Kinda irrelevant at this stage yes? The main issue with MP600 for example, is that is using repurposed NAND from 3.0 version.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
CPU upgrade AMD or Intel?
- Thread starter Emjay86
- Start date
Kinda irrelevant at this stage yes? The main issue with MP600 for example, is that is using repurposed NAND from 3.0 version.
No. The whole point of that der8auer test is that even though the PCIe4 drives theoretically can outperform the PCIe3 drives is that you can’t cool them adequately and they throttle HARD. Until they heat up they do indeed run faster. But then they heat up and they throttle. They throttle so hard some of them actually end up running slower than the PCIe3 drives. And even the fastest PCIe3 drives throttle under extreme sustained load.
So you’re recommending someone buys something that doesn’t even work with today’s hardware on the basis that Samsung purportedly has something theoretically even faster in the wings. So I think It’s completely relevant to ask “on what testing are you saying it’s worth paying extra for PCIe4 to run drives that aren’t even available yet?’
Yep used them at my old company just fine with no bottleneck.
The new 980 that’s not actually available yet?
No the numorus other brand out there with perfectly fine drives that have no problem since that review was done that was being discussed.
It's also an irrelevant argument as we know they are coming and the thread is about giving the best advice for a gaming rig with the ability to best cover future tech etc. We know ps5 has a slot to add high speed drives which are capable of this bandwidth. So to go pcie 3 at this point seems silly
Next month. For 980 Evo/Pro and several others from 5000MB/s to 7500MB/s
You stated this by bringing it up in fairness. But with that my view tbh is still that NVME 3.0 speeds will be plenty still. It is about going from hard-drive to SSD type speeds, NVME at 3500 read/write will still be plenty. Don't expect things to jump significantly any time soon.
I understand that this may be true but if I was to purchase a board now with future proof in mind it seems silly to not buy a x570 board as they will at least support the faster speeds if required. Regardless its only my opinion and just adding food for thought to this thread
I understand that this may be true but if I was to purchase a board now with future proof in mind it seems silly to not buy a x570 board as they will at least support the faster speeds if required. Regardless its only my opinion and just adding food for thought to this thread
Of course I don't think it is going to be an issue for at least 5-7 years of the lifespan that this would likely be in terms of this PC build, or with what a console lifetime is.
The speeds needed to make the quick load and such and get away from needing corridors to load next zone are already lost with the PCIE 3.0 speeds when you look at PC games and having the faster speeds wont change anything for that side in terms of games development.
After that 7 years we will be on PCIE 5.0 anyways and really wont have issues.
Does it mean initial load could be slower for PC for those whom have standard SSD, yep but that's not a big deal.
The only interesting thing will be
1) does it over heat like other pcie4 drives
2) is 4KQ1 read any better
I went straight from sata ssd to pcie4 ssd and in the process I gained 10 times the sustained read write speeds! But... my games only load 1 second faster because 4KQ1 has hardly improved
I do wish Intel optane drives were cheaper though, those have incredible 4K speeds, very low latency and as such apps and games load significantly faster on them compared to any other drives on the market
Budget controllers are 4 channel ones, but higher end controllers are 8 channel ones.
And consoles are going to need that speed as band aid for small memory increase:
PS4 had 16 times the memory of PS3, but now its only doubled.
That simply isn't enough for future.
For comparison next-gen top graphics cards alone are likely to have 16GB of VRAM and something like 10-12GB will likely be high end norm inside year.
And anyone affording current ludicrous high end GPU prices shouldn't have any problems in affording 32GB of RAM.
So as minimum there's going to be 50+% more memory to store game assets and at high end 150+% more.
There simply isn't need for on the fly data streaming in that situation compared to consoles.
Neither does any NVMe help to game loading times, unless game data format on drive is changed completely.
Getting such times claimed by Sony for PS5 means game data needs to be stored in hibernation file like format instead of usual binary code and compressed assets etc.
Like how loading time of Windows has been improved.
Normal shutdown really doesn't shutdown Windows, but stores most of its state into hibernation file, which is streamed back into memory in start.
There are a lot of new tricks on new gpus and DX12 that games just aren't using right now but they will soon I hope.
It's not just the ssd but the consoles have access to a new trick that allows developers to create a sort of texture map that tells the gpu in advance what assets will need to be stored into memory in the future, this way the memory can just load the data it needs and avoid loading unnecessary data which reduces loading time, texture pop in and saves memory space
It's not just the ssd but the consoles have access to a new trick that allows developers to create a sort of texture map that tells the gpu in advance what assets will need to be stored into memory in the future, this way the memory can just load the data it needs and avoid loading unnecessary data which reduces loading time, texture pop in and saves memory space
Let's hope Crysis Remastered has as much tricks in its sleeve as original from 2007.
I think there's generation of gamers missing that "Can it run Crysis?":
Though new teaser looks too much like some excessive dark-highlights HDR garbage with no tones in between.
Lack of bandwidth isn't any problem in loading times.
Otherwise games would load lot faster from NVMe than SATA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGdI2rNsWiE
Loading times come mostly from all the game code execution, initializing and asset decompression.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2016
- Posts
- 561
nVME only really thrashes SATA on serialised reads and writes. Anything involving random access and short reads/writes...meh, it's much of a muchness between the two in my experience. Game load times are comparable. The same will apply to the latest PCI 4.0 drives.
People expecting consoles to somehow have a magical system of structuring game data in a way to take advantage of that bandwidth are delusional - it would have been useful in HDDs as well and they didn't do it back then. The only way to really do it is to have a large memory cache.
People expecting consoles to somehow have a magical system of structuring game data in a way to take advantage of that bandwidth are delusional - it would have been useful in HDDs as well and they didn't do it back then. The only way to really do it is to have a large memory cache.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2016
- Posts
- 561
It sure did!Well this went off topic
