Indeed. The Geometry Engines have been a bit of sticking point for AMD... The irony is, they beat nVidia to the Tessellation game by 9-10 years and yet nVidia's Polymorph engines have consistently beaten AMD to the punch.
I think people are looking into it to much.
I agree. Also can't wait!
Also happy to be proven wrong. At the end of the day, I am a tech enthusiast, so it's still a win.
The main impact will be on the development side of the equation, developers will need to allocate workloads to get the most out of the differing bandwidths and capacities.
The Xbox 360 managed to get away with 32Mb of Ram for it's OS... The Xbox One wanted 3072MB... And each time the consoles were simply doing more.
Thanks Pemalite, it aligns with what I remember on the benefits of unified memory bandwidth and type.
But saying they could have for the same price
16GB of GDDR6 or 8GB of HBM2 and 16GB of DDR4, and pretend devs could make optimal use of it (or even better Sony delivers API that does it flawlessly, I know it wouldn't happen) would getting the first a better option on your POV? In the first case we would have 8GB for games and 8 for OS, on the second 16GB for games and 8 for OS. The second case would look more like PC memory with a higher spec for GPU and lower for OS and regular CPU tasks.
There are ways to reduce load times rather than resorting to faster storage subsystems.
I do agree loading times on Playstation consoles have always been an issue because it is disc based, but basically no one ever stopped buying one because of it, nor would it be the differentiation that would push sales to Sony if their console were a little weaker and a little more expensive (it would be the kinect 2 of Sony). But if because of the memory solution some games release only on PS5 or the end result is much better (I doubt) that could push sales.
When they confirmed Backwards Compatibility, I'm 100% sure it was in reference to PS4 games. Not PS3, PS2, or PS1 games. Expecting them to do that is just dumb, and completely irresponsible thinking.
Just because all of PlayStation's flagship consoles were disc based, doesn't mean they'll work just fine regardless of hardware and architecture disparity/differences.
It's not like Sony has it's finger on an On/Off switch and just refuse to flip it on in the name of pure greed.Â
Well I'm pretty sure PS5 drive could easily read disc from all previous system if Sony wanted as they are just regular CD, DVD and BD discs. But running the games is certainly another thing, and Sony would either have to work on native BC or emulation (which seems like they are doing). So it's quite possible Sony is investing on the emulator to have more games sold on PSN without having to port it (so more money and less licensing problems), and likely could allow discs running without paying for the game on PSN just for the marketing and goodwill, more because they know that pristine discs aren't as spreed to cause they to lose money (they can also sell the improvement pack for the games on a small discount over buying the game on PSN and increasing profit).
|Mr Puggsly said:
The funny thing is games seem to often load more in the 8th gen than last gen. Even with vastly faster and more RAM, better CPUs, better GPUs and being optimized for HDDs. The load times in fighting games have suddenly become the worst they've ever been.
I don't feel running games off a HDD was done out of necessity. The PS3 was able to run games directly from a BD disc, so did the Wii U (likely BD tech). Therefore its not crazy to assume PS4 and X1 could have as well especially with their faster drives. I believe they opted for HDD primarily because that made optimization easier, faster transfer speeds and storage dropped in price significantly.
I'm not sure what they did to make Spiderman load so fast on the PS5 devkit, but I think they're misleading us on how it was done. He's giving the impression its because of the SSD on its own, but that just doesn't make sense. I believe it has more to do with the other specs of the hardware, especially RAM. I mean if basically all the textures and other assets can be stored in RAM, that's gonna eliminate much of the streaming needed from the storage. Maybe consoles using unified RAM helps simplify this process.
First paragraph is true, but because everything increased in size, so loading and processing is much higher and that increases loading time (although my experience on PS4 is that games install faster and load faster than on PS3). GTS is much much much faster to enter a race or retry than GT5.
PS3 had mandatory install for most games and some were almost the size of the game. I guess the price for a faster BD drive were higher than a bigger HDD to mandate install, and with digital games being much more relevant and needing HDD anyway there weren't much benefit for they to put better BDs (even more because then the HDD would be the issue, and games need to run equally well from physical or digital purchase).
PS4 have unified RAM, rumor is that PS5 won't be unified (but sure a lot faster) and isn't that much bigger to the point the whole SM would fit on the RAM. They can be misleading, but doesn't seem the case. Why would they put so much money on the storage solution if the gain would be minimal? Because we can be sure that the price difference from a regular 2TB HDD is much lower than 2TB SDD on the type of speed he is talking about (higher than any available to PC, here he can't lie because that is spec).
Most games loaded twice as fast on the SSD compared to HDD, and that is on a system that wasn't designed to take the benefits of SSD. So a native solution, on a high bandwidth, SSD could be a very good thing on PS5.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
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"
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."