By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Xbox Series Velocity Architecture detailed

shikamaru317 said:
hinch said:

2-3x bandwidth. So lets say 2.5x multiplied effect of an average of the 2.5Gb/s SSD. We're looking at around 6Gb/s I/O. Pretty nice stuff.

Looking forward to seeing Direct Storage for PC.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me like MS is claiming:

  • 2.4 GB/s (base SSD speed) x 2 (decompression)= 4.8 GB/s
  • 2.5x effective I/O increase (Sampler Feedback Streaming)= 12 GB/s

By comparison, Sony is claiming:

  • 5.5 GB/s (base SSD speed)
  • 8-9 GB/s decompression speed (PS5 has dedicated decompression hardware, same as XSX, so that CPU resources aren't wasted on decompression, though it seems like their decompression multiplier is less than the 2x that MS is claiming for XSX)

If the above is true, MS will have the advantage on texture streaming, assuming of course that Sampler Feedback Streaming works as advertised, and assuming that Sony doesn't have a similar technique in the works for only loading partial mipmaps into the RAM at just the right time. However, even if SFS works as advertised, it will only help with texture streaming, it won't help with load times. Sony will still have the load time advantage since their SSD is faster and they also have dedicated decompression hardware, PS5 will be able to load games at 8-9 GB/s, compared to 4.8 GB/s for XSX.

Nah I don't think so. On the Microsoft's website they explain the effect from raw throughput which is 2.4 GB/s.

This innovation results in approximately 2.5x the effective I/O throughput and memory usage above and beyond the raw hardware capabilities on average. SFS provides an effective multiplier on available system memory and I/O bandwidth, resulting in significantly more memory and I/O throughput available to make your game richer and more immersive.

Found a explanation from Gaf from a member 'Ascend'

"It's not unknown. We have 2.4 GB/s raw, and 4.8 GB/s compressed. On top of that, you have this multiplier. So in practice, you would be getting 12GB/s equivalent throughput of doing things raw. I made a post about this quite a while back.

Edit: After reading through the link on MS website, it seems that it is above the raw throughput, not the compressed throughput. So the 12GB/s is incorrect, and it is indeedn 2.4 GB/s * 2.5, which gives you 6GB/s. Still fine. I guess I over-speculated about a few things back then ^_^

Edit2: Hm... I'm doubtful again.

This innovation results in approximately 2.5x the effective I/O throughput and memory usage above and beyond the raw hardware capabilities on average.Must we interpret that as 2.5x above the 2.5GB/s, or, 2.5x above the 4.8GB/s, because, the compression is also hardware, so that means it should be 2.5x above 4.8GB/s. The word 'raw' can be interpreted to mean all hardware, or specifically the raw throughput of the I/O."



Around the Network
hinch said:
shikamaru317 said:

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me like MS is claiming:

  • 2.4 GB/s (base SSD speed) x 2 (decompression)= 4.8 GB/s
  • 2.5x effective I/O increase (Sampler Feedback Streaming)= 12 GB/s

By comparison, Sony is claiming:

  • 5.5 GB/s (base SSD speed)
  • 8-9 GB/s decompression speed (PS5 has dedicated decompression hardware, same as XSX, so that CPU resources aren't wasted on decompression, though it seems like their decompression multiplier is less than the 2x that MS is claiming for XSX)

If the above is true, MS will have the advantage on texture streaming, assuming of course that Sampler Feedback Streaming works as advertised, and assuming that Sony doesn't have a similar technique in the works for only loading partial mipmaps into the RAM at just the right time. However, even if SFS works as advertised, it will only help with texture streaming, it won't help with load times. Sony will still have the load time advantage since their SSD is faster and they also have dedicated decompression hardware, PS5 will be able to load games at 8-9 GB/s, compared to 4.8 GB/s for XSX.

Nah I don't think so. On the Microsoft's website they explain the effect from raw throughput which is 2.4 GB/s.

This innovation results in approximately 2.5x the effective I/O throughput and memory usage above and beyond the raw hardware capabilities on average. SFS provides an effective multiplier on available system memory and I/O bandwidth, resulting in significantly more memory and I/O throughput available to make your game richer and more immersive.

Found a explanation from Gaf from a member 'Ascend'

"It's not unknown. We have 2.4 GB/s raw, and 4.8 GB/s compressed. On top of that, you have this multiplier. So in practice, you would be getting 12GB/s equivalent throughput of doing things raw. I made a post about this quite a while back.

Edit: After reading through the link on MS website, it seems that it is above the raw throughput, not the compressed throughput. So the 12GB/s is incorrect, and it is indeedn 2.4 GB/s * 2.5, which gives you 6GB/s. Still fine. I guess I over-speculated about a few things back then ^_^

Edit2: Hm... I'm doubtful again.

This innovation results in approximately 2.5x the effective I/O throughput and memory usage above and beyond the raw hardware capabilities on average.Must we interpret that as 2.5x above the 2.5GB/s, or, 2.5x above the 4.8GB/s, because, the compression is also hardware, so that means it should be 2.5x above 4.8GB/s. The word 'raw' can be interpreted to mean all hardware, or specifically the raw throughput of the I/O."

So if the decompression tech on XSX can only be used for reducing load times and not for texture streaming, I would assume the same is also true for PS5, it also won't be able to use it's decompression tech to further increase the speed of texture streaming. In which case we would have 2.4 GB/s x 2.5 (SFS)= 6 GB/s for texture streaming on XSX, compared to 5.5 GB/s for texture streaming on PS5 (assuming for course that Sony hasn't came up with a similar technique to SFS, which they might have).

Either way, it's looking like both are going to be capable of truly impressive texture streaming. PS5 will for sure have an edge on load times since it's SSD is so fast, but we're still looking at a massive load time decrease over current gen on XSX.



shikamaru317 said:

So if the decompression tech on XSX can only be used for reducing load times and not for texture streaming, I would assume the same is also true for PS5, it also won't be able to use it's decompression tech to further increase the speed of texture streaming. In which case we would have 2.4 GB/s x 2.5 (SFS)= 6 GB/s for texture streaming on XSX, compared to 5.5 GB/s for texture streaming on PS5 (assuming for course that Sony hasn't came up with a similar technique to SFS, which they might have).

Either way, it's looking like both are going to be capable of truly impressive texture streaming. PS5 will for sure have an edge on load times since it's SSD is so fast, but we're still looking at a massive load time decrease over current gen on XSX.

For sure will be a huge boost from last gen.

Pretty exciting tech all around and games in 9th gen will definitely benefit from considerably higher I/O. Higher quality textures, assets and vastly improved load times. With machine learning it can go even further.



shikamaru317 said:
hinch said:

2-3x bandwidth. So lets say 2.5x multiplied effect of an average of the 2.5Gb/s SSD. We're looking at around 6Gb/s I/O. Pretty nice stuff.

Looking forward to seeing Direct Storage for PC.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me like MS is claiming:

  • 2.4 GB/s (base SSD speed) x 2 (decompression)= 4.8 GB/s
  • 2.5x effective I/O increase for textures (Sampler Feedback Streaming)= 12 GB/s

By comparison, Sony is claiming:

  • 5.5 GB/s (base SSD speed)
  • 8-9 GB/s decompression speed (PS5 has dedicated decompression hardware, same as XSX, so that CPU resources aren't wasted on decompression, though it seems like their decompression multiplier is less than the 2x that MS is claiming for XSX)

If the above is true, MS will have the advantage on texture streaming, assuming of course that Sampler Feedback Streaming works as advertised, and assuming that Sony doesn't have a similar technique in the works for only loading partial mipmaps into the RAM at just the right time (which they might). However, even if SFS works as advertised, it will only help with texture streaming, it won't help with load times. Sony will still have the load time advantage since their SSD is faster and they also have dedicated decompression hardware, PS5 will be able to load compressed game data from the drive at 8-9 GB/s, compared to 4.8 GB/s for XSX.

I don't think you should be multiplying both even more expecting 500% real world performance of that. First texture isn't the only thing that is being streammed, second those two multipliers would probably be best case scenarios. It is more probable that it is 2x higher due to compression for some files and reaching 2.5 for texture.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Anyone know the difference between Partially Resident Textures and Sampler Feedback Streaming?

PlayStation Shader Language already supports Partially Resident Textures, which I from what I understand, is very similar to what Xbox is doing with SFS.



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

Around the Network
KBG29 said:
Anyone know the difference between Partially Resident Textures and Sampler Feedback Streaming?

PlayStation Shader Language already supports Partially Resident Textures, which I from what I understand, is very similar to what Xbox is doing with SFS.

According to Microsoft's document on SFS, SFS and PRT are the same thing. PRT was created about a decade ago by id's John Carmack, but was pretty much only used in their 2011 game Rage from what I'm reading. It works by breaking down a scene into tiles, and then the texture quality needed for each tile is determined by the distance from the player to the tile, so that for each tile, you only need to have a single texture loaded into the RAM, instead of having all possible texture resolutions for the entire scene loaded into the RAM at once, so that they can be accessed as the player moves through the world and texture quality settings change based on distance.

The main difference seems to be that Rage's implementation of PRT used CPU resources to decide which tiles need which texture resolutions, sapping a good bit of CPU power. This article from Microsoft seems to suggest that Series X has dedicated hardware for SFS built into the GPU, freeing up CPU resources. Not sure if PS5's GPU will have similar functionality, or if devs on PS5 will need to use CPU resources for PRT.



Hmm, would like a bit more information and to see it at work.



shikamaru317 said:
KBG29 said:
Anyone know the difference between Partially Resident Textures and Sampler Feedback Streaming?

PlayStation Shader Language already supports Partially Resident Textures, which I from what I understand, is very similar to what Xbox is doing with SFS.

According to Microsoft's document on SFS, SFS and PRT are the same thing. PRT was created about a decade ago by id's John Carmack, but was pretty much only used in their 2011 game Rage from what I'm reading. It works by breaking down a scene into tiles, and then the texture quality needed for each tile is determined by the distance from the player to the tile, so that for each tile, you only need to have a single texture loaded into the RAM, instead of having all possible texture resolutions for the entire scene loaded into the RAM at once, so that they can be accessed as the player moves through the world and texture quality settings change based on distance.

The main difference seems to be that Rage's implementation of PRT used CPU resources to decide which tiles need which texture resolutions, sapping a good bit of CPU power. This article from Microsoft seems to suggest that Series X has dedicated hardware for SFS built into the GPU, freeing up CPU resources. Not sure if PS5's GPU will have similar functionality, or if devs on PS5 will need to use CPU resources for PRT.

Very nice. Thanks for the detailed reply.

It will be interesting to see how Sony has handled this vs how Microsoft has. PSSL has had PRT since 2014, so I would have to believe Sony has been optimizing it through the years. We will have to see if any of the fixed function additions to the I/O or GPU in the PS5 will help accelerate this process, as it appears Microsoft has done with the XBS.

At any rate, both of these consoles are going to do some amazing things with storage and I/O, the likes we have never seen in the console space. Should offer devs a chance to really showcase their vision this generation!



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

Good read, nice to see things are efficient. “Greater then the sum of its parts” and what not



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.