[QUOTE="TellDaddy"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="CarlosPontinas"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="CarlosPontinas"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="CarlosPontinas"]Only the PS3's system RAM runs at 3.2 GHz. Its VRAM runs at 700MHz like the 360's.
Once again you lose. We don't need the world's fastest calculator, we need the most amount of VRAM with the least amount of latency.
rocklegacy2
Jeez...
Vram is suited for the GPU, not the CPU. I'm sure if the 360 used XDR, it'd help the CPU which then aids the GPU for graphics processing.
I know what you said. I'm saying even if your XDR runs at 3.2 GHz it's useless because it has to be primed for use as VRAM before you can use it as VRAM and that means extra code and extra latency. in other words you'll never get that speed out of XDR used as VRAM.
The 360 will just use however much RAM it likes as VRAM without any overhead.
Okay I didn't really get that....
XDR isn't meant to be used as Vram.... the PS3 has Gddr3 for that
That's right. In order to go beyond that 256MB of GDDR3 developers have to execute code to emulate more VRAM using XDR. They also have to homebrew all the things you said the 360s EDRAM takes care of and it all has to go through your 550MHz RSX.
/THREAD
What if the PS3 doesn't need more Vram? What if it really needs something more supportive for the CPU? Like Xdr? XDR is not meant to emulate Vram.... wtf?
The 360 needs edram. One could only imagine how watered down the games for the 360 would be without it.
But it does have EdRam which is a huge advantage. What you said is comprable to saying " a Ferrari is only fast because it has a V8 with 528 horsepower, without that it just be a samll pretty Civic" Thanks for the insight Einstein.
I'm saying that the 360 needed edram, unlike the PS3.
Some could argue the PS3 does need EdRam. Your arguement is flawed.
I don't enjoy 360 games because I know something it needed was incorporated in its design???
Keep up the good work!
Log in to comment