pokoko on 29 September 2014
| Aura7541 said: 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. |
After looking it up, it seems you're right, and a lot of people are of the opinion that there wasn't enough room on the SoC for more than 32MB of ESRAM. There isn't much wiggle room here for Microsoft, it seems. They're going to just have to keep working on other techniques and work-arounds but it will probably always be an issue.
