GDDR5 much better than DDR3 for gaming
look at the last chart please .
In here Performance: 1GB GDDR5 vs. 2GB DDR3 :
So yea it is better still by a lot for gaming perspective not so much for OS .
So it could be the reason why PS OS is using more ( less features) though down the road there will be more improvement and cloud stuff as well .
So basically no one should buy a x one .
Just me protecting the consumer .
I didn't click any of the links or read what you said but I disagree with it all.
Not changing this sig until i go to sleep started : 13/01/06 00:40 am GT: Jaydragon117 Flight of dragons is #1.
But xb1 5gig of dedicated gaming ram vs ps4's 4.5gb
How nice of you! Only protecting the consumer!
Still buying an Xbox One.
Phenom II X6 1055T@ 2.8 GHz | CM Storm Enforcer | 8 GB DDR3 RAM | HT Omega Claro Plus | MSI GTX 560 Ti TFII | 1.0 TB HDD | XL2370-1 23" |
no you see this statement is made by AMD . And also PS4 uses 5 Gb of ram . Though yea this statement is by amd comparing 2 GB of DDR3 with 1 GB of GDDR5 . GDDR5 is much better according to AMD : ) .
So you guys are lacking in knowledge .
The PS3 produced more gflops and had faster RAM than the Xbox 360, thereby it had the best multisystem games, right?
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC
Protecting the consumer? by stating an opinion based on specs of consoles that are not out yet?
People stuck with PS3 even though it had inferior multiplats (not counting exclusives) most of them did not care that the multiplats were terrible, they just played the game.
Xbox One does look inferior bit by how much? the games still look really good and there are plenty to pick from, also for people who prefer the controller, UI and XBL among other things your opinion and links to articles wont matter.
The three things I stated are my own opinions, coupled with all the lies and arrogance of Sony this gen I am sticking with Xbox One like I stuck with Xbox 360.
Best consumer advise is go where the games are that you want to play along with which is most comfortable, do not base your opinion by the numerous troll topics about specs and various other "crap" topics.
The only people who don't know this are Xbronies who don't want to be told in the face that they're paying $100 more for inferior hardware.
And even if the rumor about the PS4's 5/3 RAM split turns out to be true, guess what? The Xbone also has a 5/3 split for its RAM but the PS4 uses 5GB of superior GDDR5 RAM for their games so they're **** out of luck. Another sad day in Xbone history.
Not changing this sig until Harden and D12 hold the nba title high in the sky!1!!
Are you sure, TC? Because you obviously don't know much about it yourself.
"The principle differences are:
?DDR3 runs at a higher voltage that GDDR5 (typically 1.25-1.65V versus ~1V)
?DDR3 uses a 64-bit memory controller per channel ( so, 128-bit bus for dual channel, 256-bit for quad channel), whereas GDDR5 is paired with controllers of a nominal 32-bit (16 bit each for input and output), but whereas the CPU's memory contoller is 64-bit per channel, a GPU can utilise any number of 32-bit I/O's (at the cost of die size) depending upon application ( 2 for 64-bit bus, 4 for 128-bit, 6 for 192-bit, 8 for 256-bit, 12 for 384-bit etc...). The GDDR5 setup also allows for doubling or asymetric memory configurations. Normally (using this generation of cards as example) GDDR5 memory uses 2Gbit memory chips for each 32-bit I/O (I.e for a 256-bit bus/2GB card: 8 x 32-bit I/O each connected by a circuit to a 2Gbit IC = 8 x 2Gbit = 16Gbit = 2GB), but GDDR5 can also operate in what is known as clamshell mode, where the 32-bit I/O instead of being connected to one IC is split between two (one on each side of the PCB) allowing for a doubling up of memory capacity. Mixing the arrangement of 32-bit memory controllers, memory IC density, and memory circuit splitting allows of asymetric configurations ( 192-bit, 2GB VRAM for example)
?Physically, a GDDR5 controller/IC doubles the I/O of DDR3 - With DDR, I/O handles an input (written to memory), or output (read from memory) but not both on the same cycle. GDDR handles input and output on the same cycle.
The memory is also fundamentally set up specifically for the application it uses:
System memory (DDR3) benefits from low latency (tight timings) at the expense of bandwidth, GDDR5's case is the opposite. Timings for GDDR5 would seems unbelieveably slow in relation to DDR3, but the speed of VRAM is blazing fast in comparison with desktop RAM- this has resulted from the relative workloads that a CPU and GPU undertake. Latency isn't much of an issue with GPU's since their parallel nature allows them to move to other calculation when latency cycles cause a stall in the current workload/thread. The performance of a graphics card for instance is greatly affected (as a percentage) by altering the internal bandwidth, yet altering the external bandwidth (the PCI-Express bus, say lowering from x16 to x8 or x4 lanes) has a minimal effect. This is because there is a great deal of I/O (textures for examples) that get swapped in and out of VRAM continuously- the nature of a GPU is many parallel computations, whereas a CPU computes in a basically linear way."
While this is about PCs, it still applies, for the most part.
Justice...is what I seek, Kemosabe.
3DS FC: 0748 2141 3539
GDDR5 much better than DDR3 for gaming
Actually it's just more bandwidth is better than less bandwidth for gaming.
DDR5 is basically GDDR3 with a higher speed bandwidth bus and latency issues.
FWIW, the Xbox One has about as much bandwidth dedicated just for graphics than the PS4 has as total for all system functionality .