Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Digital Foundry Video: Hands-On With Xbox Series X + Impressions + Xbox One X Size Comparisons + Official Specs + Ray Tracing

Radek said:
DonFerrari said:

Well 10GB is of the fastest available, so I don't think it will be much problem.

Maybe it's 10 GB for games and 6 GB for system? Sounds overkill for system RAM but who knows?

The digital foundry video explains how much memory is for what.

6x 2gb = 12 gb for "gameing"

1x 4gb = OS ect.

= total 16 GB.

However, dev's can borrow, some of the slower ram (~1,5 GB) if needed.

So that "max" possible ram the Xbox Series X can use (for games) is 13,5 GB.
The "optimal" (max speed) is 12 GB.



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
Radek said:

Maybe it's 10 GB for games and 6 GB for system? Sounds overkill for system RAM but who knows?

10 *12 GB is optimized for GPU, and the rest is moreso for CPU usage.  

So I'd guess 13 GB for games, 3 GB for OS.  

Where are you guys getting the 10 GB number from? your not the first person here to mention it.
I think you guys might have missed the part where they explained about the memory split.

*edit:

okay I found the issue.
People are looking at the picture the OP linked, that mentions 10 GB at such speed, and 6 GB at another speed.

However if people watched the Digital foundry video, you would know the actual memory alocation is :

6 chips x 2 GB = 12 GB at 560GB/s speeds (for gameing)

4 chip x 1 GB =  4 GB for otherstuff.

Its at 5 minuets 48 secounds into the video.  <-----

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 16 March 2020

JRPGfan said:
the-pi-guy said:

10 *12 GB is optimized for GPU, and the rest is moreso for CPU usage.  

So I'd guess 13 GB for games, 3 GB for OS.  

Where are you guys getting the 10 GB number from? your not the first person here to mention it.
I think you guys might have missed the part where they explained about the memory split.

In the chart at the end of the OP. 

10 GB @ 560 GB/s

6 GB @ 336 GB/s

Plus MS's statement to Digital Foundry:

"Memory performance is asymmetrical - it's not something we could have done with the PC," explains Andrew Goossen "10 gigabytes of physical memory [runs at] 560GB/s. We call this GPU optimal memory. Six gigabytes [runs at] 336GB/s. We call this standard memory. GPU optimal and standard offer identical performance for CPU audio and file IO. The only hardware component that sees a difference in the GPU."



the-pi-guy said:
JRPGfan said:

Where are you guys getting the 10 GB number from? your not the first person here to mention it.
I think you guys might have missed the part where they explained about the memory split.

In the chart at the end of the OP. 

10 GB @ 560 GB/s

6 GB @ 336 GB/s

Plus MS's statement to Digital Foundry:

"Memory performance is asymmetrical - it's not something we could have done with the PC," explains Andrew Goossen "10 gigabytes of physical memory [runs at] 560GB/s. We call this GPU optimal memory. Six gigabytes [runs at] 336GB/s. We call this standard memory. GPU optimal and standard offer identical performance for CPU audio and file IO. The only hardware component that sees a difference in the GPU."

Then the Chart the OP posted, contains wrong INFO.

I choose to believe Digital Foundry, and the picture of the memory setup they show in their video.
instead of that chart.

DF is saying something differnt from what this chart says (in their video atleast).



JEMC said:
DonFerrari said:

Well 10GB is of the fastest available, so I don't think it will be much problem.

It's fast, there's no doubt of that, but sometimes quantity also matter.

Sure thing, that is why it can also use another 3GB of the little slower one, probably to less demanding content that needs to stay but can take longer to call.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
JRPGfan said:
the-pi-guy said:

In the chart at the end of the OP. 

10 GB @ 560 GB/s

6 GB @ 336 GB/s

Plus MS's statement to Digital Foundry:

"Memory performance is asymmetrical - it's not something we could have done with the PC," explains Andrew Goossen "10 gigabytes of physical memory [runs at] 560GB/s. We call this GPU optimal memory. Six gigabytes [runs at] 336GB/s. We call this standard memory. GPU optimal and standard offer identical performance for CPU audio and file IO. The only hardware component that sees a difference in the GPU."

Then the Chart the OP posted, contains wrong INFO.

I choose to believe Digital Foundry, and the picture of the memory setup they show in their video.
instead of that chart.

DF is saying something differnt from what this chart says.

It says the exact same thing....

I have no idea how you are interpreting anything... Because both things are reported by Digital Foundry and say the same thing...

You are just reading one of them wrong.  



CGI-Quality said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Given the X1 used 3GB for a fairly robust interface, I don't think Series X needs 6GB.

X1 interface was likely slugging because limited CPU power. Perhaps faster storage of Series X will also help. Hence, more RAM doesn't solve the problems of bottleneck elsewhere.

My guess is they will use 4GB on the system. But I guess 10GB of RAM would be fine for given texture streaming will be utilized.

I actually found the X1/X1X's interface to be rather slow, especially when compared with a good PC or the PS4 (though Microsoft has done a fantastic job fixing things, like faster pop-ups and less intrusive ads).

Regardless, you can't ever have too much System RAM. Ever. The interface eats more from the Random Access Memory. The more of it you have, the more data it can work with (move things around, store files, open programs, etc...). Yes, a faster proc will aid in this, but there's only so much it can do when other things don't work with it (the PS3 is a prime example of this, having a slam dunk proc with slower [and less accessible] RAM for system tasks). That is why, prior to the PS4, PSN was a sluggish mess when it came to Downloads and anything involving the Friend List.

So, the more the RAM the Series X (or PS5) have, the better the machine should function (assuming other factors don't bog down the device). 

For me PSN is still a slugg on PS4 and PS4Pro, it takes to long to load anything on any area of the store.

My phone loads 10x faster.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

the-pi-guy said:
JRPGfan said:

Then the Chart the OP posted, contains wrong INFO.

I choose to believe Digital Foundry, and the picture of the memory setup they show in their video.
instead of that chart.

DF is saying something differnt from what this chart says.

It says the exact same thing....

I have no idea how you are interpreting anything... Because both things are reported by Digital Foundry and say the same thing...

You are just reading one of them wrong.  

I blame the DF video.... doesnt make it apparrent that what they showed at first, was their "assumption".

Its odd that its actually a 10 for gameing, 6 for OS split I guess.
But if their saying that, then it must be true.

Yep I read it wrong.



DonFerrari said:
CGI-Quality said:

I actually found the X1/X1X's interface to be rather slow, especially when compared with a good PC or the PS4 (though Microsoft has done a fantastic job fixing things, like faster pop-ups and less intrusive ads).

Regardless, you can't ever have too much System RAM. Ever. The interface eats more from the Random Access Memory. The more of it you have, the more data it can work with (move things around, store files, open programs, etc...). Yes, a faster proc will aid in this, but there's only so much it can do when other things don't work with it (the PS3 is a prime example of this, having a slam dunk proc with slower [and less accessible] RAM for system tasks). That is why, prior to the PS4, PSN was a sluggish mess when it came to Downloads and anything involving the Friend List.

So, the more the RAM the Series X (or PS5) have, the better the machine should function (assuming other factors don't bog down the device). 

For me PSN is still a slugg on PS4 and PS4Pro, it takes to long to load anything on any area of the store.

My phone loads 10x faster.

The Store is slow, yes, but not the overall interface. 



                                                                                                             

JRPGfan said:
the-pi-guy said:

It says the exact same thing....

I have no idea how you are interpreting anything... Because both things are reported by Digital Foundry and say the same thing...

You are just reading one of them wrong.  

I blame the DF video.... doesnt make it apparrent that what they showed at first, was their "assumption".

Its odd that its actually a 10 for gameing, 6 for OS split I guess.
But if their saying that, then it must be true.

Yep I read it wrong.

Here's the misunderstanding:

10 GB for GPU 

6 GB for CPU.  

Games use RAM from both pools. 

Games probably get dedicated 10 GB GPU + 3 GB CPU cache.