WoW this is like that WiiU EDram thread. The same bullshit about bandwidth and how it's some how gonna add more power, bridge the gap, or do some other miracle like cure cancer, whilst ignoring the simple fact that what does the work in a GPU are it's processors, the bandwidth just keeps them fed so that they don't idle.
Funny enough you need 'Balance' between the GPU processors and bandwidth, having way to much bandwidth with a GPU than can never use it is a waste of money, while not having enough bandwidth starves the GPU crippling it, So like I said a calculated balance is required and it's something that these GPU manufacturers have already worked out for the most part.
---
For comparisons sake the Titan black is a 5.1TF card rocking a bandwidth of 336GB/s, with AMDs R9 290X card running with 5.6TF and rocking a bandwidth of 288GB/s.
So if we break it down by bandwidth and teraflops to dopy numbers like this;
- Nvidia Titan black requires 65.9GB/TF
- AMD R9 290x requires 51.4GB/TF
- PS4 requires 95.7GB/TF
- Xbox one requires 213.3GB/TF (OP's numbers)
What we end up with is the Xbox one having triple the bandwidth for each terabyte when compared to two of the highest performing graphics cards on the market..which is an excess of bandwidth for such a weak GPU. The PS4 on the other hand, although higher, is within the range of Nvidias and AMDs cards, it does show however that it has more than enough bandwidth for what the GPU is capable of.
So if we do the following and use the Esram 109GB/s, and main ram 68GB/s (192GB/s is only a synthetic benchmark number, practical number for ordinary graphics rendering is the 109GB/s figure );
-Xboxone requires 90.8GB/TF (only Esram)
-Xboxone requires 147.5GB/TF (Esram + main ram)
We end up getting more plausible numbers, with 90.8GB/TF being the most representative as the numbers really can't be combined like so many people do. So given the Xboxone weak GPU, 90.8GB/TF is more than enough bandwidth for what the GPU is capable of doing.
Note: Dopy number used only to illustrate my point...if you haven't got my point then they are 1) Balance of GPU and bandwidth, 2) The Cited bandwidth of 256GB/s is BS as the more plausible and representative numbers are the 109GB's for Esram and 68GB/s as stated by Microsoft, and 3) The 192GB/s cited only being achieved under specific condition meaning it's a synthetic number when they benchmarked it but not a number for practical use, IE Graphics.
