shikamaru317 said:
I may be mistaken, but it seems to me like MS is claiming:
By comparison, Sony is claiming:
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 (which they might). 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 compressed game data from the drive at 8-9 GB/s, compared to 4.8 GB/s for XSX. |
I don't think you should be multiplying both even more expecting 500% real world performance of that. First texture isn't the only thing that is being streammed, second those two multipliers would probably be best case scenarios. It is more probable that it is 2x higher due to compression for some files and reaching 2.5 for texture.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."