If you rewatch the presentation you'll see Mark Cerny saying something about it hitting 20Gb/s depending on the situation.
That's like saying the Playstation 5 can hit 10 teraflops "depending on the situation".
Ultimately it's irrelevant.
And yes I know not all compression is the same. Thus why the only firm data is the 5.5Gb/s both 8-9 and 20 are depending on scenarios, 8-9 the most likely during most of time and 20 a theoretical limit.
Not all data compresses at the same rate or to the same extent. 5.5GB/s is the only 100% reliable metric.
There will be datasets that are pre-compressed which will not be compressible further.
About the RAID and other PC superiorities, which even Digital Foundry is putting the solution in PS5 was better than what was in the PC at the time, does most current gen AAA games on PC load in 1s with keeping the status of like 4 games saved at once for quick resume?
The only limit to a PC's storage subsystem is essentially complexity, power, cost.
The PC doesn't even need an SSD to beat the Playstation 5's storage speed... And there is the potential to have 100 games in quick resume that loads faster than the Playstation 5 on PC.
It's called a Ram Drive... And you can have speeds in excess of 100GB/s. Just food for thought.
Very much doubt the Playstation 5 will be able to load it's entire DRAM in just 1 second either... But the PC can certainly do it in less time.
I think the other comment was saying that today, an equivalent to the SSD in PS5 doesn't exist. And the link you gave was from end of Dec 2019, so I got the impression that you were also talking about nowadays.
But in the case that they don't exist today, that should be true at the time Cerny made his Wired statement as well, so I'll focus on today.
And an equivalent SSD to what is in the Playstation 5 will never exist, it's a custom solution.
Doesn't mean the Playstation 5 is the superior approach though, it's definitely the faster approach for that price point however.
I'm not knowledgeable on the subject at all. But I was listening to Digital Foundry's analysis, and they did say that "SSD's capable of these sustained transfer rates don't really exist in the consumer space today."
And then one of them said that today, "the drives are catching up to the performance level of Sony's internal solution."
He mirrors what Cerny said about those drives needing to be even faster than Sony's 5.5 GB, because of the 6 levels of priority on the PS5's SSD.
Because PS5's I/O would need to step in and enforce those extra levels of priority difference on drives that don't support it.
They do exist, they just aren't commodity, consumer-level, every-day drives.
The priority levels are there to prioritise which data transfers take priority, it doesn't actually give the drive more bandwidth.
I don't know how much faster they need to be though. Maybe RAID would function in a similar manner on PC, but I don't know how that accounts for the difference in technology.
By the way, the Kioxia SSD you linked to has 4.2 GB write speed. If the SSD is supposed to function as RAM then is write speed important as well?
If you can have the Raw bandwidth of a PC SSD beat even the compressed bandwidth of the PS5 SSD, then the PC will have the advantage... And it's entirely plausible with technology available on the market today.
Yes. Write speed is important, the PS5's write speeds will likely be lower than it's read speeds, it's actually a limitation of the NAND itself and how it writes data in blocks.
I suppose Cerny does need to prove how that technology compares to industry standard SSD speed. Though Digital Foundry weren't skeptical, so I guess it seems plausible to them. I wouldn't know.
And yeah, the physical size of the drive I didn't mention because of anything you said, but just to emphasize that it may be tricky to find a compatible drive in more ways than one.
I am not skeptical on the PS5's SSD speed, I applaud it.
The PC can just take it further as it's not limited by cost or form factor.
And to be fair... Most SSD's will not be compatible with the PS5, they need to be the right form factor, they need the right interface, they need the right performance profile... And they can't have a heatsink.
- If the XBX is comparable to the 2080... there is no way that the PS5 is comparable to the 2060... there's like a 15% performance difference between the 2080 super and the 2070 super. So that main one with the difference between the XSX and the PS5. You are right though, we do not know all the details and it would be silly making these kinda assessments now.
The 2060 is not the same as the 2060 Super.
- Yes, I know you can obviously do compression stuff on a PC too. Using the GPU/CPU like the current-gen consoles are doing right now. But the next-gen consoles and particularly the PS5 has specific silicon exclusively for that task. And not just talking about compression/decompression here, I am saying there are other components built into the PS5s APU specifically to make this whole instant access/data throughput/management unique to the PS5.
GPU's have compression blocks as well... Which are used for things like Delta Colour Compression and Texture Compression.
Just this time it is on the I/O side of the equation...
Drives like the Seagate Nytro drives and older Sandforce based drives also did "compression" on the SSD controller, to various extents and effectiveness, they did have a ton of caveats and implications though, maybe Sony and Microsoft have solved the problems that plagued old SSD's? Interested to see how it pans out.
2.) Cerny said that both would usually run at the max speeds.
Very much doubt that Cerny stated both will run at max speeds at the same time, all the time. ;)
Otherwise the technology implemented designed to share power/thermal balancing is a waste of time, money, resources and oxygen to explain.