Panicnausia said:
megafenix said:
Panicnausia said:
Yeah and nowhere does he sat 32 Mb of esram at 1000 GB per second will give you a major system bump overall. The 32 MB of edram or esram coulf be 100000 GB/Per second its so tiny it still has to go through main ram..Do you even know how ram and system work? Nowhere does he say any system has it, just that they could have, try harder.
No where also does it say the X1 has 1000 GBs of bandwidth...
Also, I ask again. how does this hel the video card?
|
esram and edram are simililar but different
i am aware that micrso said that the esram has 200gb/s, but doesnt mean that is comparable to an edram of 200gb/s since esram has adventages like no refreshment and less latency, so in the end could behave like an edram of 500GB/s for example
and dont forget this
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 edram is mainly for the gpu, not cpu and the os runs on the main ram not the esram, and considering how tiny the internal caches are like the local data, global data and texture caches then 32 megabytes dont look that tiny
|
None of that changes the fact the PS4 still has more memory bandwidth and a better gpu.... Esram only helps the nslower ddr3 memeroy some, unified GDDR5 still mops the floor with it.
And lets not even get into thge GPU which is the single biggets factor. This secret sauce, esram is just nonsense spread by people in denial.
Keep posting that article doesn't change anything nor does that artciel prove anything, it is tecnhically impossible for 32 MB of esram to off set the memory and GPU advantage of the PS4.
If anything it is a barrier for developers, ehich is worse then any small performance gains it has. As the PS3 can tell you.
Where is your proof esram could behave like 500 GB/S?? You saying it certainly doesn;t make it so.
You cannot simply make up numbers and add them together and make it be fact. A system is only as fast as it's weakest link x1 is pretty unbalanced.
|
actually should be clear that the esram has more bandwidth and is fatsre, the problem is that is more difficult to code and requires more thinking on how to use it to take adventage of it, read mark cenrys quote please
gddr5 adventage is that is easier to code, the bandwidth is good but there is still problem with the high latency and the fact that is not located near any component, buit still since is easier to code for is more likely developers will have no problem building good grapic games compared to the difficultty that esram would represent for that
