I've seen speeds up to 25GB/s. If you wanted more memory you can get 64GB of DDR4 for cheaper and it's faster.
Last edited:
Sony's ReRAM plans - what can and can't ReRAM bring to a console? *spawn
I've seen speeds up to 25GB/s. If you wanted more memory you can get 64GB of DDR4 for cheaper and it's faster.
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
That would make the PCB board too expensive/complex.
An SSD isn't going to be a substitute for GDDR6 or HBM memory, not even the magic sony has.
ReRAM is deliberately positioned as between RAM and NAND, not a replacement for RAM or NAND. NAND is cheap for bulk. DDR is fast and cheap. There's room for a cache between for specific operations, notably fast writes to storage, exactly the same as 3D Xpoint.
Ditto.
You don't know that. You don't know if it will be cheaper - short term and long term.
A ReRAM solution will be a game-changer. Sony even has one with 51gb/s. But it has to be cost effective to make sense, we can all agree to that.
Is it cost effective though? That's the question. But there is enough data to surmise that it might be cost effective both near-term but more importantly long-term.
If the cost to manufacture initially (minus R&D and CAPEX) is at $30 for 128gb then it is a no brainer. Notwithstanding it's ability to stack and scale and chase Nand Flash in price. In fact, there is expectation for ReRAM to do that because IT WILL SCALE DOWN below 15nm.
Again,
This is the slide posted by megre:
Now, does anybody think that Sony will put the equivalent of PCIe Gen5 x8 in the PS5 APU for a "warm cache"? How many pins would that be? How much area of the chip would they need to dedicate to that?
This is the slide posted by megre:
Now, does anybody think that Sony will put the equivalent of PCIe Gen5 x8 in the PS5 APU for a "warm cache"? How many pins would that be? How much area of the chip would they need to dedicate to that?
Yet 128gb ReRAM or even that 256gb can be made in a "small form factor".
I would love a 128gb or even just 64gb of DDR4 as GPU memory for next-gen but we have enough data to prove that that would be prohibitively expensive. While ReRAM although having higher latency is POTENTIALLY much much cheaper.
We can all agree that it has to he cost-effective both near-term and long-term to make sense.
I have no idea how much PCIe 5.0 would cost. I tried searching but found no meaningful data. I would appreciate if you will enlighten me on this matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
This was an eye-opener for me.
What's the new bottleneck with regards to load times?
One poster laid it out very nicely.
My speculation:
PS5 will achieve "no loading times" by using ReRAM as the cache to where game assets will be unpacked and decompressed. All game assets will be unpacked to the cache or just the immediately-needed assets depending on the scope, ambition, and visual fidelity of the game.
At 25.6gb/s, it can fill the main RAM in less than a second without ever needing to go through the hoops of decompressing the data.
What's the new bottleneck with regards to load times?
One poster laid it out very nicely.
My speculation:
PS5 will achieve "no loading times" by using ReRAM as the cache to where game assets will be unpacked and decompressed. All game assets will be unpacked to the cache or just the immediately-needed assets depending on the scope, ambition, and visual fidelity of the game.
At 25.6gb/s, it can fill the main RAM in less than a second without ever needing to go through the hoops of decompressing the data.
What is used as cold game storage?
What will decompress from cold storage?
There will still be CPU or some processor usage and time whilst the reram is filled.
Will this be refilled each game as 64gb does not sound so big for uncompressed data.
I can see the performance when it's all in the caches , but filling from cold storage sounds as slow.as any other tech.
What have I missed?
What will decompress from cold storage?
There will still be CPU or some processor usage and time whilst the reram is filled.
Will this be refilled each game as 64gb does not sound so big for uncompressed data.
I can see the performance when it's all in the caches , but filling from cold storage sounds as slow.as any other tech.
What have I missed?
The early leaks suggested HDD. But there are rumors of 1TB - 2TB of SSD. They could probably go with cheap SATA 4.0 SSD.
It depends on the game. As the Control developer said, "If games would stay the same in terms of scope and visual quality it’d make loading times be almost unnoticeable and restarting a level could be almost instant [in PS5 games]". But if they become ambitious and start to use that ultra-fast SSD to cache immediately-needed assets to showcase insane details then memory management (same as today) must be employed.
I'm speculating that there could still be a dedicated separate asic chip (cell cpu?). But it could be a cheap one because it doesn't need to be super fast.
We don't know the amount yet. But we have already seen a 128gb and 256gb version of ReRAM from Sony.
But if your worried about long load times when changing game, Sony could actually employ pre-caching on games enough to immediately boot a game. It will depend on the amount of ReRAM in there how much memory will Sony allocate for pre-caching and how much for caching currently played games. There doesn't need to be fix amount, it could be dynamic.
Again, I will point you to the statement by the Control developer. It depends on the scope, ambition and visual fidelity of the game on how big a game will be. If it's really too big then they will need to employ memory management again. I feel like there will be a separate dedicated asic decompressor so as to not bother the CPU processes.
Are you trolling now?
25.6GB/s comes from the super-wide-super-fast interface, not from ReRAM alone. Getting ANY storage at 25.6GB/s is even less likely than getting ReRAM at all.
If next-gen storage ends up truly being dozens of times faster than current, I don't think compression will be the biggest bottleneck. Lazy Devs™ will just conpress data less, since the raw read speed can eat it up. As the balance of power changes, so do these engineering/algorithmic decisions.
I would say if the SSD is ultra-fast even at just 4gb/s then why even compress at all. Have it decompressed so that massive amount of data doesn't have to go through shuffling of data to decompress at run-time. The CPU/GPU can load them in-place and read to them directly without friction. But storage capacity would be a problem then I guess.
So that you have more than two game installed at once...
Well, are there gonna be any incentives for devs to be more mindful of storage or are they gonna be free to pass the bill down to the consumer how they have been this gen?
Theoretically they could have shipped everything on 2 discs. But they didn’t. I think it will still matter as long as there are costs associated with media. And MS and Sony could force compression since they have hardware decompress and swizzle and there are security items to consider for encryption.
Since data has to be encrypted it’s also likely part of the chain is to decompress.
There are infinitely many flavour of compression and data organization. Some faster, some more efficient, some more specialized, some for big blocks of heterogeneous data, some for small chuncks of specidic types of data, etc.
The choices that are popular are unquestionably gonna shift this gen. We are just yet to see the specifics of how.