Currently Online 
curl-6 on 14 July 2013
| jake_the_fake1 said: Cerny makes an example of Edram having a potential bandwidth of 1TB with a small pool of memory paired with a much larger slower pool of memory, and how simply having one pool of high bandwidth memory is the better solution because it removes hurdles which developers have to jump through making their lives easier, hence their decision to with with 1 large and fast pool of memory, But you take this as Cerny stating that the WiiU has 1TB of bandwidth?.....wow....just wow. For reference, the 360 has 10MB of Edram, it only has a bandwidth of 32GB/s from the GPU to the Edram, but internally the Edram has a bandwidth of 256GB/s to the ROPS. Currently there is no definitive information about the bandwidth of the Edram in the WiiU, there are only educated guesses people can make, but if we take the whole WiiU design into consideration, one can easily see that although the WiiU has an efficient and somewhat customized architecture, the parts themselves aren't aren't top end, from an old GPU architecture, an even older CPU architecture, to the very slow DDR3 ram used. From this, one can make the assumption that the Edram bandwidth will not be on the top end of the scale rather it may be on the lower end of the scale, perhaps even lower than what is found on the 360, I say this because Edram is very expensive at high capacity and high speeds and the WiiU has 32MB of it, compromises would have to be made to balance the system and speed would most likely be the first thing cut. Why put in Edram with a bandwidth of 1TB/s if the current WiiU GPU will never be able to take advantage of it, kind of a waste. For reference the Nvidia Titan, only has a bandwidth of 288GB/s. |
The point is, (technically uninformed) people ignore Wii U's eDRAM, point to its main memory and say, "oh look, it's so slow" without realizing the advantages eDRAM gives. This video nicely demonstrates how such an advantage works.
