-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Tom Warren: Developers are saying CPU and SSD are key to next gen, not teraflops, Lockhart won't hold back games
- Thread starter Neat
- Start date
No it wouldn't. I don't know where people got that idea from. SSDs are already quite common and they gain more traction every year. https://www.statista.com/statistics/285474/hdds-and-ssds-in-pcs-global-shipments-2012-2017/
Anyone, even 10 year old computers, can upgrade to a SSD very easily and with under $100 for a 1 TB SSD it's also a cheap upgrade compared to RAM.
It won't take long for the SSD to be a minimum requirement. Those ancient HDDs shouldn't hold back game development for much longer.
Games made from the ground up for next generation will likely have storage speed requirements, for example:
Minimum: SATA SSD
Recommended : NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD
Ideal: NVMe PCIe Gen 4 SSD
Last edited:
Lower bandwidth on the 10GB of GPU-oriented memory and a smaller/less expensive cooling solution. The little things add up.
I guess it will be kinda like a Switch situation, just with two separate hardware models instead of one that adjusts its power level on the fly. Same CPU speed in both situations, but lower-specced GPU and RAM. And maybe a smaller (but not slower) SSD, though 1TB is already pushing it with today's game sizes, so that probably wouldn't be a good idea.
How does SSD = 60fps? we really don't need to go back to 2010 where people had to explain SSD doesn't grant a performance increase.
Also yeah i still think Lockhart's GPU will hold back games, especially when it comes to ray tracing, you need a ton of compute for that & seeing how Metro Exodus/Control run as current gen games on high end hardware, next gen visuals plus RT sounds a bit much for a 4TF RDNA gpu.
Also yeah i still think Lockhart's GPU will hold back games, especially when it comes to ray tracing, you need a ton of compute for that & seeing how Metro Exodus/Control run as current gen games on high end hardware, next gen visuals plus RT sounds a bit much for a 4TF RDNA gpu.
I think the CPUs in next-gen consoles are far, far better than the current ones.
It's meant to have slightly less RAM (12GB) in line with the lower targets, and I'm guessing it'll come with a 500GB SSD - which won't be unmanageable when you have lower texture resolution and can extend it or plug in a USB drive for swapping games into the fast drive.
Last edited:
I believe he's only echoing what was said in the WindowsCentral article yesterday by developers about the CPU+SSD.
I think the commentary in that tweet you quoted and also on Lockhart is his own, not 'developers are saying this'. The thread title could have been clearer - as is, it can be read as 'developers' are saying all these things, which isn't what's being said in that tweet.
But on that, of course that teraflop difference will show up in resolution. On Lockhart, and what developers are actually saying about that, I'd wait and see. To be honest at this point I don't think anyone can be too absolute or general about what difference Lockhart will or won't make vs if XSX stood alone, because I think the difference it makes will vary from developer to developer. Maybe a consensus will emerge over time.
If most PC gamers have SSD's I'm surprised, because Steam surveys always show that most people have low end machines.
If a game is designed in a way that a shitload of new assets and textures need to get in and out in the ram in a fast way, you would need faster storage to full it. Or else you get bottlenecked and lose performance.
X's NVME is already comparable to a DRAM less PCIE 3.0 NVME, the compression tech makes it seem faster than it actually is.
And most people won't be able to get the full experience on their machines, like it happens now.
Why would it hold back games because of RT? The devs can easily just scale it back or turn it off entirely to save resources on the lower-spec model. It's not like RT is an essential thing you have to design your game around. Also, just targetting 1080p instead of 4K already saves quite a bit of resources.
Context. He says lockhart won't restrict next gen game design, because CPU and SSD are important for that. Earlier he said GPU will make a difference for graphics (RT, ...).
For the vast majority of the games, I agree.
But what about games that use the GPU for non graphic things like physics. For example, you can use ray tracing to calculate collisions. In those cases having a less capable GPU will have a direct impact on the game design.
But what about games that use the GPU for non graphic things like physics. For example, you can use ray tracing to calculate collisions. In those cases having a less capable GPU will have a direct impact on the game design.
And those people are not playing high end games.
Most people wont be having next-gen consoles either, but it doesnt change the development of games on those machines.
Last I heard, the S is 4 floppers vs the X's 12.
A third.
He may be right about CPU SSD being key and more important, but I don't know about that huge of a difference in the GPU department not undermining certain aspirations.
Or I don't know, S might manage low settings 1080p@30fps without having to "optimize" details related to game design for those kinds of games?
A third.
He may be right about CPU SSD being key and more important, but I don't know about that huge of a difference in the GPU department not undermining certain aspirations.
Or I don't know, S might manage low settings 1080p@30fps without having to "optimize" details related to game design for those kinds of games?
Last edited:
The slip he's doing from "devs are enthusiasts for ssd/cpu" to "Lockhart is a panacea" is somewhat problematic.
After the reveal we'll see reactions, and also if the first batch of consoles exclusives could illustrate a difference.
Because for now between abstract skepticism and deaf positivism, lines haven't move for weeks.
And there is also the financial aspect, maintaining two distinct software branch separated by such a power gap on the same platform for the same game isn't costless or effortless as a simple recompiling or dragging sliders down.
After the reveal we'll see reactions, and also if the first batch of consoles exclusives could illustrate a difference.
Because for now between abstract skepticism and deaf positivism, lines haven't move for weeks.
And there is also the financial aspect, maintaining two distinct software branch separated by such a power gap on the same platform for the same game isn't costless or effortless as a simple recompiling or dragging sliders down.
Different architecture. XsS GPU is significantly faster than PS4 Pro.
Its something that is realy clear, essentially since the beginning of this generation developers have been anoyed by the cpus and complained about it.
Were in a area, where lowering the resolution makes the game still playable and good looking, so scaling the gpu is way simpler.
And ssds were the biggest change in the computing space in the last decade, so that it now got cheap enough that developer can actually plan around it, and its not just a benefit with loading times for levels, is huge.
Were in a area, where lowering the resolution makes the game still playable and good looking, so scaling the gpu is way simpler.
And ssds were the biggest change in the computing space in the last decade, so that it now got cheap enough that developer can actually plan around it, and its not just a benefit with loading times for levels, is huge.
That is true, but since the compressed speed is 4.8 GB/s and HW-decompression on PC doesn't exist, you will likely have to buy a PCIe Gen 4 compatible motherboard with chipset and a Gen 4 SSD to match XSX streaming speed.
However, of course because marketshare for Gen4 SSDs and compatible hardware are non existent, that is a very expensive and complicated upgrade for the mainstream, so I guess a PCIe Gen 4 NVMe SSD would be part of the ideal, high end specs. Data-streaming via DirectStorage should scale down very well to PCIe Gen 3 NVME SSDs and could be part of the recommended specs. Devs could also scale down to SATA SSDs, I assume, so that could be the minimum requirement in the future because as I said that's a very easy upgrade for many and it's already common today. However, HDDs won't be part of that future, it's just not possible to scale down that much when a game is required instant access speeds and much higher bandwidth from the storage.
Because they've never dabbled with PC gaming where such things become obvious after a short while.
The same reason any program becomes slower if its data needs are not met by the machine's throughput.
If we move to a situation where games use more data in a given window than before, then short of commensurate RAM increases, you'll need speedy storage to let you juggle that needed data in and out.
Last gen games on consoles would use maybe 5GB of very slow churning data. That was their data requirement.
What will next gen games need?
Assuming we crop off a little SSD bandwidth for the OS, and we use maybe 1.5x data compression, XSX's SSD will let it 'touch' 16-17GBs of data in a second, depending on how much 'dynamic' data is involved in a game, on a base of 13.5GB of physical RAM. PS5's SSD will let it touch 21GBs of data in a second under the same assumptions. Over longer timeframes than a second, the amount of data 'you would otherwise need RAM for' grows further vs the situation last gen.
In other usage patterns, the analog with RAM could be even more extreme. (None of these analogs are perfect, one-size-fits-all...)
In other words, the SSDs will let the systems juggle and use more data than RAM would otherwise allow. If games tried to reach those usage levels without that ability, their framerate would tank, for the same reason it would if you try to run a game that needs 16GB of RAM on a 8GB machine or whatever.
Third party games will do that anyway, no way games will have 2.5 gb/s SSDs with sustained bandwidth as a requirement soon.
RAM and the SSD's speed? If the games could utilize lower resolution textures then couldn't both be cut back to some degree?
Basically. It is fun how depending which piece of hardware we are talking the difference is not going to matter or is noticeable. Interesting wording
A separate SKU for a 100 USD gap seems like overkill to me but I don't see Lockhart being 299 USD either. Hard to believe that anyone would go with 599 USD again though. The price reveals will be very interesting to say the least.
So I guess you are also one that believes a Pentium 3 at 3ghz is as fast as a core i7 at 3ghz in Single thread perf?
If any dev wanted to design their lighting purely around a ray traced solution, lockhart is going to make it difficult.
Man I've no idea how a developer would reach the max capacity of the ssd speed from the ps5 and xsx. Probably when you fly with a jet fighter super fast, low over the world map of GTA 6 and it needs to load in new assets and textures on the ground in the highest quality everytime.
You can have 20TF machine, but with slow-ass HDD, your game will have to take this into consideration. With everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, having SSD, you can design the game around it. Something, currently not common and only next-gen consoles will bring SSD to the masses.
Having Lockhart available at launch could be incredible for MS and even bring them back to the 360 era glory days, but only if they do it right!
Games on Lockhart can not look any worse compared to SX as Xbox One games do compared to 1X. If things like ray tracing are much worse or there's noticeably less foliage on Lockhart then it will look terrible in the public eye and will fail. The only major differences should be in resolution and frame rate.
I'm not an expert and have no idea if that can be done, but if it can and Lockhart costs at least $150 less than SX and PS5 tons of people will buy it.
Games on Lockhart can not look any worse compared to SX as Xbox One games do compared to 1X. If things like ray tracing are much worse or there's noticeably less foliage on Lockhart then it will look terrible in the public eye and will fail. The only major differences should be in resolution and frame rate.
I'm not an expert and have no idea if that can be done, but if it can and Lockhart costs at least $150 less than SX and PS5 tons of people will buy it.
This. Even the Xbox One X with it's 6TF GPU is bottlenecked by an ancient processor. Better storage and CPU solutions are what's going to make the difference this generation, not necessarily #MoreTeraFlops, at least not in isolation. This is why I don't understand the FUD surrounding Lockhart's rumoured 4TF. If the rest of the system is more inline with next generation consoles, then it'll be the ideal machine for 1080p60 next generation gaming.
GPU, less cooling, cheaper PSU, maybe less ram? It all adds up.
Not for sale they wont on Microsoft side, they are likely not making anymore. They seem to be clearing all stock and moving onto next gen full production.
Jaguar cores are hot notebook garbage. That's why game like Control or Just Cause ran horribly on current gen consoles: they heavily rely on physics, the jaguar cores can't keep up.
That's why switching to Zen cores is a giant leap forward.
Lockhart seems like a system purpose-built to prevent having to keep the One around "for two years at least."
Don't confuse games being cross-gen with old consoles continuing to be actively marketed. The Xbox One hardware is donezo.