So instead of just posting another PR fluff piece, you could have commented on the key information hidden in all the PR speak:
1. If the ssd is designed not for peak performance, what are the actual, measured average transfer rates? Still waiting for actual numbers..
2. Obviously the same wishful PR speak, complicated by multiplying two peak numbers together. Again, I want to see actual, measured average transfer rates.
3. And this runs on the Zen2 cores. So what is the actual, measured penalty for this (including all side effects like possibly bombing cpu caches)?
4. Yeah, really. Nobody ever figured out that one should only load data that is actually used. What software lab geniuses are we talking about here? This has been done on the AppleII (for obvious reasons) 50 years ago.
1. 2.4 GB/s is the sustained transfer speed of the SSD, not peak, it says it right in the article.
2. Sony did the exact same thing, they just doubled their SSD number for their compressed speed.
3. 3 is an API, not sure why you would think the APU being used for storage would hurt the CPU performance
4. Knowing and doing are two different things. I would assume that it has been known for a long time that GPU's were having issues with texture usage efficiency, but it was only now that somebody has finally came up with a way to allow only partial mipmaps to be loaded into the memory at any given time, instead of the full mipmaps. The article implies predictive tech here, saying that it loads only the textures that are needed into the RAM just in time for them to be used.