Integrated weak graphics...thanks for proving my point. It's useless, and poor design.

Yeah, please just stop posting when no knowledge is present. Consoles use this type of RAM since PS2, it's not a bad solution. It's not as good as your holy cow, we all got what you want to say when you repeat your opinion in every thread and post, even if it's off-topic.

And thanks for not saying you were wrong with  " PC's dont have them for a reason either.".

Iris Pro has a decent performance, it's better than a GT 735M. It will lose only to more robust laptop GPUs. The point is that if XB1 and PS4 had similar RAM specs but One had a ESRAM, it would be better. But PS4's memory is much faster and only a bit slower than the ESRAM on XB1. So you have 8GB with large bandwidth on PS4 and 32MB with large bandwidth on One. Devs on PS4 will simply access what is in memory at high speed. Devs on One will try to cache the crucial parts in 32MB and access it at high speeds, no mistery here. If the data is bigger than 32MB, One will struggle, PS4 won't, simple like that. The extra work of managing cache on One won't be such a pain because they are used to it in other consoles. But again, if it is more than 32MB, they can't do anything about it and performance will suffer.

Either way, the general gaming press is just trying to write about things that didn't need anymore comments. It's not like PS360, you read the specs and PS4 has advantages on everything. Multiplats will always look better/ run smoother on PS4. Even if you create a game for XB1 and port it, the architecture is the same, so you got the same with some performance still available. If you are lazy, just increase resolution, put more AA or simply run the game at higher fps. 

Title says slower, but the tweet says its faster but not enough. You didn't even use the title of the article, which also states this. Oh well.. agendas and all that

You are the one lacking knowledge, esram being on consoles as the past only shows how poor the hardware was...esram is a bandaid solution, thank god cerney new this and changed it. It's why you never see high end PC's with it. It's called evolution.

360 had this as well it's not like developers don;t know the architecture.

Title is misleading, ESRAM is faster even if it is a bottleneck. The tweet even says it- "Not much faster"

Nowhere does it say slower.

Yeah, I noticed that, too. I confess, my first reading of Todd's statement is that it's a production bottleneck, but after a moment of thinking I changed my mind.

It boils down to this. An ERAM machine has to take memory off the main RAM pool and put it on the ERAM before it can be used. I don't know computer architecture enough to know if that's processing the information twice  or not, but it at least has to go through the information once before it can even be used.

A unified memory pool can just call the information as needed. 

For that reason, if the RAM pool has comparable speeds to the ERAM, the one with the unified pool will not only be easier to develop for, but it will actually be faster because it has fewer operations to make and is not continuously wasting operations flipping information in and out of the ERAM pool.

Now I could be wrong. All these units have APU's, so it's not likely that the X1 is burning any of it's GPU's processor doing any ESRAM flipping. It's likely that the power lost is actually going to come out of enemy AI or another background operation, and not the graphics.

Ha ha ha.

The reason its reaching is because no one compares a fix device to a PC.  One is ment to operate like a appliance while the other is ment to be opereate like a swiss Knife.  The scope for both platforms are totally different.  Do you see any PC with gddr5 for main memory, there is a very good reason why.  Your logic does not compute in that area.

As to using gddr5 for the graphics then yes, you are correct.  There is a significant advantage having and using that memory instead of ESRAM since the developer can throw all assets in memory and not really have to manage memory in the process.  There is no one contesting this part as many developers have already chimed in. 

Drivers and tools improve performance.  No one is stating it will be better than the PS4 solution which is what you are making a point that no one made.  The point is that with developers experience and better drivers and tools, things will improve better for X1 games.  There is no comparisons to how well this might match up to the PS4 as not everything has to be about X1 VS PS4.  I am sure people who have bought a X1 are more concerned about improvements to the games on the system more than the fanboy debates on which system is more powerful.

You probably should just Stop.  You are really showing that you do not understand the topic and repeating stuff you fully do not understand is making you look bad.