@ronvalencia:

And how is that relevant?

@ronvalencia 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.

Flawed argument since baseline comparison is PS4 with low 60 MB/s to 100 MB/s 1TB HDD 5400 rpm drive.

I copied Reflections_Demo.zip with 1.37 GB size less than 4 seconds with Samsung 840 EVO (750 GB, SATA III) with Intel X299 chipset.

If 1 GB file takes 4.1 seconds to copy, then there's something wrong with storage controller.

It’s Sony’s chart not mine, if you have an issue with the methodology of how they measure performance in their own systems which they design and engineer, you’ll have to take it up with them directly.

And this one does...

https://www.aboutchromebooks.com/news/cheza-chromebook-with-qualcomm-snapdragon-845-will-have-speedy-ufs-storage/

@mrbojangles25:

Load times only exist because disk transfers are slow and assets that may or may not be necessary are loaded into RAM for quick access. It’s literally game development 101.

@Pedro:

Nothing to hate. System Wars guidelines have already defined exclusives which is consistent with industry standards which are consistent with the definition of exclusive. By all three measures you are incorrect. But there isn’t anymore to debate. I’ll simply repost the System Wars guidelines rather than continue to debate as it’s worthless and the standard for the forum has already been established.

“Q: Has the definition of 'exclusive' changed?

Again, it depends.

Look, one of the reasons the metagame was scrapped was because of its rigidity and inflexibility in trying to apply one standard even where it may not fit. Absolute exclusivity, which the old metagame favored, is still the gold standard, of course. But it is no longer viable in the present day marketplace. Absolute exclusives really don' exist- even first party games are often shared with PCs and smartphones sometimes, now.

So what definition of exclusives are we using? That will depend on the context of the discussion, and that's the beauty of it. Calling Street Fighter V a PS4 exclusive in context of a PS4 vs Xbox One discussion is perfectly acceptable, as is calling ReCore an Xbox One exclusive. Discussing the value of soft exclusives like these in the context of the larger market is a discussion that is now welcomed, rather than before, where it was against the metagame, and therefore invalid.

Of course, an absolute exclusive is still the best, because no one can really argue against it- but soft exclusives are no longer grounds for derailed discussions or dismissal.”

@lundy86_4:

Sorry to see you go, have a good night and enjoy your smoke.

@lundy86_4:

Nah buddy I’ve read them even quoted them. You definitely attempted to claim a different definition than the current rules of the System Wars and acting like anyone who was operating contrary to those guidelines were out of luck. I quoted you multiple times in multiple posts. Why would you emphasize what you thought were the rules three different times to me if they weren’t important and completely arbitrary anyway.

Now that sounds like a waste of time to mention completely arbitrary rules multiple times that have no importance...

@lundy86_4:

You incorrect quoted the updated rules multiple times... You even stated “That’s the way it goes” Implying that the rules are to be followed for the forum discussion and then did a sudden u turn as if they have no weight here when you explained weight to me earlier.

hmmm, Its funny how I need to suddenly "chill" with quoting the rules when you were dropping fingerwags like this:

That whole post isn't relevant to this board. We all understand the definitions, but that doesn't mean they hold weight here. That much should be obvious... SW operates by a whole different set of arbitrary rules.

SW works on its own set of rules. That's the way it goes.

It's a subset called System Wars bud. Arbitrary rules apply. If you don't like it, then you don't have to post here.

Now suddenly when I bring up the actual rules they no longer apply....

You brought up the rules 3 times in 3 seperate posts and then when you found out the actually rules your tune changed to we don't have to follow them and I need to chill with quoting them.