Pemalite said:
|
It's funny because I agree with everything technical you said above but obviously you misunderstood some of the points I have made, and have a different perspective than I do.
I never said Esram had anything to do with GDDR5; I said, MS went with 8 GB DDR3 + ESRAM, instead of 4 GB DDR3 + 4 GB GDDR5. The first one takes A LOT MORE space on the die than the second one. It's not like ESRAM is incompatible with GDDR5 but if you'd choose GDDR5, then it becomes pointless to use ESRAM at all. So MS had two options (given that they didn't know about the GDDR5 yields)...
a) Employ 8 GB DDR3 + 32 MB ESRAM, which takes a lot of space, so you also sacrifice Compute Units and bandwidth
b) Employ 4 GB DDR3 + 4 GB GDDR5, which takes much less space, so you don't sacrifice Compute Units or bandwidth
- Option a does not cost less than option b, possibly costs even more!
- Option a has less bandwidth, less compute units, has less power overall
Why is "a" less powerful than "b" overall? Because it has ESRAM in it! You may argue otherwise but let's try different configurations
c) Employ 4 GB DDR3 + 4 GB GDDR5 + 32 MB ESRAM, what's the point of having ESRAM with GDDR5 on board? Useless and only wastes precious GPU space.
d) Employ 4 GB DDR3 + 32 MB ESRAM, Not enough RAM etc...
Regardless of how you look at it, employing ESRAM creates a bottleneck because it is prohibitive of using a better RAM solution like GDDR5. You'd never use ESRAM with GDDR5, not because they are incompatible, but because the use of GDDR5 negates (unnecessiates) ESRAM. Either way, MS never considered GDDR5 to begin with. That's the evil beneath.
Playstation 5 vs XBox Series Market Share Estimates
Regional Analysis (only MS and Sony Consoles)
Europe => XB1 : 23-24 % vs PS4 : 76-77%
N. America => XB1 : 49-52% vs PS4 : 48-51%
Global => XB1 : 32-34% vs PS4 : 66-68%