By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 31 January 2014
Edit Thread
FlamingWeazel said:
Azzanation said:
ESRAM is better to have then not have. Its simple. Companies will learn to use it, just like how companies learnt how to use the PS3.


LOL no it isn't, x1 is not a well  designed piece of hardware and esram is a big reason. PC's dont have them for a reason either.

esram is not CELL, the gap is way bigger it is nothing like ps3. x1 doesn;t have a cell or the power to close the gap like ps3 did. Esram is worse then a shared poool of gddr5, and it won't help offset a 40% GPU compute advantage.

To use the PC as your argument is not going to help much.  The reason PCs do not have them is because PCs have a seperate GPU that executes on a video card that has its own memory.  The structure and composition of a PC and custom console hardware are totally different and making comparisions really is reaching.

ESRAM is wost than having a pool of gddr5 because it takes more work to work with.  Also am I missing something or did this article say that the ESRAM is NOT much faster than gddr5 instead of saying its slower.  Also with better drivers and tools who knows how much substained bandwidth developers can achieve.