We've heard a lot about the PlayStation 5's magical SSD architecture, which is supposed to usher in an era of lightning-quick loading times and streaming speeds that are unheard of, even in the PC world.
“It’s unclear whether this feature is exclusive to NVIDIA’s new GeForce RTX 30 Series, or if it will be available for Turing-based GPUs as well.“ Every single PS5 will have a 5.5 GB/s SSD whereas PC owners SSD speeds will vary. So PS5 will still benefit.
Nvidia updated their article later. RTX IO is coming to Turing-based GPUs as well.
It's not bringing anything from PS5. It's using Microsoft's Direct Storage. The fact that Sony marketed their SSD so hard doesn't mean nVidia got inspired by it. MS did it for XSX and PCs thinking of the next generation.
@Marquinho, but I didn't mention anything related to the PS5.
Yeah... I was referring to the article title.
I think Nvidia is using the (mostly) software based approach that Microsoft touted. Not as sophisticated as what's in PS5 but a step in the right direction. It's also going to need to take compute away from the GPU, unlike the ps5, which could make it perform worse in heavy streaming situations.
Thats cool but it wont be nearly as beneficial on PCI 3.0 as it will be on 4.0.
It's still not as fast as the PS5. They admitted as much. In the end it comes down to the 12 channels on the controller. But next year let's revisit this when the you can actually buy one of the new SSDs.
Your correct, some may have slower SSD's, some may have faster SSD's.
Either you buy a GPU the same cost as a PS5 or you buy an SSD that is maybe half the price Consoles will always be good for younger gamers and those not wanting to enter high end pc market.
@Rimeskeem buying a GPU that costs the same as PS5 is lower class in the pc race, as the master race motto says: go broke or go home
@Rimeskeem I'm a 40 year+ old game designer with family and I simply have no desire to play on PC because I see it as possible waste of time for me. Number of issues I've had with pc gaming in my career has absolutely killed it for me. I play exclusively on PS and work on PC, playing only the game we're making. I see this trend a lot among my friends and I also have seen pretty recent demographic data. Most gamers at my age are clearly choosing consoles because of convenience.
@Rimeskeem: I just want to correct you because you seem to lack knowledge. I have a PS4 Pro, I am 44 with an infant and a 2.5 year old kid. I also own a killer PC. The reason people buy a console is variable, also, the majority of Sony consoles are owned by a 30+ crowd. Why? Exclusive games, less trouble overall, sofa gaming, big screen tv gaming, living room gaming, etc. Also, the PS4 Pro (and Xbox) have "good enough" graphics that most people can't tell the difference anyways. There isn't a huge difference between ACOdyssey on the PS4 Pro and my PC for example, that is actually noticeable when you are playing.
@boing1 - I hear you, I bounce around a bit, but love the convenience of console gaming. But the 3000 series coming out at this time with SO much power at a great price point... hard to resist the temptation of seeing my multiplats and VR games torqued out to ultra all the way and still getting a high framerate...
***Consoles will always be good for younger gamers and those not wanting to enter high end pc market.*** Laughable considering the mass majority of the PC market play on hardware no better than current gen consoles. You're acting like the <10% of PC gamers are the norm. That's like saying every Xbox owner plays on Xbox One X.
Rimeskeem makes a good point but I think he was misunderstood. There are plenty of reasons why consoles are beneficial and would be chosen over a PC. Price, ease of use - plug and play, lack of maintenance, size, portability, though a lot of these have been handled fairly well by PC. If you are older and have moved on from PC for whatever reason you fall into his second category. The article indicates we will have more devs working on the same tech and have exposure to more games utilizing the tech is really the bottom line.
@cornelis No the huge step in gaming is amd hardware is behind 50% again like how i predicted months ago. This is what i said 99 days ago i under estimated lol No Nvidia already said they are putting in twice the tensor cores that are used for raytracing so the next gen gaming gpus can run this easy and at a higher framerate than that 30 fps the PS5 demo is running at. Ray tracing will run at 60+ fps on the 3000 series and with better graphics since Nvidia is just better than amd we are looking at a 40 percent in graphics performance when the 3000 series launches. 99d ago 0 agree1 disagree
All I'm picturing is a superman game or even a flash game.
All I'm picturing is an empty wallet and wondering why I didn't buy a new TV, PS5 and a bunch of awesome exclusive games instead lol
Samsung already announced a new SDD that's faster then the one in the PS5... will even be released before the PS5.
this has little to do with the ssd in your pc. its going to be handled by the gpu which should be just as fast if not faster than the ssd in the ps5. it should also minimize latency. this is all in theory though so everybody should wait for benchmarks. none of this matters though. games make or break a console, not its power or speed.
People are really over-estimating the benefits of fast SSD. I agree that fast SSD is good and is useful for gaming... It will make levels larger and allow things like loading in different environments quicker as witnessed with R&C Rift Apart. But, SSD is still not in the same ball park as RAM memory speeds (448 GB/s on PS5) so they are still a long way from really providing what is needed for games long term. Making a sloth move 5 or 10 times faster is a benefit. But, it still isn't comparable to a Cheetah.
@corneliis RAM is used to compute and process the game engine. The more RAM you have the smart AI can be, the more complex a game, and the more interactive a game can be. The only thing SSD storage provides is the initial loading of the game engine and the game environment. If SSD was as fast as RAM it could do a lot more and games could be infinitely complex and interactive. But, since SSD is so slow compared to RAM it is narrowed to just a few functions.
@Neogamer You're wrong. The super fast SSD's aren't only responsible for initial loading. They're responsible for loading data into RAM on the fly, which is one of the reasons they state they don't need more than 16gb. They can fill up ram in 2 seconds, meaning the can stream data to RAM as needed, not only initially but constantly.
@BrettAwesome Yes, I did say, "different environments quicker as witnessed with R&C Rift Apart" which equates to loading data in on the fly. But, there are limitations because SSD is nowhere as quick as RAM. If SSDs were in the same ballpark as RAM there would be no limitations.
Fair to assume AMD will likely have something similar with their GPUs then. Looking good overall.
Obviously they will. Consoles are AMD APUs -.-
Yes, but the IO controllers on the consoles are dedicated coprocessors. Not saying AMD couldn't put something similar to this in a GPU, but the console architecture would have nothing to do with it.
its a directx api so yes.
So the SSD tech is not exclusively only on the PS5 after all.