Forums - Sony Discussion - Linus - Iíve Disappointed and Embarrassed Myself (re: PS5 SSD)

Pemalite said:
HollyGamer said:

but it's not path tracing 

i used specific term path tracing because GI still using baked and screen space 

Path Tracing is a Global Illumination Algorithm.

Path Tracing is Ray Tracing is Global Illumination.

Global Illumination *does not* have to use baked or screen space data.

DonFerrari said:

So we didn't get a direct number but used the common setup to it? Fair enough, it could be different but there is no indication then.

If we are to go by the formula.. The Playstation 5 will have 144 texture mapping units and the Xbox One X would have 208 texture mapping units, so the Xbox will have some texturing advantages as it has a higher texture fillrate, it's not significant, expect a magnifying glass to be needed to tell the difference I think.

Both consoles have 64 ROPS, which means MPixel fillrate is actually superior on the Playstation 5... And actually by a sizable amount.
And if both units have the same number of geometry units, the Playstation 5 will have superior geometry capabilities. - And going by how AMD has outlaid Navi, that could be highly plausible.

Is there any relevant exception to the formula yet or a good reason a card would change the formula? I don't think this will be the case but more for curiosity.

On the magnifying glass that is the specialty of DF =p



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

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Pemalite said:

Path Tracing is a Global Illumination Algorithm.

Path Tracing is Ray Tracing is Global Illumination.

Global Illumination *does not* have to use baked or screen space data.

If we are to go by the formula.. The Playstation 5 will have 144 texture mapping units and the Xbox One X would have 208 texture mapping units, so the Xbox will have some texturing advantages as it has a higher texture fillrate, it's not significant, expect a magnifying glass to be needed to tell the difference I think.

Both consoles have 64 ROPS, which means MPixel fillrate is actually superior on the Playstation 5... And actually by a sizable amount.
And if both units have the same number of geometry units, the Playstation 5 will have superior geometry capabilities. - And going by how AMD has outlaid Navi, that could be highly plausible.

Is there any relevant exception to the formula yet or a good reason a card would change the formula? I don't think this will be the case but more for curiosity.

On the magnifying glass that is the specialty of DF =p

Not that I am aware of. But consoles use semi-custom silicon.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
HollyGamer said:

but it's not path tracing 

i used specific term path tracing because GI still using baked and screen space 

Path Tracing is a Global Illumination Algorithm.

Path Tracing is Ray Tracing is Global Illumination.

Global Illumination *does not* have to use baked or screen space data.

DonFerrari said:

So we didn't get a direct number but used the common setup to it? Fair enough, it could be different but there is no indication then.

If we are to go by the formula.. The Playstation 5 will have 144 texture mapping units and the Xbox One X would have 208 texture mapping units, so the Xbox will have some texturing advantages as it has a higher texture fillrate, it's not significant, expect a magnifying glass to be needed to tell the difference I think.

Both consoles have 64 ROPS, which means MPixel fillrate is actually superior on the Playstation 5... And actually by a sizable amount.
And if both units have the same number of geometry units, the Playstation 5 will have superior geometry capabilities. - And going by how AMD has outlaid Navi, that could be highly plausible.


The lumen UE on PS5 do not use path tracing , i think they have different method that's why i am confused 

Also Xbox SX can render greater textures than PS5 on a condition all the textures data are available when it need on RAM. The problem is the big the data is the more data they need to store on RAM, thus streaming data are required for the GPU to render. Xbox SX will need to tackle this problem. Not just textures but geometry data. Xbox doesn't have the capacity to stream all the data to the GPU. So thta's why IO is very important to stream all the textures data for the GPU to process.

One of the method for Xbox SX to tackle this with trick using tesselation, with the amount of processing unit they can use this, so instead calculating all the geometry assets they will rely more on tesselation. 



HollyGamer said:
Pemalite said:

Path Tracing is a Global Illumination Algorithm.

Path Tracing is Ray Tracing is Global Illumination.

Global Illumination *does not* have to use baked or screen space data.

If we are to go by the formula.. The Playstation 5 will have 144 texture mapping units and the Xbox One X would have 208 texture mapping units, so the Xbox will have some texturing advantages as it has a higher texture fillrate, it's not significant, expect a magnifying glass to be needed to tell the difference I think.

Both consoles have 64 ROPS, which means MPixel fillrate is actually superior on the Playstation 5... And actually by a sizable amount.
And if both units have the same number of geometry units, the Playstation 5 will have superior geometry capabilities. - And going by how AMD has outlaid Navi, that could be highly plausible.


The lumen UE on PS5 do not use path tracing , i think they have different method that's why i am confused 

I never said it did use Path Tracing.

Path Tracing is an algorithm of Global illumination.

Unreal Engine 5 uses Voxel Tracing which is a form of Global Illumination, it's essentially a rough approximation, not an accurate one... As it's doing the lighting in Voxels (Aka. Squares) when we draw everything in Polygons. (Aka. Triangles.)

In-fact... Epic demonstrated the *exact* same technology with Unreal Engine 4 as well as Unreal Engine 5... So even by Epics own admission it's not a new technology... This is a case of people grabbing a number/feature/advertising name and running with it without any real fundamental understanding of it's implications, how we got to this point and how it's been used historically.




Lumin itself is the "advertising name" for a *group* of lighting technologies working together, not just a singular method... Again, it combines Voxel Tracing which is Global Illumination in conjunction with signed distance fields and screen space traces all at the same time for different sized geometry... This allows the lighting system to provide the best possible image quality with the lowest overhead on the current hardware... Because we aren't at a point yet where we can do real time ray tracing on the macro and micro-scale for complex AAA games in hardware, the technology is still in it's relative infancy.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-unreal-engine-5-playstation-5-tech-demo-analysis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_illumination

Just remember, Ray Tracing and Global Illumination are just "buzzwords" for marketing purposes, they are generic terms, not terms that define a single approach to a problem.
We have actually had Ray Tracing in games even in the 6th gen when a few developers started to experiment with various implementations of deferred renderers.

Path Tracing is also not the highest quality or most intensive implementation of Ray Tracing either.

Unreal Engine 5 isn't pioneering anything new on the lighting front, what is new is how it's bundling multiple approaches together in order to get the best bang-for-buck visuals for the hardware... The PC for example will likely not need to do this as it has the computational headroom, especially as the PC is about to head into the second generation of Ray Tracing technology this year.

HollyGamer said:

Also Xbox SX can render greater textures than PS5 on a condition all the textures data are available when it need on RAM. The problem is the big the data is the more data they need to store on RAM, thus streaming data are required for the GPU to render. Xbox SX will need to tackle this problem. Not just textures but geometry data. Xbox doesn't have the capacity to stream all the data to the GPU. So thta's why IO is very important to stream all the textures data for the GPU to process.

One of the method for Xbox SX to tackle this with trick using tesselation, with the amount of processing unit they can use this, so instead calculating all the geometry assets they will rely more on tesselation. 

Correct. The Xbox Series X can have higher quality texturing if it's stored in memory. But if a developer is going to be streaming textures and meshes (Something that became common during the 7th gen after Modern Warefare 2 released) then the Playstation 5 should hold the advantage.

But it all depends on a variety of factors, if the Xbox Series X isn't memory constrained, I.E. Indoor area, then it should show some advantages.
We need to remember the Xbox Series X can stream data extremely quickly as well, not as fast as the Playstation 5, but it can still do a damn good job at it.

Remember, the Playstation 5 isn't unique with streaming, every console... Ever. - Has streamed data from a form of storage, it's actually an old technology, what is new is the technology that said data is being streamed from... Aka. The SSD.

The Nintendo 64 for example could Stream data from carts at 264MB/s... Where the Playstation 1 could only stream data from optical disk at 150-300kb/s.
That is a difference of 880x to 1,760x. Did it result in games looking 1,760x more impressive? Well. That is debatable and this is during an era where dimnishing returns wasn't as pronounced. - And yes, developers did use the Carts to stream from on the Nintendo 64 in order to better use the limited 4-8MB of Ram.

Factor 5 used it to load all level data, textures, animations, music, sound and even program code while the game is running... All from cart, rather than store it all in Ram.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2000/11/10/bringing-indy-to-n64

The Playstation 1 was doing something similar... It would stream say... FMV sequences in Final Fantasy and overlay a little bit of gameplay on top... And that was achieved with only 300kb/s of optical disk transfer rates.

I am truly excited for what SSD's will mean for gaming next-gen, I was impressed with what it brought forwards in StarCitizen, the sheer scale of worlds and keeping track of all the sets of data is really only possible when you have such impressive random read/write performance only possible with an SSD. (Or a crap-ton of Ram.)

HollyGamer said:

One of the method for Xbox SX to tackle this with trick using tesselation, with the amount of processing unit they can use this, so instead calculating all the geometry assets they will rely more on tesselation. 

There is a very real possibility that the Playstation 5 has an advantage with Tessellation throughput.

I don't know the exact number of Tessellation or Geometry units in RDNA2 (Or more precisely if it is the same number between Xbox Series X and Playstation 5), but if they are the same regardless of CU's, then it will be a function of clockrate and the Playstation 5 holds the edge there.

In saying that, the geometry demonstration showcased in Unreal Engine 5, is likely more than capable of operating on the Xbox Series X anyway.

Hopefully I have thoroughly explained things appropriately, it's difficult to try and keep things as simple as possible for everyone on the forum.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
HollyGamer said:

The lumen UE on PS5 do not use path tracing , i think they have different method that's why i am confused 

I never said it did use Path Tracing.

Path Tracing is an algorithm of Global illumination.

Unreal Engine 5 uses Voxel Tracing which is a form of Global Illumination, it's essentially a rough approximation, not an accurate one... As it's doing the lighting in Voxels (Aka. Squares) when we draw everything in Polygons. (Aka. Triangles.)

In-fact... Epic demonstrated the *exact* same technology with Unreal Engine 4 as well as Unreal Engine 5... So even by Epics own admission it's not a new technology... This is a case of people grabbing a number/feature/advertising name and running with it without any real fundamental understanding of it's implications, how we got to this point and how it's been used historically.




Lumin itself is the "advertising name" for a *group* of lighting technologies working together, not just a singular method... Again, it combines Voxel Tracing which is Global Illumination in conjunction with signed distance fields and screen space traces all at the same time for different sized geometry... This allows the lighting system to provide the best possible image quality with the lowest overhead on the current hardware... Because we aren't at a point yet where we can do real time ray tracing on the macro and micro-scale for complex AAA games in hardware, the technology is still in it's relative infancy.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-unreal-engine-5-playstation-5-tech-demo-analysis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_illumination

Just remember, Ray Tracing and Global Illumination are just "buzzwords" for marketing purposes, they are generic terms, not terms that define a single approach to a problem.
We have actually had Ray Tracing in games even in the 6th gen when a few developers started to experiment with various implementations of deferred renderers.

Path Tracing is also not the highest quality or most intensive implementation of Ray Tracing either.

Unreal Engine 5 isn't pioneering anything new on the lighting front, what is new is how it's bundling multiple approaches together in order to get the best bang-for-buck visuals for the hardware... The PC for example will likely not need to do this as it has the computational headroom, especially as the PC is about to head into the second generation of Ray Tracing technology this year.

HollyGamer said:

Also Xbox SX can render greater textures than PS5 on a condition all the textures data are available when it need on RAM. The problem is the big the data is the more data they need to store on RAM, thus streaming data are required for the GPU to render. Xbox SX will need to tackle this problem. Not just textures but geometry data. Xbox doesn't have the capacity to stream all the data to the GPU. So thta's why IO is very important to stream all the textures data for the GPU to process.

One of the method for Xbox SX to tackle this with trick using tesselation, with the amount of processing unit they can use this, so instead calculating all the geometry assets they will rely more on tesselation. 

Correct. The Xbox Series X can have higher quality texturing if it's stored in memory. But if a developer is going to be streaming textures and meshes (Something that became common during the 7th gen after Modern Warefare 2 released) then the Playstation 5 should hold the advantage.

But it all depends on a variety of factors, if the Xbox Series X isn't memory constrained, I.E. Indoor area, then it should show some advantages.
We need to remember the Xbox Series X can stream data extremely quickly as well, not as fast as the Playstation 5, but it can still do a damn good job at it.

Remember, the Playstation 5 isn't unique with streaming, every console... Ever. - Has streamed data from a form of storage, it's actually an old technology, what is new is the technology that said data is being streamed from... Aka. The SSD.

The Nintendo 64 for example could Stream data from carts at 264MB/s... Where the Playstation 1 could only stream data from optical disk at 150-300kb/s.
That is a difference of 880x to 1,760x. Did it result in games looking 1,760x more impressive? Well. That is debatable and this is during an era where dimnishing returns wasn't as pronounced. - And yes, developers did use the Carts to stream from on the Nintendo 64 in order to better use the limited 4-8MB of Ram.

Factor 5 used it to load all level data, textures, animations, music, sound and even program code while the game is running... All from cart, rather than store it all in Ram.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2000/11/10/bringing-indy-to-n64

The Playstation 1 was doing something similar... It would stream say... FMV sequences in Final Fantasy and overlay a little bit of gameplay on top... And that was achieved with only 300kb/s of optical disk transfer rates.

I am truly excited for what SSD's will mean for gaming next-gen, I was impressed with what it brought forwards in StarCitizen, the sheer scale of worlds and keeping track of all the sets of data is really only possible when you have such impressive random read/write performance only possible with an SSD. (Or a crap-ton of Ram.)

HollyGamer said:

One of the method for Xbox SX to tackle this with trick using tesselation, with the amount of processing unit they can use this, so instead calculating all the geometry assets they will rely more on tesselation. 

There is a very real possibility that the Playstation 5 has an advantage with Tessellation throughput.

I don't know the exact number of Tessellation or Geometry units in RDNA2 (Or more precisely if it is the same number between Xbox Series X and Playstation 5), but if they are the same regardless of CU's, then it will be a function of clockrate and the Playstation 5 holds the edge there.

In saying that, the geometry demonstration showcased in Unreal Engine 5, is likely more than capable of operating on the Xbox Series X anyway.

Hopefully I have thoroughly explained things appropriately, it's difficult to try and keep things as simple as possible for everyone on the forum.

Agree with GI and path tracing , for me as long next gen console able to shows what RT like on UE , then i am not complain what method they used 

Tessellation will require more processing and parallelisme , it's a kind to procedural generated algorithm on textures and displacement mapping, the more detail you produce the bigger the compute and RAM bandwidth you need (Xbox can use on faster memory pool to access this data and more compute shader)  

So probably tessellation will only will be used on open area or during transition between level or on further area to show distant object. Then when it get close to the object  it will replace with high static polygon count 

Xbox will benefit with this mix between tesselation and high geometry display , further object by tessellation and closser object by high geometry pipeline. 

But with this method some pop in and pop out will still occur and two type of geometry data still required (one high poly for close object and for further object or in between with low one ) 

But with Xbox has SSD this will improve and will occur smooth compared to last gen.



Around the Network
HollyGamer said:

Tessellation will require more processing and parallelisme , it's a kind to procedural generated algorithm on textures and displacement mapping, the more detail you produce the bigger the compute and RAM bandwidth you need (Xbox can use on faster memory pool to access this data and more compute shader)  

So probably tessellation will only will be used on open area or during transition between level or on further area to show distant object. Then when it get close to the object  it will replace with high static polygon count 

Xbox will benefit with this mix between tesselation and high geometry display , further object by tessellation and closser object by high geometry pipeline. 

But with this method some pop in and pop out will still occur and two type of geometry data still required (one high poly for close object and for further object or in between with low one ) 

But with Xbox has SSD this will improve and will occur smooth compared to last gen.

Displacement mapping and Tessellation are fundamentally different technologies out to achieve the same goal, that is... Higher model complexity.
But they take very different approaches.

Hardware Displacement Mapping was actually pioneered by Matrox with the Matrox Parhelia.

Hardware Displacement Mapping essentially uses something like a "texture map" (Aka. Displacement map) but uses it in a way to give height values to a mesh to transform it.

Tessellation on the other hand subdivides a surface increasing geometric complexity via something like n-patches that tells what vertices get raised or lowered.

And you can use both in conjunction together as they both have pro's and con's when adding geometric detailing.

Remember there is the potential that the Playstation 5 will have superior geometry performance and thus superior tessellation capabilities depending on the number of geometry/tessellation units in each consoles intrinsic pieces of silicon... But we need more low-level detailing of the chips and Big Navi to really understand if that is the case.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--