overly complicated and would rather just see a really good 3.5 drive in that case. And it's not like you couldn't upgrade that to an ssd on your own like ps4. I have a 1tb ssd in mine.

And it's crazy to think right now, but ram prices will come down ; we're getting more than 16gb.

 

[borntosoul]

About in game SSD on the fly access? How to know how much room is allocated for that on an SSD drive. Wouldn' that require a large drive? Or can a portion be pre loaded onto the drive on game start up ? Then wiped off if and when another game is played?

 

[Magnum_Force]

The way I see an SSD working would be that is wouldn't be user managed, but rather OS managed. The console would still have a Hdd for storage, but the SSD would contain partial installs for the most frequently used games of that user, with a room to spare for the developers. A 120gb ssd for example could have 64GB as a scratchpad, the rest for OS and partial game installs.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

If it were equipped with an SSD and sufficiently fast Blu-ray drive, would it need an HDD? Having an HDD would be preferable, and improve loading speeds, but not having to install every game would save a lot of farting about, especially for people without an external HDD.

Could we return to the console tradition of a game being played from its medium?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If it were equipped with an SSD and sufficiently fast Blu-ray drive, would it need an HDD? Having an HDD would be preferable, and improve loading speeds, but not having to install every game would save a lot of farting about, especially for people without an external HDD.

Could we return to the console tradition of a game being played from its medium?

I'd go with HDD. You still need to support online purchases, and that optical drive will be horribly noisy running full tilt all the time.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

I definitely don't see a 512gb ssd in 2020 as too much to ask. (i'd even take a small hit to the gpu for 1tb) Those measly 20gb hdd's back in 05/6 cost sony and MS $40 a pop... current ssd prices for 512gb are about $120. Factor in price drops and bulk buying and it seems incredibly feasible.

Another thing - developers need to work on shrinking their game sizes and keeping patches reasonable. If you don't think they can do better than filling up the 50gb blu ray and needing 40-50gb patches on top of that think again. I mean shit man, back in the day we saw Ps1 games on 2 discs faithfully ported to a 64mb N64 cart. I'm supposed to think devs can't do better than what they're doing now? It seems like the art of compression has been lost to the ages.

I'm not in favor of graphical or framerate standards, but some level of game size management by sony and ms would be appreciated. I think it was a real backstep when sony and ms lifted patch restrictions... perhaps a middle ground between the extremely restrictive 360 days and today's go nuts approach.

 

[anexanhume]

I definitely don't see a 512gb ssd in 2020 as too much to ask. (i'd even take a small hit to the gpu for 1tb) Those measly 20gb hdd's back in 05/6 cost sony and MS $40 a pop... current ssd prices for 512gb are about $120. Factor in price drops and bulk buying and it seems incredibly feasible.

Another thing - developers need to work on shrinking their game sizes and keeping patches reasonable. If you don't think they can do better than filling up the 50gb blu ray and needing 40-50gb patches on top of that think again. I mean shit man, back in the day we saw Ps1 games on 2 discs faithfully ported to a 64mb N64 cart. I'm supposed to think devs can't do better than what they're doing now? It seems like the art of compression has been lost to the ages.

I'm not in favor of graphical or framerate standards, but some level of game size management by sony and ms would be appreciated. I think it was a real backstep when sony and ms lifted patch restrictions... perhaps a middle ground between the extremely restrictive 360 days and today's go nuts approach.

I would re-do the Xbox 360 and PS3 propositions. Release a 256GB base SKU to keep base price down, and do a 1TB ‘Elite’ version and let the market decide which should be more popular. A single SKU is highly preferred, but if that is what it takes to get a SSD standard, then so be it as far as I’m concerned.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

I would re-do the Xbox 360 and PS3 propositions. Release a 256GB base SKU to keep base price down, and do a 1TB ‘Elite’ version and let the market decide which should be more popular. A single SKU is highly preferred, but if that is what it takes to get a SSD standard, then so be it as far as I’m concerned.

Agreed, and it's not like current consoles don't already have 2 or 3 skus just including the base models.

 

[anexanhume]

Agreed, and it's not like current consoles don't already have 2 or 3 skus just including the base models.

Oh, there are many SKUs now that demand has tapered off. It’s just those first several months where you’re selling every unit you make. The logistics are easier managing one SKU, and you don’t have to worry about over-producing one at the other’s expense. Some people may take whatever SKU they can get, but it would be a dealbreaker for others, or they may just balk at the ‘true’ price by eyeing the higher SKU. I don’t know that the average consumer understands the benefits of SSD, particularly if one manufacturer has it and the other doesn’t.

 

[AlNom]

They just have to say "faster loading, snappier OS"

 

[milk]

SSDs are becoming pretty well known at least by people who use desktop computers. Its the big one thing everyone who's had their computer mantained or upgraded by their "computer guy" on the last few years were told to get to make it faster.

 

[dten]

8 Core Zen CPU
14.2TF Navi based GPU
1TB SSD
32GB of GDDR6

If next gen consoles will use GDDR6, it could be a while. GDDR5 was out 5-6 years by the time PS4 was released. Mature process, design, market by 2013. GDDR6 isn't even out yet. Same with 7nm. Really not sure where these leaked random specs are coming from, maybe the dreams of a 40 y/o man living with his parents.

With the focus on DD and DLC, I can't see a small SSD being standard. Maybe an SSHD.

 

[AlNom]

Really not sure where these leaked random specs are coming from, maybe the dreams of a 40 y/o man living with his parents.

wat