@gifford38: Sony hasn't lied (from what i have seen) but i think you have taken what Sony have said and moved it to an absolute extreme. Seems to be a common theme here :P.
You (and correct me of i'm wrong) seem to be under the impression that the SSD allows the developer to use all the Vram for only what the player sees right in front of them and only what they see in front of them. as they turn and the SSD can refill ram as needed in real time with new assets/data to keep the framerate high. this, i think, is where you are getting confused.
it's a nice idea. Devs would certainly love to have the entire game installed to storage as fast as Vram.....but its not technically possible (unless there is such a thing as a Vram drive :P. i have heard of ram drives which are neat).
The SSD in both consoles are great....but nowhere near that good. not even remotely close. compared to DDR4 or GDDR6, the SSDs are still laughably slow. that would only be workable if the PS5 had the graphical capacity of something like a 3DS...maybe a vita at a push. or if the PS5 had around 55 of those SSDs working in parallel maybe (though latency would probably still be rough).
ultimately the SSDs make memory management easier for the developers and allow them to reduce the amount of ram they need to use for buffers. it allows them more control over what is retrieved when from the SSD. But it only reduces the need for those buffers, not eliminates.
at the end of the day the closer a piece of data is to the player, the higher the system requirements for processing that data becomes. If it is in the player vicinity then it still cannot be on the SSD waiting to be retrieved. it has to be in Vram to be processed by the CPU and GPU. If it is still on the SSD then the game will stutter as it waits for the data to be retrieved. That stutter would be smaller than a HDD, sure, but it would still be noticeable and would be a pretty shoddy experience if it happened a lot.
Log in to comment