ESRAM is to blame for weak GPU

#1cedricthegreatPosted 9/10/2013 6:59:28 PM
Sony went with a 18 CU for its GPU because they had enough space on the SoC. MS ran out of space. There is only so much space on that piece of silicon. Both PS4 /Xbox One have a SoC that houses both a CPU/GPU on the same chip(silicone). MS had to add the ESRAM directly to the GPU.

ESRAM was needed because DDR3 RAM has slow bandwith. I understand why MS went with DDR3 RAM but if they decided to use ESRAM then they should have ditched the APU and went with a discrete CPU/GPU design. They could have added even more ESRAM and had a better GPU.

The Xbox One is a large system when compared to the PS4. Xbox One and PS4 have basically the same internal parts. When I look at Xbox One it seems it was designed to house something more powerful than an APU. I know whats done is done but if MS did go with a discrete CPU/GPU I bet AMD would have given them something in the range of a Radeon HD 7970 or better.
---
everyone plays video games I want to make them
#2pblimp360Posted 9/10/2013 7:02:39 PM
K
---
Death isn't the exit of existence. It's the entrance into eternity. R.I.P Zora Nelson 3/6/13 Forever loved
#3MilesTeg420Posted 9/10/2013 7:16:41 PM
Just seems like they were decided on where they wanted to go awhile ago, likely years even. Disregarding possible advancements in ram in the future, they were dead set on DDR3 because they didn't think 8gb of gddr5 would be possible. I'm no expert but I've heard Sony got real lucky with the 8 gb of gddr5.
#4bob15xPosted 9/10/2013 7:20:03 PM
Take a minute TC and look at the history of Ram in the consoles. Microsoft had a good setup for ram in the 360 and I believe the xbox.

Sony has had bottleneck issues with ram in the ps3, I know the ps2, and I think the ps1.

So, going by that, which company do you think may have set the ram up correctly.

It is too bad the ps3 didn't have double the ram it had. Multi-platform games would have been so superior.
#5MilesTeg420Posted 9/10/2013 7:23:12 PM
bob15x posted...
Take a minute TC and look at the history of Ram in the consoles. Microsoft had a good setup for ram in the 360 and I believe the xbox.

Sony has had bottleneck issues with ram in the ps3, I know the ps2, and I think the ps1.

So, going by that, which company do you think may have set the ram up correctly.

It is too bad the ps3 didn't have double the ram it had. Multi-platform games would have been so superior.


They both had the same amount of ram. PS3 has a worse GPU and a hard to develop for cell. Even if you put the same exact cpu as 360 in PS3, 360 games still would have looked better due to better gpu.

And this is why multiplat on PS4 will be superior. Better gpu, same cpu, better ram and faster access to memory.
#6BudWisenheimerPosted 9/10/2013 7:28:03 PM(edited)
MilesTeg420 posted...
They both had the same amount of ram.

But not always the same access to it. And not in the same amounts.

MilesTeg420 posted...
And this is why multiplat on PS4 will be superior. Better gpu, same cpu, better ram and faster access to memory.

Possibly true. Eager to see real proof. I'll probably get single-player multiplats on my PS4. And multi-player multiplats for my Xbone.
#7cedricthegreat(Topic Creator)Posted 9/10/2013 7:31:35 PM
like I said I understand why MS went with 8GB of DDR3 RAM because they couldn't get 8GB of GDDR5 RAM at the time. Sony took a risk and it payed off. The ESRAM was needed to bost up the bandwidth.

If they went discrete CPU/GPU they could have had a GPU with more shaders and CU's and most likely more ESRAM.
---
everyone plays video games I want to make them
#8Orange_ApplesPosted 9/10/2013 7:33:08 PM
MilesTeg420 posted...
They both had the same amount of ram. PS3 has a worse GPU and a hard to develop for cell. Even if you put the same exact cpu as 360 in PS3, 360 games still would have looked better due to better gpu.

And this is why multiplat on PS4 will be superior. Better gpu, same cpu, better ram and faster access to memory.


both has 512MB, yes, however PS3 actually had it split 256 CPU/256 GPU whereas 360 had 512 unified. Doing a straight port would mean the PS3 had less to work with than the 360 since the game would be looking for 375MB and find itself 119 short. That split was to be compensated with clever coding through the cell processor, however devs didn't have time for that.
---
PC + Nintendo
Winning combination in the late 80s, winning combination in the 90s, winning combination today.
#9Ramsus082Posted 9/10/2013 7:37:31 PM
bob15x posted...
Take a minute TC and look at the history of Ram in the consoles. Microsoft had a good setup for ram in the 360 and I believe the xbox.

Sony has had bottleneck issues with ram in the ps3, I know the ps2, and I think the ps1.

So, going by that, which company do you think may have set the ram up correctly.




....Why would we be going by that?
#10Ramsus082Posted 9/10/2013 7:41:24 PM(edited)
Orange_Apples beat me to it. The PS3 went with a split memory architecture, causing some development challenges.