I have no idea what that guy is smoking, but it must be some good stuff to be able to type that drivel.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
X1 DDR3 RAM vs PS4 GDDR5 RAM: Both Are Sufficient for Realistic Lighting(Geomerics)
- Thread starter ekim
- Start date
I have no idea what that guy is smoking, but it must be some good stuff to be able to type that drivel.
Yeah, I figured as much. The reason why MS included 32 MB's of eSRAM inside of the Xbox One is because that DDR3 RAM that the Xbox One has is outdated & is slow as molasses.
This isn't like the PS3 situation where developers can get more graphics out of the PS3 by combining the cell architecture & the GPU inside of it.
MightyHedgehog
Member
The reason they architected the system as they did was to address longstanding issues that will still negatively affect PS4 as they do for any other hardware configuration. Guess we'll have to see how it turns out in final hardware and in practice, but I don't believe it's really as simple as being a band-aid to match GDDR5 when MS could have gone for such memory if they really wanted. I mean, MS put GDDR memory as their main pool for X360 for the CPU and GPU to share long before Sony decided to follow suit. MS could have gone with such a simple move, but they clearly had different ideas.
it honestly seems like ms were going for the DDR3 + ESRAM setup because they wanted to make sure they had 8GB Ram in they system and werent willing to bank on the chip capacity to rise in time for release of the Xbox One.
Sony took this gamble and fortunatly for them it worked out, we could have easily of ended up with 4GB of ram in the PS4, and while this isnt bad, 8GB is better.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I can tell you now that if MS could have got a signed in blood letter from Samsung in 2010 saying that they could guarantee enough supply of 4Gbit GDDR5 chips for 8GB in Xbone they would have gone for it. That is why they chose the the system they did, RAM makers couldn't make that guarantee, and since Sony were less bothered about the figure but having a unified pool they didn't mind risking ending up with 4GB rather than 8GB. Hell, original PS4 devkits shipped with 2GB GDDR5 which caused quite a stir over here.
Wrong, in fact the whole post is wrong. They simply made the wrong choice.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Well, that's the conventional wisdom about how things were decided and I don't disagree with it being very reasonable to believe that's what happened. It's also just as likely that MS' hardware team actually knows what it's doing and had a vision for how they wanted to maximize what they had to work with. Unfortunately, we're still in that Twilight Zone of waiting on information to find what scenario occurred and how it happened just as we don't know how they stack up when all is said and done. I really hope Dean Takahashi was given the same access he was for the previous two MS systems.
If you're so certain, you can just do us all the favor of clearing the air with details since you apparently know.
Andronicus
Banned
i guess if you keep telling yourself something over & over you eventually start to believe it...
Oh, i agree with you. They knew exactly what they were doing when they designed the system. They made this decision because they wanted to guarantee that their vision was fulfilled. In the end, they ended up with this mess now known as the xbox one. It is still a good system but with the rumors of yield issues and the increased cost, it seems like a poor choice to me. The decision to go with this ram combination is kinda similar to nintendo's decision to go with the gamepad on the wii U. At this moment in time, none of those decisions are paying off.
MightyHedgehog
Member
I'd like to believe we're getting more than APUs with customizations. I could be wrong, and I have no problem with that. So, please, continue to be happy that I'm a deluded fanboy who is praying to the gods at MS that we're getting cool new console design instead of boring variants of the same config.
Microsoft said and i quote "We purposefully did not target the highest end graphics." This all but confirms the theory because both companies had the same silicon budget. They spent it in different ways and one is just better. Simple.
No what you are getting is an advanced but somewhat bloated os designed to streamline your living room experience.
MightyHedgehog
Member
That doesn't mean they didn't try for something interesting and powerful in its own right.
Whatever, man. Keep on with the negativity and I'll sit here not caring if I'm wrong on the internet.
Dictator93
Member
But it isnt. And they did not target it.
Mind building up upon the bolded and explaining what the issues are?
I edited my previous quote to explain the comment. Is it powerful? yes, is it as powerful as its competitors product? Nope. There is a noticeable difference in power. Buy the xbox one because it makes you happy not because of specs.
TheGreyHulk
Member
MS already blew their budget on kinect 2. They weren't going to throw in 8gb of gddr5. It would push the costs up too much since they have the kinect 2 to budget for.
They wanted 8gb ram. Sony was rumored to have just 2-4gb and so ms chose quantity over quality and threw in the eSRAM + ddr3 to address bandwidth concerns.
It really is that simple. I don't think its going to matter much anyways in the end result.
They wanted 8gb ram. Sony was rumored to have just 2-4gb and so ms chose quantity over quality and threw in the eSRAM + ddr3 to address bandwidth concerns.
It really is that simple. I don't think its going to matter much anyways in the end result.
I'd wager that the OS situation will make a bigger difference than the raw RAM speed, but the GPU will make much more of a difference than the memory speed in the first place.
krypt0nian
Banned
Why are fans still looking for special sauce?
In isolation, each issue shouldn't make a big difference but when you combine a 1.2tf gpu(approx 900gf-1tf available for games), slow ram and a 3gb os together, you are in for a world of hurt.
Not really since it's still a huge boost compared to 360. Also nearly identical general architecture means visuals features that can be implemented on PS4 can be done on Xbone. However, in the long run, things will perhaps need to be scaled back for xbone version of a multiplat title.
IHaveCandy
Banned
So you're replacing conventional reasoning with baseless hope?
Oh i also forgot to add, no low level gpu access which is essential to the longevity of any console platform.
DJ Lushious
Member
It's been noted before, but the software isn't hard coded. I would be unsurprised to see continual OS improvements, especially in the memory footprint area, as time passes. PS3 is a noted example of this same idea, as it experienced more memory headroom as the OS was fine tuned.
DeviantBoi
Member
I could also eat some horse meat and feel just as full as if I had eaten a steak at a very expensive restaurant prepared by a world-renowned chef
krypt0nian
Banned
Just like PC games can be scaled back to lower powered cards, but perform far better on more beasty systems.
At the very least PS4 will have the best version every time, ala 360. With little effort it will be far more apparent.
For which platform?
Xbox one. It was stated that developers don't have direct access to the gpu in one of the threads. It was because of the os setup of hypervisor + game os & other os. They did have functions that they could call in the api to make some things easier. Dunno. I'd have to look for the post.
Silly.Mikey
Banned
What puzzles me is that if your going to go with DDR3 (which is dirt cheap), why not just put 12GB of it?
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Except the PS3 does have some multiplats that are superior, due to actually being more powerful than the 360. It's just that most devs weren't able to spend the time and money required to squeeze out that extra power. Typically only Sony's first party devs could do that. This time it will be different. There realistically shouldn't be a single case, ever, of an XBO title looking or running better than the PS4 version. It simply should not be possible unless the PS4 version is intentionally gimped. Last gen we had one console that was more powerful but more difficult to squeeze that power out of (PS3). This gen we'll have one that is more powerful and easier to get everything out of (PS4).
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Definitely not PS4. Sony are giving libGCM and a modified version if PSGL for AMD among other tools to developers. If there is an advantage to be had with coding to the metal then it will be seen with PS4 for sure. I don't know how low the access level is for Xbone, probably deeper than vanilla Direct3D though otherwise it makes little sense to have a fixed hardware spec in the first place.
They would have to change the memory controller and the design of the board. It is also quite pointless to put in 12gb because the gpu won't use all 12 gb. I think they have the perfect balance for their console but unfortunately, its still a weak console.
blackmage2k3
Neo Member
I think it was more Microsoft expected DDR4 to be in use by now, which would of provided substantially more bandwidth but its mainstream uptake hasn't even begun yet!
kingofkingz30
Banned
Cant we just be excited we are getting upgrades from current gen? It must be cool to call a product inferior without really knowing or understanding the reason behind manufacturer decisions.
Pristine_Condition
Member
It's bad enough that we have posters regurgitating B3D junior posts and shit...now we have people quoting complete BS from GF posters? LOL.
Silly.Mikey
Banned
Im excited. I have both on preorder. But ultimately, if this is the case ill just probably end up playing the multiplatform games on playstation instead of the xbox.
Absolutely but objectively it doesn't change the facts regardless of creative explanations to contravene them.
ChewyTechnology
Banned
I think we're ok especially since PC games don't even need more than 4gb.
12 is pointless since it has to be in pairs for dual channel. 16 would be the next step after 8.
Silly.Mikey
Banned
Could they not have designed it where you have 8 used for games and the other 4 for the OS?
Heat and space on board. I still have a hard time grasping how people still cling to the 12GB baseless rumour (like most are) when MS have already stated that they are going with 8.
The only realistic expectation at this point is that hopefully, through the years of xbone, like Sony did with PS3, MS can reduce OS footprint gradually.
Wrong. Like i said in an earlier post, we are going to see a rather large increase in the amount of memory used for games. The reason pc games don't use more than 4 gigs is because they are created to accommodate the limitations of current consoles. The base line is changing and things do not remain stagnant.
Flatline
Banned
Because 8 GB is plenty enough. Hell, even the rumored 5 given to developers should sustain them. That is a 10 fold increase over the 360! 12 GB is overkill, imo, given the level of the APUs we're dealing with.
I think the backstory is pretty clear. MS needed memory, a lot of it, as they'd targetted a vast array of applications for their box from day one. GDDR was not only the more expensive solution, but they had no assurances as far as futur available quantities are concerned. They had to deal with the low bandwidth and constructed their system to avoid stalls and eliminate - partially- that shortcoming. Hence the eSRAM and move engines that keep the GPU well fed.
Sony, I imagine, was keen on putting a lot of bandwidth and avoiding the RAM dual setup of their previous console, but they weren't as focused on RAM quantity as their competitor. They went in with a 2GB and a target of 4. Luckily for them, things evolved in the right direction and they took advatntage of the favorable circumstances to have the best of both worlds.
Iirc, the hypervisor is a rather thin layer and it depends on the API and drivers which need to provide abstract/pseudo HW call functions. But real direct access is still way better. I'm really curious what Sony's first party teams will do with the PS4. Can't wait for the gen 2 games
If Xbox One can't read all 5 GB per frame because of the bandwidth, why would more be needed so bad? I read if you increase the amount, you also need to increase the bandwidth with it or it's pointless. Can anyone explain? Would it be for storing parts of the game in RAM for later use?
I'm sure this will come down with time.
They believe 8 GB of RAM is sufficient enough to last the life cycle of the console. Remember, the console's main problem isn't the amount of RAM, it's the bandwidth of the RAM.
I don't think this was the case, it's obvious that DDR4 was a long time out when these consoles were being designed.
We are excited about them that's why we discuss the spec sheets to death!
That is the general consensus. If you take a look at past AMD APUs we can see that they were bandwidth starved and performance suffered so simply going with the standard method wasn't going to be enough (These machines are built to run games at the end of the day). The ESRAM and slower RAM with higher space was one option while faster RAM at the cost of space was the second option. Sony went with the latter while Microsoft took the former.
Well, like I mentioned before the main problem isn't the amount of RAM but the speed of the RAM. The reason why ESRAM is needed is to help with the bandwidth because when APUs are bandwidth starved the performance suffers. At the time these consoles were being developed there were 2 options:
1.) Go with GDDR5 unified memory for the system and risk having less RAM or
2.) Go with DDR3 unified memory and have ESRAM to supplement the lack of bandwidth but you will guaranteed 8 GB of RAM.
Sony went with the former which is why in the earlier leaked specs we kept hearing about them having 4 GB of GDDR5 memory while Xbox One went with the latter and they always had 8 GB of RAM to work with.
The reason why Microsoft doesn't throw in more RAM is because it would be pointless at this stage of development. What problems does the Xbox One have that would be solved by throwing in more RAM? I know people are hung up on the 5 GB vs the 7 GB(?) available to developers but that won't be a big deal until much later in the generation and by them I am sure Microsoft will have optimized the OS enough to let the developers have access to more RAM if needed. Throwing in more RAM right now at the cost of delaying the launch would be a stupid decision.
On the issue of why Microsoft doesn't just throw in GDDR5 RAM into the Xbox One is because they would have to delay the console at least 6-12 months (you need to change the motherboard and possibly other components). ESRAM on the APU basically becomes worthless (not entirely but that die space would be much more useful if it had more CUs or a better CPU) and the R&D wasted on going around the bandwidth limitations is pretty much a sunk cost.
Truespeed
Member
Or perhaps a boolean unicorn.