Gotcha, I assumed that famous gif was it in action.
Well it couldn't be because the PS4 doesn't have an SSD, and even if it did, it's bottlenecked by (oh man this is going to really annoy me again now that I'm thinking about it) SATA freaking 2. Because I guess SATA 3 costs too much. I dunno lol.
But yeah that gif is what the GPU is rendering at a given time. The CPU is keeping track of where everything is still and the data is still there to access. I mean, that's what RAM is for. Random Access Memory. So the CPU can just pull that info from the RAM and throw it to the GPU to render in real time.
With SSDs, like the other poster said, you're no longer limited by what you can hold in your 8, well now 16GB. Or well, like 6 and now 13. So now not only will that info be rendered as needed, but it won't even all have to be in the RAM all at one time, meaning scenes can be wayyyyyyyyy more complex because now I mean like, basically the whole SSD is your console's oyster, lol.
Just want to highlight this part, and I guess you touched upon it, with MS being cautiously quiet, perhaps it's due to not giving away their competitive edge here, but MS have thier custom implementation of BCPack which is supposed to be even more impressive then Kraken, this seems to be lost with the current narrative amongst a lot of other things.
Yeah see I just completely have not heard of that.
I think both companies should have come out with a nice little blog posts with a link to a video, instead of a livestream. So both cover what they can do, but also hype up their fanbase or whatever. I dunno. I liked Cerny's talk so I just want more of those.
Ms changed the design of the console in order to make room for the thermal envolope of running a fairly large chip at high frequencies. Sony brute force the clocks on a small chip to the point throttling is needed because if they were if a fixed (and lower) clock solution the size of their chip would be a big performance delta. Let's not forget that even so there will be a performance delta as SX has a gpu, cpu and bandwidth advantage.
ehhhhh I feel like calling lowering clock speeds "brute forcing" a bit of a stretch.
Brute forcing means doing the simple, powerful solution to complete a task, when another solution could do the same job with less power or energy. So in other words, more efficiently. I guess in a certain perspective you could say Sony is brute forcing Sata speeds, but I mean, idk I feel like it's more appropriate to say Microsoft is trying to find ways to shortcut.
I feel like typically people use the phrase "brute force" to imply doing something inefficiently with lots of power. Having a fast drive with a few bottlenecks as possible...isn't really being inefficient. It's just, the normal way of doing it. By contrast look at the raytracing hardware in xbox. Microsoft said it's basically the equivalent of 13 teraflops of power, just as one chip, to just handle the raytracing. That's if you bruteforced it. Key point here, is you would be bruteforcing it because it's hardware not built for raytracing, so trying to do what something else built for it can do, but less efficiently, would be brute forcing. Note that the raytracing hardware can do exactly what the 13tflops could do. Exactly. The 13tflops isn't more powerful. It's the same, but less efficient. That's the key point here.
Like, what you're saying is kinda like saying Sony is brute forcing their 16GB of ram, where microsoft isn't. But that just isn't true. Sony's single 16GB pool of fast ram is faster than Microsoft's. Microsoft's split pool is not necessarily more efficient. It is physically just less powerful. Being more powerful isn't brute forcing.
Likewise Sony's drive is just more powerful. It is not brute forcing anything. It physically is more capable than Microsoft's drive. If Microsoft's drive did everything Sony's did, but Sony's used more power and was supposedly faster despite similar work, then that would be brute forcing.
Brute forcing is about inefficiently doing the same work as something more efficient with less cost. Something being more powerful to make up for something else being less powerful is not brute forcing. In fact that's...literally what efficiency
is.
Imagine a racetrack down a winding road like Fujimi Kaido. A fast car goes down the road quickly. A faster car goes down it more quickly. You might go faster than the faster car if you clip a few corners, (or with electronics, cut out some work you can get away with). You're more limited and might still lose the longer stretches when they happen, but that might be okay for your purposes and your balancing act. A brute force approach just barrels down the hill, ignoring the roads, and crashing through trees. Like a tank. Really powerful, not very efficient, but it gets there around the same time as the fast car going down the road normally.
So I feel like right now you're calling the car that is faster than a slower car that clips some corners, "brute forcing." And that's just not accurate I feel. Brute forcing means expending something inefficiently when you could do something smarter. Just having faster hardware do something to help something else is the literal opposite of that.
Cerny said they literally can't go any higher than 2.23 GHz because the chip literally stops working. How is that elegant in any meaning of the word?
A crescent wrench can only go so big, but it's more elegant than a hammer. Designing exactly what you need to within the costs you have is like, the definition of elegant. You have to look at the big picture. Sony's design probably could work for a bigger machine. But they designed it how a machine that costs as much as it does would work if you took the approach they chose.
Also, where are you getting the "literally stops working." Just curious.
