I'm not talking about the PS5 doing that. You keep misunderstanding what I'm posting.
Ok, I'm sorry about that. I probably rushed towards a conclusion in my head. I deleted the older lengthier article and just put up the link as more of a summary because I felt that you did understand.
I understand what the DRAM buffer on SSDs is for, and that's not what I'm actually talking about when I say use the system memory as the buffer, because I'm assuming the NAND they're doing is not setup like a typical SSD. You seem to get what I'm actually meaning for them to be doing (where the system memory would be caching the userspace stuff). For the console, I'm saying, leveraging the bandwidth of the GDDR system memory to offer a wider bus for the NAND. Basically treat the combination of the two like how a CPU treats cache.
Keep this point in mind as I try to address your points.
My point in comparing the console GDDR+NAND with a theoretical PC using HBM as system memory and moving NAND (which my point there being, is giving NAND a wide bus/channel setup like DRAM to push the performance to DRAM like levels, as like you said, that's the limitation right now), is that you'd have to drastically exceed what say a unified tailored system environment like a console offers in order to get similar results from PCs that are not optimized for that.
The limitation isn't merely the bandwidth, otherwise SSDs on PCs should have been much faster, but the way the developers treat the ecosystem and code their applications.
Of course, the bandwidth helps, but the patent was only talking about a max of 10GB/s, and some figures that were lower and similar to sequential speeds of the current early generation PCIe 4.0 SSDs.
First, is they are looking into replacing the DRAM buffer with SRAM. SRAM is much faster. Yes it is more costly at the same size, but this is where being a machine dedicated for a single purpose can help.
Rather than needing 4KB as the base addressing size, they are going to increase it substantially. This reduces the amount needed for the buffers. They were talking about x megabytes in size. At 1MB, it can be reduced to 4MB for example(256KB with 16MB sizes) on the aforementioned 1TB SSD. This will also help NAND SSDs as the performance is worst on the 4KB sizes, and it gets better as the size grows, improving bandwidth. Internally you can also use a method such as coalescing to improve bandwidth(with some latency impact).
Costs can be lowered too because the SRAM size can be tiny. Also they said it'll allow larger SSDs to scale better in pricing as the amount of BoM the controller takes can be smaller.
For the consoles, I'm expecting a pool of embedded NAND, probably with a customized I/O chip between it and the system memory, where the I/O chip handles all the data coherency and has similar to memory bus channel routing to the NAND in order for it to offer much higher performance than it would from a typical standalone expansion SSD on PC. Then from the I/O chip, its funneled to the processors themselves (be they unified APU, or individual chiplets). Are you thinking something different? Which they'd likely need older more expensive NAND that'd need high write endurance? Which to me that would be fine since the lower density would work well for it looking to leverage a wider bus (for higher performance). It'd be more expensive, hence part of the reason they'd go with a relatively smaller size.
Endurance is not an issue as consoles are mainly gaming and once installed its mostly a read-only system. This is one reason why they can boost speeds to crazy levels, unlike on a PC where the manufacturer cannot assume the type of code the developer is going to use, and you'd need to use technology currently not practical in a console(such as Optane in a DIMM form factor). The file system is supposed to know this from my understanding. Also its optimized for such read operations when it detects it.
If it was like on PCs, then no NAND can survive. The highest ever endurance NAND SSD is the Intel DC P3700 with 17 DWPD, on the select models. At 100MB/s, in just 5 hours it will reach that limit using your 100GB drive size. Clearly unattainable with console's low cost requirements.
Which I don't know, would it be possible to chain the NAND chip to the GDDR6 chips? So the I/O would have the normal GDDR memory bus, but then each of the GDDR chips has a bus routing to a NAND chip beyond it. I'm assuming not and the NAND would need its own bus, or they'd need some controllers between the GDDR6 and the NAND?
Yea, you can't daisy chain the two, if that's what you are saying? You need the NAND to have its own separate link, or have a controller between the two as you put it. If they are going that route they could either use something like the Host Memory Buffer standard where you use system memory(in this case GDDR6), or have a tiny chip dedicated for the NAND just like in most SSDs.
Then from there they could have a little bay or a cover with an m.2 slot or SATA port, where you could install a drive, which would purely be for storage and not play into how they're leveraging the embedded NAND for performance of the overall system...
Which that's the thing, its a good idea that still will likely run into limitations. With some games pushing 100GB these days, and that likely to grow as they push for higher resolutions and higher quality assets. Some stuff like uncompressed audio (which I've seen some claim is one of the big reasons why game sizes ballooned so much) could be streamed in off the disc or storage, or some stuff possibly straight up over the internet - stuff like video and audio, cinematics and things like that (not things it'd need for gameplay processing).
It sounds to me like you are saying they are going to have a slow NAND + fast NAND tier?
The problem of this is also related to cost in addition to others as you mentioned(such as deciding which drive to install what, and game sizes ballooning over time). You'll need to account for two different sets of NAND. It also complicates system design.
...like I said its absolutely possible for them to do that either via proprietary connection or just leveraging IF through like a PCIe x16 slot). This definitely wouldn't be the first time Sony drastically overhyped certain features/performance. I think its interesting that they are talking more about relatively simple aspects of what an SSD enables, which leads me to believe it very well might not be the type of thing I'm talking about (which I think could change how games are designed).
It absolutely can use a proprietary connection. Though PCIe 4.0 sounds sufficient.
Which, just realized there's actually pertinent analogy for what I was talking about the GDDR6 and NAND tiering.
Yes, you are definitely talking about tiering. Sorry if I miss some of your points. Further tiering is something we'll see on PCs. That's not what they are doing on the consoles, at least based on patents.
Summarizing the changes:
-Larger addressing sizes mean much larger page sizes can be used. That reduces the size of the buffer significantly, not only reducing cost, but allowing much faster memory to be used, such as SRAM. It will also allow the SSD to be closer to peak speeds, since its running at a more optimal range compared to the brutal 4KB size.
-The file system is being changed to allow optimization for the console's mostly-read nature, and to allow the addressing changes as stated above. It can also recognize which applications are read only. Vast majority of the time the consoles will be used for gaming.
-WoRM like behavior on the consoles also mean there's little worry for endurance issue on the console SSDs because you install once, and read many times. Things like character saving is going to be a minimal load anyways.
-Oh and one thing I didn't mention above is that it might also have a dedicated chip for decompression. This will reduce the pressure on the CPU so the I/O is less bottlenecked.
Everything mentioned above is not practical in a general purpose PC. PCs are not read-only, addressing and file system changes will introduce compatibility issues, dedicated chips will be short-lived as no one will want it. Microsoft also mentioned similar gains for their Scorpio.