For people who can't comprehend the differences between Ram

#71SoulTrapperPosted 9/28/2013 11:53:40 AM
XBOXvsPC posted...

"Xbox One's circa 200GB/s of "real-life" bandwidth trumps PS4's 176GB/s peak throughput. The question is just to what extent channelling resources through the relatively tiny 32MB of the much faster ESRAM is going to cause issues for developers." - Digital Foundry vs. the Xbox One architects

I would say that the PS4's trucks are the way to go.


Yeah, the DDR5 seems much more suited for video games.

Which unfortunately seems to confirm once again that video games weren't the main focus of the xbox one.

Guess this guy was right in his speculation a few months back:

http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/eloj/blog/xbone-esram-gpu-performance-problems-rumors/101270/

Now, Microsoft was not building a gaming machine first. They wanted to load a familiar operating system on there. They wanted more focus on applications that historically have not been heavily optimized for one platform. A relatively fat OS, and applications from developers who are not used to the scant resources typically awarded a gaming console, leads to one design conclusion; "we need lots of memory!"

So they design for 8GB, from the start. Again, they put applications (and cost) above gaming, and go for a well known, cheap, plentiful technology in DDR3. Back then 8GB of GDDR5 would look too expensive, almost insane, and DDR4 wasn't on the immediate horizon.

To compensate the gaming side, they now need some fast RAM, hence 32MB eSRAM on-die. The XBone eSRAM is said to be a 6T type, meaning that each bit requires six transistors. 32MB gives us 32*1024*1024*8 bits times six equals 1,610,612,736 transistors. That's 1.6 billion, a huge chunk out of the total 5 billion!

They do desperately need this very fast cache-like memory to fix the fact that they're using "slow" DDR3, which they settled on because they wanted to have a lot of it, for apps -- not games.

---
PSN: El_Coon
#72MasteroftheArtsPosted 9/28/2013 7:42:03 PM
TheOmacron posted...
MS's Azure cloud computing system was not made for the XB1. It is a general purpose system that already exists and that MS is repurposing it to be used for the XB1. MS is clearly overhyping the idea because all they are is dedicated servers. I was playing on Battlefield 1942 dedicated servers way back in 2002 so that concept isn't new.


Considering I never said that the concept of cloud computing was new, your response doesn't even address why I brought up the cloud.

TheOmacron posted...
MS made a compromise to choose eSRAM. They needed the low latency for the Kinect lookup database so they went with the small but fast eSRAM along with the larger and cheaper DDR3. MS also needed the guaranteed large amount of ram to do their fast app switching and couldn't gamble on GDDR5 prices dropping enough to allow 8GB. You'll notice that neither of those reasons relate to traditional gaming. You simply have to accept that MS sacrificed some of the XB1's performance so that it could be more of a multimedia device.


No, your simply have to accept that everything you just said was nothing more than conjecture. It's like your purposefully ignoring pertinent parts of my comment in order to make your argument work. Even if I accept every single premise you just gave, if Microsoft wanted to make their console more technically powerful than the PS4, they could easily have done it. Compromise has nothing to do with this. It has everything to do with making a system that is just as graphically competitive while reducing your liabilities.
---
"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God. "For proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing..."
#73FusionCPosted 9/28/2013 7:46:02 PM
Something else people dont seem to be getting about the eRAM, its the same design that was used in the 360, not the same ram, but the Xb1 is the natural evolution of the Xbox360 architecture. So Devs who Devd on the 360 already have a very good idea of how to utilize the eRAM
---
For the Horde!!!!
#74SirLemontPosted 9/29/2013 5:44:54 AM
The more I read topics like this, the more I'm convinced Microsoft built a more complicated-than-necessary system to optimize the non-gaming aspects of it. Gaming was truly an afterthought.
#75TheOmacronPosted 9/29/2013 5:45:12 AM
MasteroftheArts posted...
TheOmacron posted...
MS's Azure cloud computing system was not made for the XB1. It is a general purpose system that already exists and that MS is repurposing it to be used for the XB1. MS is clearly overhyping the idea because all they are is dedicated servers. I was playing on Battlefield 1942 dedicated servers way back in 2002 so that concept isn't new.


Considering I never said that the concept of cloud computing was new, your response doesn't even address why I brought up the cloud.


Umm...Did I imagine it when you said "They're not dropping billions in R&D just so that they can use it as a PR selling point." R&D = new stuff.

I don't know. Maybe your point is that MS forgot how to do dedicated servers so they had to do R&D to figure it out again.

MasteroftheArts posted...
TheOmacron posted...
MS made a compromise to choose eSRAM. They needed the low latency for the Kinect lookup database so they went with the small but fast eSRAM along with the larger and cheaper DDR3. MS also needed the guaranteed large amount of ram to do their fast app switching and couldn't gamble on GDDR5 prices dropping enough to allow 8GB. You'll notice that neither of those reasons relate to traditional gaming. You simply have to accept that MS sacrificed some of the XB1's performance so that it could be more of a multimedia device.


No, your simply have to accept that everything you just said was nothing more than conjecture. It's like your purposefully ignoring pertinent parts of my comment in order to make your argument work. Even if I accept every single premise you just gave, if Microsoft wanted to make their console more technically powerful than the PS4, they could easily have done it. Compromise has nothing to do with this. It has everything to do with making a system that is just as graphically competitive while reducing your liabilities.


No not conjecture.

From Edge Online...
Microsoft's approach to asynchronous GPU compute is somewhat different to Sony's - something we'll track back on at a later date. But essentially, rather than concentrate extensively on raw compute power, their philosophy is that both CPU and GPU need lower latency access to the same memory. Goossen points to the Exemplar skeletal tracking system on Kinect on Xbox 360 as an example for why they took that direction.

"Exemplar ironically doesn't need much ALU. It's much more about the latency you have in terms of memory fetch, so this is kind of a natural evolution for us," he says. "It's like, OK, it's the memory system which is more important for some particular GPGPU workloads."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-the-xbox-one-architects


Yes Microsoft could have made a more powerful console, but they didn't. The reason they didn't is because they wanted to include the Kinect and support multiple concurrent apps running with fast switching between them. Microsoft needed very low latency and a guaranteed large amount of memory. They could not gamble that GDDR4 prices would come down to the point where they could afford 8GB of it.

The XB1 has ESRAM on the die. Where do you think that space came from? The XB1's die size is already huge. To add the ESRAM, which the PS4 doesn't have, they needed to drop something else, and that something else was part of the GPU. It is that simple, and no matter what you think that is a compromise.
#76SoulTrapperPosted 9/29/2013 5:52:29 AM
MasteroftheArts posted...

No, your simply have to accept that everything you just said was nothing more than conjecture. It's like your purposefully ignoring pertinent parts of my comment in order to make your argument work. Even if I accept every single premise you just gave, if Microsoft wanted to make their console more technically powerful than the PS4, they could easily have done it. Compromise has nothing to do with this. It has everything to do with making a system that is just as graphically competitive while reducing your liabilities.


Everything about the xboxs design screams "made for apps" rather than "made for video games".

Read this article from months ago:

http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/eloj/blog/xbone-esram-gpu-performance-problems-rumors/101270/

Now, Microsoft was not building a gaming machine first. They wanted to load a familiar operating system on there. They wanted more focus on applications that historically have not been heavily optimized for one platform. A relatively fat OS, and applications from developers who are not used to the scant resources typically awarded a gaming console, leads to one design conclusion; "we need lots of memory!"

So they design for 8GB, from the start. Again, they put applications (and cost) above gaming, and go for a well known, cheap, plentiful technology in DDR3. Back then 8GB of GDDR5 would look too expensive, almost insane, and DDR4 wasn't on the immediate horizon.

To compensate the gaming side, they now need some fast RAM, hence 32MB eSRAM on-die. The XBone eSRAM is said to be a 6T type, meaning that each bit requires six transistors. 32MB gives us 32*1024*1024*8 bits times six equals 1,610,612,736 transistors. That's 1.6 billion, a huge chunk out of the total 5 billion!

They do desperately need this very fast cache-like memory to fix the fact that they're using "slow" DDR3, which they settled on because they wanted to have a lot of it, for apps -- not games.


Is it speculation? Of course, everything is speculation. Outside of the people at MS, no one knows for certain what they were trying to do.

What we do know, is that the xbox isn't build as a video games console, they are not the sole thing MS had in mind when building the console. As evidenced by the specs, by the addition of the mandatory kinect, by the focus on TV and by the devs coming out and stating that it's not easy to develop for.

If you read through that article, it all makes sense.
---
PSN: El_Coon
#77SilentS89Posted 9/29/2013 6:46:09 AM
SoulTrapper posted...
Everything about the xboxs design screams "made for apps" rather than "made for video games".


Absolutely, it is like I've said multiple times. The more of the pie you give non-gaming the less of the pie gaming gets
#78HENTAIDOJIPosted 9/29/2013 7:02:58 AM
So will people please stop acting like 1/257th of Xbox Ones ram will make the system faster.... Please?

Why not? 1/50th of the Xbox 360s memory devoured 100% of the PS3's twice as fast memory.

We have 8 solid hard years of proof.
---
http://nopybot.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/hentai-demotivational1.jpg