There is no agenda, I'm genuinely concerned for your mental capacities that you've taken to inventing definitions that are contrary to the understanding of 99.99% of the populace. It's a legitimate concern which you may have already self diagnosed in your previous post. There is no argument about service exclusivity. The discussion surround what constitutes exclusivity and exclusivity as defined be the streaming industry who invented it, is already well understood to be exclusive to platforms rather than devices. Please explain how every streaming service can use the term exclusive to describe content received on multiple devices yet you are one of 5 people in the world who hold this cryptic knowledge of what streaming "exclusive" actually means. Either that or you are just plain wrong. Even five year old understand this concept. When you ask them what channels Sesame Street is on and which ones they are not they don't say "iPad or Samsung TVs". Because they have the mental maturity to understand that industry context usage of a word and derive its meaning.

Are posters really not able to reason at the same level of 5 year old children?? It's an utter embarrassment.

Hmm, very interesting take. I would like to explore this further based on the above. You are seeming to imply that a streaming service which the end user experiences on multiple devices cannot be "exclusive" or have exclusivity. You also bring up the "retardism of fanhood". I would ask if you think attempting to redefine a word to mean something other than what the industry standard has defined it to mean would also fall under the blanket of "retardism of fanhood". Let's just assume for the sake of argument that there a was definition of streaming exclusivity which has been established more than a decade ago by some of the largest players in the entire industry and 99% of the world has come to understand what exclusivity in regards to streaming means. Yet some random guy on an internet gaming forum wants to redefine the word and tell the very same people who created the services and infrastructure and coined the term "exclusive" in regards to streaming services that this concept doesn't actually exist... Let's imagine this guys ignores a decade of Netflix exclusives, Hulu exclusives, etc. and ignores that fact that these run on multiple devices and hardware yet all claim exclusives. Now let's imagine this guy rambles this crazed thoughts endlessly for no apparent or logical reason despite the fact that 99% of the world understands that platform exclusivity is a real tangible concept and that watching the latest Netflix exclusive on your iPhone doesn't somehow make the content no longer "exclusive" to Netflix.

What would you say to this individual?

@rzxv04 said:

@michaelmikado said:

@rzxv04 said:

Keep posting. These are all interesting to me.

So UFS might need a slightly better CPU thus lessening some power for games but I guess these are hard to estimate.

I was thinking of high quality video editing built into the PS4 where I only heard that nvme's are taken advantage of copying huge files in and out for editing but I'm not sure how exactly that works. I just remember a youtuber mentioning that the PS4 Pro has horrible quality in their built in capture even compared to the Xbox One S. Was wondering if nvme could help with that but if that were actually an issue at all, UFS might do well enough.

From the looks of it, at least currently, since the controller that's supposed to be expensive is already part of the cheap package of even falling prices of NVME, seems barely an issue but we really need to see actual UFS pricing. Would you happen to have leads to find prices for these?

UFS does really seem like it makes better sense if Sony can instead use higher powered versions of it for the same heat/consumption budget of an NVME but maybe Sony's too late for this with the upcoming ps5.

Realistically UFS is going to use 0.00001% of a modern CPU, remember its something that runs flawlessly on low-end arm processors. UFS pricing will always be cheaper than NVMe pricing if the 3D Flash NAND is equivalent. Its because they use the same parts with the exception of the controller which always is more expensive on NVMe even on the lowest end models. Like I said the one above which was rated cheaper was only getting 2GBps, if you choose NVMe over UFS, the last thing you would want to do is go cheap and get an underperforming controller because it destroys any reason you had to get NVMe in the first place.

Interestingly enough these patents from Sony from 2015/2016 turned up on a couple of forums. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0097897.html

The highlights are that it would use a small cache of SRAM instead of DRAM, it includes a hardware accelerator, and it focuses primarily on high read speeds rather than write speeds very similar to UFS. This goes back to what I said last time.

UFS 3.0 is merely a standard. And the standard was developed to enhance performance in low power scenarios, hence the very low wattage. Sony could easily work with a company to use the same chips but a modified UFS 3.0 controller which doubles power consumption placing in the realm of a low power NVMe and easily exceed 4/5GBps. Alternatively, the controllers are cheap because UFS mostly scales linearly. NVMe has more advanced logic built into the controller hence why they perform better. UFS by contrast is pretty dumb and requires slightly more cpu resources to management. Sony is rumored to have developed an advanced memory logic system to automate this process (Also why NVMe would be redundant). Sony, in theory could drop multiple UFS 3.0 blocks on the board instead. A 128GB block would likely be around $10-$15. They could drop 4 of these, have 512GB of storage with each 128GB block having its own 2.9GBps of bandwidth and let its memory management system sort out the caching.

My proposed off the cuff solution would have yielded a theoretical bandwidth of around 10GBps which is completely unheard of and not even in the near immediate future for PCs, but apparently Sony also worked out their math where much of their patent estimates are based around a 10GBps read speed as well so I guess I wasn't far off.

Also interestingly enough this also addresses the memory logic rumors with its secondary CPU and hardware accelerator built into the controller so its more likely Sony came to the same conclusions and decided to build an SSD controller specific to gaming applications rather than wasting resources of using something that was designed for a different application altogether.

Thanks. It's only sinking in that controllers are what make the difference.

I guess secondary CPUs aren't unheard of? This exists in the PS4 correct?

10GB/s seem insanely fast so if that's gonna be implemented, it's likely to be a small pool cache system correct? I wonder if it's gonna be like 128GB 10 gbps storage + 1gb slower ssd.

Wait. Is UFS an SSD?

Yes, a lot of the systems have tiny secondary CPU for various tasks. PS4 had an ARM processor. The thing about a drive that fast is several fold. Let's say PS5 ships with 20GB total RAM. Theoretically you could dump the entirety of your RAM and fill it up in 2 seconds. Traditionally consoles and PCs had large amounts of RAM because pulling data from a disk is too slow. But when you have read speeds this fast you can technically use less high end RAM which is was I mention way way back about extremely fast SSD drives could hypothetically become another tier of RAM. The way the patent is written it seems to claim the SRAM benefits from higher capacities, I would also guess that you would use a smaller drive cache but I'm not sure what they are going for.

Yes, UFS is an SSD. UFS and NVMe are just the interfaces to the exact same Flash NAND or 3D Flash NAND chips. The only difference is how and what they prioritize. That's why it is best to get the solution that benefits the applications you are actually trying to do. In the PS5's case they aren't looking to write a lot of data, but to read a lot of data to have a very fast cache for gaming. Faster than any NVMe drive will ever be in likely the next 3 years. At the expense of write speeds which they don't need but NVMe excels at.

Realistically UFS is going to use 0.00001% of a modern CPU, remember its something that runs flawlessly on low-end arm processors. UFS pricing will always be cheaper than NVMe pricing if the 3D Flash NAND is equivalent. Its because they use the same parts with the exception of the controller which always is more expensive on NVMe even on the lowest end models. Like I said the one above which was rated cheaper was only getting 2GBps, if you choose NVMe over UFS, the last thing you would want to do is go cheap and get an underperforming controller because it destroys any reason you had to get NVMe in the first place.

Interestingly enough these patents from Sony from 2015/2016 turned up on a couple of forums. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0097897.html

The highlights are that it would use a small cache of SRAM instead of DRAM, it includes a hardware accelerator, and it focuses primarily on high read speeds rather than write speeds very similar to UFS. This goes back to what I said last time.

UFS 3.0 is merely a standard. And the standard was developed to enhance performance in low power scenarios, hence the very low wattage. Sony could easily work with a company to use the same chips but a modified UFS 3.0 controller which doubles power consumption placing in the realm of a low power NVMe and easily exceed 4/5GBps. Alternatively, the controllers are cheap because UFS mostly scales linearly. NVMe has more advanced logic built into the controller hence why they perform better. UFS by contrast is pretty dumb and requires slightly more cpu resources to management. Sony is rumored to have developed an advanced memory logic system to automate this process (Also why NVMe would be redundant). Sony, in theory could drop multiple UFS 3.0 blocks on the board instead. A 128GB block would likely be around $10-$15. They could drop 4 of these, have 512GB of storage with each 128GB block having its own 2.9GBps of bandwidth and let its memory management system sort out the caching.

My proposed off the cuff solution would have yielded a theoretical bandwidth of around 10GBps which is completely unheard of and not even in the near immediate future for PCs, but apparently Sony also worked out their math where much of their patent estimates are based around a 10GBps read speed as well so I guess I wasn't far off.

Also interestingly enough this also addresses the memory logic rumors with its secondary CPU and hardware accelerator built into the controller so its more likely Sony came to the same conclusions and decided to build an SSD controller specific to gaming applications rather than wasting resources of using something that was designed for a different application altogether.

Probably best to ignore the babbling of babes least we be thought fools as well.

There's no "vigor" I was being 100% sarcastic which I guess you missed. I don't have a horse in this race to try to insist or claim that a console maker having their games on other systems are a bad thing. I'm just trying to understand why you are so insistent on redefining "nonexclusive" when its nothing like how its been defined for the past 30 years of gaming. Non-exclusive has almost always meant "platform" exclusivity in terms of being natively designed to run. I'm just trying to understand why its so important for you to try to remake the definition of something that has had a specific meaning in gaming for decades.

No way, I can always pay some guy in a geolocational proximity $20 a month to establish a secure connection that allows me to remotely play the Xbox he is hosting through a RDP-like session on any device of my choosing. And bingo, Xbox games are no longer exclusive to Xbox.

Ok easy enough. You can play Xbox games via Game Streaming, therefore by definition Xbox has absolutely ZERO exclusives and I don't need an Xbox to play xbox games.

It's kinda of a weird argument, technically it only runs on a PS4 platform so its not a port. Exclusives typically only refer to things which reside on their original platform and weren't ported which this is technically the case. While "ports" get remade for a different system architecture.

If I have The Last of US running on a PS4 and then have it pass through the HDMI input port of the Xbox that doesn't suddenly make it a non-exclusive.

Just so we can all get on the same page.

The Nvidia Shield version of GeForce Now, formerly known as Nvidia GRID, launched in beta in 2013, with Nvidia officially unveiling its name on September 30, 2015.

Nvidia had announced a planned beta of the service in March 2017, but it was silently cancelled. In an earnings report in May 2017, Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huangrevealed that a beta would be held "soon", but that the company was "still years away from being able to find the right balance between cost and quality of service and the pervasiveness of virtualizing a gaming PC."^[10] In late October 2017, Nvidia launched a free and open beta of the service limited to the Macintosh platform for English users in North America and Europe.^[11][12] In January 2018 Nvidia added PCs to the Nvidia GeForce Now service.^[13] However, there is a long waitlist for Nvidia GeForce Now.^[

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_Now}

On CES 2015, Sony confirmed that PlayStation Now would arrive in the North America on PS4 as full release on January 13, 2015. On March 7, 2015, it was revealed that the PlayStation Now was accessible in Europe.^[12] Official beta invites for Europe started going out to PS4 owners on April 15, 2015.^[13]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Now}

Also for whatever this conversation is worth PS remote play launched way back in 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Play