this is kind of hilariousSony's own blast processing marketing.
that internal SSD is pure overkill it seems - there are obviously other bottlenecks keeping it down
this is kind of hilariousSony's own blast processing marketing.
Sorry, but VFX has no idea. The i/o aims to eliminate ram constraints, it is nothing to do with the GPU.Direct Storage cant come soon enough. I dont know what's taking developers so long to start using it or at least state that they will be using it. PC is seriously behind these consoles in I/O. I used to argue but once it was explained to me now I understand. It was never about the speed of the SSD because the I/O was the bottleneck all along. As VFX used to say we won't even come close to using the full capacity of any of these NVME for data streaming this console generation, even the slowest of them because the GPU will become the bottleneck long before that happens.
Great! So PS5's awesome SSD controller I/O is so good it can make slow PC SSDs work just as well as internal. No wonder a 3.2 gb/s SSD did just as well for R&C for loading and gameplay. Dont need an external 5.5gb/s SSD after all.
absolutely this the GPU in will bottleneck it long before we talk abo maximizing data streaming.....Direct Storage cant come soon enough. I dont know what's taking developers so long to start using it or at least state that they will be using it. PC is seriously behind these consoles in I/O. I used to argue but once it was explained to me now I understand. It was never about the speed of the SSD because the I/O was the bottleneck all along. As VFX used to say we won't even come close to using the full capacity of any of these NVME for data streaming this console generation, even the slowest of them because the GPU will become the bottleneck long before that happens.
absolutely this the GPU in will bottleneck it long before we talk abo maximizing data streaming.....
and please could you tell us what 50 GB (or even just 22 GB) would be needed instantly if not for some complex rendering? ..... enlighten us...netcode? ai? audio files loaded just one time ? 50gb!!!!!!?Sorry, but VFX has no idea. The i/o aims to eliminate ram constraints, it is nothing to do with the GPU.
Having unfettered access to e.g 50 gig worth of assets quickly does not equate needing to render 50 gig worth of assets within a single frame. It’s all about new design flexibility.
absolutely this the GPU in will bottleneck it long before we talk abo maximizing data streaming.....
and please could you tell us what 50 GB (or even just 22 GB) would be needed instantly if not for some complex rendering? ..... enlighten us...netcode? ai? audio files loaded just one time ? 50gb!!!!!!?
ok, how about something basic like traversal through varied and dense environments.and please could you tell us what 50 GB (or even just 22 GB) would be needed instantly if not for some complex rendering? ..... enlighten us...netcode? ai? audio files loaded just one time ? 50gb!!!!!!?
you and many other just drink the kool aid too much ..topic closed this test done by DF it only shows that the ssd (contrary to what was said before) can also be decidedly slower. When someone proves that with the i/o, or of the PS5 there will be that they can not be done in anything else so I'll come back to apologize .... in the meantime maybe it would be time for some of you to learn to do the same.
The SSD wasn't expensive anymore than any other. It's the IO unit and the amount of lanes they are using.How much did their APU cost?
They gave up 18% teraflop performance for IO and cost saving.Why would a faster SSD be cheaper?
You can look at the open market. Slower SSDs are cheaper than bigger SSDs. This is true for PCIE Gen 3 SSDs that top out at 3.5 GBps and sell for half the price of their Gen 4 versions. I just replaced a $100 980 with a $200 980 Pro. 3.5 GBps vs 7 GBps. Sure Sony isnt paying a $100 markup but they are definitely paying more than MS is paying for their 2.4 GBps SSD.
You can look at the Microsoft console. $500 just like the PS5. The difference between the two consoles is a bigger GPU and faster SSD. MS chose to go with a slower SSD put the savings towards a bigger GPU silicon. Sony went the opposite way. They must have thought that the 5.5 GBps SSD would be crucial to give them a performance advantage or design advantage, but clearly we have not seen that advantage yet. unless you count loadings an advantage but I highly doubt anyone would give up 18% better performance for some faster loading.
The console hasn't even been out one year yet people expect it to be utilised fully?It's absolutely insane that almost 2.5 years after Cerny revealed all the possibilites of the new SSD in the wired article and another 1.5 years after he made us contemplate mass suicide at the Road to PS5 conference, not a single game seems to be utilizing the fancy I/O and his expensive 5.5 GBps SSD to its limit.
All those fancy demos of Spiderman's fast traversal through Manhattan, those block diagrams showing how game design will change forever, and how we will truly revolutionize gaming has simply not come to pass in the almost 3 years since the PS5 reveal and 1 year since launch. We cant even hope to look ahead because they have shown nothing that seems to be taking advantage of this I/O and SSD combo.
It's extremely disappointing and a gigantic waste of resources. Just make a simple tflops heavy console next time, Cerny. No one gives two shits about your damn SSD dream.
Do you understand what's bottleneck is?absolutely this the GPU in will bottleneck it long before we talk abo maximizing data streaming.....
not just 18% GPU - they are also not paying for the full RDNA2 spec so a couple of years down the line when mesh shaders and possible some sort of AI resolution enhancer it could be more lost than just 18% brute rendering speed...They gave up 18% teraflop performance for IO and cost saving.
Neogaf is full of engineers and game programmers like MonarchJTYou really don't know what you're talking about. I quoted a developer above who said it's loading instantly. You guys just like to make absurd claims without any facts.
Just like that the comment section of the video is already full of clueless people making fun of PS5's I/O-SSD tech and Cerny. Mission accomplished i guess. If i were Cerny i would post an a mini article explaining the reasons. But knowing that Sony don't seem to care about its hardware reputation to the slightest degree this gen, i see this possiblity as low.
Are you dense? They haven't put the money towards the fast SSD. It's the IO and 12 lanes that give it the speed.not just 18% GPU - they are also not paying for the full RDNA2 spec so a couple of years down the line when mesh shaders and possible some sort of AI resolution enhancer it could be more lost than just 18% brute rendering speed...
.... and going by these test it seems that putting all their money towards a superfast ssd probably was not the best choice.. obviously there are other bottlenecks
I think we eventually will see some games use this speed at some point but who knows when or even if that happens.It's absolutely insane that almost 2.5 years after Cerny revealed all the possibilites of the new SSD in the wired article and another 1.5 years after he made us contemplate mass suicide at the Road to PS5 conference, not a single game seems to be utilizing the fancy I/O and his expensive 5.5 GBps SSD to its limit.
All those fancy demos of Spiderman's fast traversal through Manhattan, those block diagrams showing how game design will change forever, and how we will truly revolutionize gaming has simply not come to pass in the almost 3 years since the PS5 reveal and 1 year since launch. We cant even hope to look ahead because they have shown nothing that seems to be taking advantage of this I/O and SSD combo.
It's extremely disappointing and a gigantic waste of resources. Just make a simple tflops heavy console next time, Cerny. No one gives two shits about your damn SSD dream.
Funny thing is, you don’t even need to be one if you can simply read and have high enough aptitude to understand info that’s readily out there. Pretty cringe some of the comments.Neogaf is full of engineers and game programmers like MonarchJT
not just 18% GPU - they are also not paying for the full RDNA2 spec so a couple of years down the line when mesh shaders and possible some sort of AI resolution enhancer it could be more lost than just 18% brute rendering speed...
.... and going by these test it seems that putting all their money towards a superfast ssd probably was not the best choice.. obviously there are other bottlenecks
People within Xbox laughed about people presenting PS? Gidouttahere!I think we eventually will see some games use this speed at some point but who knows when or even if that happens.
I will say this several of us watched the road to ps5 reveal and the actual PS5 full reveal and even then some higher up people within Xbox laughed and said that SSD was way too overpowered and Sony spent way too much time and money on it as it would never become the norm outside of a small handful of games MAYBE
We shall see someday
No they laughed at which direction they took in the SSD not about people presenting PS sorry if I didnt come across clear enoughPeople within Xbox laughed about people presenting PS? Gidouttahere!
What cost savings? The console is $500 for disc edition just like Microsoft. If there were cost savings it didnt get passed down to the consumer then why should I worry about it?They gave up 18% teraflop performance for IO and cost saving.
This simply isnt true. A faster SSD will always be more expensive. What's next? A faster RAM isnt more expensive? Then why did they go with only 448 GBps RAM bandwidth? Why not go with the 560 GBps? Because it's more expensive and they had already blew their budget on a SSD.The SSD wasn't expensive anymore than any other. It's the IO unit and the amount of lanes they are using.
What other games Sony has shown that you see fully utilizing the SSD? Sony has literally shown games coming out in 2023 and beyond. That's 3-4 years into a console life cycle. Which game can only be done on the 5.5 GBps PS5?The console hasn't even been out one year yet people expect it to be utilised fully?
The crossgen games should give you a hint as to why the games aren't even close to using the systems properly
No biggie. Any such appraisal is still is enveloped in quintessential bias being direct competitors.No they laughed at which direction they took in the SSD not about people presenting PS sorry if I didnt come across clear enough
Its cute that people like to hold onto the notion that the upper managements of these mega companies are at odds with each other like fanboys are here in the forumsNo biggie. Any such appraisal is still is enveloped in quintessential bias being direct competitors.
possible some sort of AI resolution enhancer it could be more lost than just 18% brute rendering speed...
Depends on what sort of laughing it was - was it a mild giggle or a full blown HOHoHo? I imagine fat execs smoking cigars doing the HOHOHO, especially when laughing at techIts cute that people like to hold onto the notion that the upper managements of these mega companies are at odds with each other like fanboys are here in the forums
I am just stating that, going by this evidence, they should probably have put money towards a better GPU - since their expensive drive is not really used anywayAre you dense? They haven't put the money towards the fast SSD. It's the IO and 12 lanes that give it the speed.
The full RDNA2 spec? You mean the one for PC? Sony don't need it. They have their own implementations of certain things.
Is that why the PS5 Disc drive model is no longer making a loss?
This was an excellent video by DF. Plenty of room to push this technology still. The engines may still be able to be tweaked to squeeze out even more from better performing drives, or it could turn out that, for the amount of RAM available in both systems, the SSDs may actually be overkill. Maybe if the RAM capacities on the consoles were significantly larger than just 16GB max - with less available for actual games due to OS reserves - we might be having a totally different discussion.
As VFX used to say we won't even come close to using the full capacity of any of these NVME for data streaming this console generation, even the slowest of them because the GPU will become the bottleneck long before that happens.
I said this as well. You can have the fastest SSD and IO in the world pushing incredible amounts of detail per second, but the GPU still has to be powerful enough to render it. At what point does the 10 tflops GPU become the bottleneck?I will say this several of us watched the road to ps5 reveal and the actual PS5 full reveal and even then some higher up people within Xbox laughed and said that SSD was way too overpowered and Sony spent way too much time and money on it as it would never become the norm outside of a small handful of games MAYBE
not just 18% GPU - they are also not paying for the full RDNA2 spec so a couple of years down the line when mesh shaders and possible some sort of AI resolution enhancer it could be more lost than just 18% brute rendering speed...
.... and going by these test it seems that putting all their money towards a superfast ssd probably was not the best choice.. obviously there are other bottlenecks
Do you understand what's bottleneck is?
I think we eventually will see some games use this speed at some point but who knows when or even if that happens.
I will say this several of us watched the road to ps5 reveal and the actual PS5 full reveal and even then some higher up people within Xbox laughed and said that SSD was way too overpowered and Sony spent way too much time and money on it as it would never become the norm outside of a small handful of games MAYBE
We shall see someday
Nahh just to the point of saying it was overkill for gaming right now.Depends on what sort of laughing it was - was it a mild giggle or a full blown HOHoHo? I imagine fat execs smoking cigars doing the HOHOHO, especially when laughing at tech
yeah the RDNA2 features that only Xbox has could absolutely be marketing
Nahh it was just said it was overkill right now and this DF seems to prove it for current games.You serious?????? Of course MS would say that. They have a stock standard SSD in their console. They would say anything to downplay PS5 advantages.
yeah the RDNA2 features that only Xbox has could absolutely be marketing
time will tell i guess - noone here knows this for sure yet
Imagine how far the goalposts have moved since the PS5s release. None of y'all were pulling this "first generation game" bullshit last year, or even six months ago. He'll even a month ago you guys were claiming that a slower drive wouldn't run R&C up to par and yet here we are.Imagine beating your chest and punching the air thinking that Ratchet & Clank has tapped out the PS5 and Cerny was telling porkies at what the I/O could do. Hasn't even been a year yet. Glorious GAF at it's finest
No, it's actually NOT "much faster". No HMB on PS5 makes it significantly SLOWER than its rated spec. I bet money the XSX drive would run R&C exactly the same.People in this thread are quite stupid... It's not abnormal that game released in first year of console lifecycle can't max out thing that was just introduced with this generation. Even this slow SSD is much faster than the thing that is in Xbox consoles...
PC without Direct storage is far behind too.
Ow it's Xbox, time will always tell. You're already trying to cover your ass. Just talk talk and talk talk. This will be no different the entire generation.
And since “none” knows it for sure, you guys keep spreading it as if this “FULL RDNA2” thingy is the final countdown.
Ow it's Xbox, time will always tell. You're already trying to cover your ass. Just talk talk and talk talk. This will be no different the entire generation.
And since “none” knows it for sure, you guys keep spreading it as if this “FULL RDNA2” thingy is the final countdown.
So yes, that tweet from Xbox back then was pure marketing, since they couldn’t claim the “most powerful console” narrative anymore. They needed something else since their launch was also laughable bad with no games.
It's too early gen to have this conclusion.
Let's go back to 1995 and first Saturn and PS1 games using 15~30MB in CD space. It sounded a waste of 700MB. But we know how it ended.
I don't disagree, but i want to wait more to see how this "massive streaming-asset capacity" will perform in practice.
I think my favorite is the "let's see what happens in three years" crowd. You geniuses realize that the console will be bottlenecked by other parts of the system long before they can saturate a 5.5gb/s drive during gameplay, right?
I'll go ahead and say it right now, we will not see a single PS5 first party game that will be an issue for this drive...not one. And even if it magically happens, who cares? You still have an internal drive, put this unicorn of a game on it and call it a day, which makes the FUD about slower drives even more hilarious.
Imagine how far the goalposts have moved since the PS5s release. None of y'all were pulling this "first generation game" bullshit last year, or even six months ago. He'll even a month ago you guys were claiming that a slower drive wouldn't run R&C up to par and yet here we are.
Go read the threads, it's hilarious.
No, it's actually "much faster". No HMB on PS5 makes it significantly SLOWER than its rated spec. I bet money the XSX drive would run R&C exactly the same.
Cut the shit, bro. This is literally what you guys are doing in this thread and have been doing all year. Look in the mirror for fucks sake.
i do you do ? because it wouldn't seemDo you understand what's bottleneck is?
You'd think a new tech like this that has been hyped so much would be used in a game that was marketed as using it.People in this thread are quite stupid... It's not abnormal that game released in first year of console lifecycle can't max out thing that was just introduced with this generation. Even this slow SSD is much faster than the thing that is in Xbox consoles...
PC without Direct storage is far behind too.
I've literally said this, months before the release. People would get big mad at me for stating the obvious. And now when it gets proven, I can finally get my redemption.
No HMB on PS5 makes it significantly SLOWER than its rated spec. I bet money the XSX drive would run R&C exactly the same.
Any concerns about ram or 10tf being bottlenecks were glossed over by gamers and Cerny's presentation. And very few people will think of bottlenecks or try to do math on what a system theoretically can do, cant do, and where things may get maxed out. SSD is at 5.5gb/s. If it was at 6, 7 or 10 gb/s would it make a difference? What if it was 4 gb/s, would anything change? Who knows.I said this as well. You can have the fastest SSD and IO in the world pushing incredible amounts of detail per second, but the GPU still has to be powerful enough to render it. At what point does the 10 tflops GPU become the bottleneck?
I like the innovation in the I/O, I dont understand the fascination with a 5.5 GBps SSD that NO third party dev is going to use. Not even the ones they have contracted so far. Kena, Deathloop, Ghostwire Tokyo, Returnal before Housemarquee were bought out, Forspoken, FF16. That's a lot of timed or second party exclusives and no one used it like Insomniac did. Third party devs wont bother going over 2.4 GBps, if that. They will be limited by the SATA SSDs that top out at 500 MBps since internal NVME SSDs still arent mainstream yet.
So what they have done is conceded an 18% minimum advantage to the competition for an advantage in loading. Or an advantage in 1 or 2 games that we have not seen yet and we have seen 10 exclusives from them so far.
P.S The RAM bandwidth might be a bigger bottleneck than a 10 tflops GPU. The 448 GBps has to share the load with CPU which could explain why Hitman was locked to 1800p on the PS5 while the 5700xt a GPU with fewer tflops was easily able to run it at 60 fps on average at native 4k ultra settings no less. I think Cerny deserves a lot of criticism for the bandwidth decision alone. Especially since it came at the expense of a faster SSD.
![]()