[QUOTE="Tadgerot"]Hang on let me get this straight...I am getting confused :( If 102 still holds true it means no downclock, is that right? The DF journalists also found out from MS that the memory through put was an 88% increase. Now if I was the journalist and I was asked to write up the DF article, I would look at 102 and think, ok that's the bandwidth. Then I would increase that number by 88% rounded up. Which makes 192. I don't understand how people started taking numbers of the gpu clock to suit there needs, especially when it says in the article that there has been no downclock. So to summarise, is it possible the editor just added 88% to 102 to get that figure? Seem more likely that the editor downclocking the gpu and adding them together?tormentos
Because the whole theory was based on reading and writing at the same time,MS tryed to hype reading and writing by ESRAM as something new,when it is in fact one of the leaks,first you have to believe that MS just found out this,and second this is well known,how do you think peopel came with the whole 170GB/s bandwidth for the xbox one.?
102 + 68 = 170 GB/s.so basically this just rise the 170GB/s number by 22GB and not the 88% MS claims now.
Since the whole theory was based on reading and writing at the same time,192GB/s translate into 96GB/s.
Which doesn't match up with 102GB/s which would be 800mhz 128 bits.
But 750mhz 128 bits fits perfectly with the 192 number,and this is funny because DF claim that it hasn't been a downgrade base on its source,but MS has refuse to reveal the xbox one GPU clock speed,because they know people will get the TF count as soon as its know.
So MS could be even saying to DF there is no downclock on the GPU,while the speed it 750mhz,because MS never revealed the GPU speed.
This is thing, any number of rumours could be right, I'm just saying my theory holds as much weight as any other, proof wise. On another note, do we think this speed increase is independent on JIT compression or is it including this benifit. If its included then I can see where the theoretical speed comes from. If not and they are claiming 192 without the compression, well then I dunno what XBO will output but it will be huge. This kind of makes me Beleive my source even more. "Seems accurate but they do not have detail of the 'move engine' and the esram. The 'move engine' as they put it is out sdma engine which has a desperate encode and decide engine which can operate a synch... They can decode video memory compressed jpegs directly to esram for render by the texture pipe line. Anyhow will see I guess. I've played with the decompress engine myselfm its pretty powerful." 
Log in to comment