I thought there was some specific hardware to handle that (both on Series X and PS5)

The SSD can deliver uncompressed data to other system components at up to 5.5GB/sec via its new proprietary hardware, which is over twice that of an Xbox Series X. And like the Xbox Series X, the PS5 also has dedicated hardware-based decompression to reduce CPU overhead.

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/71340/understanding-the-ps5s-ssd-deep-dive-into-next-gen-storage-tech/index.html

Sure any game on PC can (and does) use compressed data as well, and the superior CPU on PCs likely handles it just as fast. On the consoles it won't effect the CPU at all. (or very little) The big difference is delivery, straight to where it needs to go on ps5 instead of multiple steps.

Anyway fast travel can finally be fast travel, not wait a full minute for the world to reload.

It's kinda mind blowing that laptop SSDs less than 10 year old were not that much better than HDDs. My 2011 MacBook Air had read speed just around 120MB/s but it was one of the first laptops that adopted SSD as far as I remember.

I dont want to talk a bout leaks and rumors but it seems worth to no one from moores law is dead. Since he got the nvidia line up right and other stuff.

But the consoles are gona bitch slap the rtx 2080ti. Even the 3060 will out perform the 2080ti. Aparantly the rt features in the rtx line up is so bad that even if rasterasation is better on the card, as soon as rt is enable everything is just gona smack even the rtx 2080ti.

Rtx line up is gona age like milk. So that 2080 laptop beating the ps5 rumor sounds fishy.

I hope whatever Sony did with its design gets adapted into PC in some form. I really believe their design is a game changer.

Depends on the laptop PC.

GeForce RTX 2080 Super Max-Q would give the PS5 a run for it's money... You also have desktop replacement laptops with full Geforce RTX 2080's in them and in 6 months time, probably RTX 3080's.

But the demo in question isn't using the consoles to their fullest extent, the Ray Tracing cores aren't being utilized which is extra computational capability left on the table.

We don't know how RDNA2 performs, the hardware isn't on the market, we can only assume (And rightly so) that it will be more performant than RDNA1.

The RTX 2080 is a beast... This particular demo wasn't optimized for the hardware either, which is the key thing here... That it looks and runs that well without being optimized fully is a testament to how solid the console hardware is right now.

Not all notebooks use the mobile variant of the RTX 2080, they sometimes use the desktop variant.

More to performance than just flops. nVidia's gaming performance on a per-flop basis is better than AMD's.

But if flops was the most important aspect of the hardware, then the Xbox Series X would be 20% faster than the Playstation 5... But it simply isn't.

Flops in this sense is entirely theoretical, not real world... And most people do not even understand how it relates to the games rendering anyway, making it an irrelevant talking point.

It's probably accurate with the current un-optimized build of that demo.
EPIC isn't going to invest years and 100's of millions to build a demo remember.

Random reads/writes and sequential writes are also always slower than sequential reads. The Playstaton 5 is no exception.

I think you are starting to get an idea that it's not as black-and-white as Sony/Microsoft/Non-tech literate people are trying to portray it as...

But the reason why SSD writes are slower than reads is down to the fundamental technology itself.

An SSD cannot "overwrite" data on the SSD, they need to perform an erase operation before initiating the write and this costs time... Impacting performance.

But when you have a fresh SSD and all the cells are empty, it doesn't need to perform that erase first, this will increase performance, but it will still be slower than a read, the reason for that... Is the SSD works on a "page system" so if a page is 2kb, the page is 4kb, so the SSD does it's best job to pair up two 2kb pieces of data to fit onto the 4kb page and will often juggle around data, this can also cost time.

The SSD also has it's own database essentially that keeps track of where all that data is being written, after a write has been performed the SSD needs to update that database which also takes time.
Then you have things like wear leveling algorithms which tries to ensure that the read-write cycles even out of the entire SSD, which means for random reads/writes the data may be physically located on the opposite sides of the SSD... And that is where the laws of physics steps in, it takes time for the controller to send/receive data the further away it is. - It's not as pronounced as a mechanical hard drive, but it's still there.

This is the "dumbed down" version essentially. - The issue itself is dubbed "Write amplification"

Allot of engineering goes into SSD's to work around the problem with Ram caches, wear leveling, TRIM, data compression/duplication and more... Heck some SSD's will place some sets of data into groups depending on how often they get read/write.

There are PC SSD's that employ hardware-based compression algorithms on the actual controller.

PC can also brute force it via software, because it has the CPU and Memory resources to do so.

The biggest advantages that SSD's brought to notebooks was lower power consumption, increasing battery life, reliability as there is no spinning parts that could be bumped/broken and those low access times, making the system much more responsive.

I was an early adopter of SSD's, had them for about 12 years now in my PC's, back then the sequential reads weren't that much better than a Western Digital Black/VelociRaptor, but those access times made all the difference.

I would hope the consoles beat an RTX 2080Ti. (Although there is currently no evidence to support your assertion!)
But the 2080Ti will be outdated before the next-gen consoles launched anyway.

The RT features aren't bad either. They are fantastic... So much so that AMD is going to copy that feature and bring it to consoles.

Thanks, I learned something new about SSDs :)

My confusion however mostly came from the HDD write speed being significantly faster than its read speed. Is that just the luck of the draw, was it writing at the outer orbit while reading from the inner orbit. HDD afaik have constant angular velocity, thus the outside moves much faster than the inside.
Or does it have to do with caching, HDD says thank you for the data and does more work without holding up the test tool.



Second, why are random reads so much slower on SSD. Seek time should be instant, yet sequential reads are still 3.6 to 50 times faster. It actually writes the smallest chunks faster than it can read them. That looks like managing your data chunks is still as important as before. (And probably why, for example, it still takes KSP a long time to load, tons of little files)

Ah looking up what the Q and T stand for helps a bit, Queue depth (number of requests at once) and Threads used. I guess Q1T1 is stress testing the IO controller mainly, all separate requests which the IO controller can add together to write more efficiently, yet while reading I guess the tool waits for the data before sending the next request.

Anyway not as simple as dump a ton of files in a directory and hope for the best. Optimizing for efficient reading of data will still help.

To me that Ssd thing feels more and more like the cell cpu mumbo jumbo all over again... Sounds like an expensive hardware specific tech that might be looked over by multi Plat développer and make the HW more expensive

But anyway are people really arguing the difference of In engine game play of a game versus a tech demo Of An Engine 😂🤣, both are pretty weak, but I prefer seeing games than tech demos if given the choice... But tech demos usually look better... Nothing really new here especially with UE tech demos they are always eye-catching...

You guys are so funnnnny...

And isn't UE5 not due for an other year? So at least 2 for a game to come out running with it...

Man console war use to have way more amo on both side back in the days... Damn millenials and their halfcocked lousy arguments...

Anyway on paper and so far XBSX has clearly the edge in the HW department and I hardly see how a single faster Ssd would change that... Even with all the dev talk, nothing has proven to bridge the gap, it'll help for some things to run faster... But it ain't gonna compute more once you cap the chips... It's like having a mouthful, if you can't swallow it, a bigger load just gets messy 😂😜

But that being said you can have a Ferrari if you don't have the games it's like having no fuel and so far nothing on both side really popped my next Gen cherry...

I dont mean RT is bad, just that on the rtx series is bad, or I would say experimental. Nvidia says they will get 4x the rt performance on Ampere. Im pretty sure they will still be better than amd, but even amd should beat the rtx line. Maybe it was a necessity as devs had something to work with and now nvidia and even amd could work from that.

Or maybe I should ask, will the 2080ti hold up to the 3000 series as well as the 1080ti did to the 2000's? Acording to mores law is dead if people are looking to upgrade and RT is a must for you that you should ignore the 2080ti and a 3060 should be better.

But like you said, cant do much with leaks. probaably wont know untill rdna 2 releases, but nvidia already confirmed that RT wise, they will smoke the 2000's

The reason for the write speed being larger than the read speed is that essentially the hard drive is doing two things.
* It's reading directly from disk and not the hard drives Ram.
* It's write speed is mis-reported, it's reporting the speed it writes into the hard drives Ram and not to the disk itself.

The reason why the random reads are slower on an SSD is actually really simple...
It's much easier for an SSD's controller to read and access "pages" of data that is next to each other rather than access it from completely opposite ends of the SSD, the data request doesn't have to travel as far.

The further the data is away, the longer distance that data has to travel hence impacting seek times, it's the exact same issue a mechanical drive has, just on a much smaller scale.

And the more requests you have the more contention you have in the SSD's controller, it can only do a finite amount of tasks at a time due to processor and memory limitations.

It's still the best form of consumer hardware Ray Tracing we have, AMD doesn't have Ray Tracing, Ampere, Playstation 5, Xbox Series don't even exist on the market.

But you are correct, it's only first generation stuff, more improvements will obviously be made, the PC never stops improving.

RTX 2080 Max Q super is still inferior to Desktop RX 5700 XT no matter what . The amount of clock speed alone prove this, It's just an RTX 2080 with lower clock speed that match RTX 2060 performance. PS5 is way way much faster. claiming it the other way around clearly bias and spreading lie 

Also did anybody has the video of Unreal 5  running on the notebook it could be just a hoax 

Also Unreal Engine 5 that demoed require a fast IO speed , i doubt the Laptop has such speed on it;s drive , eben it exist it will be super expensives. 

I bet that UE 5 run on Nvidia Laptop is HOAX. 

It's a HOAX