CGI-Quality said:
Dark_Feanor said:
CGI-Quality said:
Dark_Feanor said:
CGI-Quality said:
Is the ESRAM really that big of a drawback for the X1? I've heard this before, but thought I saw it debunked. |
No, the only real advantage of the PS4 is the GPU, and even though not 50% advantage, and certanly not enough to show a 1080 vs 720 discrepancy.
|
The 40-50% advantage was confirmed, if I rememer correctly. The PS4 has a memory bandwith lead, too, which could also prove substantial in some cases. This still doesn't explain the ESRAM situation, though.
|
The ESRAM, in my point of view, is just as scape goat for people that realy don´t have any software/hardware background fight in this console war.
It´s much easier for a dude-bro understand and belive that GDDR 5 is faster, more advanced than DDR 3 and so, pick a side.
The ESRAM in the One is a much welcome for the bandwidth, without it the PS4 would have in fact a bandwidth advantage.
GDDR 5 is great for the PS4 eventhoug its bandwidth is still a bottleneck for the 18 CUs GPU, thus the recomendation of using only 14 CUs for rendering.
|
You're the only one I really hear arguing the power differences, bud. They exist, and it's not just for some e-peen war either. Besides, I didn't ask about the ESRAM, in conjunction to PS4, I wanted to know what's so wrong with its inclusion in the X1.
|
Again, my friend. The real power difference is in the GPU only, periode. The rest is almost the same, or even more advanced in the X1.
That is nothing wrong with the MS decision of APU archture. It´s nothing like the CELL, which itself was not a bad CPU, but completely alien to developer. ESRAM and EDRAM have been in use for years in a variety of general public devices. Besides, most of the complexity is hidden by drives and APIs.
The only explanation if that turns out to be true (1080 to 720 is montrous) is that the PS4 devkits were delivered several months before the final XOne kits.
