By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
chakkra on 05 June 2020
Edit Thread
CGI-Quality said:
chakkra said:

"Neither is going to end up being wrong, because the two devices don’t work exactly the same and will have their internals leveraged for game development (as consoles generally do). So, no there won't be "just a bunch of bandwith unused/wasted". In either case."

I hope you're right about this part. Although I find it weird that you seem to have more issue with the PS5 part of the statement.

"I'd understand the bitchin' if they weren't so advanced and/or simply numbers on a page."

This is literally the first time I mention this topic, so I fail to see how that can be considered "bitching."

"And, yeah, no shit the SSDs are largely talked about. Their potential and the fact that no consumer-grade part (such as the PS5's SSD) exists like them for purchase (yet) makes it worth discussing. These aren't teraflops."

Now I have an issue with this statement; Teraflops is basically the GPU processing power. And I can totally understand that talking about TFs from different arquitectures is pointless, like trying to compare AMD to Nvidia cards, or cards from the RTX line to the GTX line; but when we are talking about GPUs from the same line, the GPU with more TFs will ALWAYS perform better than the one with less. In fact, I'm willing to bet my life that when AMD releases their next RDNA 2 graphics cards, the one with more teraflops will be the best performer one. So I totally fail to see how storage speed is more worthy to talk about than GPU processing power.

Only "issue" I had was you trying to minimize the impact of the upcoming SSDs (yes, both) and "bitchin" was the general term I used. It's not the end of the world.

In any event, floating point operations/sec. (MEGA/GIGA/TERA/PETA, etc.) are a theoretical measure of power, not "basically processing power". No matter what architecture types are discussed, flops will remain theoretical and never tell the real story. Otherwise, a 2080Ti should not be able to keep up with a TITAN RTX in any capacity (given it is 3000 GIGAflops behind it — a bigger difference than those in these upcoming consoles). So, yes, they're meaningless for serious discussion, storage speed is not.

Want to know what a GPU can do? Look at its...

  1. RAM Amount/Speed/Type
  2. Shader Cores (CUDA, for example)
  3. Clock Speed

The gap between 2080 TI and RTX Titan is 14.2 to 16.3 TFs, which is a %15 difference, and Titan still manages to consistently over perform it. So that actually helps to prove my statement that more TFs within the same arquitecture equals more performance.

And the only reason I'm "minimizing" the SSD solutions is because plenty of people are acting like that is the only thing that matters, and it's not the only thing nor the most important. I mean, the PS5 SSD wouldn't have been able to stream all those billions of polygons on the demo if said polygons hadn't been processed by the GPU in the first place; I mean if the PS5's GPU/CPU had been much slower, the SSD would have had to stand there waiting for the data to be processed. Dont you agree?

To put it simply, in one hand we have the CPU/GPU combo processing/generating the data, and in the other we have the RAM/SSD storing and streaming said data. The big question is at what point do the RAM/SSD become a bottleneck for the GPU/CPU or at what point is the RAM/SSD so fast that the GPU/CPU cannot keep up with them and fully utilize their speed.

Which brings me back to my point: MS concluded that their SSD solution provided enough speed for the amount of data that their GPU/CPU can process, while Sony obviously got to a different conclusion.

So yeah, I think one of them might end up being wrong in their approach. What I don't understand is why you seem so upset about the possibility of Sony being wrong. I mean, the worst that could happen is that the PS5 could end up with bandwith to spare. I see no harm there.