Panicnausia said:
|
32 megabytes of esram means much, look
http://hdwarriors.com/why-the-wii-u-is-probably-more-capable-than-you-think-it-is/
"
The easiest way that I can explain this is that when you take each unit of time that the Wii U eDRAM can do work with separate tasks as compared to the 1 Gigabyte of slower RAM, the amount of actual Megabytes of RAM that exist during the same time frame is superior with the eDRAM, regardless of the fact that the size and number applied makes the 1 Gigabyte of DDR3 RAM seem larger. These are units of both time and space. Fast eDRAM that can be used at a speed more useful to the CPU and GPU have certain advantages, that when exploited, give the console great gains in performance.
The eDRAM of the Wii U is embedded right onto the chip logic, which for most intent and purposes negates the classic In/Out bottleneck that developers have faced in the past as well. Reading and writing directly in regard to all of the chips on the Multi Chip Module as instructed.
"
the main problem is not that esram or edram is enough or the bandwidth, the problem is that is more difficult to use, watch
http://www.gamechup.com/ps4-sony-earlier-thought-about-slow-gddr5-edram-1088gbs/
"
PS4: Sony Earlier Thought About Slow GDDR5 + eDRAM (1088GB/s)
The PS4 has a super fast memory architecture in GDDR5 which is capable of 176GB/s bandwidth, however, Mark Cenry has mentioned that they had thought about an alternative memory architecture.
As you can see in the above image on the right, one of the so called memory architecture they had thought of was going with was GDDR5 memory with 88GB/s bandwidth which is slower than the one they finally went with, along with a small amount of eDRAM which provides a bandwidth of over 1000GB/s. That sounds great doesn’t it? But Cerny said that it would have been difficult to code for it in a straightforward way and developers had to come up with a separate technique to take full advantage of it.
The Xbox One features a small amount of eSRAM and offers the same functionality of high bandwidth to make up for the slow DDR3 RAM.
That’s the main reason Sony chose the memory architecture on the left of the image. The high bus and a unified memory at a 176GB/s would have made it really easy for developers to code for and it was their philosophy to provide a simple architecture with the PS4. Cerny said that the 256-bit bus GDDR5 bandwidth at 176GB/s ”is quite a lot”.
He revealed that the third-parties had demanded a unified memory architecture with a powerful GPU. This is in complete contrast with the PS3 which had a fairly weak GPU in the RSX and a divided XDR memory. Sony had originally planned to go with just 4GB GDDR5 but certain third-party developers managed to convince them that it was a really bad idea.
Read more at http://www.gamechup.com/ps4-sony-earlier-thought-about-slow-gddr5-edram-1088gbs/#LFIScCXoXwmGVeOu.99
"
of course that i am aware that comparing edram to esram is like comparing apples and pears but they share enough things in coomon to be used in the same way, even if the xbox esram is 200GB/s, it has adventage over edram like less latency and no need of refreshment, so i wouldnt be surprised that in the end the xbox one esram cpould be comparable to an edram of 500GB/S
