This topic is locked from further discussion.
I'm no pc genius so can someone can explain Why X1 had to go for esram... why not just add more normal ram?
I'm not having a go at X1 (bcos from my understanding real world performance will be almost identical...or otherwise time will tell at best)
Why did they take complicated route. What was the thinking here. Am I missing something... does esram have some additional qualities to it or something.
The ESRAM has a couple applications.Â
1. Â Very low latency. Â Floating Point OPS that dont require much data (like Physics calcs and the like) will benefit more from low latency than more memory bandwidth.
2. Â Help with slow system bandwidth. Â The Xbox 1 is bandwidth starved. Â Its not as starved as it seems since it doesnt have to feed as powerful a GPU (specifically half the ROPS) but its still lacking. Â The ESRAM allows you to store framebuffer info at a higher bandwidth rate to help alleivate this.
3. Â Microsoft knew they needed 8GB of ram and werent ready to gamble on GDDR5 being available at that quanitity in time. Â Sony was originally targetting 4GB ram and simply doubled it when RAM prices came down a large enough amount. Â M$ was never willing to make this gamble and therefore went a safer route to get to 8GB. Â
Yh these comments all make sense to me now.
1. X1 didn't want to gamble on gdr5 being availble by late 2013...so they went for normal ram.
2. they got esram to try & speed things up.
ok.
Just to add on, they did the same thing with the 360 and 10mb of edram.wolverine4262edram a little different then esram
[QUOTE="wolverine4262"]Just to add on, they did the same thing with the 360 and 10mb of edram.xboxiphoneps3edram a little different then esram I didnt say esram and edram were the same thing, just that they were implemented for similar reasons. If I remember correctly, the edram was meant to be for AA. lol at how that turned out.
[QUOTE="xboxiphoneps3"][QUOTE="wolverine4262"]Just to add on, they did the same thing with the 360 and 10mb of edram.wolverine4262edram a little different then esram I didnt say esram and edram were the same thing, just that they were implemented for similar reasons. If I remember correctly, the edram was meant to be for AA. lol at how that turned out. the eDRAM in the 360 actually came into play in a few titles... it did basically "apply" free AA.. but it wasnt anything really special
You really want to know why? bigger profit, plain and simple.
If MS went with GDDR5 the X1 would still be priced $499 but they would of made less profit for each unit.
[QUOTE="Applesexual1"]There was no guarantee that Samsung and Hynix would get high density GDDR5 RAM modules by the end of 2013. Most people assumed that only 4 GB would be realistic today. Microsoft needed 8 GB, so they went with DDR3. To patch up its low bandwidth, they've added 32 mb of eSRAM. It helps a bit, but it's not as good as having an entire 8 GB with 176 GB/s. The effective performance of eSRAM is around 130 GB/s while GDDR5 is ~150 GB/s. Yeah, Microsoft is kinda screwed.darkangel115lol so wrong. MS went with DDR3 becuase that is what every gaming PC runs. GDDR5 never came available for PCs due to the high latency and CPUs being very dependent on low latency. Programs measuring the latency of GDDR5 ram have pinned it at about 10X more then that of DDDR3. Where the GDDR5 RAM is used is in graphics cards only becuase GPUs are very "forgiving" with latency from RAM and it gives the GPU more bandwidth then DDR3. the best gaming PCs use large pools of DDR3 RAM and have a graphics card with GDDR5 RAM for the GPU. that's an "ideal" build. With teh consoles however it would have been too costly (my guess at least) to do so. Sony went high on graphics but ignored the issue with the latency which will bite them in the butt. with all the multitasking and snap and app switching the X1 has, GDDR5 RAM wouldn't even work. PS4 will have a hampered performance to the CPU due to its lack of DDR3 RAM. so what MS did to boost the bandwidth was add in the eSRAM and have obtained over 200GB/s bandwidth with it to the GPU which is higher then the PS4 gets with its GDDR5 (176GB/s) and done with lower latency. so MS got the best of both worlds out of it and sony got a RAM thats not made to work well with GPUs and still less bandwidth to their GPU.
you need help if you believe that. Gaming PC's use GDDR5 for graphics, unless you are buying the X1 for watching TV and use Netflix all day.
have a nice day troll of trollers.
Because MS is becoming the next Nintendo TheKingIAmyou are right technically, the Wii U is using the same exact RAM architecture like the X1, MS went with the cheapest way as possible just like Nintendo's biggest failure they ever made.
lol so wrong. MS went with DDR3 becuase that is what every gaming PC runs. GDDR5 never came available for PCs due to the high latency and CPUs being very dependent on low latency. Programs measuring the latency of GDDR5 ram have pinned it at about 10X more then that of DDDR3. Where the GDDR5 RAM is used is in graphics cards only becuase GPUs are very "forgiving" with latency from RAM and it gives the GPU more bandwidth then DDR3. the best gaming PCs use large pools of DDR3 RAM and have a graphics card with GDDR5 RAM for the GPU. that's an "ideal" build. With teh consoles however it would have been too costly (my guess at least) to do so. Sony went high on graphics but ignored the issue with the latency which will bite them in the butt. with all the multitasking and snap and app switching the X1 has, GDDR5 RAM wouldn't even work. PS4 will have a hampered performance to the CPU due to its lack of DDR3 RAM. so what MS did to boost the bandwidth was add in the eSRAM and have obtained over 200GB/s bandwidth with it to the GPU which is higher then the PS4 gets with its GDDR5 (176GB/s) and done with lower latency. so MS got the best of both worlds out of it and sony got a RAM thats not made to work well with GPUs and still less bandwidth to their GPU.[QUOTE="darkangel115"][QUOTE="Applesexual1"]There was no guarantee that Samsung and Hynix would get high density GDDR5 RAM modules by the end of 2013. Most people assumed that only 4 GB would be realistic today. Microsoft needed 8 GB, so they went with DDR3. To patch up its low bandwidth, they've added 32 mb of eSRAM. It helps a bit, but it's not as good as having an entire 8 GB with 176 GB/s. The effective performance of eSRAM is around 130 GB/s while GDDR5 is ~150 GB/s. Yeah, Microsoft is kinda screwed.ZoomZoom2490
you need help if you believe that. Gaming PC's use GDDR5 for graphics, unless you are buying the X1 for watching TV and use Netflix all day.
have a nice day troll of trollers.
rofl
[QUOTE="Applesexual1"]There was no guarantee that Samsung and Hynix would get high density GDDR5 RAM modules by the end of 2013. Most people assumed that only 4 GB would be realistic today. Microsoft needed 8 GB, so they went with DDR3. To patch up its low bandwidth, they've added 32 mb of eSRAM. It helps a bit, but it's not as good as having an entire 8 GB with 176 GB/s. The effective performance of eSRAM is around 130 GB/s while GDDR5 is ~150 GB/s. Yeah, Microsoft is kinda screwed.darkangel115lol so wrong. MS went with DDR3 becuase that is what every gaming PC runs. GDDR5 never came available for PCs due to the high latency and CPUs being very dependent on low latency. Programs measuring the latency of GDDR5 ram have pinned it at about 10X more then that of DDDR3. Where the GDDR5 RAM is used is in graphics cards only becuase GPUs are very "forgiving" with latency from RAM and it gives the GPU more bandwidth then DDR3. the best gaming PCs use large pools of DDR3 RAM and have a graphics card with GDDR5 RAM for the GPU. that's an "ideal" build. With teh consoles however it would have been too costly (my guess at least) to do so. Sony went high on graphics but ignored the issue with the latency which will bite them in the butt. with all the multitasking and snap and app switching the X1 has, GDDR5 RAM wouldn't even work. PS4 will have a hampered performance to the CPU due to its lack of DDR3 RAM. so what MS did to boost the bandwidth was add in the eSRAM and have obtained over 200GB/s bandwidth with it to the GPU which is higher then the PS4 gets with its GDDR5 (176GB/s) and done with lower latency. so MS got the best of both worlds out of it and sony got a RAM thats not made to work well with GPUs and still less bandwidth to their GPU.
This is bullsh*t
[QUOTE="darkangel115"][QUOTE="Applesexual1"] lol so wrong. MS went with DDR3 becuase that is what every gaming PC runs. GDDR5 never came available for PCs due to the high latency and CPUs being very dependent on low latency. Programs measuring the latency of GDDR5 ram have pinned it at about 10X more then that of DDDR3. Where the GDDR5 RAM is used is in graphics cards only becuase GPUs are very "forgiving" with latency from RAM and it gives the GPU more bandwidth then DDR3. the best gaming PCs use large pools of DDR3 RAM and have a graphics card with GDDR5 RAM for the GPU. that's an "ideal" build. With teh consoles however it would have been too costly (my guess at least) to do so. Sony went high on graphics but ignored the issue with the latency which will bite them in the butt. with all the multitasking and snap and app switching the X1 has, GDDR5 RAM wouldn't even work. PS4 will have a hampered performance to the CPU due to its lack of DDR3 RAM. so what MS did to boost the bandwidth was add in the eSRAM and have obtained over 200GB/s bandwidth with it to the GPU which is higher then the PS4 gets with its GDDR5 (176GB/s) and done with lower latency. so MS got the best of both worlds out of it and sony got a RAM thats not made to work well with GPUs and still less bandwidth to their GPU.xboxiphoneps3GDDR5 in a traditional PC setup as system memory wouldnt work obviously. but this is a customized APU... not a traditional PC, all the parts are much closer and transmission latency is severely reduced, the "latency" GDDR5 is complete nonsense bandwidth is one of the most important factors in a system... and 200 GB/s is completely theoretical and they only achieved 133 GB/S real life alpha blend... and also at the end of the day it is only 32 MB..... post backfire lul Â
What I don't get is why is MS only using DDR memory? Where is the GDDR?High_FlyGDDR5 latency isnt nonsense Intel have servers that use intergrated GDDR5 as memory and when tests were done vs servers with DDR3, With normal cpu workloads the server that used DDR3 was faster , while when handling large data workloads GDDR5 was faster.
[QUOTE="Applesexual1"]There was no guarantee that Samsung and Hynix would get high density GDDR5 RAM modules by the end of 2013. Most people assumed that only 4 GB would be realistic today. Microsoft needed 8 GB, so they went with DDR3. To patch up its low bandwidth, they've added 32 mb of eSRAM. It helps a bit, but it's not as good as having an entire 8 GB with 176 GB/s. The effective performance of eSRAM is around 130 GB/s while GDDR5 is ~150 GB/s. Yeah, Microsoft is kinda screwed.darkangel115lol so wrong. MS went with DDR3 becuase that is what every gaming PC runs. GDDR5 never came available for PCs due to the high latency and CPUs being very dependent on low latency. Programs measuring the latency of GDDR5 ram have pinned it at about 10X more then that of DDDR3. Where the GDDR5 RAM is used is in graphics cards only becuase GPUs are very "forgiving" with latency from RAM and it gives the GPU more bandwidth then DDR3. the best gaming PCs use large pools of DDR3 RAM and have a graphics card with GDDR5 RAM for the GPU. that's an "ideal" build. With teh consoles however it would have been too costly (my guess at least) to do so. Sony went high on graphics but ignored the issue with the latency which will bite them in the butt. with all the multitasking and snap and app switching the X1 has, GDDR5 RAM wouldn't even work. PS4 will have a hampered performance to the CPU due to its lack of DDR3 RAM. so what MS did to boost the bandwidth was add in the eSRAM and have obtained over 200GB/s bandwidth with it to the GPU which is higher then the PS4 gets with its GDDR5 (176GB/s) and done with lower latency. so MS got the best of both worlds out of it and sony got a RAM thats not made to work well with GPUs and still less bandwidth to their GPU.
Actually he is right. Sony did take a gamble on the availability of higher capacity GDDR5 modules, their gamble paid off.Â
lol so wrong. MS went with DDR3 becuase that is what every gaming PC runs. GDDR5 never came available for PCs due to the high latency and CPUs being very dependent on low latency. Programs measuring the latency of GDDR5 ram have pinned it at about 10X more then that of DDDR3. Where the GDDR5 RAM is used is in graphics cards only becuase GPUs are very "forgiving" with latency from RAM and it gives the GPU more bandwidth then DDR3. the best gaming PCs use large pools of DDR3 RAM and have a graphics card with GDDR5 RAM for the GPU. that's an "ideal" build. With teh consoles however it would have been too costly (my guess at least) to do so. Sony went high on graphics but ignored the issue with the latency which will bite them in the butt. with all the multitasking and snap and app switching the X1 has, GDDR5 RAM wouldn't even work. PS4 will have a hampered performance to the CPU due to its lack of DDR3 RAM. so what MS did to boost the bandwidth was add in the eSRAM and have obtained over 200GB/s bandwidth with it to the GPU which is higher then the PS4 gets with its GDDR5 (176GB/s) and done with lower latency. so MS got the best of both worlds out of it and sony got a RAM thats not made to work well with GPUs and still less bandwidth to their GPU.[QUOTE="darkangel115"][QUOTE="Applesexual1"]There was no guarantee that Samsung and Hynix would get high density GDDR5 RAM modules by the end of 2013. Most people assumed that only 4 GB would be realistic today. Microsoft needed 8 GB, so they went with DDR3. To patch up its low bandwidth, they've added 32 mb of eSRAM. It helps a bit, but it's not as good as having an entire 8 GB with 176 GB/s. The effective performance of eSRAM is around 130 GB/s while GDDR5 is ~150 GB/s. Yeah, Microsoft is kinda screwed.ZoomZoom2490
you need help if you believe that. Gaming PC's use GDDR5 for graphics, unless you are buying the X1 for watching TV and use Netflix all day.
have a nice day troll of trollers.
so you didn't read the whole thing? becuase that is what i said. they use graphcis cards that have GDDR5 ram built into it for the GPU and the CPU still uses DDR3 RAM becuase of its lower latencylol so wrong. MS went with DDR3 becuase that is what every gaming PC runs. GDDR5 never came available for PCs due to the high latency and CPUs being very dependent on low latency. Programs measuring the latency of GDDR5 ram have pinned it at about 10X more then that of DDDR3. Where the GDDR5 RAM is used is in graphics cards only becuase GPUs are very "forgiving" with latency from RAM and it gives the GPU more bandwidth then DDR3. the best gaming PCs use large pools of DDR3 RAM and have a graphics card with GDDR5 RAM for the GPU. that's an "ideal" build. With teh consoles however it would have been too costly (my guess at least) to do so. Sony went high on graphics but ignored the issue with the latency which will bite them in the butt. with all the multitasking and snap and app switching the X1 has, GDDR5 RAM wouldn't even work. PS4 will have a hampered performance to the CPU due to its lack of DDR3 RAM. so what MS did to boost the bandwidth was add in the eSRAM and have obtained over 200GB/s bandwidth with it to the GPU which is higher then the PS4 gets with its GDDR5 (176GB/s) and done with lower latency. so MS got the best of both worlds out of it and sony got a RAM thats not made to work well with GPUs and still less bandwidth to their GPU.[QUOTE="darkangel115"][QUOTE="Applesexual1"]There was no guarantee that Samsung and Hynix would get high density GDDR5 RAM modules by the end of 2013. Most people assumed that only 4 GB would be realistic today. Microsoft needed 8 GB, so they went with DDR3. To patch up its low bandwidth, they've added 32 mb of eSRAM. It helps a bit, but it's not as good as having an entire 8 GB with 176 GB/s. The effective performance of eSRAM is around 130 GB/s while GDDR5 is ~150 GB/s. Yeah, Microsoft is kinda screwed.psymon100
Actually he is right. Sony did take a gamble on the availability of higher capacity GDDR5 modules, their gamble paid off.Â
did it pay off? cause until we see how bad the latency effects the CPU we won't know. Even Cerny was noticeably flustered when asked about it and dodged the questionThere was no guarantee that Samsung and Hynix would get high density GDDR5 RAM modules by the end of 2013. Most people assumed that only 4 GB would be realistic today. Microsoft needed 8 GB, so they went with DDR3. To patch up its low bandwidth, they've added 32 mb of eSRAM. It helps a bit, but it's not as good as having an entire 8 GB with 176 GB/s. The effective performance of eSRAM is around 130 GB/s while GDDR5 is ~150 GB/s. Yeah, Microsoft is kinda screwed.Applesexual1
Â
192 GB/s for the ESRAM
What I don't get is why is MS only using DDR memory? Where is the GDDR?High_Flyits a balance thing why would you want to put a high powered motor in a car when you have a regular transmission? Im going to tell yall again sony is not part of the tree sony buys from AMD NVIDIA INTEL IBM, Microsoft make and sell things to them companys, NVIDIA doesnt use gddr5 im sure they shared some solutions for bandwidth.
[QUOTE="Applesexual1"]There was no guarantee that Samsung and Hynix would get high density GDDR5 RAM modules by the end of 2013. Most people assumed that only 4 GB would be realistic today. Microsoft needed 8 GB, so they went with DDR3. To patch up its low bandwidth, they've added 32 mb of eSRAM. It helps a bit, but it's not as good as having an entire 8 GB with 176 GB/s. The effective performance of eSRAM is around 130 GB/s while GDDR5 is ~150 GB/s. Yeah, Microsoft is kinda screwed.navyguy21
Â
192 GB/s for the ESRAM
u dont just add the two bandwidths together :|[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="Applesexual1"]There was no guarantee that Samsung and Hynix would get high density GDDR5 RAM modules by the end of 2013. Most people assumed that only 4 GB would be realistic today. Microsoft needed 8 GB, so they went with DDR3. To patch up its low bandwidth, they've added 32 mb of eSRAM. It helps a bit, but it's not as good as having an entire 8 GB with 176 GB/s. The effective performance of eSRAM is around 130 GB/s while GDDR5 is ~150 GB/s. Yeah, Microsoft is kinda screwed.stereointegrity
Â
192 GB/s for the ESRAM
u dont just add the two bandwidths together :| i didnt :|[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="Applesexual1"]There was no guarantee that Samsung and Hynix would get high density GDDR5 RAM modules by the end of 2013. Most people assumed that only 4 GB would be realistic today. Microsoft needed 8 GB, so they went with DDR3. To patch up its low bandwidth, they've added 32 mb of eSRAM. It helps a bit, but it's not as good as having an entire 8 GB with 176 GB/s. The effective performance of eSRAM is around 130 GB/s while GDDR5 is ~150 GB/s. Yeah, Microsoft is kinda screwed.stereointegrity
Â
192 GB/s for the ESRAM
u dont just add the two bandwidths together :| If the memory and ESram are working along its total bandwidth. sustained its 133GB/s theoretical bandwidth is just that it could reach that speed in bursts. the ESram is a 1024bit bus so its quite possible for it to get bursts that fast. As long as the memory is feeding the gpu with the data it needs you will not see noticeable issues with the lower bandwidth.
lol so wrong. MS went with DDR3 becuase that is what every gaming PC runs. GDDR5 never came available for PCs due to the high latency and CPUs being very dependent on low latency. Programs measuring the latency of GDDR5 ram have pinned it at about 10X more then that of DDDR3. Where the GDDR5 RAM is used is in graphics cards only becuase GPUs are very "forgiving" with latency from RAM and it gives the GPU more bandwidth then DDR3. the best gaming PCs use large pools of DDR3 RAM and have a graphics card with GDDR5 RAM for the GPU. that's an "ideal" build. With teh consoles however it would have been too costly (my guess at least) to do so. Sony went high on graphics but ignored the issue with the latency which will bite them in the butt. with all the multitasking and snap and app switching the X1 has, GDDR5 RAM wouldn't even work. PS4 will have a hampered performance to the CPU due to its lack of DDR3 RAM. so what MS did to boost the bandwidth was add in the eSRAM and have obtained over 200GB/s bandwidth with it to the GPU which is higher then the PS4 gets with its GDDR5 (176GB/s) and done with lower latency. so MS got the best of both worlds out of it and sony got a RAM thats not made to work well with GPUs and still less bandwidth to their GPU.[QUOTE="darkangel115"][QUOTE="Applesexual1"]There was no guarantee that Samsung and Hynix would get high density GDDR5 RAM modules by the end of 2013. Most people assumed that only 4 GB would be realistic today. Microsoft needed 8 GB, so they went with DDR3. To patch up its low bandwidth, they've added 32 mb of eSRAM. It helps a bit, but it's not as good as having an entire 8 GB with 176 GB/s. The effective performance of eSRAM is around 130 GB/s while GDDR5 is ~150 GB/s. Yeah, Microsoft is kinda screwed.Sagemode87
This is bullsh*t
Correct. Some of the most ill-informed crap i have read in a while.Contrary to what PS fanboys believe, you do not need all that bandwidth afforded by GDDR5 for every part of a game. Microsoft went with a solution that is well balanced between a gaming machine and a multimedia hub. The Xbox One has a fast DDR3 RAM which is sufficient for the majority of gaming with 32MB of ESRAM to boost bandwidth in areas where its needed. Its not a comlicated setup and is well known by developers as they have been coding with Xbox 360's GDDR3 + EDRAM architecture.
When they were designing the X1 they wanted 8GB of main memory. At that time 8GB of fast GDDR5 was not on the horizon (or it was a very risky move to make) so they went with the safe option of slower, but available DDR3. To help make up for the slower speed they added 32 MB of ESRAM that could be used to make up for the reduced speed DDR3. Sony however decided they wanted a fast pool of unified ram, at the time they designed the Console they originally went with 2GB of RAM, later they decided to upgrade that to 4GB as that would give devs more freedom. As it so happens the GDDR5 density was able to be increased enabling Sony to upgrade to 8GB of RAM by only changing the chips and nothing else, they decided to do this so they could be on parity with X1 in terms of quantity but it put them ahead in terms of speed. If MS knew back when they designed the X1 that 8GB of GDDR5 would be available they would have gone that way.I'm no pc genius so can someone can explain Why X1 had to go for esram... why not just add more normal ram?
I'm not having a go at X1 (bcos from my understanding real world performance will be almost identical...or otherwise time will tell at best)
Why did they take complicated route. What was the thinking here. Am I missing something... does esram have some additional qualities to it or something.
vpacalypse
GDDR5 latency isnt nonsense Intel have servers that use intergrated GDDR5 as memory and when tests were done vs servers with DDR3, With normal cpu workloads the server that used DDR3 was faster , while when handling large data workloads GDDR5 was faster.04dcarraherCitation Needed.
[QUOTE="vpacalypse"]When they were designing the X1 they wanted 8GB of main memory. At that time 8GB of fast GDDR5 was not on the horizon (or it was a very risky move to make) so they went with the safe option of slower, but available DDR3. To help make up for the slower speed they added 32 MB of ESRAM that could be used to make up for the reduced speed DDR3. Sony however decided they wanted a fast pool of unified ram, at the time they designed the Console they originally went with 2GB of RAM, later they decided to upgrade that to 4GB as that would give devs more freedom. As it so happens the GDDR5 density was able to be increased enabling Sony to upgrade to 8GB of RAM by only changing the chips and nothing else, they decided to do this so they could be on parity with X1 in terms of quantity but it put them ahead in terms of speed. If MS knew back when they designed the X1 that 8GB of GDDR5 would be available they would have gone that way.I'm no pc genius so can someone can explain Why X1 had to go for esram... why not just add more normal ram?
I'm not having a go at X1 (bcos from my understanding real world performance will be almost identical...or otherwise time will tell at best)
Why did they take complicated route. What was the thinking here. Am I missing something... does esram have some additional qualities to it or something.
btk2k2
The intention was never GDDR5 but rather DDR4. Since DDR4 wasn't ready for mass market production they had to go with DDR3.
The intention was never GDDR5 but rather DDR4. Since DDR4 wasn't ready for mass market production they had to go with DDR3.Scipio8DDR4 was never an option. All that was available at design time was DDR3 and GDDR5. GDDR5 was not dense enough to support 8GB of ram so they went with DDR3 + ESRAM. It was their only choice to guarantee 8GB of ram.
[QUOTE="Applesexual1"]There was no guarantee that Samsung and Hynix would get high density GDDR5 RAM modules by the end of 2013. Most people assumed that only 4 GB would be realistic today. Microsoft needed 8 GB, so they went with DDR3. To patch up its low bandwidth, they've added 32 mb of eSRAM. It helps a bit, but it's not as good as having an entire 8 GB with 176 GB/s. The effective performance of eSRAM is around 130 GB/s while GDDR5 is ~150 GB/s. Yeah, Microsoft is kinda screwed.darkangel115lol so wrong. MS went with DDR3 becuase that is what every gaming PC runs. GDDR5 never came available for PCs due to the high latency and CPUs being very dependent on low latency. Programs measuring the latency of GDDR5 ram have pinned it at about 10X more then that of DDDR3. Where the GDDR5 RAM is used is in graphics cards only becuase GPUs are very "forgiving" with latency from RAM and it gives the GPU more bandwidth then DDR3. the best gaming PCs use large pools of DDR3 RAM and have a graphics card with GDDR5 RAM for the GPU. that's an "ideal" build. With teh consoles however it would have been too costly (my guess at least) to do so. Sony went high on graphics but ignored the issue with the latency which will bite them in the butt. with all the multitasking and snap and app switching the X1 has, GDDR5 RAM wouldn't even work. PS4 will have a hampered performance to the CPU due to its lack of DDR3 RAM. so what MS did to boost the bandwidth was add in the eSRAM and have obtained over 200GB/s bandwidth with it to the GPU which is higher then the PS4 gets with its GDDR5 (176GB/s) and done with lower latency. so MS got the best of both worlds out of it and sony got a RAM thats not made to work well with GPUs and still less bandwidth to their GPU.
You do realize that the "G" in "GDDR" means "Graphics"?
and
is probably the MOST STUPID THING i have read in this forum..."GDDR5 never came available for PCs"
I still don't see the reason MS did choose a lower GPU for the Xbox One.Â
xhawk27
Â
Well it's just the GPU they ended up settling on. Obviously they had no competition to compare at that time except Nintendo, so they had to set their own benchmark of where they wanted to be. It just so happened that Sony did exactly the same but chose a slightly more capable GPU.
[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="navyguy21"]u dont just add the two bandwidths together :| If the memory and ESram are working along its total bandwidth. sustained its 133GB/s theoretical bandwidth is just that it could reach that speed in bursts. the ESram is a 1024bit bus so its quite possible for it to get bursts that fast. As long as the memory is feeding the gpu with the data it needs you will not see noticeable issues with the lower bandwidth. No 133GB/s was actual bandwith in alpha blends for esram 192 was theoretical.Â
192 GB/s for the ESRAM
04dcarraher
[QUOTE="Sagemode87"][QUOTE="darkangel115"] lol so wrong. MS went with DDR3 becuase that is what every gaming PC runs. GDDR5 never came available for PCs due to the high latency and CPUs being very dependent on low latency. Programs measuring the latency of GDDR5 ram have pinned it at about 10X more then that of DDDR3. Where the GDDR5 RAM is used is in graphics cards only becuase GPUs are very "forgiving" with latency from RAM and it gives the GPU more bandwidth then DDR3. the best gaming PCs use large pools of DDR3 RAM and have a graphics card with GDDR5 RAM for the GPU. that's an "ideal" build. With teh consoles however it would have been too costly (my guess at least) to do so. Sony went high on graphics but ignored the issue with the latency which will bite them in the butt. with all the multitasking and snap and app switching the X1 has, GDDR5 RAM wouldn't even work. PS4 will have a hampered performance to the CPU due to its lack of DDR3 RAM. so what MS did to boost the bandwidth was add in the eSRAM and have obtained over 200GB/s bandwidth with it to the GPU which is higher then the PS4 gets with its GDDR5 (176GB/s) and done with lower latency. so MS got the best of both worlds out of it and sony got a RAM thats not made to work well with GPUs and still less bandwidth to their GPU.danjammer69
This is bullsh*t
Correct. Some of the most ill-informed crap i have read in a while.Â
care to elaborate, cause everything i said is 100% true, its not my fault most "gamers" have no clue about computers and spout stupid buzzwords they know nothing about like GDDR5 RAM and HUMA and TFLOPs
[QUOTE="vpacalypse"]When they were designing the X1 they wanted 8GB of main memory. At that time 8GB of fast GDDR5 was not on the horizon (or it was a very risky move to make) so they went with the safe option of slower, but available DDR3. To help make up for the slower speed they added 32 MB of ESRAM that could be used to make up for the reduced speed DDR3. Sony however decided they wanted a fast pool of unified ram, at the time they designed the Console they originally went with 2GB of RAM, later they decided to upgrade that to 4GB as that would give devs more freedom. As it so happens the GDDR5 density was able to be increased enabling Sony to upgrade to 8GB of RAM by only changing the chips and nothing else, they decided to do this so they could be on parity with X1 in terms of quantity but it put them ahead in terms of speed. If MS knew back when they designed the X1 that 8GB of GDDR5 would be available they would have gone that way.I'm no pc genius so can someone can explain Why X1 had to go for esram... why not just add more normal ram?
I'm not having a go at X1 (bcos from my understanding real world performance will be almost identical...or otherwise time will tell at best)
Why did they take complicated route. What was the thinking here. Am I missing something... does esram have some additional qualities to it or something.
btk2k2
Â
lol thats way wrong. MS chose the DDR3 becuase thats what PCs run on. its the universally best ram for running a PC. It has nothing to do with densitey and 8GB of GDDR5 was more then avilable. they have 16 512MB chips, your saying taht they had 16 256 MB chips years ago? why do all you spam misinformation. you aren't computer experts, know nothing what your talking about, but feel the need to make crap up?
[QUOTE="darkangel115"][QUOTE="Applesexual1"] lol so wrong. MS went with DDR3 becuase that is what every gaming PC runs. GDDR5 never came available for PCs due to the high latency and CPUs being very dependent on low latency. Programs measuring the latency of GDDR5 ram have pinned it at about 10X more then that of DDDR3. Where the GDDR5 RAM is used is in graphics cards only becuase GPUs are very "forgiving" with latency from RAM and it gives the GPU more bandwidth then DDR3. the best gaming PCs use large pools of DDR3 RAM and have a graphics card with GDDR5 RAM for the GPU. that's an "ideal" build. With teh consoles however it would have been too costly (my guess at least) to do so. Sony went high on graphics but ignored the issue with the latency which will bite them in the butt. with all the multitasking and snap and app switching the X1 has, GDDR5 RAM wouldn't even work. PS4 will have a hampered performance to the CPU due to its lack of DDR3 RAM. so what MS did to boost the bandwidth was add in the eSRAM and have obtained over 200GB/s bandwidth with it to the GPU which is higher then the PS4 gets with its GDDR5 (176GB/s) and done with lower latency. so MS got the best of both worlds out of it and sony got a RAM thats not made to work well with GPUs and still less bandwidth to their GPU.ManatuBeard
You do realize that the "G" in "GDDR" means "Graphics"?
and
is probably the MOST STUPID THING i have read in this forum..."GDDR5 never came available for PCs"
Â
yes i do. and it didn't. show me one PC that runs exclsuively off GDDR5 RAM. you can't. they never even put it on the market becuase the high latency isn't good to run a PC. instead its only aviable on GPUs butil into the video card
There was no guarantee that Samsung and Hynix would get high density GDDR5 RAM modules by the end of 2013. Most people assumed that only 4 GB would be realistic today. Microsoft needed 8 GB, so they went with DDR3. To patch up its low bandwidth, they've added 32 mb of eSRAM. It helps a bit, but it's not as good as having an entire 8 GB with 176 GB/s. The effective performance of eSRAM is around 130 GB/s while GDDR5 is ~150 GB/s. Yeah, Microsoft is kinda screwed.Applesexual1
Intel's Xeon Phi has been using PS4's level GDDR5 density modules since Q2 2013 i.e. 512bit = 16 GB hence at 256bit = 8 GB.
Intel Xeon Phi is not a GPU i.e. it's a 61 core mini-X86 CPUs with each core equiped with 512bit wide SIMD unit.
[QUOTE="darkangel115"][QUOTE="Applesexual1"] lol so wrong. MS went with DDR3 becuase that is what every gaming PC runs. GDDR5 never came available for PCs due to the high latency and CPUs being very dependent on low latency. Programs measuring the latency of GDDR5 ram have pinned it at about 10X more then that of DDDR3. Where the GDDR5 RAM is used is in graphics cards only becuase GPUs are very "forgiving" with latency from RAM and it gives the GPU more bandwidth then DDR3. the best gaming PCs use large pools of DDR3 RAM and have a graphics card with GDDR5 RAM for the GPU. that's an "ideal" build. With teh consoles however it would have been too costly (my guess at least) to do so. Sony went high on graphics but ignored the issue with the latency which will bite them in the butt. with all the multitasking and snap and app switching the X1 has, GDDR5 RAM wouldn't even work. PS4 will have a hampered performance to the CPU due to its lack of DDR3 RAM. so what MS did to boost the bandwidth was add in the eSRAM and have obtained over 200GB/s bandwidth with it to the GPU which is higher then the PS4 gets with its GDDR5 (176GB/s) and done with lower latency. so MS got the best of both worlds out of it and sony got a RAM thats not made to work well with GPUs and still less bandwidth to their GPU.ManatuBeard
You do realize that the "G" in "GDDR" means "Graphics"?
and
is probably the MOST STUPID THING i have read in this forum... You realize Intel Xeon Phi is not a GPU."GDDR5 never came available for PCs"
[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"][QUOTE="xboxiphoneps3"] GDDR5 in a traditional PC setup as system memory wouldnt work obviously. but this is a customized APU... not a traditional PC, all the parts are much closer and transmission latency is severely reduced, the "latency" GDDR5 is complete nonsense bandwidth is one of the most important factors in a system... and 200 GB/s is completely theoretical and they only achieved 133 GB/S real life alpha blend... and also at the end of the day it is only 32 MB..... post backfire lul darkangel115Something tells me that he will come back with Cloud Processing next. lol don't defending anything. just setting the facts straight. i mean its a game forums. i know 99% of people here don't understand computers. everything i said is 100% correct. I should also challenge you. show me one PC that uses GDDR5 RAM for its CPU. go for it. link me to 1 of them? ;) and the custom SPU means nothing. they have CPUs and all CPUs are latency sensitive. computers 101 ;) thats why they don't use GDDR5 RAM for computers, only in graphics cards
http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/docs/so-018a
"DDR4 and GDDR5M Small Outline Dual Inline Memory Module (SODIMM), 256 pin, 0.50mm pitch Socket Outline"
DDR4 and GDDR5M will be sharing the same SODIMM standards.
[QUOTE="ManatuBeard"]
[QUOTE="darkangel115"]
You do realize that the "G" in "GDDR" means "Graphics"?
and
is probably the MOST STUPID THING i have read in this forum..."GDDR5 never came available for PCs" darkangel115
Â
yes i do. and it didn't. show me one PC that runs exclsuively off GDDR5 RAM. you can't. they never even put it on the market becuase the high latency isn't good to run a PC. instead its only aviable on GPUs butil into the video card
your not certified to talk about anything at all.. you dont know anything.. shut up fool, these are gaming consoles, gaming consoles need raw bandwidth over this supposed "latency sensitive memory" which really makes no sense because these are APU's and they are totally different from a traditional PC setup...[QUOTE="darkangel115"][QUOTE="ManatuBeard"] is probably the MOST STUPID THING i have read in this forum...
xboxiphoneps3
Â
yes i do. and it didn't. show me one PC that runs exclsuively off GDDR5 RAM. you can't. they never even put it on the market becuase the high latency isn't good to run a PC. instead its only aviable on GPUs butil into the video card
your not certified to talk about anything at all.. you dont know anything.. shut up fool, these are gaming consoles, gaming consoles need raw bandwidth over this supposed "latency sensitive memory" which really makes no sense because these are APU's and they are totally different from a traditional PC setup...Â
graphics processing needs raw bandwidth. Â GPU Compute actually does need latency sensitive memory for max thourougput. Â
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment