News AMD Ryzen 7000 Demoed With Phison PCIe 5.0 SSD And Micron's 232-Layer NAND

[Admin]

Phison demoed its PCIe 5.0 SSD with an AMD Ryzen 7000 system, marking the first time it's been seen outside of AMD's own presentation.

AMD Ryzen 7000 Demoed With Phison PCIe 5.0 SSD And Micron's 232-Layer NAND : Read more

 

[-Fran-]

And they'll still have the PCIe x16 working with no limitations!

Regards xD

 

[rluker5]

Imagine the difference when you get 2 and move files from one to the other!

Would be nice if they showed randoms though. That was the difference when you went from HDD to SSD. Since then, going from SATA to NVME and up the PCIe gens really feels like not much difference. Even with Optane. You can tell the difference in game reloading when you die, or just want to do something different/better but it isn't that big.

In game reloads are much more common and the performance is much more important IMO than the performance increase cold loading a game when you first start it. You are already playing and are immersed and invested, not just getting set up for that. I wonder why nobody tests these times? They also seem much more random dependent. I bet most of what has to get in the GPUs memory is already there at that point and just bits and pieces have to be added.

 

[LuxZg]

They've sure made a nice partnership...

AMD: Zen 4 CPUs, AM5 socket, chipset, Radeon 7000 GPUs
Phison: PCIe 5.0 NVMe controller
Micron: DDR5 (both for system and SSD cache), GDDR6X for GPUs, 232-layer NAND for SSDs, with RAM & SSD packed for retail under Crucial brand

All they need is MBO & PSU for complete system. Not that those two would make a lot of difference in performance once you've picked everything else from the list above.

 

[tracker1]

In game reloads are much more common and the performance is much more important IMO than the performance increase cold loading a game when you first start it. You are already playing and are immersed and invested, not just getting set up for that. I wonder why nobody tests these times? They also seem much more random dependent. I bet most of what has to get in the GPUs memory is already there at that point and just bits and pieces have to be added.

What you are referring to would be very hard to test for.. that said it's what the direct access APIs mentioned are to help reduce.. By transferring data directly from storage to ram or the video card cutting out the need for going through the CPU...

The trouble in testing is it would really be artificial, since natural resource contention had a lot of variables. The speed and storage of the video card, CPU, cache, ram and device storage. Too many variables to really control.

The noticeable performance differences are also going to carry a lot. The difference from a 3s scene load to under a second is more noticable than 900ms to 300ms.... Even if the tattoo is the same the hard differences are less noticeable. Much like going from 60hz to 120hz vs 240hz display. It's diminishing returns.

For me, the difference is build times for large projects... My R9 5950X sometimes gets outpaced by my M1 Max MacBook and I'm pretty sure it's the improved storage access speed.

I don't feel a need for much more CPU, aside from video encodes... But if I can get back half my build time through a day, I'd be pretty happy.

 

[rluker5]

What you are referring to would be very hard to test for.. that said it's what the direct access APIs mentioned are to help reduce.. By transferring data directly from storage to ram or the video card cutting out the need for going through the CPU...

The trouble in testing is it would really be artificial, since natural resource contention had a lot of variables. The speed and storage of the video card, CPU, cache, ram and device storage. Too many variables to really control.

I don't feel a need for much more CPU, aside from video encodes... But if I can get back half my build time through a day, I'd be pretty happy.

To test you would just have to run the games a bit and repeatedly load the same save point. The results wouldn't be absolute, they would of course be hardware dependent, but the hardware could be listed and fast hardware could be chosen to reduce the system bottlenecks as much as possible relative to the drive performance. It couldn't be perfect, but some relative comparisons could be made. That is one of the few scenarios I've seen where Optane makes a noticeable difference. But it isn't worth the price tbh. I just think it would be a good comparison. I've seen not a lot of difference between SATA and NVME and these 10k vs .6k MB/s numbers are a bit deceiving. My NVME nand isn't many times faster than my SATA nand in program or game loading and neither is my Optane that has several times the random, except some games while reloading. Otherwise most of the time it doesn't feel much different than a SATA, and can no longer match the sustained speeds of these newer PCIe gen nand SSDs.

I also know how you feel with the CPU. I've got a 12700k and it is fast enough that I don't care if I slow it down to save power most of the time. But I also felt the same way with my 4770k, which my daughter now thinks she doesn't have a need for much more CPU with

 

[JWNoctis]

Imagine the difference when you get 2 and move files from one to the other!

Would be nice if they showed randoms though. That was the difference when you went from HDD to SSD. Since then, going from SATA to NVME and up the PCIe gens really feels like not much difference. Even with Optane. You can tell the difference in game reloading when you die, or just want to do something different/better but it isn't that big.

In game reloads are much more common and the performance is much more important IMO than the performance increase cold loading a game when you first start it. You are already playing and are immersed and invested, not just getting set up for that. I wonder why nobody tests these times? They also seem much more random dependent. I bet most of what has to get in the GPUs memory is already there at that point and just bits and pieces have to be added.

More RAM than strictly needed for the OS, the game, and any other running processes would actually be more useful (and much faster) than any SSD the same system might have, since all current desktop OS makes use of free memory as disk read cache. Might need at least 64GB to be of significant help for the latest games, though...and a fast 64GB DDR4 kit is already more expensive than a good 2TB SSD these days.

Oh and NVME speed certainly helps you notice when anything goes wrong. My previous M.2 SSD slowed to a <100MB/s crawl, and the only symptom was games starting to take minutes to load instead of tens of seconds. Barely got the data out - thankfully without reported read errors - and it shuffled off its mortal coil into the RMA bin when I tried to reformat it for external use. At no point did SMART show anything off except for a steadily incrementing error information log entry count, whatever that is supposed to be.