If MS switches to GDDR5 now, did Sony make a silly mistake?

[sergiodaly]

Soleron said:

haxxiy said:

Soleron said:
I'm seeing a misconception here that GDDR5 > DDR3. It's a tradeoff. GDDR5 has much higher latency in return for faster bandwidth. The choice was no doubt made to support the on-die GPU but this isn't necessarily good for the CPU.

Try having gaming and video applications run in standard DDR then. There's a reason PS3, X360, Wii-U, Wii, GC, PS2 etc. didn't do it.

It's not a tradeoff when one product is so much better than the other except for one characteristic, much like we can agree plasma and LCD is better than cathode ray displays. You are playing the overwhelming exception fallacy right there.

It's not either/or. The PS3 and 360 and regular PCs have DDRx for the main memory and GDDRx for the graphics memory. Sony could have done this, this is a deliberate choice to use GDDR5 for both that is most definitely a tradeoff.

There is a second downside as well; GDDR5 chips are much more expensive.

i might be wrong... but neither the PS3 or the XB360 use DDR memory... PS3 use xdr for main and GDDR3 for GPU... and the XB360 use GDDR3 for their "one pool" architecture...