GDDR5 much better than DDR3 for gaming

#91MrImpatient35Posted 7/27/2013 2:17:13 PM
Foppe posted...
The PS3 produced more gflops and had faster RAM than the Xbox 360, thereby it had the best multisystem games, right?


I always think about PS3 vs. X360 when people talk about PS4 specs being better than X1. PS3 had better specs, but that didn't mean much did it?
---
Dost thou even hoist?
Dead Rising 3 and Battlefield 4 are already a done deal!
#92HENTAIDOJIPosted 7/27/2013 2:20:57 PM(edited)
You mean it's a known architecture, not quantity

No, i meant the ins and outs of it are a known quantity. It's like telling a driver whose had his license 10 years that his new car has one of those fiddly steering wheels with pedals and seats.

You don't need that as a Frame Buffer, regular DDR3 RAM is fine as a Frame Buffer.

So you would in fact trade 192GB/sec 8gig pool of GDDR5 for an 8GB pool of DDR3 at 68GB/sec? The TC's link confirms, the more bandwidth you have, the better your performance.

XB1's DDR3 = 68.3 GiB/s (It's slower than PS4's memory by 107.7 GiB/s)
XB1's eSRAM = 192 GiB/s (It's only an extra 16 GiB/s ~= 9.09% faster for only 32 MiB of memory)
PS4's GDDR5 = 176 GiB/s


And? the Xbox Ones memorys are working simultaneously. The PS4s single bus must be split across function.
---
http://nopybot.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/hentai-demotivational1.jpg
#93BSerenityPosted 7/27/2013 2:21:27 PM
MrImpatient35 posted...
Foppe posted...
The PS3 produced more gflops and had faster RAM than the Xbox 360, thereby it had the best multisystem games, right?


I always think about PS3 vs. X360 when people talk about PS4 specs being better than X1. PS3 had better specs, but that didn't mean much did it?


Except the key difference between PS3 and X360 was that PS3 was a total bish to program for.
Which isn't the case at all in regards towards the PS4 and X1. You can't look at it half-ass.
---
La morte sgorga dalle mie dita... Non v'e dubbio, tale e il desiderio dell'ignobile; dannata innocenza!
#94Ramsus082Posted 7/27/2013 2:21:45 PM
Also I don't really expect the moving of texture data to consume as much bandwidth as it didn't last gen. 68GB/sec will be adequate when all the heavy lifting is done by the SRam.

The heavy lifting will be done by the DDR3! There's 5GB of it compared to 32MB, how can 32MB do the "heavy lifting" when all it can fit is frame buffer data?

The eSRAM is there to make up for DDR3's deficiencies, that's assuming that developers even want to bother with it, when in all likelhood the PC and PS4 will be the lead development platforms.
#95HENTAIDOJIPosted 7/27/2013 2:32:24 PM
The heavy lifting will be done by the DDR3!

The main memory holds data, music, AI routines, textures, . The eSram holds the actual image you see as you game.

Main memory is the pots and brushes.

The frame is the work of art.

There's 5GB of it compared to 32MB, how can 32MB do the "heavy lifting" when all it can fit is frame buffer data?

The framebuffer requires the most bandwidth of any function on the system. It's graphics.

The eSRAM is there to make up for DDR3's deficiencies

Or it's just the Bruce Lee design ethos that the Xbox 360 went by.

that's assuming that developers even want to bother with it, when in all likelhood the PC and PS4 will be the lead development platforms.

If you say so. But The Crew ain't one of them.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-how-the-crew-was-ported-to-playstation-4
---
http://nopybot.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/hentai-demotivational1.jpg
#96KamenRiderBladePosted 7/27/2013 2:34:34 PM
HENTAIDOJI posted...
You mean it's a known architecture, not quantity

No, i meant the ins and outs of it are a known quantity. It's like telling a driver whose had his license 10 years that his new car has one of those fiddly steering wheels with pedals and seats.

You need to work on your analogies, it's difficult to understand and not entirely accurate


You don't need that as a Frame Buffer, regular DDR3 RAM is fine as a Frame Buffer.

So you would in fact trade 192GB/sec 8gig pool of GDDR5 for an 8GB pool of DDR3 at 68GB/sec? The TC's link confirms, the more bandwidth you have, the better your performance.

XB1's DDR3 = 68.3 GiB/s (It's slower than PS4's memory by 107.7 GiB/s)
XB1's eSRAM = 192 GiB/s (It's only an extra 16 GiB/s ~= 9.09% faster for only 32 MiB of memory)
PS4's GDDR5 = 176 GiB/s


And? the Xbox Ones memorys are working simultaneously. The PS4s single bus must be split across function.

I would rather have the PS4's dedicated memory pool of consistently fast memory

That being said, I'm telling you that using the 32 MiB of eSRAM as a Frame Buffer is really bad use of the limited memory. There are far more important things you can do with that memory than as a Frame Buffer. Especially since the developers will have to use it to make up for the lack of bandwidth in it's DDR3 main RAM.
---
Are you a MexiCAN or a MexiCAN'T - Johnny Depp 'Once Upon A Time in Mexico'
#97sworderPosted 7/27/2013 2:48:12 PM
HENTAIDOJI posted...
The main memory holds data, music, AI routines, textures, . The eSram holds the actual image you see as you game.

Main memory is the pots and brushes.

The frame is the work of art.


Is this eSRAM doing the rendering? Or is that the GPU? Is it also doing post processing? Or does it only do what memory does, hold stuff?

Because unless you can show us where GDDR5 memory reaches a bottleneck where eSRAM memory doesn't (thus making it superior), how exactly is it improving graphics?

I'm getting the impression this eSRAM does a whole lot of nothing but try to even up Xbone's poor memory architecture to the PS4's vastly superior one
#98KamenRiderBladePosted 7/27/2013 2:48:15 PM
HENTAIDOJI posted...
The heavy lifting will be done by the DDR3!

The main memory holds data, music, AI routines, textures, . The eSram holds the actual image you see as you game.

Main memory is the pots and brushes.

The frame is the work of art.

Yes, the Frame Buffer is what the end user sees, nobody is denying that.
eSRAM is just a high speed 32 MiB memory pool for processing data.
eSRAM not reserved for the Frame Buffer, it can be used by the Frame Buffer.
However, given the reality of how much bandwidth a Frame Bufffer needs, it's a HORRIBLE use of the limited 32 MiB's.
Please try to get this through to your skull.


There's 5GB of it compared to 32MB, how can 32MB do the "heavy lifting" when all it can fit is frame buffer data?

The framebuffer requires the most bandwidth of any function on the system. It's graphics.

No it does NOT!!!
1 Frame Buffer =
1920 x 1080 x 4 bytes per pixel = 8,294,400 bytes = 8,100 KiB ~= 7.91015625 MiB
1 Frame Buffer x 60 Frames = 486,000 KiB ~= 474.609375 MiB

XB1's DDR3 = 68.3 GiB/s
XB1's eSRAM = 192 GiB/s
PS4's GDDR5 = 176 GiB/s

You ONLY need 474.6 MiB/sec, even the DDR3 RAM can handle this just fine with extra bandwidth to spare for post processing.


The eSRAM is there to make up for DDR3's deficiencies

Or it's just the Bruce Lee design ethos that the Xbox 360 went by.

Huh? How does his Ethos apply to the XB360?


that's assuming that developers even want to bother with it, when in all likelhood the PC and PS4 will be the lead development platforms.

If you say so. But The Crew ain't one of them.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-how-the-crew-was-ported-to-playstation-4

Why don't we wait and see which platforms the developers will target
---
Are you a MexiCAN or a MexiCAN'T - Johnny Depp 'Once Upon A Time in Mexico'
#99Ramsus082Posted 7/27/2013 2:52:46 PM
There's 10 people in your party. It's a table for 9.

Er, what? If the developers request the 512 of RAM, they'll get it. Your analogy makes no sense.

Fiddle? It's Xbox 360 like architecture, 9 year known quantity.

It's an additional architecture split that the (more powerful) competition doesn't have. You can port your PC game to both consoles, but the PS4 will be easier to develop for because it's memory is unified. More work is more work. Can you say every developer is going to bother? When the end result still, in all likelihood, won't compare favourably to it's PC/PS4 counterparts? Exclusives, maybe. Multiplats? I won't hold my breath, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if they'd bothered.

Why would you be sending other game data to the framebuffer?

Nothing! Exactly! 32mb eSRAM is for framebuffer, and that alone. Heavy lifting? Not with 32mb of data, max.

Well if you're inferring that the PS4 is only going to be spending more of it's bandwidth on non-graphics functions that's even more of a problem for the framebuffer isn't it?

No, it isn't. Not when there's more power to go around. Not when they don't need the eSRAM. Their unified memory moves data at a constant speed. They don't have to worry about feeding some parts of code through some memory and others through a separate block. And again, the PS4 GPU is a beast compared to the X1s. No component is more important for gaming these days than the quality of the GPU. Makes me wonder why there's so much talk about the RAM....

But again, the eSRAM is here to make up for DDR3's deficiencies, not propel it past GDDR5. It's terrific that it's theoretical maximum speed is super quick. Less terrific that it's only going to be used for one thing.

No it would be a fire hose spraying at one target, the DDR3 would be the squirt gun (like super soaker) and GDDR5 would be a garden hose having to constantly switch between two targets

.....That's the exact opposite of what's occuring......the PS4's memory is unified, everything is going to leave it's RAM at exactly the same speed; framebuffer, texture data, etc. Framebuffing effects aren't going to be an issue with the PS4's GDDR5, and certainly not with it's GPU. The X1 has the issue of having to switch between two targets, withdifferent memory sizes and different speeds.
#100KamenRiderBladePosted 7/27/2013 2:55:41 PM(edited)
sworder posted...
HENTAIDOJI posted...
The main memory holds data, music, AI routines, textures, . The eSram holds the actual image you see as you game.

Main memory is the pots and brushes.

The frame is the work of art.


Is this eSRAM doing the rendering? Or is that the GPU? Is it also doing post processing? Or does it only do what memory does, hold stuff?

Because unless you can show us where GDDR5 memory reaches a bottleneck where eSRAM memory doesn't (thus making it superior), how exactly is it improving graphics?

I'm getting the impression this eSRAM does a whole lot of nothing but try to even up Xbone's poor memory architecture to the PS4's vastly superior one


eSRAM was just MS's solution to eDRAM from XB360

XB1 is XB360 on steroids in every way.

MS was caught with their pants down when PS4's architecture was revealed.

PS4 decided to make a even SIMPLER architecture then the XB1 / XB360 and just apply more horse power where it needs to be.

All MS is doing is spreading a propaganda war so that those who don't understand what is really going on will cite big numbers.

It's really sad.

There is nothing wrong with either system, it's architecturally different and each platform will have their advantages.

Kinect 2.0 will give the XB1 it's own advantages, regardless of how we feel about it, it offers a DIFFERENT experience then what the PS4 does.

That's not to say there won't be architectural advantages for the PS4.

XB1 decided to pull a Nintendo Wii manuever and strive to go a different route on their bullet point list.

Kinect being that bullet point.

In the end, do you want raw Horse Power, or a different type of car.

In the end, it's a silly argument since the average gamer doesn't care.

They want pretty games, that play, and is cheap.
---
Are you a MexiCAN or a MexiCAN'T - Johnny Depp 'Once Upon A Time in Mexico'