Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Audioboxer

New PS4 Details: Automatic Caching Games Not Install

46 posts in this topic

Blu-ray read speed is 6x (216Mb) vs. SATA III hard drive @ 5400RPM (125Mb)

 

 

 

 

 

While I may be wrong here, especially considering SATA III drives don't always perform to this standard, but according to specs isn't it Blu-ray read speed at 6x is 216 Mbit/s (27 MB/s) vs. SATA III is 4.8 Gbit/s (600 MB/s).

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought SATA III was always way faster.

Edited by Brendeth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I may be wrong here, especially considering SATA III drives don't always perform to this standard, but according to specs isn't it Blu-ray read speed at 6x is 216 Mbit/s (27 MB/s) vs. SATA III is 4.8 Gbit/s (600 MB/s).

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought SATA III was always way faster.

The Blu-ray spec 1x speed (what PS3 uses) is defined as 36Mbps.36x6=216. SATA III is capable of 600Mb but no hard drive to date will ever reach that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Blu-ray spec 1x speed (what PS3 uses) is defined as 36Mbps.36x6=216. SATA III is capable of 600Mb but no hard drive to date will ever reach that.

But even if a SATA III drive only reachs half of its theoretical maximum peak of 600MB/s, that is still transferring 263MB per second faster than a Blu-ray drive though isn't it?

Because if that is 216 Mbit/s for Blu-ray speed that only equates to 27 MB/s, whereas that SATA drive is powering on with 300 MB/s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blu-ray read speed is 6x (216Mb) vs. SATA III hard drive @ 5400RPM (125Mb)

 

Blu-Ray 6x is 27MB/s. 5400rpm HDD's are around 70-85MB/s.

 

Blu-Ray is not faster than a HDD.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blu-Ray 6x is 27MB/s. 5400rpm HDD's are around 70-85MB/s.

 

Blu-Ray is not faster than a HDD.

I always thought HDD were capable of reading faster, but its clearly alot slower than the theoritical specs show.

Thanks for clarifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's one major disadvantage, the whine of a constantly running high speed BD drive. PS players who complained about the noise of the first models of the 360 should really hate this, as the DVD drive was the primary cause of the loud 360s.

Curious though: wouldn't that have more to do with how the console is put together, than just the speed of the disc spinning? I mean, as I recall, the original Xbox 360 was loud as hell, but why should we assume that's what to expect with the PS4 or even Xbox One? Surely, neither company wants to create the hurricane that was the original 360. Heck, not even the newer 360s are as loud, at least if memory serves correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious though: wouldn't that have more to do with how the console is put together, than just the speed of the disc spinning? I mean, as I recall, the original Xbox 360 was loud as hell, but why should we assume that's what to expect with the PS4 or even Xbox One? Surely, neither company wants to create the hurricane that was the original 360. Heck, not even the newer 360s are as loud, at least if memory serves correct.

Well there is only so much you can do to minimize the sound generated from a spinning disc. It will never be 'quiet'.

Slot loading drives can be quieter than tray loading drives, so since both consoles use that maybe it reduces the impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious though: wouldn't that have more to do with how the console is put together, than just the speed of the disc spinning? I mean, as I recall, the original Xbox 360 was loud as hell, but why should we assume that's what to expect with the PS4 or even Xbox One? Surely, neither company wants to create the hurricane that was the original 360. Heck, not even the newer 360s are as loud, at least if memory serves correct.

 

You recall correctly. Early 360 models were probably the loudest console ever created, Luckily the 360 S fixed that and you can keep the box in the same room as you now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.. so caching should actually be better performance than installing..  I guess it would be like a pro/con sort of thing.

Caching

Pro:  Better Performance*,  Less space on HDD Required

Con: Louder console

Installing:

Pro: Quieter, No need for Disk*

Con: More HDD space is used.

* Denotes things I don't know for sure

 

Performance won't be better because that read speed assumes everything is lined up in perfect order on the disk, like say a movie. a game however the drive will need to seek on the disk to find the data, and that's where blu ray crashes and burns compared to a HDD, just like seeks seed is what makes SSD's faster than HDD's sequental reads, HDD's might still win over many SSD's. 

 

and this is why Killzone was nearly 50 gigs, a lot of data was repeated several times on the disk so that the drive wouldn't need to seek but it would always be right after, since the PS3 BD drive was terribly slow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious though: wouldn't that have more to do with how the console is put together, than just the speed of the disc spinning? I mean, as I recall, the original Xbox 360 was loud as hell, but why should we assume that's what to expect with the PS4 or even Xbox One? Surely, neither company wants to create the hurricane that was the original 360. Heck, not even the newer 360s are as loud, at least if memory serves correct.

 

The first 360's had louder less insulated drives, hence why a lot of people faked RROD's or drive failures to either hope to get a SWAP unit with a BENQ drive or have their "broken" drive replaced with a BENQ. The first few 360 software versions also always ran the drive at full speed, whereas later they made it adjust to needed speed. Hence why the 360 makes a lot more sound when installing a game than when playing(from disc, except the first few seconds). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is true, Sony saying you need to install games in official FAQ or Sony/yoshida saying you don't need to install games?

Which Sony is right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is true, Sony saying you need to install games in official FAQ or Sony/yoshida saying you don't need to install games?

Which Sony is right?

 

 

Well I think it comes down to terminology.

 

Sony's mandatory installs are now called cache since they don't remain after you stop playing.  At least, I think that is what Sony is talking about in the FAQ.  They also say in that FAQ that not all games will be playable until the entire game is cached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think it comes down to terminology.

Sony's mandatory installs are now called cache since they don't remain after you stop playing. At least, I think that is what Sony is talking about in the FAQ. They also say in that FAQ that not all games will be playable until the entire game is cached.

So unless you install it permanently you have to wait every time? That sounds ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but you still need 50GB free either way. "Oh no, I installed Frogger HD. Now I only have 48GB and can't play CoD :/"

I apologise if the question has already been answered, or if this was a rhetorical question, but you are aware that the ps4 comes with a 500gb hdd (upgradeable/replaceable) right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most games still use 1K textures. They get the detail on the characters by using a mixture of 'maps' for each model. They would be normal maps (for walls, tables, chairs, props) and displacement maps for characters. 
A great example of how it is all put together for a game is here:

http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?s=c95882993001709f971f2ce72df5d6e4&t=122359

 

Finding anything over 4K textures in a console game (I.D. Softwares RAGE being the exception) is just silly. Why? Because atm the highest resolution we use for games is basically 1920x1080. 
We game devs delevop games with 2K textures for the most part, because rarely will you be running games at 4K Ultra HD resolution. Yes that is *slowly* coming into effect now with monitors, but even next gen consoles are pumping out games at... you guessed it, 1080p. 

"In terms of graphics, this is where the enhancements Guerrilla has made over Killzone 3 are perhaps best appreciated. For in-game characters, the PS3 game used three different LOD models (more polygons used the closer you are to the character in question), up to 10,000 polygons and 1024x1024 textures. Things have changed significantly for PlayStation 4 with seven LOD models and a maximum of 40,000 polygons and up to six 2048x2048 textures."
Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-inside-killzone-shadow-fall

So, 50GB of caching is MORE than enough for a game, ANY GAME on the PS4 system. Yes, textures take up alot of data, but think about this for a second:

GTAV is one massive (and I mean MASSIVE) open world. They may use the same texture map no more than twice in the entire world. PLUS they have normal, spec, reflection and displacement maps on pretty much everything. Thats 5 maps for every single game asset. And it still fits on a BluRay disc with more than enough room to spare.

Anyway, thats my rant, go check out those links to see how games are cheated to look great, specially if you think ZOMG 100,000 polygon characters! Newsflash, they arn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So unless you install it permanently you have to wait every time? That sounds ridiculous.

 

Well if you read that section of the FAQ, it seems to say that.

 

Now it also implies that some games will allow you to start playing after partially caching the game, so we will see how that works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this ever cleared up? Can the PS4 do a traditional install and the new "cache" install or only the latter?

 

My biggest worry about both consoles specs when they were announced was the paltry HDD sizes, so I hope the performance is there to pull it off.

 

I hope they eventually patch Ext HDDs in, because as of now I think 1 TB 9.5mm 2.5" drives are the largest you can get for PS3/4. That's going to be a lot of data juggling further down the line otherwise. Conversely if the cache install works as intended then great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this ever cleared up? Can the PS4 do a traditional install and the new "cache" install or only the latter?

 

My biggest worry about both consoles specs when they were announced was the paltry HDD sizes, so I hope the performance is there to pull it off.

 

I hope they eventually patch Ext HDDs in, because as of now I think 1 TB 9.5mm 2.5" drives are the largest you can get for PS3/4. That's going to be a lot of data juggling further down the line otherwise. Conversely if the cache install works as intended then great.

They haven't clarified that yet. If you just take the FAQ as the final word, it would point to not being able to install a game in the traditional sense. They only talk about the fact that all games must be 'cached'.

Now if you want to assume that the FAQ is incomplete, then we just have to wait for more info, or for the actual release so someone can test it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you read that section of the FAQ, it seems to say that.

 

Now it also implies that some games will allow you to start playing after partially caching the game, so we will see how that works out.

If it is cache only that will make it noisy (drive noise). Don't see that happening tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is cache only that will make it noisy (drive noise). Don't see that happening tbh.

I agree, but it sure seems like Sony is pushing that features as the default behavior that the average user will be using and downplaying the traditional install method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blu-ray read speed is 6x (216Mb) vs. SATA III hard drive @ 5400RPM (125Mb)

 

You are confusing your bits and bytes.  6x BD is indeed 216Mb/sec (megabits) but there are 8 bits to a byte so this is 27MB/sec (megabytes).  A 2.5" 5400rpm drive, as said in another post, is going to be around 85MB/sec which is 680Mbit/sec.  A hard drive is significantly faster than BD and even if the raw transfer rate was to be close at all, the seek times are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.