The fact that the number is listed as the compressed average for both?
-
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.
Xbox Series X: A Closer Look at the Technology Powering the Next Generation
- Thread starter Deleted member 5028
- Start date
Thats incorrect, those numbers are using the hardware decompression.
That's my point, those numbers are what the decompressors for each console can handle. Those decompressors are specifically designed to handle certain formats, which for XSX is zlib and BCPack, and PS5 is Kraken. The reason XSX's number is so much higher (percentage) is due to BCPack compressing the data further than Kraken.
To put it another way, we know the XSX theoretically maxes out at around 6GB/s on decompression, hence the 4.8GB/s number is not limited by anything other than how compressed the data is. Same with PS5, it theoretically maxes out at 22GB/s, hence the 9GB/s is based on how compressed the data is. Therefore, XSX on average has better compression of data than PS5, and you can see how much better it is looking at the published numbers for compressed data for each SSD.
No those speeds are what the hardware is rated. The compression software is different. Kraken isn't as good with texture data as MS solution. And texture data is what makes the majority of the data to be moved
Bear in mind the PS5's 8-9 GB/s compressed figure was typical bandwidth, not peak. Cerny clarified that peak compressed data transfer is actually over 22 GB/s.
If that were true, neither console would have a separate peak decompression rate (6GB/s for XSX, 22GB/s for PS5).
Edit: BCPack is better with textures, hence why XSX gets a 100% increase on compressed data compared to PS5 only getting a 64% increase. BCPack is the reason why.
Exactly, I added some info about this in my above post.
probably was months of build up on everyone saying it would have lesser tf and everything else. lol ging went in berserk-er barrage mode lmao Wolverine Style and .. died lol
The 22GB/s is from the PS5 deep dive.
I'm not sure what you're saying from that tweet? There's only two options, the 4.8GB/s is a hardware limit (in which case my point is still valid because it wouldn't matter what format is used if it could only decompress 4.8GB/s), or the 4.8GB/s is the average they're expecting based on their chosen compression formats. I know I saw a 6GB/s peak speed for the decompression hardware in the XSX somewhere but I can't find it now unfortunately.
I've been pointing out that you can already see evidence of BCPack being a better choice for texture data because XSX is able to double its throughput with compression vs PS5 only getting a 64% increase. That's pretty awesome, and the files should take up less space on disk as well. I just don't think we should expect higher than MS's published spec numbers based on tweets.
Edit: Found the quote: ""Our second component is a high-speed hardware decompression block that can deliver over 6GB/s," reveals Andrew Goossen. "This is a dedicated silicon block that offloads decompression work from the CPU and is matched to the SSD so that decompression is never a bottleneck. The decompression hardware supports Zlib for general data and a new compression [system] called BCPack that is tailored to the GPU textures that typically comprise the vast majority of a game's package size." That's from Andrew Goossen in the DF interview.
Last edited:
He's just guessing though, he even says he himself doesn't know. Wishful thinking of enthusiasts aside, none of us (outside of developers working on the consoles) really know the specific details of either the PS5 or XSX's full compression specifics, and how they compare to one another. All we have to go by are the compression figures, which presumably are going to be best case scenarios factoring in compression features, because why wouldn't you want to show off a better figure for PR purposes?
On the compression figures at least, XSX has a small advantage on typical (even though the PS5's number is much higher due to the SSD speed advantage). But I don't know how peak theoretical figures compare, as Microsoft just states over 6 GB/s, whilst Sony states 22 GB/s. Obviously based on the latter figure, the PS5 would have the big advantage, but typical bandwidth is realistically more important than theoretical peak anyway.
Also, the 22 GB/s figure.
Last edited:
That 4.8GB/s figure is typical, they say in an interview the peak is over 6GB/s. See the edit on my above post.
Edit: Comparing typical speeds is definitely the way to go, peak speeds would rarely be reached and typical speeds would account for any peak speeds anyway. XSX definitely has a decent advantage here, kudos to MS for including BCPack support.
Last edited:
Yep, I ended up finding it finally through Google, thanks. :)It's in the DF article.
He's an ex dev and texture compression specialist who works with compression SW so at least he knows what he's talking about and making educated guess based in experience and knowledge
To be fair, almost everyone is guessing. It's all anyone can do regardless of what kind of expert they are in the field. Until Microsoft is ready to give devs the tools to use it, we won't know how good anyone's guess is.
I'm pretty happy that both platforms took developer feedback of one of their biggest headaches and are attempting to offer creative solutions to address it. Someone will address it best but the hope is both cleared whatever bar was necessary to eliminate throughput as a bottleneck relative to the rest of the machines.
For some reason I can't convince myself that Lockhart will release. It's going to suck if it does but oh well.
Really don't get how people say it will suck. Lockhart wont hold back next generation. Multiplatform games still have to run on mid tier pc's, most of which dont even have ssd's for games yet, so optimizing for lockheart wont be that much of an issue, especially with its rdna2, ssd, cpu, and ram. It just wont be at 4k.
Last edited:
I don't have any solid background in SSDs, but I am curious as to why MS went with 2.4GB/s for the SSD
They list using a custom PCI-e 4.0 NVMe drive, but PCI-e Gen3 can already push 3.5GB/s (granted these are sequential read speeds and that writes and random reads would be slower) and the current Gen4 drives on the market can aready push 5GB/s. I know there is the whole thing about consistent speeds, temperatures and costs. Gen4 probably also offers other features. And I have no idea how to compression thing factor in all of this.
Can anyone provide some insights?
They list using a custom PCI-e 4.0 NVMe drive, but PCI-e Gen3 can already push 3.5GB/s (granted these are sequential read speeds and that writes and random reads would be slower) and the current Gen4 drives on the market can aready push 5GB/s. I know there is the whole thing about consistent speeds, temperatures and costs. Gen4 probably also offers other features. And I have no idea how to compression thing factor in all of this.
Can anyone provide some insights?
My guess is cost. 1TB NVMe drives that do 5GB/s tend to be a fair bit more expensive. I assume they thought that due to thier focus on game scalability (PC + Xbox dev), they would get far more benefit from a more powerful GPU, and that 2.4GB/s is more than enough bandwidth.
Also, it was smart from a marketing perspective. A more powerful GPU has always meant better looking games, and the entire industry seems to be picking up on that.
It's because of heat. SSD's on PC throttle pretty fast because of temperature. MS wanted the drive to work at a steady pace at all times, so they had to use a lower speed that can be achieved 100% of the time.
Would you say that XSX is more stable overall, and that PS5 isn't as green ?
It can't hold back a generation when TF's don't matter and SSD is the single largest improvement to next gen technology.
Won't reduce the speed gap... it's too reduce the need for speed by allowing ou to cramp more pertinent data into a limited space.
Last edited:
consoles are not PCs. Games will be built from the ground up for Lockhart and everything will be based around that
Consoles are pretty much PCs now. They build the game targeting the highest spec and downgrade from there.
Digital Foundry's look at Doom Eternal talks about the PC settings they turn on and off for each console version.
Doom Eternal analysis: how id Tech 7 pushes current-gen consoles to the limit
Doom 2016 revitalised the fortunes of both id software and the classic Doom franchise, delivering a phenomenal, exhilar…
www.eurogamer.net
" Beyond resolution, settings also differ per platform. The base systems offer detail levels consistent with the PC version set to medium while Xbox One X and PS4 Pro use a mix of high and ultra settings. One of the primary optimisations relates to LOD distance - the point where the game swaps between higher and lower detail models based on distance from the camera. LOD is related to pixel count, so the base consoles routinely use lower detail LODs, but because it's tied to resolution, there's little in the way of noticeable object pop-in - it feels stable on all platforms. Only when you compare the vanilla machines with PS4 Pro or Xbox One X do you notice the difference."
I can't believe for a second that Xbox Game Studios aren't going to be targeting the XSX and scaling down. Microsoft are going to want graphical showcases to show off their new box.
All the MS studios will be pumping out graphical showcases, save for maybe Double Fine. That's not really their thing haha.
I think some saw Hellblade 2 and thought it won't be possible but all the tech shown off from MS means that might be just the start.
This is why I'm very interested to see what sustained throughput looks like on the PS5. Not only for the internal SSD, but for the external drives as well. If Sony isn't requiring external NVME SSDs to have a heatsink it's going to be very interesting to see whether the PS5's cooling solution can allow those drives to run at 5+ GB/s sustained throughput during an entire gaming session.
They always target the higher console. Thats how it works. You target then optimize, then target and optimize again for a other console.
I too am very curious a to how it's possible for PS5 to sustain any kind of peak throughput for long-term use with all the heat that the box will be generating. Heat is the death of electrical components, so Sony must really have something special for cooling.
It would be fairly trivial for either console to have a built-in heatsink for the NVMe drive. But we'll have to wait for a teardown to see what they've done. MS's solution is simpler because they have their external add-on drives that need to generate a small enough amount of heat to not need active cooling, so the assumption could be made their internal drive doesn't need much cooling either.
Edit: On a NVMe drive, the part that needs cooling is mostly the controller. With that being built into the APU on the PS5, there's no reason the PS5's included NVMe drive shouldn't be able to sustain max speeds.
4K vs 1800p requires 44% more pixel pushing power. XSX has a 18% advantage max over PS5 (actually less, that is only shading and RT). So to push 4K vs 1800p PS5 the XSX will actually have to make graphical sacrifices and/or run at worse frame rates than the PS5 version.
Which is why these consoles are the closest ever released - resolutions will largely be identical because the XSX doesn't have enough of a performance advantage to push a jump in resolution over PS5 without other sacrifices.
I was asking around on Twitter, DF folks and other people in the know but got nothing.
The TF difference won't be the main reason for the resolution difference. The real reason for the resolution difference will be the memory bandwidth. So don't be surprised to see some games go even lower than than because of the bandwidth. Depends on the engine and what the game is trying to achieve.
Nah. Adaptive resolution means that they don't have to target 4K in all scenarios or have other graphical sacrifices. It's just that the Xbox will probably have the higher rendering resolution most of the time.
To be honest I hope they all use reconstruction techniques, native 4K is just a waste. Even on my 65" screen I find it very difficult to tell the difference between good reconstruction and native, smaller screens it would be even more difficult.
I think you are missing the whole point of Lockhart. It exists for 1 reason and 1 reason only, to sell more Gamepass subscriptions at a mass market price-point while providing gamers a substantial upgrade over their existing XOne and PS4s.
Graphical prowess is just 20-30% of what Lockhart is about, yes, most 3rd party games will be restricted to 1080p 60 fps/1440p 30 fps mostly with 1st party games will defintely go for 4K CB/Dynamic at 30 fps or 1440p 60 fps albeit with a lower form/no RT.
A 299$ Next gen 4K Advertised box which can play your ENTIRE Xbox library with Halo Infinite/ FM8 and Hellblade 2/Fable in the first 18 months is a KILLER Proposition. I can imagine quite a few people stuck on Xbox One/360/PS3/PS4s would look at this and think..hmm, sure is cheap and EVERY SINGLE HW ELEMENT in the box is a big upgrade over my Xbox One/PS4/PS3/360.
EVEN if it holds back XSX, Lockhart is the box that is going to sell 2-3x more consoles/GP Subscriptions than XSX, a few pixel-peeping DF videos regarding a slightly stronger PS5/XSX won't really matter in the bigger scheme of things.