What should happen with PC games in the next few years regarding SSD requirements? Will a comparable SSD to the consoles not be required because it would be expensive and decompressing data is uses a lot of cores?These charts list 4 newer algorithms for decompression from the same family (from slowest to fastest: Leviathan, Kraken, Mermaid, Selkie). These are compared to various competitors with zlib (the industry standard) being on every graph. The upper 3 bars denote how well a file is packed (more is better) the lower 3 bars are the decompression speed.
All of the algorithms are at least 2x - 14x faster than zlib and compress at least as well (Selkie) or considerably better (Kraken/Leviathan) at the cost of speed. As zlib is on every graph it's easy to see that Selkie is about 3.5x faster than Kraken at the cost of compression ratio.
PS4 uses Kraken for SSD data compression/decompression, we don't know about Xbox but it's probably something similar (e.g. zlib). I hypothesized Kraken is definitely ok for I/O but might be too heavyweight for memory compression. Selkie might be better but if not there are even lighter algorithms (that also compress less).
What should happen with PC games in the next few years regarding SSD requirements? Will a comparable SSD to the consoles not be required because it would be expensive and decompressing data is uses a lot of cores?
Reading the DF article on the Xbox, it doesn't seem that it uses custom hardware for decompression. Could that algorithm that Microsoft developed be used in PC games?
"Our second component is a high-speed hardware decompression block that can deliver over 6GB/s," reveals Andrew Goossen. "This is a dedicated silicon block that offloads decompression work from the CPU and is matched to the SSD so that decompression is never a bottleneck. The decompression hardware supports Zlib for general data and a new compression [system] called BCPack that is tailored to the GPU textures that typically comprise the vast majority of a game's package size."
@IndyColtsFan
No idea when a 4950X will come out. It might be in the initial launch in July-Sept of this year (cross your fingers for July).
AMD has had a lot of time to look at what did and didn't work for Matisse, so Vermeer should be a less-problematic launch. It doesn't seem they're upping core count either, so I would expect TDPs and actual power usage to be more-reasonable. Hopefully they will have done something to mitigate hotspots by way of the new process. As long as they keep boost targets about the same, they should be able to get all-core clocks up by lowering power/voltage, which is permitted by the new process (assuming they use 7nm+).
Although, now that I think of it, it still I suppose makes some sense to have a cut-down CPU SKU, that allows them to have a dumping-ground for 8C/16T CPU dies that have a defective core or two in them.
would AMD choose to make the "floor" model of Ryzen 4000 CPU, an 8C/16T at a minimum,
Also: if CCXs have been expanded to the full 8c as rumors go they would also be able to make 10c and 14c SKUs adding new product lines when missing the old 6c line.
Maybe. Bear in mind that a 6c/12t Vermeer might be faster in a lot of games/applications than whatever is going into the latest consoles. Relatively speaking.
CCX is still 4 cores but the L3 is now shared by the two CCX on the die.
I don't think that what he's saying is a proper interpretation of the diagram in the "leaked" AMD slide. A CCX by definition shares a pool of L3 and 8 cores sharing a pool means that the CCX also comprises of 8 cores.What is this based on?
Yeah, my brain had filed away the leaked slide as official so that part of the post is just conjecture. Sorry bout that!What is this based on?
You could argue they were already heading that way with the Radeon SSG models.- Memory class storage integration
Maybe, but remember that the consoles will a) have highly optimized codepaths b) will use dedicated hardware to offload tasks like asset decompression, audio, etc, which reduces CPU load.
Naturally. Just remember that we're discussing what desktop parts AMD will sell to the low-end DiY crowd and to OEMs as their baseline for Vermeer. The consoles sort of set the bar for where game development will go on AMD CPUs, so it's somewhat logical to think that if the consoles have 8c/16t CPUs, that the low-end on PC will have to move to 8c/16t. Which I think was @VirtualLarry 's point. But if 6c Vermeer is fast enough to handle console ports to PC due to clockspeed and uarch advantages, then AMD can still sell to that segment instead of having to move everything to 8c.
I'm not entirely following that logic. The previous/current gen had 8 core CPUs, yet we got dual core Zen chips.
I think Zen3 will be a brutal uarchitecture. I expect at least 20% IPC (averaged) jump and ~3-5% clock bump. I expect more cores but nothing radical (like with Zen->Zen2). When it will come to desktop? If nothing changes then late 2020 (hopefully). Fun times ahead!
The dual core Zen chips are the lowest level APUs. The question is not so much whether AMD will offer the full range of cores amounts, they clearly will, but what part will be occupied by the Zen 3 Vermeer CPUs on desktop. Since the Zen 2 APUs Renoir will go up to 8c/16t those could cover that, with Vermeer going to 12c and 16c chips. So the question is to what extend AMD intends to allow Renoir and Vermeer to overlap on desktop and compete against each other in the DIY market.I'm not entirely following that logic. The previous/current gen had 8 core CPUs, yet we got dual core Zen chips. I'd like to be wrong, but I'd guess we'll still see even quad core chips.