ESRAM Faster Than MS Thought!

Bandwidth is at a premium in the Xbox One owing to the slower DDR3 memory employed in the console, which does not compare favourably to the 8GB unified pool of GDDR5 in the PlayStation 4. 
The 32MB of "embedded static RAM" within the Xbox One processor aims to make up the difference, and was previously thought to sustain a peak theoretical throughput of 102GB/s - 
useful, but still some way behind the 176GB/s found in PlayStation 4's RAM set-up. 
Now that close-to-final silicon is available, Microsoft has revised its own figures upwards significantly, telling developers that 192GB/s is now theoretically possible.

Is this true ?

old and true

8gb of gddr5>32mb of sram

wiiu has esram as well, look how that turned out:lol:

8gb of gddr5>32mb of sram

wiiu has esram as well, look how that turned out:lol:

ZoomZoom2490

difference is that GDDR5 will always be 176 GB/S while the XBone's will only reach its peak of 200 GB/s in certain circumstances (when doing read/write at the same time), so it'll be working below 100 GB/s most of the time. GDDR5 still wins. :cool:

new article fresh out the oven: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview

difference is that GDDR5 will always be 176 GB/S while the XBone's will only reach its peak of 200 GB/s in certain circumstances (when doing read/write at the same time), so it'll be working below 100 GB/s most of the time. GDDR5 still wins. :cool:

 

new article fresh out the oven: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview

Gue1

PS4 can not maintain both at the same time... nice try.

i have the powerrrr

Bandwidth is at a premium in the Xbox One owing to the slower DDR3 memory employed in the console, which does not compare favourably to the 8GB unified pool of GDDR5 in the PlayStation 4. 
The 32MB of "embedded static RAM" within the Xbox One processor aims to make up the difference, and was previously thought to sustain a peak theoretical throughput of 102GB/s - 
useful, but still some way behind the 176GB/s found in PlayStation 4's RAM set-up. 
Now that close-to-final silicon is available, Microsoft has revised its own figures upwards significantly, telling developers that 192GB/s is now theoretically possible.

Is this true ?

avigeil

204 gb and yes its true.   that was before the upclock.   microsoft >>>>  sony, tell your friends.

8gb of gddr5>32mb of sram

wiiu has esram as well, look how that turned out:lol:

ZoomZoom2490

[QUOTE="Gue1"]

difference is that GDDR5 will always be 176 GB/S while the XBone's will only reach its peak of 200 GB/s in certain circumstances (when doing read/write at the same time), so it'll be working below 100 GB/s most of the time. GDDR5 still wins. :cool:

 

new article fresh out the oven: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview

urbansys

PS4 can not maintain both at the same time... nice try.

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="urbansys"]

PS4 can not maintain both at the same time... nice try.

kuu2

Link?

He clearly doesnt understand. The xb1 can do both systematicaly while the PS4 cant in reference to read/write.

X1 GPU: 1.18 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games 768 Shaders 48 Texture units 16 ROPS 2 ACE/ 16 queues PS4 GPU: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56% 1152 Shaders +50% 72 Texture units +50% 32 ROPS + 100% 8 ACE/64 queues +400%Kurt-Biz

You haven't completed the paper specs...

X1 GPU: 1.7 billion triangles per second (2 triangles per cycle)

PS4 GPU: 1.6 billion triangles per second (2 triangles per cycle)

--------------

PS4 has its own OS GPU reservation...

http://www.edge-online.com/news/gaijin-games-on-why-war-thunder-isnt-coming-to-xbox-one/

How much more powerful?

AY: It depends what youre doing. GPU, like 40 per cent more powerful. DDR5 is basically 50 per cent more powerful than DDR3, but the memory write [performance] is bigger on Xbox One so it depends on what youre doing.

How is that going to translate to on-screen results for the kinds of games you want to make? So to optimise War Thunder on both consoles you could hypothetically make a better, prettier version on PS4?

AY: Yep.

KY: Probably yes. But again, thats not a very big deal.

----------

[QUOTE="urbansys"]

[QUOTE="Gue1"]

difference is that GDDR5 will always be 176 GB/S while the XBone's will only reach its peak of 200 GB/s in certain circumstances (when doing read/write at the same time), so it'll be working below 100 GB/s most of the time. GDDR5 still wins. :cool:

new article fresh out the oven: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview

stereointegrity

PS4 can not maintain both at the same time... nice try.

The word "Constant" doesn't exist in the source quote.

http://www.psu.com/a020475/

It means we dont have to worry so much about stuff, the fact that the memory operates at around 172GB/s is amazing, so we can swap stuff in and our as fast as we can without it really causing us much grief, said Gilray

----

Note that Radeon HD 5870's memory also operates at 153.6 GB/s which includes overheads.

8gb of gddr5>32mb of sram

wiiu has esram as well, look how that turned out:lol:

ZoomZoom2490

difference is that GDDR5 will always be 176 GB/S while the XBone's will only reach its peak of 200 GB/s in certain circumstances (when doing read/write at the same time), so it'll be working below 100 GB/s most of the time. GDDR5 still wins. :cool:

 

new article fresh out the oven: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview

Gue1

[QUOTE="kuu2"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"] 3rd party devs have said it is at a constant 172gb/s so please try again urbansys

Link?

He clearly doesnt understand. The xb1 can do both systematicaly while the PS4 cant in reference to read/write.

Theoretical 176 GB/s / 2 = 88 GB/s.

Note why devs (with thier name) has stated that the X1 has superior memory write performance.

X1's GPU has superior memory write performance when compared to prototype 7850 with 12 CUs.

Memory doesnt replace the 50% less shaders, rops, etc.

You people are losing it.

Even if X1 can match PS4's memory so f$%ing what? so what?

less shaders, less rops, etc.

Enough of this ESRAM PR bs, it sucks, MS went the cheap way to make up for the Kinect costs.

Even if X1 can match PS4's memory so f$%ing what? so what?

X1 will still have less shaders, less rops, etc.

Enough of this ESRAM PR bs, it sucks, MS went the cheap way to make up for the Kinect costs.

[QUOTE="Kurt-Biz"]X1 GPU: 1.18 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games 768 Shaders 48 Texture units 16 ROPS 2 ACE/ 16 queues PS4 GPU: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56% 1152 Shaders +50% 72 Texture units +50% 32 ROPS + 100% 8 ACE/64 queues +400%Mr-Kutaragi

[QUOTE="urbansys"]

[QUOTE="kuu2"]

Link?

ronvalencia

He clearly doesnt understand. The xb1 can do both systematicaly while the PS4 cant in reference to read/write.

Theoretical 176 GB/s / 2 = 88 GB/s.

Note why devs (with thier name) has stated that the X1 has superior memory write performance.

X1's GPU has superior memory write performance when compared to prototype 7850 with 12 CUs.

Dude,  give it up. If you want an X1, that's fine and dandy. However PS4 is capable of better visuals. Learn to live with it. 

[QUOTE="urbansys"]

[QUOTE="kuu2"]

Link?

ronvalencia

He clearly doesnt understand. The xb1 can do both systematicaly while the PS4 cant in reference to read/write.

Theoretical 176 GB/s / 2 = 88 GB/s.

Note why devs (with thier name) has stated that the X1 has superior memory write performance.

X1's GPU has superior memory write performance when compared to prototype 7850 with 12 CUs.

Dude,  give it up. If you want an X1, that's fine and dandy. However PS4 is capable of better visuals. Learn to live with it. 

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="urbansys"]

 

He clearly doesnt understand. The xb1 can do both systematicaly while the PS4 cant in reference to read/write.

Sagemode87

Theoretical 176 GB/s / 2 = 88 GB/s.

Note why devs (with thier name) has stated that the X1 has superior memory write performance.

X1's GPU has superior memory write performance when compared to prototype 7850 with 12 CUs.

Dude,  give it up. If you want an X1, that's fine and dandy. However PS4 is capable of better visuals. Learn to live with it. 

Is ram actually expected to be a bottleneck in next gen systems?

Or is this just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Is ram actually expected to be a bottleneck in next gen systems?

 

Or is this just arguing for the sake of arguing?

BeardMaster

Memory doesnt replace the 50% less shaders, rops, etc.

You people are losing it.

ZoomZoom2490

Your the one losing it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/768-shader-pitcairn-review,3196-5.html

Since both 7770 and the prototype 7850 with 12 CUs has similar ALU power, the difference with the resulting frame rate is mostly due to the non-CU hardware.

Please review http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems/gpugems_ch28.html

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="urbansys"]

He clearly doesnt understand. The xb1 can do both systematicaly while the PS4 cant in reference to read/write.

Sagemode87

Theoretical 176 GB/s / 2 = 88 GB/s.

Note why devs (with thier name) has stated that the X1 has superior memory write performance.

X1's GPU has superior memory write performance when compared to prototype 7850 with 12 CUs.

Dude, give it up. If you want an X1, that's fine and dandy. However PS4 is capable of better visuals. Learn to live with it.

Your not addressing my points.

I don't plan to buy any next-gen consoles i.e. only Radeon HD R9-290 on the PC and your assumption is wrong. Game consoles doesn't make me earn money.

PS; I haven't bought any game consoles past, present and future.

[QUOTE="Mr-Kutaragi"][QUOTE="Kurt-Biz"]X1 GPU: 1.18 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games 768 Shaders 48 Texture units 16 ROPS 2 ACE/ 16 queues PS4 GPU: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56% 1152 Shaders +50% 72 Texture units +50% 32 ROPS + 100% 8 ACE/64 queues +400%ZoomZoom2490

Where did you get X1 having it's entire memory subsystem runs on 128-bit memory interface?

The GPU pipe for ESRAM is atleast 1024 bits wide for one direction i.e. 128 byte x 853 Mhz = ~102 GB/s. (256 bit x 4 ) / 8 = 128 byte per cycle per direction.

Theoretical 204 GB/s would require two 1024 bit pipes e.g. the internal ring buses for Radeon HD 2900 XT is 1024 bits wide (512-bit read and 512-bit write).

There's also a sperate pipe between the GPU and external memory controllers i.e. a total of 256bit wide from four 64bit MCHs. X1 basically has four internal 256bit memory controllers and four external 64bit memory controllers and it's organise asymmetrical like "L-shape" multi-memory controller setups on desktop PCs.

From http://www.anandtech.com/show/2376 AMD reduced Radeon HD 3870's ring bus to 512 bits wide and increase it's internal cache.

Bandwidth is at a premium in the Xbox One owing to the slower DDR3 memory employed in the console, which does not compare favourably to the 8GB unified pool of GDDR5 in the PlayStation 4. 
The 32MB of "embedded static RAM" within the Xbox One processor aims to make up the difference, and was previously thought to sustain a peak theoretical throughput of 102GB/s - 
useful, but still some way behind the 176GB/s found in PlayStation 4's RAM set-up. 
Now that close-to-final silicon is available, Microsoft has revised its own figures upwards significantly, telling developers that 192GB/s is now theoretically possible.

Is this true ?

avigeil

I can assure you that the last statement is taken almost out of context and is no different than when Sony claimed the ps3 could do 1080p at 120fps. I mean, it's possible, but with nothing else considered.

Developers have already claimed that the ESRAM is a pain to program for. So it's not about how fast the ESRAM operates at. I think the difficulty is trying to use the ESRAM as sort of an emulator/communicator so that the X1 gpu can somehow make use of the DDR3 RAM as if it were a gpu on board memory. While consoles have generally resorted to this in the past, it's quite an uncommon configuration for what is considered to be a PC-esque architecture.

Bandwidth is at a premium in the Xbox One owing to the slower DDR3 memory employed in the console, which does not compare favourably to the 8GB unified pool of GDDR5 in the PlayStation 4. 
The 32MB of "embedded static RAM" within the Xbox One processor aims to make up the difference, and was previously thought to sustain a peak theoretical throughput of 102GB/s - 
useful, but still some way behind the 176GB/s found in PlayStation 4's RAM set-up. 
Now that close-to-final silicon is available, Microsoft has revised its own figures upwards significantly, telling developers that 192GB/s is now theoretically possible.

Is this true ?

avigeil

I can assure you that the last statement is taken almost out of context and is no different than when Sony claimed the ps3 could do 1080p at 120fps. I mean, it's possible, but with nothing else considered.

Developers have already claimed that the ESRAM is a pain to program for. So it's not about how fast the ESRAM operates at. I think the difficulty is trying to use the ESRAM as sort of an emulator/communicator so that the X1 gpu can somehow make use of the DDR3 RAM as if it were a gpu on board memory. While consoles have generally resorted to this in the past, it's quite an uncommon configuration for what is considered to be a PC-esque architecture.

Bandwidth is at a premium in the Xbox One owing to the slower DDR3 memory employed in the console, which does not compare favourably to the 8GB unified pool of GDDR5 in the PlayStation 4. 
The 32MB of "embedded static RAM" within the Xbox One processor aims to make up the difference, and was previously thought to sustain a peak theoretical throughput of 102GB/s - 
useful, but still some way behind the 176GB/s found in PlayStation 4's RAM set-up. 
Now that close-to-final silicon is available, Microsoft has revised its own figures upwards significantly, telling developers that 192GB/s is now theoretically possible.

Is this true ?

avigeil

I can assure you that the last statement is taken almost out of context and is no different than when Sony claimed the ps3 could do 1080p at 120fps. I mean, it's possible, but with nothing else considered.

Developers have already claimed that the ESRAM is a pain to program for. So it's not about how fast the ESRAM operates at. I think the difficulty is trying to use the ESRAM as sort of an emulator/communicator so that the X1 gpu can somehow make use of the DDR3 RAM as if it were a gpu on board memory. While consoles have generally resorted to this in the past, it's quite an uncommon configuration for what is considered to be a PC-esque architecture.

Bandwidth is at a premium in the Xbox One owing to the slower DDR3 memory employed in the console, which does not compare favourably to the 8GB unified pool of GDDR5 in the PlayStation 4. 
The 32MB of "embedded static RAM" within the Xbox One processor aims to make up the difference, and was previously thought to sustain a peak theoretical throughput of 102GB/s - 
useful, but still some way behind the 176GB/s found in PlayStation 4's RAM set-up. 
Now that close-to-final silicon is available, Microsoft has revised its own figures upwards significantly, telling developers that 192GB/s is now theoretically possible.

Is this true ?

avigeil

I can assure you that the last statement is taken almost out of context and is no different than when Sony claimed the ps3 could do 1080p at 120fps. I mean, it's possible, but with nothing else considered.

Developers have already claimed that the ESRAM is a pain to program for. So it's not about how fast the ESRAM operates at. I think the difficulty is trying to use the ESRAM as sort of an emulator/communicator so that the X1 gpu can somehow make use of the DDR3 RAM as if it were a gpu on board memory. While consoles have generally resorted to this in the past, it's quite an uncommon configuration for what is considered to be a PC-esque architecture.

[QUOTE="avigeil"]

Bandwidth is at a premium in the Xbox One owing to the slower DDR3 memory employed in the console, which does not compare favourably to the 8GB unified pool of GDDR5 in the PlayStation 4. 
The 32MB of "embedded static RAM" within the Xbox One processor aims to make up the difference, and was previously thought to sustain a peak theoretical throughput of 102GB/s - 
useful, but still some way behind the 176GB/s found in PlayStation 4's RAM set-up. 
Now that close-to-final silicon is available, Microsoft has revised its own figures upwards significantly, telling developers that 192GB/s is now theoretically possible.

Is this true ?

jhcho2

I can assure you that the last statement is taken almost out of context and is no different than when Sony claimed the ps3 could do 1080p at 120fps. I mean, it's possible, but with nothing else considered.

Developers have already claimed that the ESRAM is a pain to program for. So it's not about how fast the ESRAM operates at. I think the difficulty is trying to use the ESRAM as sort of an emulator/communicator so that the X1 gpu can somehow make use of the DDR3 RAM as if it were a gpu on board memory. While consoles have generally resorted to this in the past, it's quite an uncommon configuration for what is considered to be a PC-esque architecture.

 

Sony still needs that killer app.

kingoflife9

Are you talking about actual games ? LOL

It's all about specs and resolution now in Sytem Wars because the PS4 seems to be as powerfull as a low/midrange PC and the Xbone a low end, the few actual next gen. games are all rediculed because of shaders, resolution, lightning, lod or whatever .

The Cows seem to have turned in to pseudo tech heads drunken from that small advantage in power and the forum has become a new Toms Hardware .

Gamewise it all looks pretty bland though :(