The IO speeds of the consoles doesnt effect frame rates. (thats basically a stupid question)
*(unless you try to load more, than the IO speeds can keep upwith)

That comes down to the CPU & GPU.

The IO speeds of the Playstation 5, is more about whats possible to be shown on screen (complexity of textures) and the stress that puts on the IO & Drive. The speeds of the SSD allows for higher quality assets to be loaded, and streamed in as your moveing around ingame.
This would be a limiting factor on the PS4 or XB1, and wont be on the Playstation 5.

higher FPS with the same quality assets has a higher strain on system memory doesn't it?

Tried to keep it as simple as possible.

In the Playstation 5's case... If we were to assume the OS/Background stayed static at 2.5GB of memory consumption it could have 13.5Gb of data and being topped up with 165GB of data over 30 seconds... This is why it's such a huge selling point over mechanical drives... Because right now games are "guessing" data 30 seconds ahead of time out of need.

It's all about the water in/water out.

Difficult to quantify as other assets need to be loaded into memory like game code, meshes, sound bytes and so forth... And then you have various compression algorithms with different degrees of compression ratios. (Plus lossless and lossy compression algorithms)

And of course... Asset streaming.

My suggestion for you is to recognize the ram pool, it's bandwidth and the I/O speed as separate constructs that can feed into each other rather than try and formulate a number to apply a label to it all as different developers and different games will all use them differently.

It doesn't affect total framerates. The limiting factor to framerates is not I/O.

It will ensure more consistent frame-rates however as there won't be "hitches" as data/cells gets loaded into memory.

Yes, loading 16GB/s into ram would leave room for other tasks.

Sometimes. Games aren't a binary load... Depends on where the bottleneck lays.

Essentially a higher framerate will demand/require more bandwidth due to things like bandwidth heavy alpha effects rather than an increase in memory consumption itself.

@Pemalite is that why that so called 100GBs asset streaming is possible?

You don't know that, I don't follow this stuff anymore, but I seen some speculation from very knowledgeable people that the reason UE5 demo was at 30fps is because of the SSD, simply not fast enough.

That's not really how GPUs work.

First of all, how much can be rendered in any given second is up to the GPU performance and the graphics memory bandwidth, as well as the CPU and its cache. So has absolutely nothing to do with the slowest storage in the system, the SSD. The SSD is just there to quickly refill the faster memory with new assets that haven't been previously needed.

It's also very much dependent on the resolution. The GPU takes all the data from the CPU and constructs a flat image consisting of pixels from it. To produce many pixels at a high refresh rate and to render with high polygon models you need a fast GPU and to use very high detail textures you need a lot of memory to store them in. The speed of the graphics memory(GDDR) is also important as it needs to provide the GPU with lots of high detail textures fast.

"Detail" is not a great way to quantify performance as there are huge differences between many forms of "detail" in games. For example: detailed textures are mostly dependent on the size of the graphics memory and its speed because highly detailed textures can be quite huge and are the main reason why games have blown up so much in size. Detailed models i.e. high polygon count is mostly dependent on GPU (and CPU) performance because it takes a lot of time to calculate how the models look when you rotate them i.e. when you move around in the world. Detailed particle effects and fluid simulations are very much CPU dependent (but can also be offloaded to GPU), because of the huge calculations and number of particles moving around at the same time. Then there is high detail in the distance (draw distance) which is a mixture of everything.

So you can't just look at one part of the console and extrapolate power. The new consoles are vastly superior in every single area and each area compliments another. So you'll see vast improvements in all kinds of "details" and in the end it's up to the developer which kind they would like to focus on, the more different kind of details they want to improve, the more taxing it'll become to the whole system. So you'll see a wide range of different performance across many games.

so if i follow the reasoning of this thread its because or the CPU or GPU had a reached a limit most likely?

SSDs are too slow to matter in the context of a single frame. The PS4, for example, can pull about 3 gigabytes in the timespan of a single frame (176 GB/s RAM compared to 5GB/s PS5 SSD). If you recall how during the PS1/PS2 days, the disc would not always be spinning, it's because only at certain points in the game does data need to be read from the disc (or HDD in PS4s case / SSD in PS5).

The SSD is not likely to make an impact when it comes to visuals. It can allow game assets that are stored in RAM that are no longer needed to be swapped out for assets at a much faster rate, but that's generally not a bottleneck, and the only times you would notice it is occasionally in open world games or some poorly optimized racing games when you are going too fast and the world pauses for a second to load in the surrounding area.

System memory (bandwidth) is much faster than the speed of SSDs (448 GB/s vs 9 GB/s (ssd)).
So the first issue with loading all these big detailed textures is actually the hard drives (SSDs and their IOs).

FPS is just a matter of how fast your GPU can render the geometry on the screen.
The higher the resolution the more demanding.

But what we re talking about, is the stuff that happend BEFORE the gpu renders a scene.


The quality the assets are loaded with doesnt nessarily strain the memory more than ones that arnt super detailed.
However starting with higher quality assets, does have visual benefits.
Its part of why the UE demo was so impressive visually.

I'd say that probably has more to do with the CPU/GPU part than anything else.
Loading textures in, as a exsample, shouldnt effect what speed a certain frame is shown on screen for.