Eurogamer: XboxOne Esram Underestimated Signficantly More Powerful 192GB/s

Loose

Loose

Retired Legend
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
53,440
Reputation
3,103
Daps
150,624
Well-placed development sources have told Digital Foundry that the ESRAM embedded memory within the Xbox One processor is considerably more capable than Microsoft envisaged during pre-production of the console,
with data throughput levels up to 88 per cent higher in the final hardware.

Bandwidth is at a premium in the Xbox One owing to the slower DDR3 memory employed in the console, which does not compare favourably to the 8GB unified pool of GDDR5 in the PlayStation 4.
The 32MB of "embedded static RAM" within the Xbox One processor aims to make up the difference, and was previously thought to sustain a peak theoretical throughput of 102GB/s -
useful, but still some way behind the 176GB/s found in PlayStation 4's RAM set-up.
Now that close-to-final silicon is available, Microsoft has revised its own figures upwards significantly, telling developers that 192GB/s is now theoretically possible.

Catching up to the GDDR5 bandwidth.

So how could Microsoft's own internal tech teams have underestimated the capabilities of its own hardware by such a wide margin?
Well, according to sources who have been briefed by Microsoft, the original bandwidth claim derives from a pretty basic calculation -
128 bytes per block multiplied by the GPU speed of 800MHz offers up the previous max throughput of 102.4GB/s. It's believed that this calculation remains true for separate read/write operations from and to the ESRAM.
However, with near-final production silicon, Microsoft techs have found that the hardware is capable of reading and writing simultaneously.
Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations.
Theoretical peak performance is one thing, but in real-life scenarios it's believed that 133GB/s throughput has been achieved with alpha transparency blending operations (FP16 x4).

more or less debunking the downclock rumor:
The news doesn't quite square with previous rumours suggesting that fabrication issues with the ESRAM component of the Xbox One processor had actually resulted in a downclock for the GPU, reducing its overall capabilities and widening the gulf between graphical components of the Xbox One and the PlayStation 4. While none of our sources are privy to any production woes Microsoft may or may not be experiencing with its processor, they are making actual Xbox One titles and have not been informed of any hit to performance brought on by production challenges. To the best of their knowledge, 800MHz remains the clock speed of the graphics component of the processor, and the main CPU is operating at the target 1.6GHz. In both respects, this represents parity with the PlayStation 4.

Multiplatform performance / tools:
In terms of what this all means with regards multi-platform titles launching on both next-gen consoles,
our information suggests that developers may be playing things rather conservatively for launch titles while dev tools are still being worked on.
This is apparently more of an issue with Xbox One, where Microsoft developers are still in the process of bringing home very significant increases in performance from one release of the XDK development environment to the next.
Our principal source suggests that performance targets are being set by game-makers and that the drivers should catch up with those targets sooner rather than later.
Bearing in mind the stuttering performance we saw from some Xbox One titles at E3 such as Crytek's Ryse (amongst others), this is clearly good news.

As the performance levels of both next-gen consoles are something of a moving target at the moment, differences in multi-platform games may not become evident until developers are working with more mature tools and libraries.
At that point it's possible that we may see ambitious titles operating at a lower resolution on Xbox One compared to the PlayStation 4.
Click to expand...

Xbox One memory performance improved for production console • News • Eurogamer.net
 
daze23

daze23

Siempre Fresco
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
32,666
Reputation
2,755
Daps
45,485
backbreaker65 said:
Your headline is the most misleading and the most untrue statement.
Click to expand...

really? you've never seen a more misleading or untrue headline on this website?

I'd be glad to find some examples of headlines you have declared less misleading and untrue

or maybe you were just being hyperbolic and making baseless statements...
 
Snitchin Splatter

Snitchin Splatter

Working With The Feds
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
8,273
Reputation
1,969
Daps
14,804
Reppin
Confidential Informants
well considering xbox one games are already running smoother than PS4 versions this is only more fuel to the fire that this next gen will be a repeat of last one......Playstation supposedly has more "horse power" on paper but Xbox games are the one's that actually perform better and more efficient
 
backbreaker65

backbreaker65

All Star
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
4,681
Reputation
-415
Daps
10,397
Reppin
The Passage of Time
daze23 said:
really? you've never seen a more misleading or untrue headline on this website?

I'd be glad to find some examples of headlines you have declared less misleading and untrue

or maybe you were just being hyperbolic and making baseless statements...
Click to expand...

Gone with your bad self, do yo thang boy, I ain't gone stop ya.
 
daze23

daze23

Siempre Fresco
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
32,666
Reputation
2,755
Daps
45,485
backbreaker65 said:
What do I care about demos at E3? I'm a final product guy. I chime in when the product is final. I don't want to see a fetus nikka show me the baby.
Click to expand...

would you like to explain why this thread title is the most misleading and the most untrue?
 
backbreaker65

backbreaker65

All Star
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
4,681
Reputation
-415
Daps
10,397
Reppin
The Passage of Time
daze23 said:
would you like to explain why this thread title is the most misleading and the most untrue?
Click to expand...

BANDWIDTH has increased theoretically, esram is still a bottleneck on the system. Developers still have to jump through hoops to get those pie in the sky theoretical numbers(which never happen). The RAM hasn't increased not one iota, so the power didn't increase. Just theoretical bandwidth number, that is still significantly lower than the PS4. Read the article.

8 GDDR5 is superior to 8GB DDR3 +32eSram in every way, plus the GPU in the PS4 is 50% more powerful, that hasn't changed as well as the CPU being more powerful.

And Oh must we forget this all important factor.

XB1 5GB DDR3 is for Gaming 3GB is for 3 Operating System

PS4 Rumored after the increase in memory went from 4GB GDDR5 using 512MB for OS to now 8GB of GDDR5 to 1GB for OS.

XB1 games performing better in my opinion has everything to do with legacy. The XBOX brand and its developers has a head start on using X86 Arch, because that have it in there DNA. PS4 Developers strictly talking about those who developed exclusively for the PS3 had to go from exotic hardware to traditional hardware learning a whole new system. I predict early on the games will rival one another in appearance, but I think it will change as the dev units mature.
 
daze23

daze23

Siempre Fresco
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
32,666
Reputation
2,755
Daps
45,485
backbreaker65 said:
BANDWIDTH has increased theoretically, esram is still a bottleneck on the system. Developers still have to jump through hoops to get those pie in the sky theoretical numbers(which never happen). The RAM hasn't increased not one iota, so the power didn't increase. Just theoretical bandwidth number, that is still significantly lower than the PS4. Read the article.

8 GDDR5 is superior to 8GB DDR3 +32eSram in every way, plus the GPU in the PS4 is 50% more powerful, that hasn't changed as well as the CPU being more powerful.
Click to expand...

what relevance does the PS4 have to "Eurogamer: XboxOne Esram Underestimated Signficantly More Powerful 192GB/s"?

your claim is about the headline. it just seems to point out the difference, since it "was previously thought to sustain a peak theoretical throughput of 102GB/s"

is a number being higher than what was "previously thought" not an example of underestimation?

I guess you could make an argument about the semantics of "more powerful". but that seems like a pretty weak argument to claim something is "the most misleading" and "the most untrue"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top