Support NeoGAF

ekim · Jun 28, 2013

Nothing in the article points to the assumption from some people here, that bandwidths were added. So stop with that "but you can't just add bandwidth" stuff.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-xbox-one-memory-better-in-production-hardware

Well-placed development sources have told Digital Foundry that the ESRAM embedded memory within the Xbox One processor is considerably more capable than Microsoft envisaged during pre-production of the console,
with data throughput levels up to 88 per cent higher in the final hardware.

Bandwidth is at a premium in the Xbox One owing to the slower DDR3 memory employed in the console, which does not compare favourably to the 8GB unified pool of GDDR5 in the PlayStation 4.
The 32MB of "embedded static RAM" within the Xbox One processor aims to make up the difference, and was previously thought to sustain a peak theoretical throughput of 102GB/s -
useful, but still some way behind the 176GB/s found in PlayStation 4's RAM set-up.
Now that close-to-final silicon is available, Microsoft has revised its own figures upwards significantly, telling developers that 192GB/s is now theoretically possible.

Catching up to the GDDR5 bandwidth.

So how could Microsoft's own internal tech teams have underestimated the capabilities of its own hardware by such a wide margin?
Well, according to sources who have been briefed by Microsoft, the original bandwidth claim derives from a pretty basic calculation -
128 bytes per block multiplied by the GPU speed of 800MHz offers up the previous max throughput of 102.4GB/s. It's believed that this calculation remains true for separate read/write operations from and to the ESRAM.
However, with near-final production silicon, Microsoft techs have found that the hardware is capable of reading and writing simultaneously.
Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations.
Theoretical peak performance is one thing, but in real-life scenarios it's believed that 133GB/s throughput has been achieved with alpha transparency blending operations (FP16 x4).

more or less debunking the downclock rumor:

The news doesn't quite square with previous rumours suggesting that fabrication issues with the ESRAM component of the Xbox One processor had actually resulted in a downclock for the GPU, reducing its overall capabilities and widening the gulf between graphical components of the Xbox One and the PlayStation 4. While none of our sources are privy to any production woes Microsoft may or may not be experiencing with its processor, they are making actual Xbox One titles and have not been informed of any hit to performance brought on by production challenges. To the best of their knowledge, 800MHz remains the clock speed of the graphics component of the processor, and the main CPU is operating at the target 1.6GHz. In both respects, this represents parity with the PlayStation 4.

Multiplatform performance / tools:

In terms of what this all means with regards multi-platform titles launching on both next-gen consoles,
our information suggests that developers may be playing things rather conservatively for launch titles while dev tools are still being worked on.
This is apparently more of an issue with Xbox One, where Microsoft developers are still in the process of bringing home very significant increases in performance from one release of the XDK development environment to the next.
Our principal source suggests that performance targets are being set by game-makers and that the drivers should catch up with those targets sooner rather than later.
Bearing in mind the stuttering performance we saw from some Xbox One titles at E3 such as Crytek's Ryse (amongst others), this is clearly good news.

As the performance levels of both next-gen consoles are something of a moving target at the moment, differences in multi-platform games may not become evident until developers are working with more mature tools and libraries.
At that point it's possible that we may see ambitious titles operating at a lower resolution on Xbox One compared to the PlayStation 4.

Halvie · Jun 28, 2013

better than drm news if true

OverHeat · Jun 28, 2013

Good for MS

shinobi602 · Jun 28, 2013

Dat secret sauce?

Xater · Jun 28, 2013

What was the realistic performance estimate for PS4 again? I forgot.

iSnakeTk · Jun 28, 2013

90% of games will look the same on both. Stop dreaming.

twobear · Jun 28, 2013

Wait what, is this even possible? MS's hardware designers didn't even know the capabilities of something they designed? I smell bullshit.

Winterfang · Jun 28, 2013

I still have no idea what DDr, GDDR5,EsRam etc... means.

RoboPlato · Jun 28, 2013

This is a shockingly large jump this late in system development.

Sho_Nuff82 · Jun 28, 2013

Over 9000.gif

Auto_aim1 · Jun 28, 2013

32MB is still too less though, but good news nonetheless.

Graphics Horse · Jun 28, 2013

but I was told that the numbers didn't lie!

LukasTaves · Jun 28, 2013

Dat secret sauce.

Edit: Damn, beaten XD

derFeef · Jun 28, 2013

That's a huge jump, good news if true. Better performance across systems is good for everyone.

R3TRODYCE · Jun 28, 2013

Good stuff.

LiquidMetal14 · Jun 28, 2013

After listening to Mark Cerny's talk, I believe this route is not the best way. The number looks higher but it creates added complication. I do like the clock speeds staying the same though.

Man-is-Obsolete · Jun 28, 2013

Bit of strange news, but if true it becomes a unified pool versus a non unified pool.

jaypah · Jun 28, 2013

iSnakeTk said:
90% of games will look the same on both. Stop dreaming.

Dreaming about what? What are you talking about?

Anyway, good news I suppose. I'm more concerned with available memory but I don't have to make the games so, whatevz.

RibMan · Jun 28, 2013

godelsmetric said:
Wait what, is this even possible? MS's hardware designers didn't even know the capabilities of something they designed? I smell bullshit.

Microsoft has revised its own figures upwards significantly, telling developers that 192GB/s is now theoretically possible.

The information about the performance improvement is coming from Microsoft. Keep that in mind.

Zukuu · Jun 28, 2013

I call BS. Hell, they even throw in another number in the same article:

Theoretical peak performance is one thing, but in real-life scenarios it's believed that 133GB/s throughput has been achieved with alpha transparency blending operations (FP16 x4).

Impeccable · Jun 28, 2013

iSnakeTk said:
90% of games will look the same on both. Stop dreaming.

Just like all games look the same this generation.

Putty · Jun 28, 2013

"telling developers that 192GB/s is now theoretically possible."

While theoretically jumping through hoops.

Very odd they only just realised. Even so, the 133 figure mentioned still falls some way short of Sony's figure, without jumping through hoops.

SCHUEY F1 · Jun 28, 2013

derFeef said:
That's a huge jump, good news if true. Better performance across systems is good for everyone.

This

Salvadora · Jun 28, 2013

So the XBO is more capable than the PS4 if this article is true?

Would be interesting to see.

RoboPlato · Jun 28, 2013

RibMan said:
The information about the performance improvement is coming from Microsoft. Keep that in mind.

True that it is only a theoretical number and it comes from Microsoft but it is still a pretty big leap. The console will still have lower average bandwidth between the two pools than PS4 but this will help a lot.

Salvadora said:
So the XBO is more capable than the PS4 if this article is true?

Would be interesting to see.

No, just that the eSRAM pool could have more bandwidth but there is a lot less of it than the GDDR5 in PS4. PS4 still has the better GPU and more fast RAM available to games.

nelsonroyale · Jun 28, 2013

Well, it is good if their yields are higher, but why are they still adding up the two bandwidths...? It is not exactly comparable to what is going on in the PS4 if I have it right.

If the info is from MS directly, then I am probably more sceptical. Considering their recent activities they have very misleading and wishy-washy on the info front.

Commanche Raisin Toast · Jun 28, 2013

It's the same bad math that's been used before. You can't just add the speeds of both. That's not how bottlenecks work.

GetemMa · Jun 28, 2013

yeah not much difference on multiplats.

It's the exclusives where the PS4's extra CU's will provide extra punch.

maabus1999 · Jun 28, 2013

Salvadora said:
So the XBO is more capable than the PS4 if this article is true?

Would be interesting to see.

Not really. No matter what numbers or components people throw out here and on other sites, the two consoles are basically going to be near parity in the real world.

Which is a good thing save for the console warriors.

IHaveCandy · Jun 28, 2013

Are they simply adding HDD read/write speed with it? How can they increase bandwidth without changing the bit-interface or clock speed?

What is the read-write speed of the HDD?

ekim · Jun 28, 2013

Salvadora said:
So the XBO is more capable than the PS4 if this article is true?

Would be interesting to see.

No - if this is true, both have a maximum theoretical bandwidth of 192 GB/s

edit: I'm dumb - ignore me.

Xater · Jun 28, 2013

Salvadora said:
So the XBO is more capable than the PS4 if this article is true?

Would be interesting to see.

That's not what it says at all.

qa_engineer · Jun 28, 2013

However, with near-final production silicon, Microsoft techs have found that the hardware is capable of reading and writing simultaneously. Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations. Theoretical peak performance is one thing, but in real-life scenarios it's believed that 133GB/s throughput has been achieved with alpha transparency blending operations (FP16 x4).

So which is it?

Monty Mole · Jun 28, 2013

Salvadora said:
So the XBO is more capable than the PS4 if this article is true?

Would be interesting to see.

The GPU is still much more powerful in the PS4 though - at least that's what GAF tells me.

qa_engineer said:
So which is it?

Theoretical peak performance will always be higher than reality - that goes for PS4 too.

Sorral · Jun 28, 2013

Theoretical peak performance is one thing, but in real-life scenarios it's believed that 133GB/s throughput has been achieved with alpha transparency blending operations (FP16 x4).

Isn't that the real jump from 102.4GB/s to 133GB/s on ESRAM since it is not a simple combine to 192GB/s?

Weird that they didn't know from the start...

Raist · Jun 28, 2013

They still don't have final hardware?

benny_a · Jun 28, 2013

Winterfang said:
I still have no idea what DDr, GDDR5,EsRam etc... means.

If you really want to know then you should read this very well done overview.

LiquidMetal14 · Jun 28, 2013

Commanche Raisin Toast said:
It's the same bad math that's been used before. You can't just add the speeds of both. That's not how bottlenecks work.

That's what I was thinking. Theoretical numbers are one thing but that's not some number that will be met all the time on Xbone. This is a little misleading since you still have the bottleneck of using DDR3 in conjunction with 32MB od eDRAM.

ThoughtsOfSpeaking · Jun 28, 2013

look. Stop trying to downplay this people. It only benefits both consoles if the gap in power is closer.

That said, a more complicated setup :- Only first party will take advantage. That is undeniable.

Naked Snake · Jun 28, 2013

Salvadora said:
So the XBO is more capable than the PS4 if this article is true?

nop

GetemMa · Jun 28, 2013

Salvadora said:
So the XBO is more capable than the PS4 if this article is true?

Would be interesting to see.

not really. The effective bandwidth appears to be around 133 gb/sec and the PS4 Memory bandwidth is still significantly higher plus the PS4 GPU has more CU's.

RoboPlato · Jun 28, 2013

qa_engineer said:
So which is it?

133 for most but they could potentially go higher. Basically 133 should be used instead of 102 now but there is a chance that some devs can get some more performance out of it.

derFeef · Jun 28, 2013

Monty Mole said:
The GPU is still much more powerful in the PS4 though - at least that's what GAF tells me.

GDDR5 is good for graphics, less good for CPU operations due to the higher latency.
DDR3 is good for the CPU but worse for the graphics due to lower bandwith. ESRAM is there to make up for that, at least a little bit.

EMT0 · Jun 28, 2013

This is still more inefficient than using GDDR5 alone and more like patching a poor decision than anything else. The GPU is also weaker than the PS4s by a noticeable margin.

The games will look the same? okay

too much eslim · Jun 28, 2013

So basically the so called power gap is even smaller. heck i thought the xbox cpu was at 1.2 but it is at 1.6. So basically multiplats will look the same and run smoothly on both systems it will take the exclusives to show a difference if there is one.

Krakn3Dfx · Jun 28, 2013

We've been hearing about yield issues from reliable sources for months and suddenly MS is not only saying that's not true, but that they're getting even high quality yields than previously stated?

Oh yeah, this is from Microsoft.

Salvadora · Jun 28, 2013

Xater said:
That's not what it says at all.

Doesn't 192GB/s >176GB/s

It also refutes the claim that MS has downclocked.

ekim · Jun 28, 2013

derFeef said:
GDDR5 is good for graphics, less good for CPU operations due to the higher latency.
DDR3 is good for the CPU but worse for the graphics due to lower bandwith. ESRAM is there to make up for that, at least a little bit.

Not a concern for OOO CPUs which are used here.

SEGAvangelist · Jun 28, 2013

derFeef said:
GDDR5 is good for graphics, less good for CPU operations due to the higher latency.
DDR3 is good for the CPU but worse for the graphics due to lower bandwith. ESRAM is there to make up for that, at least a little bit.

So Xbox One was designed for bigger worlds and PS4 for better looking worlds. 3rd parties will still make it the same for both, though.

ginger ninja · Jun 28, 2013

happening intensifies...it's like every known negative factor related to xbone is getting slashed one by one

Support NeoGAF

DigitalFoundry: X1 memory performance improved for production console/ESRAM 192 GB/s)

Member

Banned

« generous god »

Member

Member

Should be put to work in a coal mine.

sputum-flecked apoplexy

Banned

I'd be in the dick

Member

MeisaMcCaffrey

Member

Member

Member

Member

hide your water-based mammals

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Unconfirmed Member

Member

I'd be in the dick

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

extra source of jiggaflops

hide your water-based mammals

Banned

Member

Member

I'd be in the dick

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Gold Member

Banned

Similar threads