There sure are. Did you happen to notice the post above yours?

I am sorry but I have to disagree with Famousmortimer here.

Esram alone is in fact in reality slower than GDDR5.

Real benchmarks during ideal conditions have been done on both machines:

- 140-150GB/s averaged at 145GB/s in best conditions using the best test available for Esram. Those are Microsoft ideal/best condition numbers and work for rare utilizations, most cases will reach maybe 100GB/s in fact.
- 160GB/s done with a similar test on the GDDR5 ram by some developers, they can reach 91% of the total 176GB/s which is compatible with similar, on best conditions tests on GDDR5 ram on PC, maybe like 135GB/s in less ideal conditions.

Hmm this is interesting, where were this tests done?

mmm...the title says slower, while the quote says not really much faster and does not compennsate enough....
misleading

Lol, it seems like we just traveled back to September 2013.

In the MS voodoo laboratory, as noone ever was able to explain the numbers. Let's bring some points up to clear up stuff and obfuscate clear stuff:

1. There is a poster here who bravely states "esram is only a bottleneck if it is used"

Fact: That is a funny idea because what happens if you DON't use the esram? That is prety easy to figure out: the gpu and the cpu and the dma engines all access the main ddr3 dram. Since the ddr3 has a 256bit interface, only one of the 256bit dma/memory controlers can access the main memory. This gives us 953MHz*256bit = roughly 25GByte/s bandwidth for the gpu. Good luck making a game that does more than 10fps at any resolution...

2. There is a number of 204GB/s (which would correctly be 218GB/s after the clock uptick) for esram and real measured 145GB/s bandwidth number stated by unknown testers under unknown conditions.

Fact: The first number is complete and utter bullshit. This bogus number comes from a pr/tech guy who is frequently quoted by journalists as "we can read and write at the same time into the esram". No vlsi engineer has ever come forward to explain the number and how that actually works, and unless the layout of the mmu crossbridg in the apu is considerable more complex (and I mean considerably more complex) than anything ever done before (this includes supercomputer mmus), I stand by my bullshit meter hitting the fan. The second number, 145GB/s, on the other hand, is completely believable, though. However, this number does not come from the gpu data side. It is the bandwidth reached in the mmu crossbar switch. It is achieved when the gpu accesses the esram at 109GB/s (by either reading and/or writing to the four individual 256bit memory controllers of the four separate 8MB esram blocks) and simultaneous access (parallel in the mmu crossbar) of the cpu mmu of the ddr3 main ram. This gives us 109GB/s + 40GB/s = 149GB/s data rate (or 177GB/s if the cpu could use the full bandwidth (cpu access is stated lower by ms).

Again the memory layout of the XBox One apu is extremely complicated (it can get a lot, really a lot, more complicated when the gpu accesses esram blocks and ddr3 at the same time, concurrently with a dme engine accessing esram, and cpu concurrently accessing the ddr3 ram. That would probably be the messiest access pattern I see in the XBox One, but it would get the number upto (109+68) = 177GB/s, the maximum memory thorughput possible (unless there IS novel voodoo technology inside the apu).

The 140-150 GB/s esram max real case bandwidth (in a real life test) comes from Microsoft found in a Eurogamer article. No developer will probably have a better real bandwidth than those 145GB/S Microsoft numbers I guess.

The 160GB/s comes from the 90%-91% bandwidth utilization that I read several times in hardware forums (years ago), 91% being the maxium real bandwidth utilization of the typical GDDR5 ram in a ideal simple test (without contention form the CPU from example). But we can directly compare those 145 and 160 test which are maximum real bandwidth in ideal (rare) scenarii.

But except those simple cases, I think the average bandwith (with latency and contention in any test) with GDDR5 ram is like 75% so 132GB/s. But with Esram it's even worse because those 145GB/S cases are if you use both direction at the same time of the bus. It can only be done in some cases like framebuffer simple alpha operations. The rest (which depends of the game) will be limited by the peak 109GB/S so 100GB/S realistically in the best case, I feel generous here (because esram low latency powa!!!).

I am using my fuzzy logic in many of my latter assumptions here. But I think, based from the info I gathered I must not be far away from the truth.

But of course for X1 you have to think about the 68GB/s main ram (peak bandwidth number maybe 50GB/S-ish in average cases) but when you transfer memory from DDR3 to esram (because duh 32MB is nothing in a next gen game, KZSF uses 800MB for just the objects rendered in one level) you are doing nothing but just using the DDR3 bandwidth (with probably CPU work but in most cases it should not need more than 5-10GB/S in fact) so that's why you can't directly add 50 + 100 for XB1.

You may better understand why if the PS4 GPU has only more 41% more grunt that X1, the PS4 games shows in most cases an average of 70% advantage over X1. (70% with BF4 and with Tomb Raider DE, 125% with COD and 44% with AC4). The 70% number on average and particularlry with BF4 which is the only game  where we could really compare both performance objectively in both unlocked (60fps) game which had stable gap performance visible (45fps for X1, 55fps for PS4 for long periods + resolution difference = 70% PS4 advantage).

hmmm thanks for the explanation, you and drkohler. So the PS4 ram advantage is bigger than I thought.

This.  MS wants to go on about "But Ryse is the best graphicz".  Whatever.  But is there anything special about XBone enabling that?  No.

There is zero technical impediment to porting any XBone game to PS4, where it would have more power to look/play even better.

So MS' stance is "buy our stuff because we use our millions to prevent good stuff from being more freely available".  What a sales pitch.

I need to learn to stop arguing with certain people on this site (or idiots on the internet in general).  You'll never win.  They act like they are 12.  Nuh uh, nuh uh.  They're probably sticking their tongue out at you while they type.

So my advice to you is to just ignore FW's posts.

"esram being on consoles as the past only shows how poor the hardware was"  WTF?  Seriously.  WTF.  LMAO.

User was warned for this post.

yo_john117