AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
Why is 8 and 12GB of GDDR6 great for PC but not console?
PCs have system RAM (8-16GB) and video RAM (4-8GB). That is the equivalent of 12-24GB of total RAM.
Why is 8 and 12GB of GDDR6 great for PC but not console?
The fact that you need to bring the job card tells me you are insecure.
This comment alone makes me question your "job". However, lets not get in to that
The two are not even remotely comparable. A built in cache would have more than sufficient space to store streaming assets, the only downside would be longer initial load times everytime you swap a game or two depending of how much space streaming assets take.
Im predicting 24GB with a small possibility they might get 32GB. Never said it was a sure thing
Also hardware manufacturers get special deals via high volume long term contracts the info you provided is based on 2000 units which is a far cry from a console launch which goes in the millions multiply that by 32 and you get a close to 100 million units first year alone. Current memory prices are inflated anyways
Not gonna happen.
Why would the game use texture streaming if it has a big pool of memory?
Im not against SSDs, im against them being the main drive in consoles because its not cost effective, a hybrid solution is the perfect compromise
This sounds like it will be easier to implement and therefor get mainstream adoption, especially considering consoles will have the tech.
which is why 32gb (or 24gb) its a much better investment than a ssdBut 16GB isn't going to be big for a Next Gen console
BecauseWhy is 8 and 12GB of GDDR6 great for PC but not console?
A balanced system is a hybrid system, don't know why you are in denial about that oneWhat point are you trying to drive? The fact that it cost more to have an overkill of 24-32 GB of GDDR6 versus having a balanced system.
No... you got it all backwardsSo....this is your proposed idea:
Loop(Spindle Harddrive ---> Loop (Cache ---> Ram))
Just a hunch, but i'm pretty sure developers prefer simplified designs:
Loop(SSD --> RAM)
Additionally, to reduce any bottlenecks. The 100 Gb cache you're proposing has to be just as fast as the main system ram. Do you know how redundant and cost ineffective that sounds?
which is why 32gb (or 24gb) its a much better investment than a ssd
Because
A) PCs are running current gen games, not next gen
B) PCs have a bigger 16 to 32GB (albeit slower) secondary pool of ram
C) Consoles would have to share gddr6 with OS (4GB+) and CPU in addition to GPU
Why would the game use texture streaming if it has a big pool of memory?
A balanced system is a hybrid system, don't know why you are in denial about that one
Memory prices are inflated and you get many memory chips per console unlike drives which are one per console, the possibility to get a better memory volume deal is over 10x.
No... you got it all backwards
The 100GB cache would serve the purpose of the SSD so it only needs to be as fast as the ssd, on first boot of a game all streaming assets will be loaded to the cache so that once the game starts running it streams from the fast cache instead of hdd. As i said the only downside to this will be a longer initial load time every time you swap one or two games, something akin to a game install but much faster.
This can be automated so developers don't have to move a finger, don't worry
there's nothing wrong with sticking in an ssd if they release multiple models1TB SSD would be a huge cost you could easily get 4TB hard drive for less. If they want to put a M.2 slot with NVMe support for people that want to get their own SSDs, great but don't force extra costs that a lot of consumers don't want or would rather be spent on other stuff. I'm pretty sure next systems will ship with 2TB HDDs, it's the best cost vs capacity compromise.
what are you talking about with maxing out HDD's? they don't really affect the performance of a game. SSDs will help with loading times significantly and maybe cut down texture pop in (although that is also dependant on RAM) but that's about it. it's not like they boost your framerate or anything...Current gen consoles arn't even maxing out standard HDDs which i think is actually down to the rubbish cpu they have.
The same hard drive the consoles have put in a pc will seemingly run faster.
Seems a bit overkill to go straight to NVMe but a small boot drive or scratch disk might be cool.
what are you talking about with maxing out HDD's? they don't really affect the performance of a game. SSDs will help with loading times significantly and maybe cut down texture pop in (although that is also dependant on RAM) but that's about it. it's not like they boost your framerate or anything...
c)
sony sent their devkits out months ago at least 6months ago. why is MS so late with their devkits? not good.
I hope their tools are ready too so we dont have another repeat of what happened this gen.
We're not getting 32GB of any type of RAM in the next-gen consoles. Let's be realistic here.
24GB max, and even then that is a low chance I feel.
I wouldn't say that because there is a off chance that Sony might try to push it's ReRam off on the PS5
I don't think you know how this works.
if you have 32GB of GDDR6 how will you afford to have even a cheap HDD in the console? lol
I believe 24GB is the most likely target, i just pointed out 32GB is just as likely as 16gb which i agree its not very likelyWe're not getting 32GB of any type of RAM in the next-gen consoles. Let's be realistic here.
24GB max, and even then that is a low chance I feel.
The only one repeating nonsense here is you, if you cant understand how if you have ample amounts of memory you woulnt have to rely on streaming as much, then idk what to say to you.Because there will be open world games next gen and you don't want the same handful of textures applied everywhere. I can't believe you are repeating this nonsense in this thread as well.
No sure you know this but a similar more complex process is already automated by the OS, so game developers don't have to move a finger.Not sure if you know this but developers have to move their fingers to create automation. Automation creates automation?
Additionally, your proposal is missing a key element. The OS. I hope you're not wanting that to reside in the cache
Such as? I dont think there is a case where having the OS on the HDD would bottleneck the actual game anyways. Sure having to move things around would make some OS/GUI transitions and load times longer but that's part of the compromise, as long as it doesn't affect the games its fine.The OS will have to reside on the slow spindle harddrive causing unnecessary bottlenecks
lol you missed the point entirely, do you really think i meant that from a cost perspective? of course 16gb is cheaperI disagree that 32GB RAM is just as likely as 16GB. It would not only require twice the chips, it would then mean a bigger power supply (16 chips burn more watts than 8), a more complex, and therefore costly, motherboard and the same for the cooling system.
The extra cost would be pretty big I think.
lol you missed the point entirely, do you really think i meant that from a cost perspective? of course 16gb is cheaper
16GB is not very likely because its not sufficient, 12GB is the bare minimum to run current gen games at 4k. For a proper next gen leap at 4k we need much more
32gb is not very like because of cost
Just like a 8tf GPU is not very likely because its not sufficient
The only one repeating nonsense here is you, if you cant understand how if you have ample amounts of memory you woulnt have to rely on streaming as much, then idk what to say to you.
And as I said if HDD became limiting a hybrid solution will take care of it.
OG PS4 went with a clam shell design with same amount of chips no? PS5 memory configuration wouldn't be more complex than thatOK, but my point was that by going to 32GB wouldn't just be twice the raw cost of the chips. It has a huge knock on effect on most other things. With PS4's bump in RAM it just meant higher density chips as the console was already designed around 16 chips. We would need 4GB chips to happen for 32GB to be realistic I would think.
All of this is besides the point for me though as Matt was unequivocal about one thing in the PS5 Pachter thread and that was we're not getting 32GB RAM.
and yet you still have not provided a single example where a game designed around high memory configuration is "bottlenecked" by a HDDStreaming performance will always matter for games. No amount of ram would make that not true. Unless it's a ridiculous amount, but then you would have load times worse than this gen.
OG PS4 went with a clam shell design with same amount of chips no? PS5 memory configuration wouldn't be more complex than that
Actually the one thing that makes me doubt 32gb is not the memory cost itself but the memory bus. I don't think 256bit but would provide enough bandwidth and 512bit bus might be too expensive
16GB is cheaper, no kidding! lol Ik that but cost its not why its unlikely. Going by the same logic next gen should only use 6tf gpu because its cheaper than 12tf.What I'm saying is that as it stands 16GB of GDDR6 would only require 8 (2GB) chips on a 256-bit bus
Just like the OG PS4 then?but 32GB would need 16 chips.
What makes you think they couldn't do the same for PS5?as soon as Sony could they halved the RAM chips to 8 and reduced the power supply rating and made a cheaper cooling system with the CUH-1200 model.
True but at least there's is a precedent for it on the X and 16GB is even more unlikely because its not sufficient.A 384-bit bus is unlikely IMO
and yet you still have not provided a single example where a game designed around high memory configuration is "bottlenecked" by a HDD
This gen is prime example of that, it rellied less on streaming than last gen which was memory starved
16GB is cheaper, no kidding! lol Ik that but cost its not why its unlikely. Going by the same logic next gen should only use 6tf gpu because its cheaper than 12tf.
Just like the OG PS4 then?
What makes you think they couldn't do the same for PS5?
True but at least there's is a precedent for it on the X and 16GB is even more unlikely because its not sufficient.
next gen or only on Microsoft sideYeah no. I don't think we'll be getting a ssd nor a NVMe SSD nor raytracing HW.
next gen or only on Microsoft side
Next gen.
SSDs are way to expensive for consoles, especially NVMe's and about RT, well we only have to look at nvidia and their sales numbers as well as the amount of games that support that feature.
If anything, it might happen in a mid-gen refresh, if at all, but I see it way more possible to happen in the gen after that.
NVMe prices are dropping fast & in 2020 1TB should be around $60 or less
Are you saying that NVME SSDs will be costing 60$ in 2020??
While it could drop...Somewhere around that price
If you can get 1TB today for $144 what do you think will happen when they have a die shrink or stack the chips higher?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07J2Q4SWZ/?tag=neogaf0e-20
NVMe prices are dropping fast & in 2020 1TB should be around $60 or less
While it could drop...
"Samsung wants to slash the existing gap by 2020 and offer a 512GB SDD for the same price as a 1TB HDD today."
That means around $90-100 for a 1TB SDD if they reach that goal.
If I can buy a 1 TB NVMe SSD for 60 bucks within a calendar year from now I’ll eat my fucking microwave
Plugged into the outletIf I can buy a 1 TB NVMe SSD for 60 bucks within a calendar year from now I’ll eat my fucking microwave
Again how much ram and vram required for those games? those games run in a toaster and rely heavily on streaming to overcome memory limitationsAgain PC MMORPGs.
Of course streaming will be used but it won't be critical to performance if you have a buffer that its constantly being updated in the background.That isn't going to change next gen. Loading everything in at the beginning is outdated and limiting which is why no AAA developer does it. I think almost every open world game I played this gen had moments where textures took too long to load in. Except for early cross gen games that didn't push current gen hardware.
For the record i dont think we are getting 32gb either though Sony certainly could surprise usI didn't say Sony couldn't do it but I am saying they won't choose to go with a 16 chip design like PS4 and not just for costs. Also, until proven otherwise, I fully believe it when Matt says we're not getting 32GB RAM.
If it happens it will be a bigger shock than PS4s 8GB announcement.
Somewhere around that price
If you can get 1TB today for $144 what do you think will happen when they have a die shrink or stack the chips higher?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07J2Q4SWZ/?tag=neogaf0e-20
So at the very least they could opt for a 256 to 512GB SSD in addition to the HDD. Best of both worlds type solutionWhile it could drop...
"Samsung wants to slash the existing gap by 2020 and offer a 512GB SDD for the same price as a 1TB HDD today."
That means around $90-100 for a 1TB SDD if they reach that goal.
Yeap with games at 100+GB.So at the very least they could opt for a 256 to 512GB SSD in addition to the HDD. Best of both worlds type solution
For the record i dont think we are getting 32gb either though Sony certainly could surprise us
That being said a 16gb pool its just as unlikely but for different reasons
The most convincing reason why 32gb might not happen is the memory bus. Can you get 32GB GDDR6 at 800GB/s speeds at reasonable clocks using a 256bit bus?
btw why do you think it would be a bigger shock than ps4 8gb? what makes it different in your view im curious.
Make that until the end of 2020
So at the very least they could opt for a 256 to 512GB SSD in addition to the HDD. Best of both worlds type solution
At the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in 2019, Toshiba unveiled the company’s fourth NVMe SSD. The thumb-sized SSD is twice the capacity of its 1TB predecessor and has doubled the number of PCIe lanes. The SSD was developed for tablets and notebooks in the low and medium price segment.
The SSD is available as a plug-in module in M.2-2230 format or as a soldered BGA version. Toshiba has arranged the controller and the flash memory chips on top of each other in the case in order to implement the small form factor with high capacity at the same time. The range extends from 128 GByte to 1 TB capacity.
The speed of the Toshiba BG4 is at a maximum sequential read rate of 2.25 GByte/s and a maximum write speed of 1.7 GByte/s. The maximum read rate of the Toshiba BG4 is 2.25 GByte/s and the maximum write speed is 1.7 GByte/s. The Toshiba BG4 can be used with a wide range of memory devices. It can be assumed that with larger data volumes, the speed drops significantly as soon as the SLC buffer is filled and the normal TLC memory must be used. Since the SSD does not have a DRAM cache, the technique called ‘host memory buffer’ is used instead, which stores the mapping table in the working memory.
Toshiba partners are already receiving initial samples of the SSD. The general availability starts in the second quarter. Toshiba has not yet released the price of the SSD, but it is expected to be on a par with traditional SATA SDDs. One of the partners already getting the SSDs is Lenovo, who are using the SSD as a second drive on some Thinkpads as an alternative to the LTE modem.
They will drop HDD 1st chance they get & next gen is that chance
NVMe will let them make smaller consoles this is a 512GB & 1TB NVMe
https://www.samsung.com/semiconduct...hip/product-brief-samsung-pm971-bga-nvme-ssd/
https://basic-tutorials.de/en/ces-2019-toshiba-bg4-saves-1-tb-on-thumb-sized-ssd/