I just look at the common used eDRAM (360, Wii U, POWER PC, etc) but now I found one that have a eDRAM with less clock than the core... so my assumption is wrong.

I was thinking here now....

WFT the MS engineers were doing that just "found that the hardware is capable of reading and writing simultaneously" lol.

You make a design/project and you didn't know how it works? I mean to read/write simultaneous you need to design that... it's not OHHH my CPU runs at 1Mhz but after the test we can reach 2Mhz... you need to project/design to add read/write simultaneous... you don't "found"... you "create" for that.

So if the ps4 reaches 174 and the xbox one reaches 192 that means the xbox is better right?
I have no idea what's going on here...

Xbone: 32MB at 192GB/s
PS4: 8GB at 176GB/s

Xbone will can do a better job in the post-processing if they can get close that theoretical.

But it's the same 32 mb ...how the hell did it went from 102 gbs to 192 GBs it doesnt make any sense...

The article says that they "found" that can use the 32MB for read and write simultaneos in some cases.... so 102 x 2 (read and write) = 204GB/s.

The only way to get 192GB/s is using 750Mhz instead the 800mhz said in the article.

The numbers doesn't makes sense.

ha ok thanks .

That is the whole point. We have a journalist that got some words from a developer that got some words from some MS party that suddenly they discovered "the gpu can read and write to esram at the same time". The last part is complete and utter bullshit, of course. Reading means waiting for pulses and writing means sending pulses, down the same data line. Also you need a legal address during read/write. Even if you COULD simultanously r/w on the same data line (I wonder what happens if two pulses "meet"), you'd do it to the same legal address which is an utterly pointless exercise.

What I think (I have speculated a bit in another thread) is the possibility that the esram is dual ported. One address/data bus connects to the gpu (hence in the article they mention the "102G/s still is the gpu tranfer rate"), the other (physically separated) address/data bus connects to something else (the four dma controllers most likely). If the gpu accesses a ram bank, the move engines can access another ram bank at the very same moment. Still this doesn't answer why the number 192G/s turns up, in the best of all worlds, it would add 102G/s + whatever GB/s the move engines can max out (assuming accessing always another ram bank concurrently).

Unless someone from the design team shows up and really explains how the esram is organised (cache or addressable ram or both), and how it is exactly connected to what, all we can do is speculate and marvel at the rumours that pop up daily to make the XBox One faster (apparently "The Cloud" is already on the way out in that regard...).

If it helps games then great.

That's a really good theory .

90GB/s for the data moves... seems like a 112bits bus... that the issue here.