@Tighaman said:
Esram and ddr3 was there from the start they never had a thought about gddr5 because speed between the multicore and cpu. And I thing ps fanboys need to go back and listen to what Cerny said in his last interview on esram
He said the esram method was very dev unfriendly and would have took to long for dev to tap into the power and they needed performance now. He also said once devs get to understand how to use that small bit of esram possiblities are endless for the console, he sound like he knew they would have a headstart because the straight forward method but wasn't sure how long or how fast devs would start using esram.
What.? lol..
It was the most cost effective way STATED BY MS.
You know what cost effective means right.? Cheapest way..lol
No he didn't say tap into the power because ESRAM has no power what so ever stop spreading lies.
"One thing we could have done is drop it down to 128-bit bus, which would drop the bandwidth to 88 gigabytes per second, and then have eDRAM on chip to bring the performance back up again," said Cerny. While that solution initially looked appealing to the team due to its ease of manufacturability, it was abandoned thanks to the complexity it would add for developers. "We did not want to create some kind of puzzle that the development community would have to solve in order to create their games. And so we stayed true to the philosophy of unified memory."
"I think you can appreciate how large our commitment to having a developer friendly architecture is in light of the fact that we could have made hardware with as much as a terabyte [Editor's note: 1000 gigabytes] of bandwidth to a small internal RAM, and still did not adopt that strategy," said Cerny. "I think that really shows our thinking the most clearly of anything."
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191007/inside_the_playstation_4_with_mark_.php?print=1
Cerny say they could had 1 Terabyte bandwidth for the PS4 using the same method the xbox one use,still they didn't.
ESRAM is not a flop generator is damn memory for Christ sake stop spreading stupidity,that like saying if PS4 has the bandwidth of the 7970 it would equal a 7970 or even surpass it which is what you want to imply with that part about Cerny knowing they would have an early advantage,the xbox one GPU can't produce graphics better than the PS4 because it lacks the power it can has 100GB's bandwidth it wouldn't matter.
@Tighaman said:
@Shewgenja: that was totally bogus like is said you are only been looking at 1.3 tf and small esram you it takes way more to make a game than pretty colors, Ryse still looks better than anything on console with a straight forward method on a console that wasn't meant for it.
They didn't uses the two compute units or the two graphic compute units, no swizzle encoding, decoding, upscaler or display planes, no offloading locally or to the azure cloud, with using only 3.5gb of Ram 5 cores while infamous is using all 6 cores and 4.5gbs now out of that who has to most room to grow?
First of all 1.3TF is the maximum output of the xbox one GPU, the xbox one can't go beyond that period without a over clock this is GPU 101 period,no matter what you falsely claim,ESRAM isn't a damn performance booster or flop generator that will increase the xbox one GPU performance to 1.90TF,the most ESRAM can do is allow the xbox one GPU work at its fullest,which isn't saying much since is 1.31TF and not even all can be use for games.
Ryse is a piece of sh** game where you can't move basically all you do is hack and slash,it draws nothing but some characters and some distant building which you can't even access,is the pinnacle of constricted games,and even then it can run at 1080p nor even 30 FPS,is a hack and slash build like a corridor shooter,when you can do nothing and movement is severely restricted,trying to imply that Infamous is just pretty colors is a joke is one of the most impressive games ever made,and basically the most impressive on consoles,having incredible particle effects second to non,with some of the most crisp and clean graphics that ever pass in a console,and the most impressive AA system done on any platform,is a damn beauty and the simple fact that this game is open and it 1080p and runs over 30FPS basically make any comparison to Ryse irrelevant and stupid.
If Ryse was as open as Infamous it would be 720p with DR3 like graphics,the reason it looks good is because all the resources are target over a small area,much like Tekken 5 was so great looking that could pass as a xbox game back on the PS2 days.
Did you just mix 2CU with 2 CPU cores.?
That last bold part make no sense what so ever.
The xbox one uses 6 cores because 2 are reserved for OS and system,as of now that is also the case on PS4.
2CU are disable from the hardware for redundancy those can't be active again,period because it will cause problem on any xbox one that doesn't have 14 working CU.
Ryse uses the upscaler the game is upscale to 1080p from 900p,coding and decoding if for movies and media content which is irrelevant to Ryse,why would they need to offload.? Titanfall uses the cloud for AI and the bots are some of the dumbest bots ever put on a game,you have to much hope for the cloud,because you don't understand how GPU work and how latency and bandwidth will stop the cloud for doing anything significant.
Have you stop and think why they didn't use 4.5GB or 5Gb on Ryse.? Is because they don't need it to,Ryse is not an open game like Infamous so ram consumption is lower,hell and i think many of that usage was wasted copy and paste code because of the xbox one not been true HSA or hUMA.
Log in to comment