| MaulerX said: If anything, it proves that the term "gddr5" is somewhat overplayed. Yes, gddr5, by nature, has a much higher bandwidth than DDR3. But that doesn't mean that gddr5 is the only means by wich to achieve or obtain high bandwidth. At the end, Microsoft went with low latency DDR3 (for their own W8 app ambitions) while simultaneously having a boost in bandwidth with the esRAM.There will always be a debate as to wich solution is better/worse but by judging this DF article they seem to believe that any performance advantage that the PS4 has over the X1, will not be evident until perhaps a few years down the line. And even then, it'll probably just be relatively minor (ie slightly higher resolutions). The thing I got the most is that these systems will be much closer in performance than we were initially let to believe. |
In regards to speed.
The ps4 still churns out more flops. Showing that the RAM is faster doesn't mean the system is more powerful. In fact, this is probably just spin, as we already know that 3GB is already dedicated to the OS, and kinect will require its own processing as well. Those things will take up bandwidth.
The original bandwidth they were talking about was probably the actual speed available to games. This new "theoretical" number is probably something like with kinect disabled, or some such other band-sinks being disabled.
Not really a point I need to argue though. Give it a week or two and we'll have a dev saying "new speed is fake". MS sure have been getting called out left and right recently.
