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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Xbox One vs PS4: ESRAM slower than GDDR5, It's Bottleneck"

Xenostar on 31 January 2014

Yeah the DDR3 is the bottle neck, ESRam is the band aid.



Around the Network
vivster on 31 January 2014
Azzanation said:
Pemalite said:

It's not a bottleneck, developers do not have to use it.
A bottleneck implies that it's holding back the system in some way, which it isn't.
If they use it correctly it has benefits.


Correct, some people dont understand what a bottleneck is.

Then let's say it's a bottleneck to development. While they are still optimizing the use of the ESRAM, PS4 developers are  advancing their game.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

FlamingWeazel on 31 January 2014
Azzanation said:
ESRAM is better to have then not have. Its simple. Companies will learn to use it, just like how companies learnt how to use the PS3.


LOL no it isn't, x1 is not a well  designed piece of hardware and esram is a big reason. PC's dont have them for a reason either.

esram is not CELL, the gap is way bigger it is nothing like ps3. x1 doesn;t have a cell or the power to close the gap like ps3 did. Esram is worse then a shared poool of gddr5, and it won't help offset a 40% GPU compute advantage.



Machiavellian on 31 January 2014
FlamingWeazel said:
Azzanation said:
ESRAM is better to have then not have. Its simple. Companies will learn to use it, just like how companies learnt how to use the PS3.


LOL no it isn't, x1 is not a well  designed piece of hardware and esram is a big reason. PC's dont have them for a reason either.

esram is not CELL, the gap is way bigger it is nothing like ps3. x1 doesn;t have a cell or the power to close the gap like ps3 did. Esram is worse then a shared poool of gddr5, and it won't help offset a 40% GPU compute advantage.

To use the PC as your argument is not going to help much.  The reason PCs do not have them is because PCs have a seperate GPU that executes on a video card that has its own memory.  The structure and composition of a PC and custom console hardware are totally different and making comparisions really is reaching.

ESRAM is wost than having a pool of gddr5 because it takes more work to work with.  Also am I missing something or did this article say that the ESRAM is NOT much faster than gddr5 instead of saying its slower.  Also with better drivers and tools who knows how much substained bandwidth developers can achieve.  



FlamingWeazel on 31 January 2014
Machiavellian said:
FlamingWeazel said:
Azzanation said:
ESRAM is better to have then not have. Its simple. Companies will learn to use it, just like how companies learnt how to use the PS3.


LOL no it isn't, x1 is not a well  designed piece of hardware and esram is a big reason. PC's dont have them for a reason either.

esram is not CELL, the gap is way bigger it is nothing like ps3. x1 doesn;t have a cell or the power to close the gap like ps3 did. Esram is worse then a shared poool of gddr5, and it won't help offset a 40% GPU compute advantage.

To use the PC as your argument is not going to help much.  The reason PCs do not have them is because PCs have a seperate GPU that executes on a video card that has its own memory.  The structure and composition of a PC and custom console hardware are totally different and making comparisions really is reaching.

ESRAM is wost than having a pool of gddr5 because it takes more work to work with.  Also am I missing something or did this article say that the ESRAM is NOT much faster than gddr5 instead of saying its slower.  Also with better drivers and tools who knows how much substained bandwidth developers can achieve.  

It's not reaching, esram is not better then a unified pool of GDDR%, not will it help with the 40% gpu difference, the fact that there are some that still refuse to believe it is a testament to the power of denial. No amount of drivers or tools is going to change it. ESram by itself is faster, but it is not sustained and cannot match a unified pool of gddr5, fact.

 

PS4 drivers, tool, overhead also improves over time.



Around the Network
walsufnir on 31 January 2014

First posts talking about denial while nobody is denying the fact it's too small. Great.



walsufnir on 31 January 2014
FlamingWeazel said:
Azzanation said:
ESRAM is better to have then not have. Its simple. Companies will learn to use it, just like how companies learnt how to use the PS3.


LOL no it isn't, x1 is not a well  designed piece of hardware and esram is a big reason. PC's dont have them for a reason either.


Yeah, esram/edram is not used, sure.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/3

*sigh*



ethomaz on 31 January 2014

Just the obvious again lol



walsufnir on 31 January 2014
ethomaz said:
Just the obvious again lol


Exactly. Has been known before but people seem to like to hear (and post) the same over and over again



torok on 31 January 2014
Pemalite said:

It's not a bottleneck, developers do not have to use it.
A bottleneck implies that it's holding back the system in some way, which it isn't.
If they use it correctly it has benefits.


The bottleneck he is talking about is the DDR3 RAM compared to GDDR5. The ESRAM only helps, of course. Short Twitter sentences aren't the better way to do statements, people should write a blog post or something like that when talking about these kind of stuff.



Bet with jetforcejiminy: PS4 will pass the Wii lifetime numbers.