| binary solo said: Is it really true that 68gb/sec on 8 GB DDR3 + 204gb/sec on 32 MB ESRAM = 272gb/sec in the same way as 176gb/sec on 8GB GDDR5? I don't know how RAM capacity and RAM speed relate. Intuitively it feels like you just can't simply add the 2 speeds together and that's your total RAM speed in an apples to apples comparison with 1 unified RAM speed. Can someone who actually knows stuff please explain? |
"The CPU contained within the PS4 is running stock speeds, 1.6ghz compared to Microsofts 1.75 after an upclock - 150mhz does not make up for the different in number of CUs, and (aptly ignored by Albert) the difference in ROP units - hence why even with the 150mhz upclock, the Xbox One is still way behind in terms of raw power - To see just how little difference 150mhz makes, go into your bios and bump your clock speed up to be 150mhz faster, you will see framerates climb barely 2fps at best - most modern CPUs clock to at least 400mhz higher than stock as an average, with some people bumping that to over 900mhz.
But seriously, before you try and tell me im wrong, he is comparing 1.6 to 1.75 and claiming its 10% faster, asside from being factually wrong (10% would be 1.76ghz), it also compares the cpus on the most basic of levels, which is a stupid thing to do, even more so given that theyre APUS - compare a 2ghz celeron to a 2ghz pentium to see why.
Last but not least adding up the ddr3 and esram speeds to get a higher number is universally seen as a retarded pr stunt by those with half a brain because theoretical peaks for different ram types DO NOT COMBINE - just like if you put two 3ghz xeons in a server, it does NOT mean that the server is now running at 6ghz, its running at 3ghz with additional cores - adding ddr3 and the tiny space allotted by esram does not work, even for "on paper" results - you cannot fill the 8gb of ddr3 with the esram fast enough without the esram being bottlednecked, esram could not be used for a large majority of game resources, where as GDDR5 can be used for just about anything at the cost of slightly higher latency."
