Next-Generation NVMe SSD and I/O Technology [PC, PS5, XBSX|S]
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Here's the thing, the current generation was able to leverage low hanging fruit, abysmal past gen CPU performance and abysmal past gen storage performance in order to offset relatively modest GPU improvements (relative to previous console generation switches) and relatively minor memory capacity and speed improvements (again, relative to past console generation switches).
Both CPU and GPU generational improvements are slowing, so there is no more low hanging fruit with which to mask the relatively minor generation to generation performance and capabilities that we see in consoles (WRT past console generation switches).
Looking at where the state of computing is we see that both CPUs and GPUs are getting bigger and hotter (more power consumption). It's enough of a problem that AMD made an entire presentation about the problem that power consumption poses WRT increased GPU performance in the future. Additionally because of that the majority of their R&D resources for GPU is going towards improving the power efficiency of their Arch versus greatly improving the performance of their Arch. The hope is that greater efficiency might allow them to have multiple chiplets (so greater silicon area and transistors) in a package to eventually compete with NV (going with big and hot chips).
Looking at CPUs we see both AMD and Intel CPUs getting bigger and simultaneously more power hungry.
That's one potential avenue for increased performance for next gen consoles that would be a consequence of staying with AMD or even if they switched to Intel/NV. This could potentially keep next gen consoles at their current price point but at the cost of power consumption going up significantly. Or if chiplets bear fruit for AMD, then greatly increased costs at modest power consumption increases.
The other would be something similar to what Apple has gone. Gone massively wide on cutting edge silicon nodes with a large transistor and silicon budget in order to have increased performance while attempting to keep power consumption in check since there isn't as much of a need to press up against the knee of the power curve. This could keep consoles roughly around where the current gen power consumption is, but at an increased manufacturing cost.
And that doesn't even touch on the increasing cost of memory where unlike past generations memory costs aren't decreasing. So any increase in memory amount will result in an increase in the cost of the console. As well faster GDDR memory also consumes a fair bit more power, so we're again facing the specter of increased power consumption if we want to have much advancement there WRT memory speed.
The one potential bright spot for future consoles is solid state storage. But we still have yet to see any game release from anyone that would require more than a slow gen 4 NVME drive. Neither SpiderMan MM nor R&C come even remotely close to needing the full speed of the PS5 I/O subsystem. So it remains to be seen just how much that can offset the modest increase in memory capacity and speed. We do still have the rest of the generation so there's still a chance for someone to really show what they can do with it.
BTW - that last isn't meant to imply that neither SpiderMan nor R&C on PS5 aren't impressive, but to show that future increases in NVME speed may not bring any additional benefits if we're currently unable to fully leverage current NVME speeds.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Imo you have the wrong approach to the subject, its not about cool box or feature, it's about the revenue it will generate vs revenue lost if they do not do it. And why that will happen.
You are quoting sales numbers, but not why that is good enough?
I mean are Sony happy with the sales number or even sale of the Pro console + whatever extra spend Pro users do. Compare that with what their earn on PS4 + whatever extra spend a base user does. Sony still happy?
Now we can go off on a less direct tangent, Pro kept people in the ecosystem and their spending was not moved away from PS. Which I belive was the narrative for Sony about doing the Pro, make sure they had a 4K offering.
So what cool tech will move people away from PS or even Series to something else unless they release a mid-gen refresh.
I think the "problem" here is that most (not all) pervious gen were very weak in many rendering aspect and lacked tools and power and the engines were not as good as today. If we take a look at modern crossgen games the difference betweenw ps5 and ps4 on first sight may not be that big. The engines are build completely different now. They scale very well with available gf power.
If we take Horizon FW or forza horizon as an example, going to next gen you get higher res, longer draw distance better AO better shadows less agressive LOD etc etc
But those extras that you get on next gens are super expensive in form of raw power needed to achieve that. On the first sight game make look very close, hence all the memes we see now everywhere, when trolls compare screenshots from ps5 to ps4 or xsx to xone, and say this is not generational leap.
Engines are very good to produce best possible picture with available HW, on ps4/xone you get blurrier image 30 vs 60 fps and lot of small downgrades. But overall image on first sight will look "pretty" close to next gen. That wasnt possible before at same scale. And we all know how much expensive it is in compute power to have better rendering distance, with all extra objects casting shadows, have ao and what not. This easily require X time more power to achieve. I really like DF comparison when Alex go thru all the options and produce "optimised for PC" settings and explain things like "decreasing AO from high to mid we get 7% performance increase" etc etc so turning a knob a little bit down gives you already so much win in performance on just one effect. And we are not talking about ON/OFF effect. Just slightly reduce in fidelity. Before that was completely different story, you either had something ON or not.
I don't see it as a problem or disappointment, technology is smarter and tools are better. It will continue as evolution not revolution. AT least gen2gen.
Tools and engines have gotten better each previous generation too, so has scaling. FW is one example, if certain sources are to be believed, the game isn't your typical 'cross-gen' title like were used to on PC and Xbox, where its just higher settings etc. Chris1515 kept assuring everyone of that pre-release.
Rift Apart isnt cross-gen wrt previous generations, its still not a generation apart, so aint DS.
Also, even now console games arent running 'Ultra'/maxed settings either, more often than not medium/high or lower. GPU/CPU/RAM increases are small, storage is large this time around, and its there we will see the largests differences (loading for example, install size, these kind of things, refinements and one less bottleneck though kinda needed with a 2x mem improvement as opposed to 16x etc.
Rootax
Veteran
Old school "gen leap" would need custom hardware again I guess (i doubt x86 cpu is the best arch for gaming when you have control of the os+dev kits, same with the pc type gpu).
But it won't happen. I liked the cell, but I doubt Sony finances did. Same with most generic game engines I guess. Same with the gpu, but who will build a new gpu for consoles only, so custom that you can't use the design for other stuff ? Img maybe ? And you need a lot of devs building quality dev kits. Consoles are bound to be mid tiers PC now. It's not a bad thing, but it is what it is.
But it won't happen. I liked the cell, but I doubt Sony finances did. Same with most generic game engines I guess. Same with the gpu, but who will build a new gpu for consoles only, so custom that you can't use the design for other stuff ? Img maybe ? And you need a lot of devs building quality dev kits. Consoles are bound to be mid tiers PC now. It's not a bad thing, but it is what it is.
Maybe. Doubt that exotic custom designs where beter than more 'of the shelf' hardware. OG Xbox did very well for 2000/2001 hardware against the PS2/GC which had abit more custom hw. Maybe more unique effects/rendering perhaps, better though? Seems to me that x86 hw has generally been the best for gaming/consoles, easier to develop for and extract most of the hw early on, with no real drawbacks in what can be achieved. Its all about optimization and what the devs can get out of the hw. 2001 xbox did HL2/Doom 3/Far Cry which nobody expected to happen. PS4 did amazing things too considering the hw.
Consoles being lower-midtier is good enough for what you pay. its ray tracing and ML/AI that they completely missed out on to be meaningfull this gen. Atleast something for mid-gen refresh or another gen of consoles.
If any company had the capability to simply step in and create faster high end GPU's than AMD and Nvidia are capable of (within the same power and cost constraints) then they'd already have done so. There's a very good reason that there hasn't been a non-nvidia or AMD GPU based console since the PS2 - and even that was significantly outperformed by the nvidia based Xbox. Every major graphics player that's tried to enter the PC GPU market for the last 2 decades has been steamrolled by both in performance terms, I don't expect any different from Intel (who are in a much better position to compete than almost any other vendor).
Apple might be able to compete on the CPU performance front but at a ridiculously higher cost than what Intel or AMD can supply.
Rootax
Veteran
Well, Art-X was not Ati when they did their gpu I believe ? But yeah I agree with you. But my guess is, the main problem is on the software side, like you have to be compatible with x y z, even in a closed console, because the game will be available on others consoles and pc to make more money. So you would have to make exclusives. I mean true exclusives with an engine tuned to the hardware. Like some games did with the ps2, ps3, hell even the GameCube and the TEV units. I'm pretty sure Nintendo, Sony, MS, have people with the skills to design a gaming cpu or gpu. But it's too costly in the end. I trully believe some of the stuff in zen2 arch and rdna 1-2 arch are useless for sony or ms, but they can't order a truly new design for their needs.
Now I'm maybe really wrong about this, I won't die on this hill, you're all more educated than me on this
Now I'm maybe really wrong about this, I won't die on this hill, you're all more educated than me on this
It probably cost way more to manufacture as well.
Skull & Bones recommending an SSD for storage at all settings. HDD's won't hold back gaming.
It's still a cross gen game so it's being developed with HDDs in mind.
The storage requirements make no sense.
I think that further reinforces the point that devs have no concerns about making an SSD the minimum recommendation. Even in a game which could theoretically support an HDD, they don't bother.
That said, it's entirely possible there are elements in the PC version that don't scale as low as the last gen consoles (e.g. texture res) which make an HDD impractical.
Its just weird thinking about using a HDD in any modern pc since last generation of consoles started. For a storage drive maybe. Everything since windows 8 doesnt even play nice with a mechanical hdd. Sata SSD's where the norm ages ago. Now were in m2/nvme land. Studios shouldnt be afraid to recommend atleast sata ssd's.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Technically that is required then. Required is the bare minimum, and recommended is the less frustrating performance requirement!
Apart from Star Citizen, is this the first mainstream game saying SSD or out?
Last edited by a moderator:
Well that will be an expensive requirement for a lot of people too if the minimum comes at 48GB or more
I m sure the first Crysis missed a lot of potential sales because it was either running like ass or not at all in non-Glorius PC Master Race machines
Similar threads
