theprof00 said:
disolitude said:
theprof00 said:
disolitude said:
theprof00 said:
wow looks like disolitude is wrong again :D
Guess they did go for higher bandwidth in the end, despite dis saying they didn't need it. |
Actually no, it proves me right. It shows that X1 didn't need touse GDDR5 RAM. Perfectly capable with DDR3 + esRAM
|
I thought your point of that thread was that their setup was perfectly in sync with their output, and they didn't need the high speed of gddr5. If I'm wrong about that, my bad. That's how I interpreted it, although I do see that a large part of it was about gddr5, I thought it was more about the speed
|
All I was saying is that Xbox 1 GPU does not need a contant 150 GB/s throughput when it comes to bandwidth.
GDDR5 RAM comes with extra power usage, extra heat, extra cost...and that Microsoft was able to maximize performance of the console without implementing GDDR5 RAM.
Microsoft designed and built the Xbox 360 in 6 months in early 2005. If they thought GDDR5 RAM was needed after PS4 reveal, they would have made the change. Looks like the did make a change to compensate looking at this article...
|
Really? I was under the impression that gddr5 ran cooler, used less power.
And yeah, you've just proven they could make a change. However, a change to gddr5 is much more radical than upping the esram speed :/ changing the ram would require a completely new motherboard.
|
http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/gddr5/Pages/gddr5.aspx#1
Under footnotes:
"Based on internal ASIC power measurement data from the AMD Radeon™ HD 6490M 1GB GDDR5 @ 750MHz (engine clock)/800 MHz (memory clock) = 16.5W vs. AMD Radeon™ HD 6470M 1GB DDR3 @ 750MHz (engine clock)/900 MHz (memory clock) = 14.9W."
These are low end mobile chips. That discrepancy only grows when you start adding more powerful GPUs. PS4 is most likely utilizing 1 Ghz memory clock GDDR5 RAM, while Xbox One is using 1066 Mhz for its DDR3 ram. You could argue that ESRAM may add more power usage for Xbox One though...
