By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Hot Chips: Xbone Silicon (5b transistors, 363mm2, 8GB Flash, 1.31TFlops, 204GB/s peak BW)

Adinnieken on 27 August 2013

[This comment was too big, I needed more room for my foot in my mouth.] 



Around the Network
Pemalite on 27 August 2013
Scoobes said:

200GFlops for the PS4 CPU?! Isn't that a bit much considering both consoles are using low powered Jaguar cores. If this table is anything to go by:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94721

then even an overclocked Core i7 is only capable of just over 100GFlops. I doubt the Jaguar chips are going to do anywhere close to an i7 in terms of floating point calculations, even with 8 true cores.


200 Gigaflops isn't going to happen, 8 Jaguar cores is more or less comparible to a Core i3 dual core.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Shinobi-san on 27 August 2013
Scoobes said:
Shinobi-san said:
Machiavellian said:

There is nothing spin about that part.  Memory is always calculated as a total of its read and write capabilities if it can be performed at the same time.  Since this was stated at the hot chips event, I am sure MS would have been called out on it.  So peak performance of the ESram is 200GB/s 

The 3.2TF was the combined GPU and CPU together.  The 1.8TF is just the GPU alone.  I have not attempted to do the calculations but most times its a system total calculations that is measured instead of just the GPU.  Anyway, who cares, all of this was an interesting fun read.

Apologies i was wrong. 204 is indeed the correct number. I was getting confused between that and the 270 number that was going around in other threads! Which basically someone went and added the bandwidth of the ESRAM and DDR3 ram. Which is incorrect.

As far as I know the PS4 CPU does not even have 1TF of compute performance? Was this not confirmed to be ~200GFlops?

200GFlops for the PS4 CPU?! Isn't that a bit much considering both consoles are using low powered Jaguar cores. If this table is anything to go by:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94721

then even an overclocked Core i7 is only capable of just over 100GFlops. I doubt the Jaguar chips are going to do anywhere close to an i7 in terms of floating point calculations, even with 8 true cores.

well atleast i wasnt claiming the CPU has over a teraflop of performance..*looks at Machiavellian*

Anyways those were just rumours Scoobes...not sure how they came to that number. :/



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|

Captain_Tom on 27 August 2013
Pemalite said:
Scoobes said:

200GFlops for the PS4 CPU?! Isn't that a bit much considering both consoles are using low powered Jaguar cores. If this table is anything to go by:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94721

then even an overclocked Core i7 is only capable of just over 100GFlops. I doubt the Jaguar chips are going to do anywhere close to an i7 in terms of floating point calculations, even with 8 true cores.


200 Gigaflops isn't going to happen, 8 Jaguar cores is more or less comparible to a Core i3 dual core.

Yes!  That is exactly the conclusion I came to when I did the math a while ago.  Nice to see another enthusiast come to the same conclusion... :)



Adinnieken on 27 August 2013
the-pi-guy said:

I'm probably wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure he is talking about the Wii U.  I think the memory speed of that is like 12.8 GB/s. 

Damn me and my quick reads.  Ah...the lovely taste of crow.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 27 August 2013
Shinobi-san said:
Scoobes said:
Shinobi-san said:
Machiavellian said:

There is nothing spin about that part.  Memory is always calculated as a total of its read and write capabilities if it can be performed at the same time.  Since this was stated at the hot chips event, I am sure MS would have been called out on it.  So peak performance of the ESram is 200GB/s 

The 3.2TF was the combined GPU and CPU together.  The 1.8TF is just the GPU alone.  I have not attempted to do the calculations but most times its a system total calculations that is measured instead of just the GPU.  Anyway, who cares, all of this was an interesting fun read.

Apologies i was wrong. 204 is indeed the correct number. I was getting confused between that and the 270 number that was going around in other threads! Which basically someone went and added the bandwidth of the ESRAM and DDR3 ram. Which is incorrect.

As far as I know the PS4 CPU does not even have 1TF of compute performance? Was this not confirmed to be ~200GFlops?

200GFlops for the PS4 CPU?! Isn't that a bit much considering both consoles are using low powered Jaguar cores. If this table is anything to go by:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94721

then even an overclocked Core i7 is only capable of just over 100GFlops. I doubt the Jaguar chips are going to do anywhere close to an i7 in terms of floating point calculations, even with 8 true cores.

well atleast i wasnt claiming the CPU has over a teraflop of performance..*looks at Machiavellian*

Anyways those were just rumours Scoobes...not sure how they came to that number. :/

LOL, to be honest, I was just stating what that insider was claiming about the PS4 having 3.2TF combining the CPU and GPU to get that number.  I did not state I believe it as clearly stated I have not performed the calculations.

One thing I also thought was funny is the rumor that will not die that MS has another GPU with the X1.  This rumor seems to corp back up every 3 months and now we have a date for it to either be proven true or fade away for good.



ethomaz on 28 August 2013

Machiavellian said:

LOL, to be honest, I was just stating what that insider was claiming about the PS4 having 3.2TF combining the CPU and GPU to get that number.  I did not state I believe it as clearly stated I have not performed the calculations.

One thing I also thought was funny is the rumor that will not die that MS has another GPU with the X1.  This rumor seems to corp back up every 3 months and now we have a date for it to either be proven true or fade away for good.

The "insider" never said 3.2TF is combining CPU and GPU... he said there are a dedicaded GPU in both Xbone and PS4... so in Crossfire the PS4 have 3.2TF and Xbone 5TF.

APU + dGPU.



Stinky on 28 August 2013
Serious_frusting said:

I found some of the design choices in the xbone quite strange, however i am impressed with how they have structured the memory to help compensate for the DDR3 bottleneck. So the 32mb ram will do read and write processes at high speeds. Its just getting the data over to it. DDR3 is not slow, it just cant read+write in a single cycle. Will be interesting to see how this memory can handle multiple variables, or more to the point, how developers are going to handle the different memory pools.

Nintendo should take notes. M$ has improved on their design in every way possible by the looks of this.


Without a doubt, MS evaluated unified GDDR for the xbox one as they pioneered it in the 360, but there's adequate bandwidth and there's overkill. Especially when half of the RAM is going to be allocated to OS functions.



Machiavellian on 28 August 2013
ethomaz said:

Machiavellian said:

LOL, to be honest, I was just stating what that insider was claiming about the PS4 having 3.2TF combining the CPU and GPU to get that number.  I did not state I believe it as clearly stated I have not performed the calculations.

One thing I also thought was funny is the rumor that will not die that MS has another GPU with the X1.  This rumor seems to corp back up every 3 months and now we have a date for it to either be proven true or fade away for good.

The "insider" never said 3.2TF is combining CPU and GPU... he said there are a dedicaded GPU in both Xbone and PS4... so in Crossfire the PS4 have 3.2TF and Xbone 5TF.

APU + dGPU.
 

Ahhh, my mistake, those post were getting so long I guess I got my wire crossed



Pemalite on 28 August 2013
Stinky said:
Serious_frusting said:

I found some of the design choices in the xbone quite strange, however i am impressed with how they have structured the memory to help compensate for the DDR3 bottleneck. So the 32mb ram will do read and write processes at high speeds. Its just getting the data over to it. DDR3 is not slow, it just cant read+write in a single cycle. Will be interesting to see how this memory can handle multiple variables, or more to the point, how developers are going to handle the different memory pools.

Nintendo should take notes. M$ has improved on their design in every way possible by the looks of this.


Without a doubt, MS evaluated unified GDDR for the xbox one as they pioneered it in the 360, but there's adequate bandwidth and there's overkill. Especially when half of the RAM is going to be allocated to OS functions.


Agreed, it basically all comes down to cost, they would have evaluated the Price/performance of GDDR5 over DDR3+eSram.
Essentially they would be taking advantage of the scale of economies with the DDR3 to lower production costs initially, although later in the generation that advantage will dissapear as the PC shifts over to DDR4. (But the APU will be cheaper to manufacture at that point anyway.)

Sony on the otherhand will pay the early premium of GDDR5 untill AMD and nVidia's partners start using the memory in low-end GPU's and IGP's/APU's, the high-end cards will probably shift over to GDDR6 in the next year or so, but scale of economies should shift in favor of Sony over the long term.

Besides, the Xbox One needs less memory bandwidth than the Playstation 4  to begin with, due to the weaker graphics processor, which is the most memory bandwidth hungry part of a gaming device such as a console or PC, the eSRAM is there to give it that boost it needs.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--