Fake as hell.

1)No DDR3 cannot run faster than GDDR5, not without running into issues with incredibly high voltage. DDR3 just isn't designed to operate at the kind of speeds that GDDR5 does.

I didn't say 12GBs of memory wasn't possible, I said it doesn't make sense to use 12GBs of DDR3, alone.

Newer GPU tech actually requires more bandwidth, which is why companies have invented GDDR5X and HBM, you aren't going anywhere without any more data actually getting to the GPU for it to actually work on. Fast memory is essential.

384 Bit DDR3 doesn't exist. The biggest bus width available is 256 Bit, unless you clock it higher than 2133Mhz, you're not getting higher than 68GB/s theoretical performance, as you clock it higher you run into latency problems.

2400Mhz DDR3 on a 256 Bit bus would only offer 76.5GB/s, which is pitiful for a GPU 2X stronger than XB1's, hell 68GB/s wasn't enough for XB1, which is why Microsoft added 32MBs of eSRAM and there are still bandwidth problems. This hypothetical NX potentially has a 2.7TFlop GPU, which is more than 2X the GPU performance of XB1, 2X the bandwidth would be the minimum needed compared to XB1's GPU.

You're not going up to 3000Mhz on DDR3, the voltage problems would be ridiculous, better to just go with GDDR5, which can have a 384 Bit bus and latency would be much lower than clocking DDR3 through the roof, hell even DDR4 would have more latency problems than GDDR5 would, 4GBs of HBM would be even better, especially for a 2.7TFlop GPU.

No DDR3 can't provide more bandwidth than GDDR5, not even if you had 2 separate 256 Bit buses, each with a 6GB pool clocked at 2400Mhz, PS4 would still outperform it for bandwidth, with 176GB/s theoretical vs 153GB/s for NX. NX would have a lot of latency issues clocking it's memory that high, considering that the timings for PS4's memory are comparable to 2133Mhz DDR3, if you go higher then latency gets longer.

As for my CPU points, you miss the point. The point is that there's no specific basis for comparison between PS4, XB1 and NX, this rumor is incredibly vague and if this person had real information he would give a specific comparison between either PS4 or XB1 compared to NX.

You can't hide bandwidth deficits, latency sure, but bandwidth is literally like the fuel of a car, without data the GPU has nothing to work with, compression means you loose data, better to have high bandwidth, hell HBM would be a better option in part, because it has lower latency. Part HBM, part GDDR5 would probably be best if you can't get all HBM.

This leak is as fake as they come.

Nintendo Extra is still a better name than WiiU..

You don't need high voltages.

There is also MORE to bandwidth than just the amount of Mhz that something operates at.

There are plausable reasons why it actually does make sense.

I know this. I am not attempting to refute that.

It doesn't need to exist.
384bit memory is a memory configuration, you could have 1024bit DDR3 if you wanted, only the memory controller needs to support it, it's transparent in every other aspect.

And for the record... There is no limit to the bus width. Only what is economically feasible.

And no. You don't run into latency problems.
Do you have any idea how latency on RAM is even calculated? CAS Latency is latency per cycle.
You could have two sticks of RAM, one running at 2133mhz, the other running at 3000mhz, both for example are CAS 10. - Guess which actually has the lower latency? The higher clocked RAM, funny how that works isn't it? The more you know.

Bandwidth doesn't work like that.
You don't need 2x the bandwidth because of colour compression.
Secondly... These consoles are only topping out at 1080P, you don't need HBM levels of bandwidth because it would be wasted.

I am going to assume you are ignorant about PC hardware.
I had a Samsung Ram kit a few years back that would reliably hit 3000mhz @ 1.5v. I would assume DDR3 fabbed at 28nm or lower would fare even better than that today.
You keep throwing the latency "issue" around. When there isn't one, I don't think you truly understand what it actually means.

If you had 153GB/s on the NX and the NX had a more modern GCN core... Then that 153GB/s would be of bigger benefit than the PS4's 176GB/s.
Again. Memory latency is in terms of clock cycles.

AMD for example... Released Tonga, cut down the memory interface from 384bit to 256bit, increased the memory clock but with a reduction in total bandwidth of 240GB/s down to 176GB/s. Yet... Thanks to efficiency gains Tonga managed to beat Tahiti Pro. Despite it having less than 64GB/s of bandwidth.

You can hide bandwidth deficits.
Why do you think so many consoles have used ESRAM, EDRAM and other derivites? Why do you think Intel has it's own for it's Iris Pro? It hides bandwidth deficits.
Not only that... But with more efficient scheduling and prediction you can move bandwidth-heavy data when your workset isn't bandwidth heavy allowing for greater levels of utliziation.
And no. Compression doesn't mean you loose data.

Lossless compression is the act of reconstructing compressed data which is identical to the original.


HBM won't happen in the NX. It is far too expensive, consoles are cost sensitive remember? At the moment HBM is reserved for Graphics Processors that cost 2-3x that of a console. To put simply... Console gamers aren't rich enough to afford it.

I don't disagree. But the points which you are using to claim it as inplausable, simply aren't.

Why would you know about anything beyond the specs of the devkit, then?

well ps4k is supposed to be +100% more powerful than ps4.0, so according to this NX can be placed between ps4.0 and ps4k

I can't wait until Nintendo announces the NX officially so this nonsense stops

Just about the name:
Nintendo Extra sounds a bit stupid. NEX doesn't though. It's somewhere between NES and next.

About hardware:
Xbone and PS4 CPU are quite close, same Jaguar with Xbone clocking slightly higher, 9,4% more.

GPU's are a different story with PS4 having 50% more shaders but Xbox clocking slightly higher again PS4 has 42% more shaderpower.

RAM is yet another story. Must be fast enough, especially to get data in and out of the GPU fast enough. So we need bandwith. Bandwith comes from clockspeed and buswidth. To keep PCB costs etc. down you usually go with clock. That is what Sony did.
One option is to just have the most important data go very fast>eDRAM or ESRAM as cache>Wii U, 360 and Xbone way.
Some GPU's are a bit more bandwidth efficient than others though.

So, CPU:
More modern process, more modern architecture>better IPC, better energy efficiancy and thus higher clock speed plus some minor improvements. If there's an ARM handling the actual OS that might free up CPU power as well.
GPU: Might be Polaris, though AMD's APU's so far are still planned with older GCN cores. PS4 basically being GCN 1.0 and Xbone being GCN 1.1, NX GPU could be GCN 1.2 which had some decent improvements.
About the 50% more, that might actually depend on what the GPU is doing.
There are differences in fillrate, tesselation efficiency, shaderpower etc.

Now for bandwidth: It's unlikely that Nintendo will be going with an expensive PCB. But if we take AMD's Tonga, that design is a bit more memory efficient than Pitcairn (PS4 CPU).
Then there's that 12GB RAM thing>192 or 384 bit memory interface. The latter one would be 50% wider than PS4's Xbones. So yes, in theory you could go with DDR3.

There are some serious questions though. For example:
Why that huge amount of RAM? 8GB total would probably be enaugh and well, you could go the Sony way with GDDR5.
NEX wouldn't seem that much more powerful but have almost double the free RAM though probably at least risking bandwidth issues.

12Gb of Ram doesn't mean it needs a 192bit or 384bit bus, it could have 256bit, nVidia used to do such a thing fairly often.
But it does come with some caveats...

12Gb really isn't "huge" either.

The consoles only have 4.5Gb - 5Gb of Ram reserved for gaming duties out of a total of 8Gb.
Let's say 2Gb is used strictly for graphics... That means you only have 2.5Gb - 3Gb of Ram for the game itself, not really much play area in 2016. In comparison the average gaming PC has 8Gb of system Ram, slowly moving over to 16Gb, the OS will only use at-most 2Gb and can free up more memory if things get tight. Then the GPU has it's own 2Gb+ memory pool on top of that, 12Gb of console memory would push the NX closer to the PC in terms of available memory devs can play with.

Still, I would take these rumors with a grain of salt.
There isn't any technical reason why they can't go with that particular memory setup, but it also wouldn't make sense for them to do so... I would hazard a guess it's just a dev kit with more memory for development purposes.

All this sounds plausible and safe bets actually.  Square will likely be there, Activision and EA will be there, at the start anyway.  I don't see any Ubisoft though, and they are usually always there.

Zelda Wii U is likely, we heard rumours of Luigi's Mansion from Geno was it, and Nintendo are likely preparing a new Super Mario Bros game. That F-Zero EX and Smash Bros port I don't know about though.