By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ethomaz on 29 September 2014
Edit Thread
Aura7541 said:
ethomaz said:

walsufnir said:

While this is true esram should still be better performance wise as it should have a way lower latency. But it really is way too small.

It is true... ESRAM have way better latency (it is on die at all) but latency don't beneficiates graphics processing... it can beneficiate post-processing AA for example but GPU tasks are not affected by high or low latency.

ESRAM performance is fine... the issue is the size... 32MB is really small but I undestand MS because more could be costed A LOT.

It's not really the cost, but the way the ESRAM is integrated into the GPU/CPU die. MS can increase the amount of ESRAM, but if they do, they have to shrink one of the other two components. In this case, the GPU will be shrunk because the CPU is already small. MS is between rock and hard place with this type of configuration. You either sacrifice GPU power or you sacrifice ESRAM buffer. Neither choice is good.

There is a third option don't use ESRAM.

Not giving the credits to Sony but if what they showed are true they tested many EDRAM configs for PS4 (even 1GB/s) and the results are not good enought... so why MS didn't faced it in project time? What they are expecting?