VGKing said:
walsufnir said:
VGKing said:
walsufnir said:
VGKing said:
walsufnir said:
VGKing said:
This is actually kinda sad.
I'll tell you why this "rumor" is false.....ESRAM. Leaks point to the console having ESRAM to make up for the low bandwidth of DDR3. You can't just go from DDR3 to GDDR5 without completely redesigning the console. |
This is not really a proof. This can be wrong as well as DDR3. Either both things are right or both things are wrong.
|
It comes from a reputable source, the same one who game us PS4 specs.
|
Still saying GDDR5 is out because of ESRAM is wrong. Either both DDR3 *and* ESRAM is wrong or both are true.
|
Why would you use ESRAM if you have 8GB of GDDR5? It's completely unnecessary.
The presence of ESRAM would in a way confirm that the console is using DDR3. The whole point of ESRAM is to increase bandwidth, something that would be completely unnecessary combined with GDDR5. Besides, we've all seen what's happening with Xbox 360, it is very app-focused and DDR3 is best suited for that.
|
You are still not getting what I wanted to say but it's ok now. We will have to wait another 7 days, arguing is useless by now.
Btw, if NextBox is app-focused we will also have to see. MS just chose DDR3 for a reason - this can be apps or they actually thought it would fit to the requirements they engineered for their next gaming-box. Perhaps we will never know. And you don't have to repeat over and over that ESRAM is not needed if you use GDDR5 - it would be useless in PS4 but this doesn't mean you will never need it with a system with GDDR5-RAM. It all depends on how the *system* as a whole works.
|
Why would you need ESRAM in a system with such high bandwidth?
@bold
GDDR5 is best suited for games. If Sony, in their current financial state, can manage to put 8GB of GDDR5, I don't see why MS couldn't. So obviously cost isn't an issue here. Maybe it depends on how talented their engineers are or they think DDR3 is best suited for their plans.(app-focused OS like Windows 8)
|
"Why would you need ESRAM in a system with such high bandwidth?"
Why do we still have caches? Because the path to ram is still slow. It depends on how you would use ESRAM (or EDRAM). It could function as a low-latency cache.
The other part:
Sony and MS were planning their consoles years ago. They had a goal to achieve, also performance-wise. They are, of course, both in talk with devs. So they had own and external requirements and knew how much power they had to achieve and built their systems accordingly. Now we have one system with GDDR5 and one with DDR3, that's it. There is nothing more to it and nothing less. Comparing raw data, GDDR5 has higher bandwidth but this doesn't mean the whole system is necessarily faster because we don't know the architectural changes MS did when designing NextBox.
