Preview updates are out now, so maybe we'll see some reliable test results.
Xbox One (Durango) Technical hardware investigation
- Thread starter Love_In_Rio
- Start date
- Status
http://briandwilliams68.wordpress.c...d-drive-upgrade-alternatives-with-benchmarks/
Someone replaced the internal HDD to an SSD and SSHD, it didn't do much. So the external one can't really be expected to do any better. It looks like both XB1 and PS4 are trying to give consistent Q/A results by capping the HDD bandwidth
USB 3.0 with UASP can get >400MB which could make a difference over the SATA2 connection in the console.
http://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/com...box_one_improves_load_times/chrdx2u?context=3
shows some useful benchmarks from external setups.
jimgraveyard
Newcomer
I'm really interested to see if introducing of fast external store will have an impact on asset streaming speed in games, but so far we have only loading times comparisons.
Also, does anyone know how Xbox One handles it's internal flash cache, is there any info on that?
Also, does anyone know how Xbox One handles it's internal flash cache, is there any info on that?
Which brings the question, does the XB1 supports UASP ?
jimgraveyard
Newcomer
Now that Watch Dogs is out, and with Titanfall it's two games already that use the same 792p resolution on XO, makes me wonder, is this some kind of calculation to make everything fit into esram?
There is some serious OS overhead here I think. Testing these load times is probably better when done with multi-platform games so you can compare with PC and PS4.
In theory, SSD at 512MB/s should be able to fill 3.5GB of RAM in 7 secs, so it's a matter of figuring out how efficient the game is storing the data across files and then trying to determine OS overhead.
or maybe the HDD just isn't the bottleneck here.
many things in the games depend on internet-Servers. maybe (if an internet-Connection existed while testing) the requests were just slow.
- savegames get sychronized
- statistics get synchronizes
- it is search for new DLCs
well at least this could explain the menu-load times.
or maybe Ryse just precalculates things.
Almost certainly not OS overhead, but rather the game processing the data in some way as it is loaded.
Cheers
Silent_Buddha
Legend
This. It is one of the reasons why SSD's on PC can sometimes dramatically increase load times for games over Raid 0, yet at other times have virtually no increase over Raid 0.
And that isn't even getting into whether the game files are stored as many small files (extremely SSD friendly and extremely mechanical HDD unfriendly) or as a large relatively optimized file (with regards to keeping as much related content in contiguous sequential blocks as possible) which would reduce the random read penalty that mechanical drives have in relation to SSDs.
Regards,
SB
And specifically why Nvidia's new driver are pretty awesome. i.e. rather than compile the shaders anew at every game load, they store those shaders on the HDD/SDD to be loaded rather than compiled whenever the game is started saving both time and CPU cycles.
There are a lot of dynamic translation schemes that do caching of compiled code between processor architectures.
For some of caching examples, this was nixed due to copyright concerns, since you are making a copy of an existing commercial product you don't own.
Does this not apply to Nvidia (Gameworks, maybe?)?
For some of caching examples, this was nixed due to copyright concerns, since you are making a copy of an existing commercial product you don't own.
Does this not apply to Nvidia (Gameworks, maybe?)?
- Status
Similar threads
