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

[Lord Scion]

Don't delete it now. Lets see what this dude is talking about.



I think these are the two most important things. Right?

For higher frame rates you need both higher bandwidth and lower latency. Ps4 has higher bandwidth Xbox has lower latency. I'm sure system architecture has been set up to adress the deficiencies in both memory setups, so it's safe to assume that both can do high frame rates.

For larger worlds. The most important thing is the amount of available ram. In this instance the ps4 would have a clear advantage since it does have more usable ram. The concern comes in when you anylize the ps4 GPU's ability to use all of that ram in an efficient way. We won't really know the answer to this until some games start coming out. As of now, similar off the shelf GPUs can't efficiently manage over 4 gb ram.

Also current games are not using anywhere near the 5 GB of ram that the Xbox one has. Maybe somewhere far down the line the extra 2gb of ram will come in handy for ps4. In my opinion it will probably come down to developer optimizations. It may take them to jump through a couple technical hoops to get the most out of the Xbox ram in order to match performace with the ps4.

As for the ps4 gpu being 40% more powerful. Yes that is a true statement if you look at the on paper specs. But that doesn't mean your gonna get 40% better performing/looking games. For one, system architecture and dev tools are very important when it comes to performace on these closed systems.

And for 2 in real life performance terms the difference just isn't that much. These systems are 10 times as powerful as last gen systems, yet they still can't guarantee 1080p 60fps performace. So the idea that the ps4 is just gonna severely outperform the Xbox because the gpu is .4 times as powerful, is just not based in reality.

In conclusion. Toward the end of the generation if devs want to push the ps4 to the brink of its capabilities, they may have to make some minor cut backs for the Xbox version. But for the most part performace will be equal. At the beginning of the generation Xbox might even have the edge due to microsofts history of quality dev tools and support.

Not even gonna hate on this post.

 

[Lord Scion]

Btw.... for any of you tech savy posters, did you watch Mark Cerny's presentation about the road to the PS4? They were considering using 128-bit GDDR5 RAM @ I think it was 86 GB/s, but applying eDRAM to make the bandwidth 1000 GB/s.

It would've been fast as hell... but would've been very complicated for developers to utilize so they went for the more convenient method to get more games ready for launch. It was also interesting to note the "time to triangle" used to denote how much time it takes for a team to start developing a game for each of the PS family:

PS1 : 1-2 months
PS2 : 3-6 months
PS3 : 6-12 months
PS4 : 1-2 months

It seems that going away from the exotic architecture used in the PS2 (EE) and PS3 (Cell) made life much easier for developers as they already have the tools needed to create games.

 

[el_oh_el]

That's not true because the ps4 doesn't use them, nor does it need to. The xbox is using them as gpu accelerators to compensate for the slower ram. Actually only one of 4 accelerators handles compression, the other 3 are for dma and esram usage. Keep in mond that most people say xbox and ps4 has the same gpu and the move engines were placed by ms by design which gives it performance levels beyond what it was designed to do. The ps4 can't use them that way because of how it's designed. Whether that actually makes up the speed difference in the ram, we don't know until ms releases exactly what kond of gpu it's using.

You dont know what youre talking about. The move engines are nothing more than part of the DMA setup, all they've added is some extra compression units, to say that it's something over the PS4 when the PS4 also uses DMA and also have compression units is disingenuous.
To be clear, the DMA on the Xbox one has been modified enough in order to keep the ESRAM full and the GPU fed, something the PS4 doens't need to worry about since it has no ESRAM, in other words the Move Engine are nothing special, their just there along with ESRAM to mitigate the low bandwidth of DDR3 memory. The PS4 simply has 8GB of fast ram, 176GB/s, accessible by both the GPU/CPU and this is why neither ESRAM or Move engine are required, 2 approaches to achieve the same goal, the PS4 just achieves the goal with less headaches.

Only thing you forgot to factor in was the Cloud. And by the end of this gen, the Cloud will make up MUCH MORE THAN THE .4 DIFFERENCE
This is where some clown who spends all day on THIS WEBSITE tells you how the Cloud can't even benefit the Xbox One by that much. Like, can we at least get a .3 boost in ratings nikkaz?
The cloud will not make up for a lack in graphical power. It just allows the CPU to do other things in a VERY LIMITED set of cases. The latency and throughput required is VERY HIGH for graphical purposes. For example, the PS4 can access around 5GB/FRAME of the ram.
The PS4 isn't gonna launch this year, wtf you talking about
Microsoft didn't JUST ADD 4GB of RAM. The secretive stance on the specs is so that SONY doesn't go "Uhhhp... we need another muligan on that PS4 design dawg!"

Me: But we get a camera that is essential to the entire Xbox Experience that you cant get anywhere else.
You: But I don't want the camera
Me: You don't have to
You: Well the PS4 is still $100 cheaper
Me: Because I'm getting a system that is better in literally every way? Has its own console version of Siri, Fantasy football and coming soon other sports? Online gaming backed by dedicated servers and the Cloud plus the "secret sauce" that will allow the Xbox to produce graphics way more advanced than it could normally if you based it just off of "specs"? I'm mad at that
This is bullshyte
If you say so bub...

No, that was more of YOU guys. But they did change it, so if that was enough to get ppl back on the bandwagon then so be it

Spoiler

I see it this way, and I'm going by history with my prediction.
PS2 sold 140mil and was on top of the foodchain
PS3 sold less than xbox and til this day no longer reports systems sold and groups shipped numbers of PS3 and PS2 systems together to create a number that is still LESS than xbox 360's. Shipped does not = sold, so that real number is much LESS. It just has to be unless they have every system sold. Looking at sales PS3 loses, fanboys from everywhere in the world except Europe claim how PS3 is dominating over there. But Xbox game sales dominate WORLDWIDE (minus japan) so either PS3 gamers in europe don't play games or what? What is the other option? You can let a fanboy from this site tell it, but they are not unique either. So its hard to get a straight answer from the majority of people who stan on the internet. Tru Story

The Xbox360 is the only system EVER to increase its sales total year after year for every year it has existed. Sony's numbers drop year after year according to them, then they turn around and say "but we still neck n neck with xbox"
Sony Fanboys never seem to notice this discrepancy

Are you even qualified to speak on this matter, or are you just assuming Microsoft would say something that actual developers wouldn't then say "BULLshyt!!!"

There must be a gag order out there, huh man?

Yes, because any dev will tell you, YOU GOTTA HAVE GDDR5 FOR GAMING.
Even tho the PS4 is pretty much the only place you can find that does that. And games on PS4 have looked like dung thus far. But as long as you know what your talking about I'll just sit here and learn

Uh yea, you do usually use FAST RAM for modern gaming...hence ALL (even low end) graphics cards having some amount of gddr5...the ESRAM setup is custom, and WILL take some getting used to for devs.
And ill say again. THE CLOUD WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON GRAPHICS. THE BANDWIDTH/LATENCY REQUIRED IS NOT POSSIBLE ON HOME CONNECTIONS!! It might help the CPU with more advanced AI, but no graphical upgrades. Get this through your thick skull.

 

[Rekkapryde]

Looks like CBOAT on Gaf was right about ESRAM yield issues. Downclock confirmed. MS trying to spin it.

So did Microsoft just spin a downclocked esram based on pure bs? : Games

"They're claiming the esram on the XBO can actually push 192.0 GB/s. That sounds really great...
Except if we read the actual statement, it is this.
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.
No, they didn't wake up one morning and realize there was an extra data line in their memory module, so lets drill down to what that actually means.
Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations.
In other words, no, it isn't capable of bidirectional data transfer. Their trying to push through a few extra memory operations, but the it's still strictly read OR write.
Now, look at the actual numbers. I have to give credit to R_K_M and Boreras for pointing this out. I'm just aggregating, so I'm going to direct quote.
If I am not mistaken, that just means that they lowered the clock from 800 to 750 and are using the bi-directonal bandwith number for marketing when everyone else is using the bandwith number in one direction. - R_K_M
you're right the numbers do match up perfectly for that (750 (GPU clock) * 128 (bus width)*2(read&write during same cycle) = 192.0 GB/s --- if it were 800 MHz you would get 204.8 GB/s) - Boreras
So we can basically confirm that cboat was correct. The numbers tell the truth. The esram has been downclocked, and Microsoft's PR department is trying to spin it as an increase in total bandwidth based on some cycle tricks that are probably being exaggerated."


@ them adding it together trying to front when they know it's one way or the other. nikkaz thought they could get away with their

But NOPE.

The L saga continues....
@satam55 @Mowgli @King Sun @backbreaker65 @el_oh_el

 

[Mowgli]

Looks like CBOAT on Gaf was right about ESRAM yield issues. Downclock confirmed. MS trying to spin it.

So did Microsoft just spin a downclocked esram based on pure bs? : Games

"They're claiming the esram on the XBO can actually push 192.0 GB/s. That sounds really great...
Except if we read the actual statement, it is this.
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.
No, they didn't wake up one morning and realize there was an extra data line in their memory module, so lets drill down to what that actually means.
Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations.
In other words, no, it isn't capable of bidirectional data transfer. Their trying to push through a few extra memory operations, but the it's still strictly read OR write.
Now, look at the actual numbers. I have to give credit to R_K_M and Boreras for pointing this out. I'm just aggregating, so I'm going to direct quote.
If I am not mistaken, that just means that they lowered the clock from 800 to 750 and are using the bi-directonal bandwith number for marketing when everyone else is using the bandwith number in one direction. - R_K_M
you're right the numbers do match up perfectly for that (750 (GPU clock) * 128 (bus width)*2(read&write during same cycle) = 192.0 GB/s --- if it were 800 MHz you would get 204.8 GB/s) - Boreras
So we can basically confirm that cboat was correct. The numbers tell the truth. The esram has been downclocked, and Microsoft's PR department is trying to spin it as an increase in total bandwidth based on some cycle tricks that are probably being exaggerated."


@ them adding it together trying to front when they know it's one way or the other. nikkaz thought they could get away with their

But NOPE.

The L saga continues....
@satam55 @Mowgli @King Sun @backbreaker65 @el_oh_el

Are we surprised at this point. Everything about Xbox one since its inception has been deceptive. Now they're basically admitting their system is trash and but use clever language to make it seem like this paperweight is on par with the ps4. Its pathetic and sadly, i dont think this is the last thing they're going to lie about. Xbots dont care though. They're happy to be inferior. Happy to be the trolls of the gaming industry. Really hope ms gets blown the fukk out the water and quits mid gen. Watch these fakkits rerelease their system after is drops with some more ram and fukk their customers over again.

 

[satam55]

Looks like CBOAT on Gaf was right about ESRAM yield issues. Downclock confirmed. MS trying to spin it.

So did Microsoft just spin a downclocked esram based on pure bs? : Games

"They're claiming the esram on the XBO can actually push 192.0 GB/s. That sounds really great...
Except if we read the actual statement, it is this.
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.
No, they didn't wake up one morning and realize there was an extra data line in their memory module, so lets drill down to what that actually means.
Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations.
In other words, no, it isn't capable of bidirectional data transfer. Their trying to push through a few extra memory operations, but the it's still strictly read OR write.
Now, look at the actual numbers. I have to give credit to R_K_M and Boreras for pointing this out. I'm just aggregating, so I'm going to direct quote.
If I am not mistaken, that just means that they lowered the clock from 800 to 750 and are using the bi-directonal bandwith number for marketing when everyone else is using the bandwith number in one direction. - R_K_M
you're right the numbers do match up perfectly for that (750 (GPU clock) * 128 (bus width)*2(read&write during same cycle) = 192.0 GB/s --- if it were 800 MHz you would get 204.8 GB/s) - Boreras
So we can basically confirm that cboat was correct. The numbers tell the truth. The esram has been downclocked, and Microsoft's PR department is trying to spin it as an increase in total bandwidth based on some cycle tricks that are probably being exaggerated."


@ them adding it together trying to front when they know it's one way or the other. nikkaz thought they could get away with their

But NOPE.

The L saga continues....
@satam55 @Mowgli @King Sun @backbreaker65 @el_oh_el

Mmm-hmm....this post deserves it's own thread.

 

[Heretic]

You dont know what youre talking about. The move engines are nothing more than part of the DMA setup, all they've added is some extra compression units, to say that it's something over the PS4 when the PS4 also uses DMA and also have compression units is disingenuous.
To be clear, the DMA on the Xbox one has been modified enough in order to keep the ESRAM full and the GPU fed, something the PS4 doens't need to worry about since it has no ESRAM, in other words the Move Engine are nothing special, their just there along with ESRAM to mitigate the low bandwidth of DDR3 memory. The PS4 simply has 8GB of fast ram, 176GB/s, accessible by both the GPU/CPU and this is why neither ESRAM or Move engine are required, 2 approaches to achieve the same goal, the PS4 just achieves the goal with less headaches.




Uh yea, you do usually use FAST RAM for modern gaming...hence ALL (even low end) graphics cards having some amount of gddr5...the ESRAM setup is custom, and WILL take some getting used to for devs.
And ill say again. THE CLOUD WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON GRAPHICS. THE BANDWIDTH/LATENCY REQUIRED IS NOT POSSIBLE ON HOME CONNECTIONS!! It might help the CPU with more advanced AI, but no graphical upgrades. Get this through your thick skull.

Looks like we're trying to say similar things in different ways, I said the ps4 had faster ram and doesn't need accelerators. I left all the other technical stuff out because I'd be lying if I said I knew for sure, but I know it's not just used for compression unless you're saying that to mean something other than what I think.

 

[NZA]

more shenanigans?

 

[Grand Conde]

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

You are being argumentative for the sake of it, there is nothing but over the top thread titles in this place.

 

[King Sun]

more shenanigans?

 

[Rice N Beans]

The goofy headline.

EDIT: The terrible journalism too. Need more people who know what they're talking about to write articles.

 

[PS5 Pro]

Looks like CBOAT on Gaf was right about ESRAM yield issues. Downclock confirmed. MS trying to spin it.

So did Microsoft just spin a downclocked esram based on pure bs? : Games

"They're claiming the esram on the XBO can actually push 192.0 GB/s. That sounds really great...
Except if we read the actual statement, it is this.
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.
No, they didn't wake up one morning and realize there was an extra data line in their memory module, so lets drill down to what that actually means.
Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations.
In other words, no, it isn't capable of bidirectional data transfer. Their trying to push through a few extra memory operations, but the it's still strictly read OR write.
Now, look at the actual numbers. I have to give credit to R_K_M and Boreras for pointing this out. I'm just aggregating, so I'm going to direct quote.
If I am not mistaken, that just means that they lowered the clock from 800 to 750 and are using the bi-directonal bandwith number for marketing when everyone else is using the bandwith number in one direction. - R_K_M
you're right the numbers do match up perfectly for that (750 (GPU clock) * 128 (bus width)*2(read&write during same cycle) = 192.0 GB/s --- if it were 800 MHz you would get 204.8 GB/s) - Boreras
So we can basically confirm that cboat was correct. The numbers tell the truth. The esram has been downclocked, and Microsoft's PR department is trying to spin it as an increase in total bandwidth based on some cycle tricks that are probably being exaggerated."


@ them adding it together trying to front when they know it's one way or the other. nikkaz thought they could get away with their

But NOPE.

The L saga continues....
@satam55 @Mowgli @King Sun @backbreaker65 @el_oh_el

Did this nikka just pull a link from a "comments" section and slap CBoat's name on top of it?

Spoiler

 

[Rico]

[ame]https://twitter.com/digitalfoundry/status/350930376518152192[/ame]

 

[Rico]

I Hope I don't end up getting an xbox 540

 

[backbreaker65]

https://twitter.com/digitalfoundry/status/350930376518152192

Digital Foundry, just got hit with the marketing stick ran a story without fact checking, back to square one.

More confusion from the Microsoft camp, for no reason at all. I find it funny that Mark Cerny gives his lecture "road to the ps4" and he talks about edram design, the next day MS decides to give Digital Foundry FUD.

The theoretics of the theoretical was just a hypothetical of theoretics, just a bunch of talk.

But one thing I do agree with from a MS exec. these specs mean nothing, show me the games and the experiences.