• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Teamgroup announces worlds fastest SSD over PCIE 5.0 with read speeds at 13,000MB/S and write speeds at 12,000MB/S

01011001

Gold Member
Slightly? a lot longer with a lot of pop-in....and i mean a lot!

So the difference will be night and day.

not really. we saw that SSDs way below spec show zero load time difference. the worst you get is a 1 frame stutter for the worst ones.

this means that we have not yet seen how low you can actually go in terms of speed and still play it wither zero difference.
so if an SSD severely below the spec of the PS5 can play it with no difference in load times, that suggests that the game is currently limited by either CPU speed for loading or it pre-caches a lot of stuff into ram before transitions.

we have yet to find out how slow a drive can be until you see even the slightest drop in load speed in the game. seek times may help, but that would only mean that you would have to place important files close to eachother for fast seek times for transitions (which is what well optimised games do already)

I bet a decent HDD would see little to no load time issues if optimised for the seek times of an HDD (which it currently probably is not due to only targeting a system that requires an SSD)
 
Being fundamentally correct doesn't mean it's not ignorant.

Also a wall of text with very limited nuance forgetting maybe the most obvious advantage of an ASIC over general purpose Hardware.

I'm not forgetting anything, just saying that they both have their benefits and drawbacks.

There's nothing that an ASIC can do that a general-purpose silicon cannot do. The question is how well the latter can do it and that depends on how much hardware overhead (raw compute capability) the latter has, combined with how much software overhead any software-based algorithms matching the ASIC features in function have on the hardware.

If both of those things are very favorable for it, then yes that can outperform the ASIC in the specific task. You just generally need a lot more of hardware overhead and as little software overhead as possible to do so, though.
 

TheGrat1

Member
No one will be making games exclusively for the PS5s SSD.

 

01011001

Gold Member

Demon's Souls does not need the SSD and Returnal sure as hell doesn't either.
Ratched it debatable, but we have yet to see any slow SSD the PS5 accepts that can not handle that game yet too. no matter how slow the SSD, no loading time difference so far... we need to find a way to push it even lower to truly know when the limit is reached

so 1 of them is MAYBE not that easy to run without at least a mediocre SSD, but the other 2 sure as hell can AND will when they come out on PC later this year, early 2023 at the latest :) which was already leaked... in a leak that has been proven correct multiple times by now... a leak that foretold Space Marine 2, which is way too random to just "lucky guess" by Nvidia ;)
 
Last edited:

TheGrat1

Member
Demon's Souls does not need the SSD and Returnal sure as hell doesn't either.
Ratched it debatable, but we have yet to see any slow SSD the PS5 accepts that can not handle that game yet too. no matter how slow the SSD, no loading time difference so far... we need to find a way to push it even lower to truly know when the limit is reached

so 1 of them is MAYBE not that easy to run without that SSD, but the other 2 sure as hell can AND will when they come out on PC this year :) which was already leaked... in a leak that has been proven correct multiple times by now... a leak that foretold Space Marine 2, which is way too random to just "lucky guess" by Nvidia ;)
So now you are the arbiter of what does and does not need what to run the same. And I am sure the code for the PC versions will be exactly the same as the PS5 versions, right? Jesus christ just let him hold the L, I was not even responding to you originally and you still made an ass of yourself with the "2 to 3" years statement.

The "SSDs that meet the requirements run the game just fine" argument was always funny. If Sony said it would work why would it not?
 

01011001

Gold Member
So now you are the arbiter of what does and does not need what to run the same. And I am sure the code for the PC versions will be exactly the same as the PS5 versions, right? Jesus christ just let him hold the L, I was not even responding to you originally and you still made an ass of yourself with the "2 to 3" years statement.

The "SSDs that meet the requirements run the game just fine" argument was always funny. If Sony said it would work why would it not?

Demon's Souls and Returnal for PC have been leaked by a very strong leak. they will with a very high chance run on normal HDDs. it does not matter if "the code for the PC versions will be exactly the same as the PS5 versions", the logical conclusion to the argument will be that these games do not need an SSD to work properly, so they are not designed in a way that necessitates an SSD, let alone the SSD speed + decompression block of the PS5

as for Ratchet, it's hard to say. all we know is that even the lowest speed SSD the PS5 supports, even if it gives you a warning for too slow speeds, still runs Ratchet without any issues and with zero load time differences
 
Last edited:

TheGrat1

Member
Demon's Souls and Returnal for PC have been leaked by a very strong leak. they will with a very high chance run on normal HDDs. it does not matter if "the code for the PC versions will be exactly the same as the PS5 versions", the logical conclusion to the argument will be that these games do not need an SSD to work properly, so they are not designed in a way that necessitates an SSD, let alone the SSD speed + decompression block of the PS5

as for Ratchet, it's hard to say. all we know is that even the lowest speed SSD the PS5 supports, even if it gives you a warning for too slow speeds, still runs Ratchet without any issues and with zero load time differences
If you modify a game's code enough it can run on anything. You could get Demon's Souls to run on a PS2.
The point is you do not know what it takes to run these games in their current form but that will not stop you from claiming otherwise.
 
The only bad news here, is that PC users are justified in caring little about technical advancements nowadays.
For the PC gamer, superior backwards compatibility, steeply discounted games, modding freedom, and benchmarks, offer more enjoyment than any console ever could.

While people looking to play the latest games, with the least interruption from loading, play on consoles.
The other unfortunate truth about PC gaming is all that bleeding edge tech at your fingertips usually means more performance just gets left on the table. The consoles have the advantage of optimization.
 

supernova8

Member
Lol first page in people are already fighting. I personally haven't seen file sizes for stuff I do (I don't do that much PC gaming) go up significantly, so I'm good with my M.2 SSD for now. Obviously if I build a PC later down the line I would want this or whatever is the newest/fastest solution.
 
Last edited:

01011001

Gold Member
If you modify a game's code enough it can run on anything. You could get Demon's Souls to run on a PS2.
The point is you do not know what it takes to run these games in their current form but that will not stop you from claiming otherwise.

do you actually think that Returnal and Demon's Souls will run or look in any way worse when ported to PC? they will sure as fuck not. meaning these games can run exactly like on PS5 on a PC... no need for the PS5's hardware to do so in any way.

and the whole point of the argument "making games exclusively for the PS5s SSD" which you quoted and replied to is meant to mean "games that can only run on a PS5's Storage system", which will never happen. especially if Sony really widens its PC portfolio, which all things point towards as they even renamed one of their divisions to "PlayStation PC" and bought a whole studio to help with ports

this means, we will most likely never actually see a game that is tailored to the PS5, it will of course use the hardware in the best way they can, but it will also work on PC, which is the whole point of this entire discussion.

and especially Returnal is a game that in no way has any part of it that looks like it would need any special storage solution. so that example of yours was very weird... the game is not even that graphically impressive in any real way... it has a lot of particles flying around sure, but that doesn't need any storage at all for example lol
 
Last edited:

Hoddi

Member
do you actually think that Returnal and Demon's Souls will run or look in any way worse when ported to PC? they will sure as fuck not. meaning these games can run exactly like on PS5 on a PC... no need for the PS5's hardware to do so in any way.
I've already tested Demon's Souls as I mentioned in an earlier post. I specifically tested the streaming rate which recorded 100GB over the course of 30 minutes and gives it an average read rate of ~57MB per second.

I made a point of never dying during that run-through so there are no burst loads involved. And also because I'm not a n00b.
 

TheGrat1

Member
do you actually think that Returnal and Demon's Souls will run or look in any way worse when ported to PC?
I do not know. That is the difference between you and I: You pretend you have a crystal ball, I do not.
and the whole point of the argument "making games exclusively for the PS5s SSD" which you quoted and replied to is meant to mean "games that can only run on a PS5's Storage system",
No, it means games meant to take advantage of the SSD as a baseline. YOU, on the other hand implied they will be making PS4 crossgen games for 2-3 years despite the fact that PS Studios had PS5-only games day one. I could have listed Destruction All-Stars as well, my response in post #107 had nothing to do with the ssd.
 

theclaw135

Member
Demon's Souls and Returnal for PC have been leaked by a very strong leak. they will with a very high chance run on normal HDDs. it does not matter if "the code for the PC versions will be exactly the same as the PS5 versions", the logical conclusion to the argument will be that these games do not need an SSD to work properly, so they are not designed in a way that necessitates an SSD, let alone the SSD speed + decompression block of the PS5

as for Ratchet, it's hard to say. all we know is that even the lowest speed SSD the PS5 supports, even if it gives you a warning for too slow speeds, still runs Ratchet without any issues and with zero load time differences

I doubt any PS5 developer would deliberately lock out HDDs. There's nothing to gain from it.
After all, exactly zero PS5s ever made included an HDD.
 
Last edited:

Edder1

Member
Faster "speeds", but other then that...NVMe on pc do not benefit any game. Even pcie3.0 NVMe's are not getting used at all for games on pc. It's the consoles that will push this tech for developers not game developers on pc.
Hard disagree. We already see games on PC benefiting from faster read speeds when it comes to things like loading. While consoles will be the base tech for which devs will code, PCs will fully benefit from having faster SSDs similar to how they benefit from having faster CPUs and GPUs. Sure, maybe devs won't fully utilise far superior SSD tech in PCs just like they don't with far superior CPUs and GPUs, but you cannot tell me that having more powerful tech in PC does not result in better performance.
 
Last edited:

theclaw135

Member
Hard disagree. We already see games on PC benefiting from faster read speeds when it comes to things like loading. While consoles will be the base tech for which devs will code, PCs will fully benefit from having faster SSDs similar to how they benefit from having faster CPUs and GPUs. Sure, maybe devs won't fully utilise far superior SSD tech in PCs just like they don't with far superior CPUs and GPUs, but you cannot tell me that having more powerful tech in PC does not result in better performance.

Don't believe a thing benchmarkers tell you... PC "winning" by brute force isn't an accomplishment, it's common sense.
 

Elog

Member
No, no, no. You don't need to do that, where did you get this idea from? PCIe 4.0 and 5.0 already enable byte-addressability schemes for NAND storage devices, thanks to things like SAM/BAR, etc.

The "security" thing you seem to be referring to is the lack of direct-memory access (DMA) in lieu of the current paging system used for unified address translation. However, that's exactly what things like DirectStorage are reforming, and you don't need to have the CPU relinquish any control if the CPU has the spare resources to handle those functions on CPU cores and threads.
You are missing the point. If an SSD - like some people speculate in this thread - is to act as a slow RAM pool for asset streaming, you need to bring latency down with a huge margin (modern SSDs are good enough to act like slow RAM from a pure specification point of view). Direct Storage is an attempt to address this but will not in its current iteration completely succeed with this due to CPU overhead (still a very large improvement over today's situation).

To achieve this, the GPU would need to be allowed to call a file on the SSD and directly read it into VRAM without CPU involvement. This is technologically possible on a PC but will not be allowed for multiple security reasons in Windows.

So to paraphrase your text: Yes, yes, yes - Direct Storage is a CPU run driver to control traffic faster to the VRAM pool but will still suffer from a CPU tax in terms of latency due to that every I/O step still being 100% under CPU control. This is the EXACT same reason why you need VRAM on your graphics card on a PC. Yes - you have all that super fast RAM on your motherboard and a very fast PCIe bus but that RAM and bus is under CPU control that introduces very high levels of latency that necessities VRAM on your card so you can cut the CPU out of the core graphics I/O cycle.

This fundamental bottle-neck is not in place for next-generation consoles.

And for those that think this is console warring against PC: I play more games on my high-end PC than my console. This is simply about technology and how to evolve the PC platform.
 
Last edited:

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Sure, but we are in a gaming forum discussing games.

I use high throughput SSD's everyday for work and this upgrade is more than welcome. There is no too much speed for what I need.

I was just responding to the ridiculous claim that the SSD on consoles is dead.

Seems like my next PC upgrade is getting closer, just waiting for all PCIe 5.0 components to hit the market. This time around I think I might go full Intel as they're the only ones that have HEVC 4:2:2 decoding. Nvidia's cards are only 4:2:0. I think Intel's GPU will be much cheaper with mediocre gaming performance, but would be insanely good for video editing.
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
Oh wow a new tech a year later will put in the shame the ps5 hardware, totally unexpected by him :messenger_tears_of_joy: ; to me it proves how Cerny again knows his shit and such tech isn't so useless and unnecessary because normal SSD was already "fine" as many people tried to argue at the ps5 announcement (yeah the same DF).
 
That‘s something I‘ve been wondering ever since Sony explained its PS5 SSD. In terms of pure speed, this new SSD in the OP is about half as fast as the main RAM in the PS3 and 360. I wonder if RAM and storage will eventually be fused entirely; I could see it happen with mobile hardware first, since mobile RAM is much slower than memory in PCs or consoles.
You need to have identical latency for both of them in order to fuse them together, otherwise performance will be all over the place and inconsistent. Ram’s latency is measured in nanoseconds, ssd latency is in microseconds so it’s has thousands of times higher latency than ram. Until both ram and storage have identical latency, fusing them won’t be a good idea.
 
The 2nd quote is fundamentally correct; customized hardware still has to compromise on certain areas in order to deliver their performance targets. Specific ASIC designs are very good at particular tasks but many attempts for them to operate outside of the parameters set in hardware are very difficult to do, they lack the flexibility of general-purpose silicon.

It's like how DSPs are very good at MAC operations, but are poor at generalized code which CPUs are more suited for. You can have the most advanced customized DSP ASIC in the world; have it try crunching general non-MAC code for a current AAA game and it will fail.

For specific tasks, you can go with either custom ASICs or very powerful generalized hardware leveraging more software-driven implementations. They each have their advantages; if the latter isn't clearly more capable in raw throughput than the former, the former usually outperforms it. But they both also have their disadvantages; if the the latter has clearly more raw throughput than the former, it can not only potentially run the same task at roughly the same level, but run it better thanks to flexibility allowing for improved software-driven algorithms to execute.

I don't see how any of that is "ignorant" 🤷‍♂️



This is interesting; any idea on how long a SSD being used for this type of purpose would last? How frequent are write operations on a drive performing this type of function?

Also any other sources with details on this for further reading? I'd be really interested in it, because I'm pretty interested in what technologies 10th-gen systems could potentially use, and this sounds like it'd be pretty useful for those especially combined with PIM/PNM (Processing-In-Memory/Processing-Near-Memory) designs (which I also think 10th-gen systems will leverage in some notable way).
They had to build a specific Controller for this function to work correctly, and then an entirely retrofitted software compiler which they informed us they were working on!! But as I was informed the
lifespan is that of a standard SSD at likely nearing 2 decades!!

The same problem with the standard emulator, say if you were to emulate a Console on your PC much like they are emulating the Switch and various other Consoles currently is that the compiler running the emulator, just a simulated CPU and GPU has always been a bottleneck for even many of the fastest computers to overcome. And only the latest hardware has been able to full overcome most of the inherent hurdles of encoding your standard CPU and GPU compute to translate into proprietary hardware systems such as the Nintendo Switch or Wii U.

For many of the latest Gaming emulators we had to wait until we had specific controllers embedded into the SSD, motherboard ect, to run flawlessly without performance loss!! Now here we are and one
of these SSD's will surely be encoded to simulate Consoles with a large stack of Simulated Compute Clusters alone!! This is why Emulation has always required much more powerful Hardware
when emulating Gaming Consoles. The Biggest Bottleneck? SSD Read Write Speeds That don't match even 4% of a CPU's Read Write Speeds. Essentially FTL Controllers would retrofitted with a Mobile CPU and GPU on SSD's specific - just to overcome transfer hurdles and remove reliance on internal PC hardware where possible. Then in another class years later, they literally named dropped "perhaps Xenobots" as another solution to overcome some of these hurdles!

They ensured us all ... as we sat around thinking about a future where we just buy SSD's fast enough to run simulated compute that rivals standard Hardware... that the SSD's as standard once they achieved the needed Read Write Speed to keep up with a CPU and GPU at least perceivable to Humans, would also be built from the ground up to run these simulations and many other ecosystems!!
 

PropellerEar

Gold Member
I'm not forgetting anything, just saying that they both have their benefits and drawbacks.

There's nothing that an ASIC can do that a general-purpose silicon cannot do. The question is how well the latter can do it and that depends on how much hardware overhead (raw compute capability) the latter has, combined with how much software overhead any software-based algorithms matching the ASIC features in function have on the hardware.

If both of those things are very favorable for it, then yes that can outperform the ASIC in the specific task. You just generally need a lot more of hardware overhead and as little software overhead as possible to do so, though.
You're not even acknowledging the most obvious advantage an ASIC will always have, not even touching it remotely.

Write another short novel, and dig deeper for some nuance, maybe you will get it next time.
 

hlm666

Member
That's pretty clever mate. That is a lot of reads in 30 minutes of gameplay. A game designed to rely on lots of reading from an SSD like that will not play very smoothly on a HDD.
guy over on beyond3d tried to do alot more indepth testing on this, here was one of the later posts he did. He has another post talking about 30 mins of dark souls read about 100GB and a comparison of ps4/5 spiderman suggesting the ps4 read 5GB while the same part on ps5 read 32GB. Go backwards from the post below if you want to read what he said about those.

"Right, so I finally reached that same spot and I hit that rock way more often than is healthy. I performed 80 (!) warps in total across 3 separate runs and they all suggest that each individual warp reads slightly below 500MB from the SSD."


 

oldergamer

Member
in 2 to 3 years they will for sure!... unless the PS4 is still too lucrative for them to let it go just yet :pie_roffles:
There is only so much ssd bandwidth you can make use of in real-time before it isn't needed. Epic has shown this pretty dramatically with demos pushing visuals, yet only using 300 - 500mb of bandwidth. the home consoles have more then enough room.

in 2 -3 years we will see visuals that come close to what epic has created. but don't expect games to use 5000MB of ssd bandwidth. its just not realistic.
 
Last edited:

Tripolygon

Member
guy over on beyond3d tried to do alot more indepth testing on this, here was one of the later posts he did. He has another post talking about 30 mins of dark souls read about 100GB and a comparison of ps4/5 spiderman suggesting the ps4 read 5GB while the same part on ps5 read 32GB. Go backwards from the post below if you want to read what he said about those.

"Right, so I finally reached that same spot and I hit that rock way more often than is healthy. I performed 80 (!) warps in total across 3 separate runs and they all suggest that each individual warp reads slightly below 500MB from the SSD."


Thanks for sharing. And the person on beyond3d is the same person on gaf it seems going by the post, correct me if I'm wrong Hoddi Hoddi . At ~500MB compressed data per warp, a regular HDD at ~50MB/s tops could not do that at all considering each warp takes a few frames, that's easily several GBs of data/second when uncompressed. Digital Foundry should consider doing a video using this method Hoddi Hoddi came up with.
 
Last edited:

hlm666

Member
Thanks for sharing. And the person on beyond3d is the same person on gaf it seems going by the post, correct me if I'm wrong Hoddi Hoddi . At ~500MB compressed data per warp, a regular HDD at ~50MB/s tops could not do that at all considering each warp takes a few frames, that's easily several GBs of data/second when uncompressed. Digital Foundry should consider doing a video using this method Hoddi Hoddi came up with.
Was interesting and probably as close to ssd performance metrics we will get on consoles unless they are hacked/jail broken or whatever the kids are calling it these days. I'm not sure DF will do anything on the ssd, they had that ssd with the tape mod to reduce the speed to like 1.5GBs and they seemed to have avoided following through on the video.
 

John Wick

Member
TEAMGROUP T-FORCE Debuts the Latest PCIe Gen5 SSD: Leaping Into a New Era of SSDs with Groundbreaking Technologies
TEAMGROUP is releasing its first PCIe Gen5 SSD under its gaming sub-brand T-FORCE as part of the CARDEA series. It is capable of maximum sequential read speeds of over 13,000MB/s and write speeds exceeding 12,000MB/s, and together with a maximum storage capacity of 4TB, it will be the highest performance PCIe Gen5 flagship SSD on the market when launched



Hot damn! I dont think the current gen consoles can benefit from these speeds. It is all for PC baby!
So how much are these drives gonna cost? Seeing as every PC user will benefit.
 

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
PC always leading the charge of bleeding edge technology. I remember getting my first ssd and installing Witcher 2 on it and couldn’t believe how fast it loaded.

ms just needs to hurry up with direct storage.
 

Utherellus

Member
PC has had PCI-E 4.0 for how many years now? Tell me one game that loads in 1 or 2 seconds. When PC's take advantage of PCI-E 5.0, new consoles will be out by then.

After recent updates Flight Sim 2020 New York scene loads in 5-6 seconds on my 3.2GB/s Crucial nvme.

dunno what happens on x2-3 faster drives.
 

Brofist

Member
Don't believe a thing benchmarkers tell you... PC "winning" by brute force isn't an accomplishment, it's common sense.
Well if it's common sense then it should also be common sense that the PS5 will eventually be beaten in every conceivable measure since it's competing against fast evolving technology.

But most buyers of PS5 should already know this, and know that they bought into a nice package for the price assuming you can find one at retail prices.
 
Last edited:
Just a "small" but important disclaimer for people fixated on numbers, the read/write performance that ssd manufacturers put on the spec sheet to advertise their ssd's and something almost none of them tell you, is that these speeds are the peak of what that ssd can achieve. Peaks are almost always meant for short bursty workloads and tend to last for no more than a few seconds, before the drive itself throttles itself due to heat which can reduce the drives' life expectancy and performance in the long term, heat is one of the big enemies of electronics & microelectronics, including chipsets and semiconductors.

The one thing that matters isn't the peak speed(which is most likely to turn heads around due to how high it can get), it's the sustained speed, which shows the actual performance the drive can maintain almost indefinitely and under load/stress. That's why it's great to stress test a storage device, before determining what the actual real world sustained performance is. There are benchmarks that can do that for you, or, there are ways you can test it by yourself but I won't get into those. The lowdown is Peak Speed is what's advertised in the spec sheet, but peak speed cannot be maintained indefinitely due to the temperature getting to high(which can impact lifetime), sustained speeds on the other hand can be maintained indefinitely and are a lot lower than the peak advertised speeds.

Same goes for Microsoft & Sony, their drives are not exempt from this. They both advertise the peak speeds of their ssds, speeds that they will most likely never hold onto for very long or indefinitely, especially since the cooling in those consoles can be a lot worse than the cooling in a pc, regardless of whether or not either of those specified that their drive is designed for sustained speeds and not peak speeds. This rings true for any pc drives and consoles are no exception.
 
Last edited:

sinnergy

Member
Just a "small" but important disclaimer for people fixated on numbers, the read/write performance that ssd manufacturers put on the spec sheet to advertise their ssd's and something almost none of them tell you, is that these speeds are the peak of what that ssd can achieve. Peaks are almost always meant for short bursty workloads and tend to last for no more than a few seconds, before the drive itself throttles itself due to heat which can reduce the drives' life expectancy and performance in the long term, heat is one of the big enemies of electronics & microelectronics, including chipsets and semiconductors.

The one thing that matters isn't the peak speed(which is most likely to turn heads around due to how high it can get), it's the sustained speed, which shows the actual performance the drive can maintain almost indefinitely and under load/stress. That's why it's great to stress test a storage device, before determining what the actual real world sustained performance is. There are benchmarks that can do that for you, or, there are ways you can test it by yourself but I won't get into those. The lowdown is Peak Speed is what's advertised in the spec sheet, but peak speed cannot be maintained indefinitely due to the temperature getting to high(which can impact lifetime), sustained speeds on the other hand can be maintained indefinitely and are a lot lower than the peak advertised speeds.

Same goes for Microsoft & Sony, their drives are not exempt from this. They both advertise the peak speeds of their ssds, speeds that they will most likely never hold onto for very long or indefinitely, especially since the cooling in those consoles can be a lot worse than the cooling in a pc, regardless of whether or not either of those specified that their drive is designed for sustained speeds and not peak speeds. This rings true for any pc drives and consoles are no exception.
MS promoted the Series SSD as sustained
 

VFXVeteran

Banned
No.

First off the console CPUs are decent now. You know that.

Secondly general purpose CPUs in no way compete with custom designed hardware meant to perform a specific task. That's why specialized hardware exists. That's why we have GPUs for crying out loud, unless you want to still live in a world of software based rasterizers. Sorry dude, you don't know what you're talking about. You're talking to a computer scientist. And why would you want to use your GPU to decompress data? Then it can't you know ... compute visuals. Again, that's the point, the PS5 has a dedicated hardware solution that utilizes a superior compression scheme AND offloads it all on custom silicon. Not a CPU, not GPU cores. That's why games like Ratchet and the PS5 UE5 demo we saw can load things in on a per frame basis, depending on the movement of the camera.



It's amazing to me that the same core group of people just can't let certain basic things go. The PS5 has a really impressive memory architecture, and it's used in games available now that are on the shelf now. It doesn't take away from other stuff that might be your favorite. Just let it go. Of course DirectStorage will make a "difference" in the future. But that's the point. It's still going to be years before it's used regularly across games, and it's still not as good as the solution in the PS5. You can deny that, but that's called not living in reality.

Anyway, don't want to rehash this stuff and get into what amounts to silly warring, so I am out of this thread. You guys need to stop being so defensive over this stuff. It's insane this bothers you. Just get all the platforms (last game I played was Halo Infinite, what a shock) and have fun instead of doing ... whatever this is.

Edit: Oh yeah, the XSX has a better CPU and generally better GPU than the PS5. Oh no, the humanity! See? It's not hard to just say how things are without it affecting your emotional state.
Dr. Bass,

While I agree with your synapsis on the PS5's SSD performance over the PC (and it's software API to emulate a hardware compression scheme), I think it's a moot point as PC GPU memory will be the best use of bandwidth. As it gets larger (i.e. 3090 is now 24G of VRAM), the dependency on a pipeline streaming in assets compressed on-the-fly will diminish. This is just my thoughts. UE5 demo was more reliant on VRAM than SSD->VRAM compression schemes. We'll see after a bit though..
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom