where do you see that? I see 12.45% has more than 16GB but I can't see the numbers that have eg 48GB
Is there some CSV data you can download? I've been curious about this for a while, eg see what mac models are used, what monitors ppl have etc, ta
Next-Generation NVMe SSD and I/O Technology [PC, PS5, XBSX|S]
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
Is there some CSV data you can download? I've been curious about this for a while, eg see what mac models are used, what monitors ppl have etc, ta
Silent_Buddha
Legend
More than 16 GB would include 32 GB, 48 GB, 64 GB and any other number that is greater than 16 GB.
Not quite sure what you're asking here? It's possible that developers on Steam might be able to access more detailed data about memory amounts in excess of 16 GB, but that information isn't publicly available.I do find it interesting that there are so many people with such strange memory amounts like 5 GB, 7 GB, etc. 12 GB is a reasonable non-power of 2 amount (4 GB + 8 GB) but there are more people with 15 GB than 12 GB.
Regards,
SB
OK thanks, I thought there might be the data somewhere, some buried link that I wasn't prive to.
I wasnt too concerned about memory too, more about screens, I am wanting to know what percentage of ppl have 32:9 etc to see if I should worry about it to much or focus effort elsewhere.
ATM I can see theres 1.88% in the other which doesnt say much is it 1%, 0.1%, 0.01% or even 0.001% of the ppl with these screens
I wasnt too concerned about memory too, more about screens, I am wanting to know what percentage of ppl have 32:9 etc to see if I should worry about it to much or focus effort elsewhere.
ATM I can see theres 1.88% in the other which doesnt say much is it 1%, 0.1%, 0.01% or even 0.001% of the ppl with these screens
Hmm this has me tempted. I only have 16GB of DDR4 3200mhz at the moment and have wanted 32GB for a while. I only have 2 working DIMM slots in my MOBO unfortunately so would have to replace rather than supplement what's there now but I can get 32GB of CAS16 DDR4 3600Mhz for less that £160. That should give my Ryzen 3700x a nice little boost but I'm just not convinced that there's anything out there that needs or takes advantage of more than 16GB right now.
davis.anthony
Veteran
No, they specially talk about decompression and not the I/O overhead.
"Decompressing data from 100mb/s HDD's takes only a few CPU cores, however decompressing from 7Gb/s SSD's on PCIe Gen 4 takes over 20 CPU cores"
So again, in what world does a 2x increase in throughput requires a 12x the CPU decompression performance?
Nvidia using Intel Atom CPU's to bulk up their marketing numbers to people who don't know any better
No, they specially talk about decompression and not the I/O overhead.
"Decompressing data from 100mb/s HDD's takes only a few CPU cores, however decompressing from 7Gb/s SSD's on PCIe Gen 4 takes over 20 CPU cores"
So again, in what world does a 2x increase in throughput requires a 12x the CPU decompression performance?
Nvidia using Intel Atom CPU's to bulk up their marketing numbers to people who don't know any better
Sigh... no, the third column 'Gen4 SSD' shows data throughput without compression. That's why it's only 2 CPU cores of overhead, and that's why the actual throughput is 7GB/s.
The fourth column 'Gen4 SSD Compressed' shows the same as column 3, but this time using compressed data. The clue is in the name. That's why the throughput is now 14GB/s (at a 2:1 compression ratio) and thus why the CPU overhead is so much higher.
You're not understanding what he's saying.. or rather what the slide shows.No, they specially talk about decompression and not the I/O overhead.
"Decompressing data from 100mb/s HDD's takes only a few CPU cores, however decompressing from 7Gb/s SSD's on PCIe Gen 4 takes over 20 CPU cores"
So again, in what world does a 2x increase in throughput requires a 12x the CPU decompression performance?
Nvidia using Intel Atom CPU's to bulk up their marketing numbers to people who don't know any better
As he said, the first 3 columns relate to I/O overhead only, without any decompression. The 4th column shows how exponentially CPU requirements rise when decompression comes into play. It shows decompression requirements for 14GB/s (2:1 compression) which requires 24 cores, and then the 5th column shows the same but with RTX I/O (or rather DirectStorage "GPU decompression") which removes that work from the CPU, thus leaving only the I/O overhead on the CPU, which is reduced with DirectStorage to only half a CPU core.
Save your money
. Memory speeds are always changing as well as versions. It only makes sense to upgrade if you hit a bottleneck imo.davis.anthony
Veteran
And you and others are not understanding me.
It does not take a 12x increase in core count for a 2x increase in bandwidth.
There's enough data from RAD Game Tools that shows that you don't need that much, 4 cores at most for 14Gb/s (They even have a algorithm that can do 6Gb/s per core)
24 cores for 14gb/s of bandwidth and the I/O that goes with it, man Nvidia's marketing team love guys like you pair.
More than 16 GB would include 32 GB, 48 GB, 64 GB and any other number that is greater than 16 GB.
I do find it interesting that there are so many people with such strange memory amounts like 5 GB, 7 GB, etc. 12 GB is a reasonable non-power of 2 amount (4 GB + 8 GB) but there are more people with 15 GB than 12 GB.
Regards,
SB
I believe that is due to the onboard graphics allocating ram. My wife's 2300g allocates 1gig of ram so system ram shows up as 7gigs if she has an 8 gig dimm or 15gigs if we have 2 8 gig dimms.
Laptops are really popular.
I find some people here talking about not being able to require nvme drives for games because of the long tail of hardware support , however I think that isn't fully true. There are people that use a lot of old hardware out here but only to support a game they have been playing for a long time. For instance my mother in law plays sim city and the sims , she has the newest versions but those are both over 5 years old and she plays them on a 5 year old laptop that wont get upgrade for a long time and still will show u in the steam survey ( sims 4 is on her steam account and sim city is on origin.) The thing is its more than her storage solution that wouldn't keep up with ratchet and clank. Its a 5 year old machine with 8 gigs of ram and i don't even know what the intergrated intel stuff is. That hardware wouldn't be targeted for a new release game anyway.
Its the same for people buying ultra books or the surface line now. They wouldn't be targeted as viable machines for games. Sure some people play games on them , i play some stuff on my surface but that is secondary and the people who own that product know they will have a limited gaming experiance.
But pc gaming is still a rolling tide of hardware upgrades for people. There is that core of gamers that are willing to buy semi new hardware that are running rtx cards or rdna cards with nvme drives and loads of ram. That is what the devs will target because devs always target that. We will start to see ssd requirements in more game and more games will take advantage of faster loading times.
Star citizen already requires an ssd.
Again, YOU are the one not understanding....
You're comparing one column which is I/O overhead only... against another which includes COMPRESSION overhead on top of that.
And as for your RAD tools point it completely depends on the data type. That's irrelevant to you not understanding this slide while continually trying to reference it showing "12x increase in core count for a 2x increase in bandwidth".
Games are compressed, and thus if you put a 7GB/s column on there including compression it would likely be 6-12 cores.
Last edited:
davis.anthony
Veteran
YOU are the one not understanding.
Worthwhile for those engaged to take a break for a while and let cooler thoughts prevail.
He's comparing 2 cores of I/O work, against 24 cores of I/O + decompression work.. while asking why 12x the cores are required...
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
A PhD in Solid State storage?
A PhD in Solid State storage?
Yes, but what does an expert really know? Also, you can be in the pockets of "Big CPU"...
Yeah. If there's no need for more RAM, wait until there is need when the RAM price should be less be GB.Save your money
You are correct. If it takes 2 cores to read 7 GB/s uncompressed data, it should take 4 cores to read 14 GB/s uncompressed data.
However, what happens when the data is compressed? The slide is saying the overhead for decompression takes you from 4 cores for uncompressed data to 24 cores for decompressing that data. It's not a 12x increase in core count for a 2x increase in bandwidth, but a 6x increase in core count to process compressed data in realtime versus uncompressed.
It's a bit a naff graph as it's showing different workloads and makes it unobvious what's being compared, which is typical of nVidia and AMD graphs IMO. "Bar 1 shows number of elephants that can fit in a room, while Bar 2 shows far more zebras can ride trains."
Make your point and your argument. Debate other POVs including questioning if the mistake is on your end or theirs. Don't be rude and if you find you can't get through, just walk away.
Last edited:
Similar threads
