Yes. Sony's claim(and only) throughput is 5.5GB/s of raw data. MS's own is 2.4GB/s. That 7GB/s number is sony's compressed "equivalent" throughput. So basically 5.5GB/s of real-world data would still be sent but after decompression its equivalent to 7GB/s. And no one is saying that can't be done in PCs a well.

The reason sony needs PC SSDs that has a bandwidth higher than 5.5GB/s (truth is sony didn't even say they needed a drive higher than 5.5GB/s and this is coming from DF), has something to do with 6 priority something on PS5 vs 2 on PC SSDs and PS5 APU has to arbitrate the other 4 or something like that.

I'm not nor have I ever been about what can be done on PC and can't, but to be fair, at the time when Cerny actually said what he said back last year (and he even alluded to this exact observation himself during talk yesterday) there wasn't a PC SSD out there that was as fast as the PS5 SSD.

And to be fair I would think you should know better than bring up RAID... that's like comparing apples to oranges. Cause I doubt when anyone talks about having a single off the shelf SSD solution to put in their console or PC they are talking about a RAID setup.

Lol... no tech transfers here. An NVMe gen 4 SSD should have a real-world peak bandwidth of 7GB/s (it has an 8GB/s theoretical maximum). Most of the SSDs coming to out this year are in the 4GB/s - 5GB/s range but we will have a couple of premium drives that hit that 7GB/s range maybe as early as this year. They wouldn't be cheap though.

What really makes the PS5 SSD fast though is that sony has custom hardware built into its APU to accelerate SSD specific tasks, to ensure that 5.5GB/s speed of their setup is sustained and applied to everything in their system. The closest thing to customization like that you will see on the PC is MS adding APs from the XSX to windows that allows windows better use SSD throughput.

Well that was interesting to some degree. Or at least I thought it was, fully understanding this was a GDC talk.
I am very curious what the audio will do for my experience, can't wait to try.

The fact that they only talked about BC for the Ps4, it being implemented into the hardware, makes sense right? I mean, ps1-3 games might very easily be emulated, which is something they might hold up their sleeves until a presentation is held for 'the people'. Imagine the chaos and awe. Or one can dream at least.

I am hoping so as well. When they showed a slide of PS1/2/3 in the BC part of the explanation and then quickly turned to PS4/Pro after saying PS3 bc would be to expensive, I was pretty annoyed. Why even show the slide if that's the case? 

Only as powerful as a 2060 Super you say? Do you care if I make a thread based on that, pointing out that you said that? That's worth it's own thread, and you'll either be laughed at or praised in 9 months.

By your logic, Atari Jaguar was just as good as SNES. Not all content is the same, and one fantastic game is worth thousands of awful games.

That isn't it. They have looked at the top100 played games (and they didn't say the timeframe).

And also that doesn't mean only these games work, just that those are what they already tested, because of time constraints. Also as someone said it is very possible that the 100 is what they done boosting testing (like Pro where all games worked but not all had increased performance).

Not really, compressed PS5 can get 9Gb/s worth of data (peak of 20 depending on the case).

The 7Gb/s was Cerny explaining that due to the difference in design between Sony solution and the standard PCI 4.0 design a 7.0Gb/s would likely be needed to reach the 5.5Gb/s on PS5 due to the overhead of the controler on PS5 having to match the lack of the 6 levels of priority.

technically 5700xt is 9.7tf RDNA1 which is on par with 2070 super. so considering that PS5 is 9.2tf of RDNA 2 it should easily put PS5 above 2070 Super.   

Wait...he actually said the XSX is only like 2060 performance? I didn't even read that. It was benchmarked against a 2080 paired with a 16core CPU and 64GB of ram and had equivalent performance while running a two-week-old unoptimized code.

Both the PS5 and XSX are in 2080 GPU territory and that's before specific optimizations are kicked in. Simple as that. 

Like I don't get our PC friends at times.

Yes and no... technically we are kinda saying the same thing.

The PS5 SSD has a physical throughput of 5.5GB/s (lets call it a gate). However, based on the Kracken compressor thingy and thanks to its specific decompression chip, it can send up to 20GB/s+ equivalent worth of data (depending on how well compressed that data is) through that 5.5GB/s gate. And this is not something that can be done in PCs because they don't have specific hardware for data decompression and even more so designed for a very specific type of decompression codec.

the 8-9GB/s Cerny used in is examples just to illustrate this pint and assuming current industry-standard LZ (something) compression is used and not the Kraken compression which is significantly better and which their specific silicon for compression is better suited to handle.

Everything else abt the off the help SDs though is accurate and I fully agree with.

And yet the PS5 is not even 9.2TF of RDNA2. Its 10.3TF. And yes, it easily would be above 2070 super. More like 2080 if its actual feature set is being used.

Jut like how I expect the XSX to be more like 2080 super If its feature set is actually being used as opposed to just running a quick unoptimized port.

No 5700XT would get you 45 FPS 4K in Witcher 3 on high, but not ultra settings. 2070 S would get you 55 FPS 4K in Witcher 3 on high, but not ultra settings. 2070 Super is a class above a 5700XT.

Source: logicalincrements.com