Shinobi-san said:
Offloading a few tasks to co-processors wont offset that. The PS4 also has multiple co-processors (not as much it seems given the info we have) which it offloads audio processing and video compression etc. I mean theres a reason why these systems have such weak CPU's. They are almost fully reliant on the GPU's. And when we do compare GPU's the Xbox One's falls short. And also just remember when speaking about the memory....if GDDR5 memory was as cheap as DDR3, then MS would have gone with GDDR5 memory. No arguments about that. Thats why Sony made a big deal about it at their conference. That's why high end GPU's use GDDR5 ram...ESRAM is a workaround. A good workaround but its a workaround. I feel like people forget this. The latency difference is there, but given the context we talking about, this isnt really an issue. And really the PS3/360 comparison is completely different. They have very differenct architectures, very different technologies etc. Now we actually have comparable systems and everybodies acting like we cant compare them like for like? Whatsup with that :? And the whole NDA stuff...im not sure exactly what you refering to? The supposed dgpu? If you are talking about that then thats a completely difference case though. The way Alberts is talking though..it doesnt seem like Xbone will have the raw performance advantage. |
Yes, the difference in the GPUs are big but thats the point I raise. MS has about 6 co-processors they are not talking about. Without knowing what these processors do, who knows how much offloading of graphics can be done on the X1 to releave the GPU and even the CPU from their task.
The problem with only comparing the GPU and not the entire system is that people who are not coding to both platforms do not know if other parts of the hardware play a role or not. Co-processors are ways for custom designs to offload that processing from the CPU and GPU. This is why its not evident yet eactly how this might play out. MS might have felt its more efficient to offload specific intensive processing to specialize hardware.
As for memory, it wasn't the expense of the memory but the timing. MS designed their system for 8GB way before 8GB of GDDR5 was possible to fit within the console. Do not forget that Sony was rumored to be supplying 4Gb before Samsung was able to produce 512mb chips which allowed Sony to increase the memory to 8. MS already designed their system for 8GB and needed ESRAM to fill in the bandwidth part. Since this was already done, there was no changing the system once 8GB of GDDR5 was possible. The latency part will come into play for anything that cannot be offloaded to the CU. Since the CPUs are weak anyway, the latency can become a problem if there is to much CPU task that require lower latency than bandwidth.
The NDA stuff is concernign the rumor that is going around the dGPU. I was only mentioning it because people kept saying that MS would be telling the world they had this chip but the rumor already covered why this was not happening.
As for what Albert is talking about, he is stating that raw physical numbers (mainly the GPU) does not tell the who picture. There are other parts within the X1 that make up the difference. Only way we will see that is in the games.
