By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
hinch on 14 July 2020
Edit Thread
shikamaru317 said:
hinch said:

2-3x bandwidth. So lets say 2.5x multiplied effect of an average of the 2.5Gb/s SSD. We're looking at around 6Gb/s I/O. Pretty nice stuff.

Looking forward to seeing Direct Storage for PC.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me like MS is claiming:

  • 2.4 GB/s (base SSD speed) x 2 (decompression)= 4.8 GB/s
  • 2.5x effective I/O increase (Sampler Feedback Streaming)= 12 GB/s

By comparison, Sony is claiming:

  • 5.5 GB/s (base SSD speed)
  • 8-9 GB/s decompression speed (PS5 has dedicated decompression hardware, same as XSX, so that CPU resources aren't wasted on decompression, though it seems like their decompression multiplier is less than the 2x that MS is claiming for XSX)

If the above is true, MS will have the advantage on texture streaming, assuming of course that Sampler Feedback Streaming works as advertised, and assuming that Sony doesn't have a similar technique in the works for only loading partial mipmaps into the RAM at just the right time. However, even if SFS works as advertised, it will only help with texture streaming, it won't help with load times. Sony will still have the load time advantage since their SSD is faster and they also have dedicated decompression hardware, PS5 will be able to load games at 8-9 GB/s, compared to 4.8 GB/s for XSX.

Nah I don't think so. On the Microsoft's website they explain the effect from raw throughput which is 2.4 GB/s.

This innovation results in approximately 2.5x the effective I/O throughput and memory usage above and beyond the raw hardware capabilities on average. SFS provides an effective multiplier on available system memory and I/O bandwidth, resulting in significantly more memory and I/O throughput available to make your game richer and more immersive.

Found a explanation from Gaf from a member 'Ascend'

"It's not unknown. We have 2.4 GB/s raw, and 4.8 GB/s compressed. On top of that, you have this multiplier. So in practice, you would be getting 12GB/s equivalent throughput of doing things raw. I made a post about this quite a while back.

Edit: After reading through the link on MS website, it seems that it is above the raw throughput, not the compressed throughput. So the 12GB/s is incorrect, and it is indeedn 2.4 GB/s * 2.5, which gives you 6GB/s. Still fine. I guess I over-speculated about a few things back then ^_^

Edit2: Hm... I'm doubtful again.

This innovation results in approximately 2.5x the effective I/O throughput and memory usage above and beyond the raw hardware capabilities on average.Must we interpret that as 2.5x above the 2.5GB/s, or, 2.5x above the 4.8GB/s, because, the compression is also hardware, so that means it should be 2.5x above 4.8GB/s. The word 'raw' can be interpreted to mean all hardware, or specifically the raw throughput of the I/O."