| czecherychestnut said: Because I said I was going to, attached below is a datasheet for GDDR5 from Hynix http://www.hynix.com/datasheet/pdf/graphics/H5GQ1H24AFR(Rev1.0).pdf Page 43 gives the CAS timings for GDDR5 at various speeds. At 5.5 GT/s its CAS setting is 16, which at 1.375 GHz command clock rate gives a ns latency of 11.6ns. From the teardown by iFixIt, the Xbox One has 8GB of H5TQ4G63AFR DDR3-2166. From the H5TQ4G63AFR datasheet (http://www.skhynix.com/inc/pdfDownload.jsp?path=/datasheet/pdf/dram/Computing_DDR3_H5TQ4G4(8_6)3AFR(Rev1.0).pdf), at 2166MT/s (1066.67 GHz command clock) its CAS setting is 14, which gives a ns latency of 13.1ns, slightly higher than the PS4. For the usual DDR3-1600 that most PC's ship with, the average CAS timings is between 7-9, which at 800 MHz command clock gives a ns latency of 8.75 - 11.25ns, slightly better to on par with GDDR5 (so I was wrong about GDDR5 being less latency). But the difference isn't as large as some people make it out to be, and in the case of the Xbox One (which isn't part of this discussion I know but for completeness sake), GDDR5 in the PS4 actually has lower latency than the DDR3 in the Xbox One (obviously the ESRAM mitigates this to a degree). |
Wooh. One of those moments I don't mind being wrong. :)
However, we also have no idea what effect the eSRAM has on latency either (As you stated), it's a chunk of memory with lots of bandwidth and potentially lower latency due to it being farther along in the memory chain to the various processors.
Plus, Microsoft and Sony could have altered the timings too, for various reasons like using a simpler memory controller to free up transisters. (Easier to have looser timings rather than tight ones.)
Basically the whitepapers state a timing as recommended, but memory manufacturers and device manufacturers are free to alter that. (And happens often in the electronics world.)
We need proper device breakdowns at the BIOS and OS Kernel levels to find out for sure.
| OdinHades said: IIt's quite simple if you look at the old consoles. Build a PC with 256 MB RAM and a Geforce 7800 GTX graphics card. Then try to run Assassin's Creed 4, CoD: Ghosts, Battlefield 4, Crysis 3 or whatever with that. Good luck. |
Pfft. Get a console with 256Mb of Ram full stop. OH WAIT None were ever made.
Or get a console with 32Gb of Ram. - Probably be waiting at-least a decade for that.
Half the multiplatform Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 games can run and look better on the PC with inferior specifications.
The other half are badly optimised, have better graphics by default.
I was playing "Next gen" launch games better than the Playstation 4 a few years before the console even launched.
Take Battlefield 3 for instance, that was almost an entirely different game (In a good way too.) - Graphics were much much much better, you had twice the amount of players, maps were vastly larger.
The PS4 basically caught up to the PC with Battlefield 4 but it still fell short at 900P and only high equivalent settings.
As for Form factor. You have ITX and they aren't terribly expensie anymore.
As for the hardware, upgrading every year for only 1920x1080 resolution is a waste of money, I know a few gamers still perfectly happy running games at 1080P with allot of the graphics effects turned on with a 4 year old Radeon 5870.
Not to mention the multitude of gamers running with 6 year old Core 2 Quads. (Albeit overclocked.)
If you had to upgrade every year, wouldn't you think they would have done so?
So please stop with your silly scare tactics about needing to upgrade a PC every year, that hasn't been required for a long time, unless you run Eyefinity, 1440P or 1600P, which none of the consoles can handle games at anyway.
And I type this from a crappy Core 2 PC that's about 6-7 years old, wan't me to run Crysis 3?
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
