• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Xbox Series X’s BCPack Texture Compression Technique 'might be' better than the PS5’s Kraken

svbarnard

Member
Mar 17, 2016
175
166
410
So I assume it's just a matter of time till Microsoft starts using kraken for the Xbox series s/x because it sounds like it's not just control that is significantly smaller install size on the PS5 compared to Xbox.
 

djjinx2

Member
Oct 6, 2013
538
190
620
It's one game ffs! They sure are out in force today.

Let's review all this in say 2 years
 
Last edited:
  • Triggered
Reactions: iamvin22

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
6,170
3,158
1,695
A studio with a long history with working with MS have been paid eh? Bittermuch at his finest
Paid nope just put in more work into the better selling console and sku. That's the huge advantage of being the market dominator developers spend time on your platform fine tuning things. The other platform gets the scraps like this obvious quicky PC port. The old it runs fuck it ship it. It is up to Microsoft to find incentives to get developers to spend time on their platform instead of these quicky ports.
 

Negotiator101

Member
Jan 24, 2021
1,394
1,849
340
But you have it
With BCpack + Zlib is 4.8GB ( max 6.) on Xbox
Kraken alone is ~9GB, with Oodle texture is 13-15 GB on average on PS5 (max. 22)


Zip 1.64 to 1
Kraken 1.82 to 1
Zip + Oodle Texture 2.69 to 1
Kraken + Oodle Texture 3.16 to 1
You've made the 13 - 15gb amount up, you've pulled that figure out of where the sun don't shine 😅

In all seriousness stop the crap!
 
  • LOL
Reactions: chilichote

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Jan 27, 2020
3,008
3,713
585
My PS5 can hold about 3-5 games max at the same time and is already failing to download update because its out of storage. They could have the best compression technology in the history of compression technology but what they needed was adequate storage space.


And yes I'm mad, I don't want to juggle games around just to be able to play multiple things, and I can't even buy a SSD to expand it yet.
It's ridiculous and Sony's silence on upgrade options is unacceptable.
 

John Wick

Member
Jul 23, 2015
1,755
1,673
475
United Kingdom
Paid nope just put in more work into the better selling console and sku. That's the huge advantage of being the market dominator developers spend time on your platform fine tuning things. The other platform gets the scraps like this obvious quicky PC port. The old it runs fuck it ship it. It is up to Microsoft to find incentives to get developers to spend time on their platform instead of these quicky ports.
Now turn that arguement around when an SX game is better eh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demon2blades

sainraja

Member
Aug 15, 2007
1,583
1,060
1,340
It's ridiculous and Sony's silence on upgrade options is unacceptable.
Other posters have more games installed than he is claiming to be able to install and he hasn't yet responded to them.
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
18,877
12,557
2,110
Ok, show me where you got it from?


5.5 GB/s * 3.16 = 17.38 GB/s so he was generous when he said 15 GB/s (Oodle Texture is lossy, BC7PREP aside, and you can vary compression profile to adjust... BCPACK also supports lossy RDO optimised processing and it is how you would go to 6.x+ GB/s I would guess) .
 
Last edited:

Negotiator101

Member
Jan 24, 2021
1,394
1,849
340


5.5 GB/s * 3.16 = 17.38 GB/s so he was generous when he said 15 GB/s (Oodle Texture is lossy, BC7PREP aside, and you can vary compression profile to adjust... BCPACK also supports lossy RDO optimised processing and it is how you would go to 6.x+ GB/s I would guess) .
Go check the official PS5 spec sheets released from Sony, just stop with the rubbish it's misleading and not attainable in games. Why do you think Sony haven't revised their own spec sheet?
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
18,877
12,557
2,110
Go check the official PS5 spec sheets released from Sony, just stop with the rubbish it's misleading and not attainable in games. Why do you think Sony haven't revised their own spec sheet?
Rubbish? Do you realise I quoted the blog from the Oodle (RAD Game Tools, now EPIC) people with their figures?

Both MS and Sony quoted average numbers with standard compression, which is why MS quoted 4.8 GB/s of equivalent bandwidth (for the 2.4 GB/s channel) and Sony quoted 8-9 GB/s. This was also out before Sony announced the licensing agreement for Oodle Textures for all PS4 and PS5 devs... almost as if you did not bother reading it.

So, you get angry and shout at people about a topic you have your own conspiracy theory on, demand evidence from others, evidence is provided, your refuse to acknowledge it (shocking I know :rolleyes:), and proceed to shout angrily at people again. Gotcha...
 
Last edited:

Ar¢tos

Member
Oct 24, 2017
4,737
7,389
740
Krynn
So when is Microsoft going to start using kraken?
It's not just about Kraken. If you have faster read speed and better hw decompression, you can compress files more to achieve the same result.
Even using Kraken you wouldn't be able to shrink the game so much on Xbox, unless you increased compression quality loss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lysandros

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
1,987
6,767
445
So I assume it's just a matter of time till Microsoft starts using kraken for the Xbox series s/x because it sounds like it's not just control that is significantly smaller install size on the PS5 compared to Xbox.
Not that simple.

The problem (for the lack of a better word) isn't because of the technique or software (Kraken or BCPack). It's the speed at which the console is able to decompress stuff. Xbox is and will be slower than PS5 in that regard -- no matter what software technology it uses.

In other words, even if both PS5 and XSX compress a game via Kraken, PS5 can still be faster.
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
1,987
6,767
445
Go check the official PS5 spec sheets released from Sony, just stop with the rubbish it's misleading and not attainable in games. Why do you think Sony haven't revised their own spec sheet?
Yeah, developers are lying. You are telling the truth.

You should have told Sony, who stupidly licensed this technology. And you should have also told Epic that this tech is "rubbish and misleading and not attainable in games". Epic didn't know this, and they ended up buying the entire company that made it.
 
Last edited:

D.Final

Banned
Oct 18, 2018
5,109
2,781
620
So I assume it's just a matter of time till Microsoft starts using kraken for the Xbox series s/x because it sounds like it's not just control that is significantly smaller install size on the PS5 compared to Xbox.
If this is true
Oh boy
 

svbarnard

Member
Mar 17, 2016
175
166
410
Not that simple.

The problem (for the lack of a better word) isn't because of the technique or software (Kraken or BCPack). It's the speed at which the console is able to decompress stuff. Xbox is and will be slower than PS5 in that regard -- no matter what software technology it uses.

In other words, even if both PS5 and XSX compress a game via Kraken, PS5 can still be faster.
I think you're confused bro, the speed at which the consoles can decompress stuff has nothing to do with the install size of games.
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
1,987
6,767
445
I think you're confused bro, the speed at which the consoles can decompress stuff has nothing to do with the install size of games.
It does. Here is how:

Suppose the game has to render a scene in one specific room. The scene is fast-paced and will take you to multiple rooms in a 30-second sequence. Each room has different assets that need to be loaded in time. All those assets, say, amount to 1GB.

Now, there are two scenarios:
  1. The developer doesn't compress any of those 1 GB assets, and all those assets are available on the drive (installed file) as 1 GB. When the scene comes on, those 1 GB assets are sent to the screen for the CPU and GPU to render.
  2. The developer compresses those 1 GB assets into a 100 MB file. When the scene comes on, the console does not just send the (compressed) files to the screen. It first decompresses that 100 MB file-set to those 1 GB assets and then send it to the screen for the CPU/GPU to render.
If the loading time is similar on both consoles (in both scenarios), it means that one console is decompressing 10x faster. Because it can decompress much faster, developers can reduce the install size of the game by compressing more assets.

If the second console didn't decompress as fast, it would have taken more time to load all that stuff. For example, the first game (with the larger file/install size) would have loaded the game in 5 seconds because there was no decompression to do for it. The second console (with the smaller install/file size) would have taken 25 seconds because it was busy decompressing the stuff first before it could send the data to the screen.

This is what's happening here in Control UE with PS5 and XSX.

Hope it explains and answers your questions.
 

svbarnard

Member
Mar 17, 2016
175
166
410
It does. Here is how:

Suppose the game has to render a scene in one specific room. The scene is fast-paced and will take you to multiple rooms in a 30-second sequence. Each room has different assets that need to be loaded in time. All those assets, say, amount to 1GB.

Now, there are two scenarios:
  1. The developer doesn't compress any of those 1 GB assets, and all those assets are available on the drive (installed file) as 1 GB. When the scene comes on, those 1 GB assets are sent to the screen for the CPU and GPU to render.
  2. The developer compresses those 1 GB assets into a 100 MB file. When the scene comes on, the console does not just send the (compressed) files to the screen. It first decompresses that 100 MB file-set to those 1 GB assets and then send it to the screen for the CPU/GPU to render.
If the loading time is similar on both consoles (in both scenarios), it means that one console is decompressing 10x faster. Because it can decompress much faster, developers can reduce the install size of the game by compressing more assets.

If the second console didn't decompress as fast, it would have taken more time to load all that stuff. For example, the first game (with the larger file/install size) would have loaded the game in 5 seconds because there was no decompression to do for it. The second console (with the smaller install/file size) would have taken 25 seconds because it was busy decompressing the stuff first before it could send the data to the screen.

This is what's happening here in Control UE with PS5 and XSX.

Hope it explains and answers your questions.
Can someone either agree or disagree with this guy's assumption? I mean are you saying the Xbox series x and it's huge memory bandwidth and powerful GPU are being defeated simply because PS5 has a faster SSD? How could Microsoft drop the ball so bad? I mean if games have a smaller install size on a PS5 throughout this whole generation that's going to hurt so bad being an Xbox series x owner.
 

ColdAfternoon

Neo Member
Oct 4, 2020
45
54
135
Can someone either agree or disagree with this guy's assumption? I mean are you saying the Xbox series x and it's huge memory bandwidth and powerful GPU are being defeated simply because PS5 has a faster SSD? How could Microsoft drop the ball so bad? I mean if games have a smaller install size on a PS5 throughout this whole generation that's going to hurt so bad being an Xbox series x owner.
I'm pretty sure all game textures are compressed. Maybe save for pixel art games as compression can lead to color loss.
 

CamHostage

Member
Sep 30, 2004
6,561
1,550
1,610
Now, there are two scenarios:
  1. The developer doesn't compress any of those 1 GB assets, and all those assets are available on the drive (installed file) as 1 GB. When the scene comes on, those 1 GB assets are sent to the screen for the CPU and GPU to render.
  2. The developer compresses those 1 GB assets into a 100 MB file. When the scene comes on, the console does not just send the (compressed) files to the screen. It first decompresses that 100 MB file-set to those 1 GB assets and then send it to the screen for the CPU/GPU to render.

Also, don't you need somewhere near 1GB+100MB for the second scenario? Or do you not max at about 900MB if you only have 1GB free memory? The input could be in partitions (100 1MB files, but I believe that's problematic to load as well as it's multiple seeks?) and you could dump packets once decompressed and not need the whole 100MB resident to fill up that 1GB, but to get from compressed files to uncompressed data, both would be resident to get from A to B, right?
 

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,375
725
I don't see how this is far fetched. Sony is known to get cozy with studios close to MS. See Bethesda. I mean, that one kind of backfired on them but still.
Backfired? Deathloop and Ghostwire buddy. If anything it’s the other way around
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Aug 28, 2019
7,424
13,966
630
Rubbish? Do you realise I quoted the blog from the Oodle (RAD Game Tools, now EPIC) people with their figures?

Both MS and Sony quoted average numbers with standard compression, which is why MS quoted 4.8 GB/s of equivalent bandwidth (for the 2.4 GB/s channel) and Sony quoted 8-9 GB/s. This was also out before Sony announced the licensing agreement for Oodle Textures for all PS4 and PS5 devs... almost as if you did not bother reading it.

So, you get angry and shout at people about a topic you have your own conspiracy theory on, demand evidence from others, evidence is provided, your refuse to acknowledge it (shocking I know :rolleyes:), and proceed to shout angrily at people again. Gotcha...
Quoting average numbers is probably far more realistic; this is "lossy" compression afterall. Meaning the more you compress, the more detail you lose.
 
Mar 18, 2020
1,273
3,290
535
Backfired? Deathloop and Ghostwire buddy. If anything it’s the other way around
Yeah? What if those games are hugely successful and become franchises? Bye bye Sony.

What if they bomb? Thanks for partially funding them.

You have to be delusional to think they are coming out on top in any scenario here. They got their fingers burned badly.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: FrankWza

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,234
3,260
375
Not that simple.

The problem (for the lack of a better word) isn't because of the technique or software (Kraken or BCPack). It's the speed at which the console is able to decompress stuff. Xbox is and will be slower than PS5 in that regard -- no matter what software technology it uses.

In other words, even if both PS5 and XSX compress a game via Kraken, PS5 can still be faster.
Sorry why?
 

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,375
725
Yeah? What if those games are hugely successful and become franchises? Bye bye Sony.
Then the sequels will be on PS5.
What if they bomb?
then the 7.5 billion dollar acquisition just became a little less valuable with 2 less viable IPs
You have to be delusional to think they are coming out on top in any scenario here. They got their fingers burned badly.
while systems are sold to people who will be playing these games exclusively for at least a year. What a burn.
 
  • Empathy
Reactions: LisaMariaMartin

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,375
725
Yeah? What if those games are hugely successful and become franchises? Bye bye Sony.

What if they bomb? Thanks for partially funding them.

You have to be delusional to think they are coming out on top in any scenario here. They got their fingers burned badly.
Then the sequels will be on PS5.

then the 7.5 billion dollar acquisition just became a little less valuable with 2 less viable IPs

while systems are sold to people who will be playing these games exclusively for at least a year. What a burn.
use whatever emoji you want. But you can either root for both of these titles to do well this year, or you can root against Microsoft. Your choice. ;)
 
  • Empathy
Reactions: LisaMariaMartin
May 27, 2018
84
93
315
Sorry why?
For PS5 and XSX, decompression of textures isn’t done by CPU or GPU PS5 has a much more powerful hardware decompression block and connected IO than XSX. Additionally, PS5’s block is tailored around Kraken, while XSX’s isn’t. Also also, however much devs compress textures, XSX will only ever be able to pull out 4.8GB/s worth of textures at a time. I’m guessing they could compress further than that just to lower install size but they won’t get any benefit in terms of loading/streaming speed. Given that at this point we’re talking about lossy compression, MS would probably rather keep the install size high and try to boast about higher quality textures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lysandros

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,234
3,260
375
For PS5 and XSX, decompression of textures isn’t done by CPU or GPU PS5 has a much more powerful hardware decompression block and connected IO than XSX. Additionally, PS5’s block is tailored around Kraken, while XSX’s isn’t. Also also, however much devs compress textures, XSX will only ever be able to pull out 4.8GB/s worth of textures at a time. I’m guessing they could compress further than that just to lower install size but they won’t get any benefit in terms of loading/streaming speed. Given that at this point we’re talking about lossy compression, MS would probably rather keep the install size high and try to boast about higher quality textures.
if we talk about textures specifically, as the i/o system ps5 needs devs to write code that specifically uses its features (such as ssd speed), the same goes for xsx especially now that dx12u are finally starting to take hold. For how the velocity architecture is designed if the code exploits the peculiarities of the machine sfs in conjunction with the decompressors they allow you to load 1/3 of the textures which would probably be needed in the same scene on 1 other console.

"With this insight, we were able to create and add new capabilities to the Xbox Series X GPU which enables it to only load the sub portions of a mip level into memory, on demand, just in time for when the GPU requires the data. This innovation results in approximately 2.5x the effective I/O throughput and memory usage above and beyond the raw hardware capabilities on average. SFS provides an effective multiplier on available system memory and I/O bandwidth, resulting in significantly more memory and I/O throughput available to make your game richer and more immersive."

then no. it's not quite what you think
 
Last edited:

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
1,987
6,767
445
Can someone either agree or disagree with this guy's assumption? I mean are you saying the Xbox series x and it's huge memory bandwidth and powerful GPU are being defeated simply because PS5 has a faster SSD? How could Microsoft drop the ball so bad? I mean if games have a smaller install size on a PS5 throughout this whole generation that's going to hurt so bad being an Xbox series x owner.
GPU/memory bandwidth have other purposes. Here we are specifically talking about data streaming -- in which PS5 does have a significant lead. That's what the #1 focus of the PS5 is, in fact, as per Mark Cerny's presentation.

More specifically, in my earlier example, PS5 pulls ahead because of more powerful decompressor units. XSX also has a decompressor unit; PS5's are just more and roughly 400% more powerful. That equates into the compressed data speed of 4.8 GB/s on XSX and 9 GB/s on PS5 (which, btw, has been now increased up to 17 Gb/s if Kraken+Oodle textures are utilized effectively).
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
1,987
6,767
445
Also, don't you need somewhere near 1GB+100MB for the second scenario? Or do you not max at about 900MB if you only have 1GB free memory? The input could be in partitions (100 1MB files, but I believe that's problematic to load as well as it's multiple seeks?) and you could dump packets once decompressed and not need the whole 100MB resident to fill up that 1GB, but to get from compressed files to uncompressed data, both would be resident to get from A to B, right?
That was a very simplistic example for the sole purpose of explaining the basic concept.
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
1,987
6,767
445
Sorry why?
I explained it with an example above. Please check.

if we talk about textures specifically, as the i/o system ps5 needs devs to write code that specifically uses its features (such as ssd speed), the same goes for xsx especially now that dx12u are finally starting to take hold. For how the velocity architecture is designed if the code exploits the peculiarities of the machine sfs in conjunction with the decompressors they allow you to load 1/3 of the textures which would probably be needed in the same scene on 1 other console.

"With this insight, we were able to create and add new capabilities to the Xbox Series X GPU which enables it to only load the sub portions of a mip level into memory, on demand, just in time for when the GPU requires the data. This innovation results in approximately 2.5x the effective I/O throughput and memory usage above and beyond the raw hardware capabilities on average. SFS provides an effective multiplier on available system memory and I/O bandwidth, resulting in significantly more memory and I/O throughput available to make your game richer and more immersive."

then no. it's not quite what you think
Velocity Architecture is an umbrella term that contains 4 components (one of them is SFS). Because of those 4 components, XSX's 2.4 Gb/s raw speed becomes 4.8 Gb/s compressed data speed. Velocity Architecture or SFS doesn't apply after 4.8 Gb/s to increase it further.

For comparison: PS5's is double that speed at roughly 9 Gb/s (and that was before Oodle's introduction -- which can put it up in the range 15-17 GB/s).
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Panajev2001a

Godfavor

Member
Jul 10, 2020
185
157
205
I explained it with an example above. Please check.


Velocity Architecture is an umbrella term that contains 4 components (one of them is SFS). Because of those 4 components, XSX's 2.4 Gb/s raw speed becomes 4.8 Gb/s compressed data speed. Velocity Architecture or SFS doesn't apply after 4.8 Gb/s to increase it further.

For comparison: PS5's is double that speed at roughly 9 Gb/s (and that was before Oodle's introduction -- which can put it up in the range 15-17 GB/s).

Wrong. SFS apply WITH 4.8-6gb figure of the effective speed of the XSX IO.
This means that if a scene needs 12-15gb of texture data it can be loaded in about 1 sec using the AVERAGE numbers provided by Microsoft. (4.8gb/sec ucompressed x 2.5 SFS)

It doesn't make the IO go above it's weight. But the textures needed are more effectively transfered with SFS.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lysandros