1 year in, what happened to the PS5 SSD hype?????

[MeachTheMonster]

It’s right in your sig.

I ain’t misrepresent anything.

Nothing sony said about their SSD has been even remotely true.

Still no one advertising their RAM talking about I/O throughput.

I/O speeds clearly have nothing to do with performance.

All types of games running on the same engine with drastically different online performance.

Ironically your sig is only a record of you being ignorant as fukk and proud of it

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

Where did we all get these high hopes.. According to most articles it was supposed to improve load times and make the system use less ram/cpu power.. But it was still all the devs to use it or not.. I can see how multiplat devs wouldn't utilize but I'm still missing where it was supposed to do anything crazy

That’s where things really get interesting. Assuming Sony isn’t overhyping the functionality of the PS5’s custom SSD (and even they admit that there is still work to be done in terms of optimization) then the PS5 SSD will maximize the functionality of the console’s CPU and RAM in such a way that allows developers to change how they approach core design concepts. Namely, the PS5’s SSD could not only reduce load times but impact how data is presented to you from a visual standpoint. That means you could play an Elder Scrolls game (assuming The Elder Scrolls 6 comes to PS5) where dungeon activity functions regardless of whether you’ve actively loaded the dungeon or a GTA game where you can see clear across the city and look into nearly every home. All of that would be made possible by the ways that the PS5 SSD is designed to maximize data transfer speed while asking less of the rest of the console.

 

[Rekkapryde]

It currently only exists on your clipboard which you saved to keep reposting a pic that’s obviously not representative of the final game.

Don’t worry. I got the pic on the OP saved. Anytime there’s talk of a sony game, I will be sure to repost it

Nope. Just because they took it down don't mean it didn't exist

 

[MeachTheMonster]

No need to be upset

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Where did we y'all get these high hopes

Sony stans

 

[The Mad Titan]

It wasn’t even about load times.

Sony and their stans claimed the PS5 SSD would allow them to do things no other platform could do. Not even PC was supposed to be able to match the graphics/performance that PS5 was able to put out.

We see how that turned out

customized SSD for console vastly outperforming PC's.

 

[Rice N Beans]

It’s right in your sig.

I ain’t misrepresent anything.

Nothing sony said about their SSD has been even remotely true.

Still no one advertising their RAM talking about I/O throughput.

I/O speeds clearly have nothing to do with performance.

All types of games running on the same engine with drastically different online performance.

Ironically your sig is only a record of you being ignorant as fukk and proud of it

Misrepresent =/= misconstrue. Teaching Meach by Meaching Meach.

I have already stated that feeling (for most ppl) the speed differences between PCIE and SATA SSDs aren't there just yet, until data transfers get pretty bloated in terms of the payload size and that's a real tall order. IMO, the glaring problem is that nothing's been done to make full use of the speeds. However, it has been eclipsed by PCIE4 drives, and I don't think that port is exposed to the transfer shortcuts. I'd like to see them use this for better data streaming in VR mode. Also, MegaTexture died too soon.

Now, on to your annoyance with your words AKA my sig, I see you've pivoted with the goal posts to "advertising". Let's not forget that in contrast to your beliefs in the sig, RAM throughput is mentioned when taking about the specs of a console, and on the topic here so is SSD throughput. And hey, don't feel too bad about SSD throughput being presented with I/O terms, too.

Please, begone, Xbot.

EDIT: Waiting for your impending pedantic vocab strawman.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Now, on to your annoyance with your words AKA my sig, I see you've pivoted with the goal posts to "advertising".

From the post in your sig.

I said the term “I/O” was not being used here until Sony started using it to advertisethe PS5.

My point was always about Advertisment and you goofies falling for it.

Let's not forget that in contrast to your beliefs in the sig, RAM throughput is mentioned when taking about the specs of a console, and on the topic here so is SSD throughput.

Nothing here refers to anything about RAM i/o or throughput. Those terms are just not used in reference to RAM.

Those terms are used to refer to the way a storage drive functions.

You got confused and started talking about ESRAM I/O throughput and that just doesn’t make sense.

No one has ever talked about RAM in that manner.

So once again. Find one advertisement, spec sheet, article, or any other reference material that References the I/O throughput of RAM and post it.

I guarantee you cannot. Cause that’s not how the shyt works.

And hey, don't feel too bad about SSD throughput being presented with I/O terms, too.

I never said storage speeds are not presented in terms of I/O throughout.

What i said was console performance has never been dictated by storage speed. And what i said is exactly correct. PS5 SSD is faster yet it has no real effect on the performance of games VS the XSX

Please, begone, Xbot.

EDIT: Waiting for your impending pedantic vocab strawman.

Sony stans

 

[MeachTheMonster]

By Mid gen we will see more big 1st party studios tapping into it.

:mjlol;

 

[Rice N Beans]

From the post in your sig.

My point was always about Advertisment and you goofies falling for it.

Is "that was my plan all along" a new card to pull from your deck?

Nothing here refers to anything about RAM i/o or throughput. Those terms are just not used in reference to RAM.

The pedantic vocab strawman strikes. How easy it is to telegraph your posts. The memory bandwidth number is how you measure memory throughput. Don't just take it from me.

Those terms are used to refer to the way a storage drive functions.

Not just. This is where you are lost.

You got confused and started talking about ESRAM I/O throughput and that just doesn’t make sense.

ESRAM is a type of RAM, and I used that example directly for a reason since you'd be familiar with it at the time. Still no, after all these years.

Funny you're even now combining both terms to embrace "I/O throughput" to try and make things difficult. I see you.

No one has ever talked about RAM in that manner.

So once again. Find one advertisement, spec sheet, article, or any other reference material that References the I/O throughput of RAM and post it.

Oh, it's the combo term you use now and not what's in the sig.

Nonetheless, readdressing the sig comments with receipts just means you will deny and move goalposts again, or reinforce your idiocy and state nobody talks like that when the topic is RAM. Even if I use some standard industry company that uses throughput to reference the RAM's capability or mention some RAM's I/O you'll come back with some other horseshyt about how the verbiage isn't specific enough to whatever new requirement you've conjured up.

I never said storage speeds are not presented in terms of I/O throughout.

Just being ahead of you, as always.

What i said was

What you said is in the sig. We don't need you to add more to it with further input.

Anyways, have fun moving things past the receipts... again. Until next time, Meach.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Is "that was my plan all along" a new card to pull from your deck?

It’s literally right in the post you quoted

The pedantic vocab strawman strikes. How easy it is to telegraph your posts. The memory bandwidth number is how you measure memory throughput. Don't just take it from me.

There is no such thing as “memory throughput”

Bandwidth and throughput are two different things.

Nobody uses throughput to describe RAM capability except for you when you said that dumb shyt and now wanna change whole definitions to fit your ignorance

Not just. This is where you are lost.



ESRAM is a type of RAM, and I used that example directly for a reason since you'd be familiar with it at the time. Still no, after all these years.

Funny you're even now combining both terms to embrace "I/O throughput" to try and make things difficult. I see you.

Both terms were always combined. Again it’s all in the posts you quoted.

You just decided to play dumb every time

Do it. Go out into the internet and find someone using the terms I/O or throughput to describe ESRAM capabilities.

Should be easy. Just post one example.

Oh, it's the combo term you use now and not what's in the sig.

Nonetheless, readdressing the sig comments with receipts just means you will deny and move goalposts again, or reinforce your idiocy and state nobody talks like that when the topic is RAM. Even if I use some standard industry company that uses throughput to reference the RAM's capability or mention some RAM's I/O you'll come back with some other horseshyt about how the verbiage isn't specific enough to whatever new requirement you've conjured up.

Do it.

Just being ahead of you, as always.



What you said is in the sig. We don't need you to add more to it with further input.

Anyways, have fun moving things past the receipts... again. Until next time, Meach.

I have not moved anything.

Then just like now, all you had to do is post one example but you chose to jewelz about it and make up lies to misrepresent what i said.

So one more time. Just post an example of ANYONE talking about ESRAM and using the terms I/O or Throughput. Just one example. You can do it

I’ll do some googles for you, since you seem to not know how to do it yourself.

Input/Output Device

This definition explains the meaning of Input/Output Device and why it matters.

www.techopedia.com

It’s basic computer stuff. I/O is in reference to the hardrive,(or other storage media) not RAM
Memory and storage are two very different things. And different terms are used to describe them. You can’t just interchange terms all willy nilly

Difference Between Bandwidth and Throughput (with Comparison Chart and Example) - Tech Differences

The difference between bandwidth and throughput is that the bandwidth is the total amount of speed that can be achieved by a transmission line. Conversely, throughput is the actual amount of speed that we get in data transmission after getting affected by various type of losses.

techdifferences.com

Two separate terms. They are not interchangeable. They are a measurement of two different things. The way RAM functions is described using the term Bandwidth, not Throughput.

 

[Rice N Beans]

Depressing for Meach to ask for examples and completely miss them in his blind stannery.

Sometimes its fun. But in my weaker moments, I almost pity him.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Depressing for Meach to ask for examples and completely miss them in his blind stannery.

Sometimes its fun. But in my weaker moments, I almost pity him.

You didn’t post any examples of ram being talked about or rated using the term throughput or I/O.

You posted an example of people talking about the total throughput achieved in a system with RAM as part of that equation.

RAM itself is never talked about or rated itself in terms of throughput. It’s always Bandwidth. The Throughput is the total speed achieved based on the Bandwidth of the RAM and a whole host of other shyt.

If you know the definition of Bandwidth and Throughput are totally Different, then why the hell are you trying to conflate the two?

Bandwidth is the width of the Highway. Throughput is the total speed achieved.

The RAM dictates the width of the highway, and BUS speeds, HDD/SSD speeds, processor speeds etc all combine to add up to the Throughout achieved.

That’s why sony was talking about all that special sauce and bottleneck removal to achieve higher throughput. Throughput is the SUM of all that stuff combined.

No one would rate or talk about an individual RAM chips “throughput” cause that doesn’t exist

Your “wiki” link just used the wrong term

Latency should not be confused with memory bandwidth, which measures the throughput of memory.

Is just an incorrect phrase. Wiki is written by users and is not above mistakes. If you follow their link to “Throughput” you get this.

Hard disk drive performance characteristics - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

,The data transfer rate of a drive (also called throughput) covers both the internal rate (moving data between the disk surface and the controller on the drive) and the external rate (moving data between the controller on the drive and the host system)

No mention of RAM or memory bandwidth being used to calculate throughput. It’s all about a storage drive

If you follow their link to “memory bandwidth”

Memory bandwidth is the rate at which data can be read from or stored into a semiconductor memory by a processor.

And here no mentions of Throughput as RAM is rated based off bandwidth.

You wouldnt know the Throughput achieved until the ram is paired with a system and the other factors have been considered.

The phrase “Memory bandwidth measures the throughput of memory” is just egregiously incorrect. It shows a total lack of understating of what either of those terms mean.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Here’s a simple table to help you.

Ram is rated in terms of Bandwidth or “Data capacity through a network”

There’s no way to know the Throughput or “Practical measure of how much data actually flows through a channel” until the RAM is hooked up to a particular system and the total speed is measured.

Bandwidth is concerned with “Transmission of information by some means”

Throughput is concerned with “Communication between TWO ENTITIES”

Therefore “RAM throughput”(not even a real term for this very reason) can never be calculated or rated until/unless you consider the speed of whatever it is communicating with and bottlenecks/latency between them.

 

[Diunx]

I'm getting the same ps5 loading speed in forespoken on my cheap ass am4 pci 3.0 motheboard and a samsung ssd.