By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - XBO has a massive peak bandwidth advantage over PS4

adriane23 on 14 September 2013

Ok, you Xbox fans need to just be happy with what you're going to get. 5 of the 10 most active topics in the MS section are related to performance. Why do you even care?

To the OP: I see your preemptive comment in your post, but you can't just put a plus sign between the two ram figures and expect people not to correct you.



I am the Playstation Avenger.

   

Around the Network
Machiavellian on 14 September 2013
bananaking21 said:

OMG! another one of these damn threads?!!!

 

 

*im not saying the the OP fuck you or anyone. but i been waiting to use this gif for months!*

You know whats tired, is that after about 2 pages no one actually tried to argue the point of the thread but instead we get your type of comment.  I am not concerned about who is more powerful than what, but I like to understand all the intricate hardware details and what is actually available for developers.  What threads like this need is less of your type of post and more constructive post on the OP.

Oh well, you will probably whine about Xbox fanboys being desperate and all that crap.  basically the same fanboy rethoritc you so criticze



Xenostar on 14 September 2013
fallen said:

XBO has 204 GB/s from ESRAM+68 GB/s from DDR3=272 GB/s peak bandwidth vs 176 GB/s for PS4. So, 54% more peak bandwidth.

But since it has less flops, XBO has 272GB/s/1.31TF=~208 GB/s/TF.

PS4=176GB/s/1.84TF~96 GB/s/TF/

So XBO has ~117% more peak BW per FLOP. Much more of an edge than PS4 has in FLOPs.

I believe this is very underreported. Everybody is focusing on the big spec PS4 is better in (flops) and ignoring this.

 

 

 

Please dont even say the tired old YOU CANT JUST ADD THEM. The FACT is the XBO GPU can read from ESRAM and DDR simultaneously, so it's actual fact that YOU CAN JUST ADD THEM. Of course it wont always be that simple, but in general it will be. You will just load 32MB of critical, bandwidth consumption heavy data in the ESRAM and keep reading/writing to it taking a huge load off the main bus. Yes this will be more difficult to program.

This is the same as X360 had half the main bandwidth of PS3, but still often outperformed it in particle effects and resolution (bandwidth sensitive paramters) due to 10MB of EDRAM.

 

So yes, bottom line, One machine is a FLOP monster, the other machine is a BW monster.


Correct it does have Monster PEAK Bandwidth but at the cost of a giant bottle neck to the system, to try and fix the poor performance of main Ram.  Causing a massive headache for devs having to prioritise what data goes through that tiny 32meg. 

That ES RAM is just a band aid to try and fix up the problems of main ram, thats why its hella fast pity its also hella small. 

It was the wrong call to make but probably the best call at the time, Sony just got mega lucky that 8 gig of GDDR5 is now doable. 



blkfish92 on 14 September 2013

Here...



           

n3xus on 14 September 2013

omg teh FLOPS everybody run the FLOPS ARE COMING!!!!!



Around the Network
BHR-3 on 14 September 2013

your wrong actually, it's peak theoretically since the gpu boost would be 286GBps, 68 plus 218 the recent boosts bumped it up to 109 from 102

but as semiaccurate and many others have stated 140-150 maximum is being achieved today and achieving those numbers and higher is more difficult and not as streamed lined as it is with gddr5



                                                             

                                                                      Play Me

OdinHades on 14 September 2013

So, what if a developer needs to access 33 MB of data superfast?



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.

landguy1 on 14 September 2013

I think that the best system will be really the best. So everyone should buy that one.



Ashadian on 14 September 2013
fallen said:

XBO has 204 GB/s from ESRAM+68 GB/s from DDR3=272 GB/s peak bandwidth vs 176 GB/s for PS4. So, 54% more peak bandwidth.

But since it has less flops, XBO has 272GB/s/1.31TF=~208 GB/s/TF.

PS4=176GB/s/1.84TF~96 GB/s/TF/

So XBO has ~117% more peak BW per FLOP. Much more of an edge than PS4 has in FLOPs.

I believe this is very underreported. Everybody is focusing on the big spec PS4 is better in (flops) and ignoring this.

 

 

 

Please dont even say the tired old YOU CANT JUST ADD THEM. The FACT is the XBO GPU can read from ESRAM and DDR simultaneously, so it's actual fact that YOU CAN JUST ADD THEM. Of course it wont always be that simple, but in general it will be. You will just load 32MB of critical, bandwidth consumption heavy data in the ESRAM and keep reading/writing to it taking a huge load off the main bus. Yes this will be more difficult to program.

This is the same as X360 had half the main bandwidth of PS3, but still often outperformed it in particle effects and resolution (bandwidth sensitive paramters) due to 10MB of EDRAM.

 

So yes, bottom line, One machine is a FLOP monster, the other machine is a BW monster.

Right out of the Penello school of thought! LOl

it's well known the PS4 is more powerful. Buy the system with the games and services you like. Nothing new here but someone trying to justify their X180 preference! Lets move on



Machiavellian on 14 September 2013
Xenostar said:
fallen said:

XBO has 204 GB/s from ESRAM+68 GB/s from DDR3=272 GB/s peak bandwidth vs 176 GB/s for PS4. So, 54% more peak bandwidth.

But since it has less flops, XBO has 272GB/s/1.31TF=~208 GB/s/TF.

PS4=176GB/s/1.84TF~96 GB/s/TF/

So XBO has ~117% more peak BW per FLOP. Much more of an edge than PS4 has in FLOPs.

I believe this is very underreported. Everybody is focusing on the big spec PS4 is better in (flops) and ignoring this.

 

 

 

Please dont even say the tired old YOU CANT JUST ADD THEM. The FACT is the XBO GPU can read from ESRAM and DDR simultaneously, so it's actual fact that YOU CAN JUST ADD THEM. Of course it wont always be that simple, but in general it will be. You will just load 32MB of critical, bandwidth consumption heavy data in the ESRAM and keep reading/writing to it taking a huge load off the main bus. Yes this will be more difficult to program.

This is the same as X360 had half the main bandwidth of PS3, but still often outperformed it in particle effects and resolution (bandwidth sensitive paramters) due to 10MB of EDRAM.

 

So yes, bottom line, One machine is a FLOP monster, the other machine is a BW monster.


Correct it does have Monster PEAK Bandwidth but at the cost of a giant bottle neck to the system, to try and fix the poor performance of main Ram.  Causing a massive headache for devs having to prioritise what data goes through that tiny 32meg. 

That ES RAM is just a band aid to try and fix up the problems of main ram, thats why its hella fast pity its also hella small. 

It was the wrong call to make but probably the best call at the time, Sony just got mega lucky that 8 gig of GDDR5 is now doable. 

The problem is not the ESRAM as it will be how developers actually use it.  The way MS designed the ESRAM with 4 8mb chips is very interesting and seems to point to sometype of development they either have now or in the future.   For the ESRAM, developers will have to manage each scene carefully to insure they have loaded within the ESRAM texture and data that needs to be worked on the fastest and constantly be loading, working on that data and unloading.  This is where MS will need to insure they communicate to developers on the process or build it within the drivers and API for the X1.  What probably will need to be done is a rewrite of the memory subsystem for the X1.  To reach that peak bandwidth developers probalby will have to change up the way they view a scene in a game an what is done behind the scenes to prepare for the next scene.