Pemalite said:
setsunatenshi said:
The rumor I'm talking about refers to incorporating the same sort of ssd solution found in the PS5, with, say a 250GB ssd that would hold the game you're about to play straight in the gpu's nand. So in this case, yes, it would surely improve load times on traditional games, but better yet, would assure the sort of games that are designted to take advantage of ultra fast ssds would be able to run on a PC with a compatible gpu. Basically, would assure anyone playing the game has the fast access to game's assets you would see in the next gen consoles.
Heard that speculation from Moore's Law Is Dead not long ago and he made a really good case for it.
I'll link you below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKJ9amSDIE0
|
The PCI-E bus is again not the bottleneck, so the link between the GPU and SSD isn't holding anything back, thus moving the SSD from the motherboards NVME slot to the GPU will not improve load times at all.
A PCI-E 4.0 bus offers 2GB/s of bandwidth per lane with a 4x lane SSD that is 8GB/s, most NVME drives, the Playstation 5 included falls below that bandwidth threshold.
Plus while your idea seems "nice" we need to remember that not all of a games data gets sent to the GPU, only some of the data, the rest gets sent to System memory where the CPU also needs to perform some tasks.
******
Moores Law is a youtube outlet, he is sharing opinions and nothing more, take his views with a grain of salt unless the appropriate citations have been provided, peoples desire to use youtube videos to backup their arguments is rather comical...
There is literally a video that backs up any argument on there, including the Earth being flat, don't take youtube videos as gospel, stick to verified sources with the appropriate citations.
******
Remember, the PC has had GPU's with built-in SSD's before, the improvements you speak of never happened as an SSD is slow and high latency compared to RAM... So whilst SSD's may be matching some DDR2 memory setups in sheer bandwidth, SSD's fall on their face when it comes to latency which impacts performance in latency sensitive tasks. (Not to mention that DDR2 is comparatively slow compared to high-speed DDR4 and GDDR6.)
It's good for some data sets like simulations with giant multi-terabyte spreadsheets where latency and bandwidth isn't an issue, but for gaming? Not so much.
The other issue is how fast the PC space moves... A 5.5GB/s SSD may seem "cutting edge" today, but tomorrow? Might seem antiquated.
Integrating an SSD onto a GPU essentially ties the cost of the SSD to a GPU... And I don't know about you, but I would assume most PC gamers upgrade their graphics more often than the SSD, it's an unnecessary cost that compounds peoples upgrade cycles.
|
I get all that, and obviously in an ideal world we would all have ditched hdds a long time ago. The main benefit I'm mentioning here is that by including the nand in the gpu, you're assuring games can be created under the assumption all users will have a ultra fast ssd to run the game from and not have to design them for hdd and sata as the lowest common denominator. Can we mention the smaller download sizes due to not having to multiply assets for faster reading in slow hdds?
On the cost side, have you seen the prices of gpus in the last few years? the additional cost would be meaningless if we look to add simple 120 / 250 gb. Just got a 1TB m.2 drive a few months back for around $100, and this was at retail. That's $25 per 250gb. How costly would it be for nvidia/amd to buy bulk? $10 to $15? What's $10 to $15 on a gpu that costs north of $500 ($1000 for a high end one)?
Like I said before, this is purely going by rumors, so obviously we'll need to wait and see. However he did make a good case for it and we can be pretty sure guaranteeing SSD as lowest common denominator will be a game changer. There's no way the pc market won't adapt and miss out on what next gen has to offer.
