PS4 ram better than Xbox1 ram based on AMD website

http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/gddr5/Pages/gddr5.aspx#2

Anyone can say anything otherwise?

Ownage... :)

PS4 > XBO

$399 > $499

Victory!

You just notice this :|? Where've you been all this time? Up the mountain?rjdofu

Buttt... Butt... Forza Motor SPORT!!!

:lol:

He's just trying to own anyone saying stuff is gonna look better on XBO over PS4.

[QUOTE="rjdofu"]You just notice this :|? Where've you been all this time? Up the mountain?Truth_Hurts_U

Buttt... Butt... Forza Motor SPORT!!!

:lol:

He's just trying to own anyone saying stuff is gonna look better on XBO over PS4.

GDDR5 is better than DDR3.  GDDR5 is also more costly but MS needed to cut corners when they wanted to include a motion sensor in the package.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/gddr5/Pages/gddr5.aspx#2

Anyone can say anything otherwise?

zero_cool098

[QUOTE="zero_cool098"]

http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/gddr5/Pages/gddr5.aspx#2

Anyone can say anything otherwise?

ronvalencia

You just notice this :|? Where've you been all this time? Up the mountain?rjdofu

GDDR5 is better than DDR3.  GDDR5 is also more costly but MS needed to cut corners when they wanted to include a motion sensor in the package.

SRTtoZ

[QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]

GDDR5 is better than DDR3. GDDR5 is also more costly but MS needed to cut corners when they wanted to include a motion sensor in the package.

WilliamRLBaker

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]

GDDR5 is better than DDR3. GDDR5 is also more costly but MS needed to cut corners when they wanted to include a motion sensor in the package.

zero_cool098

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="zero_cool098"]

http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/gddr5/Pages/gddr5.aspx#2

Anyone can say anything otherwise?

zero_cool098

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/3

...

It turns out that for current workloads, Intel didnt see much benefit beyond a 32MB eDRAM however it wanted the design to be future proof

....

Intel claims that it would take a 100 - 130GB/s GDDR memory interface to deliver similar effective performance to Crystalwell since the latter is a cache. Accessing the same data (e.g. texture reads) over and over again is greatly benefitted by having a large L4 cache on package.

:P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSyRUL3pNkM

[QUOTE="zero_cool098"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] X1 has 32MB ESRAM to patch the performance gap with GDDR5.

ronvalencia

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/3

...

It turns out that for current workloads, Intel didnt see much benefit beyond a 32MB eDRAM however it wanted the design to be future proof

....

Intel claims that it would take a 100 - 130GB/s GDDR memory interface to deliver similar effective performance to Crystalwell since the latter is a cache. Accessing the same data (e.g. texture reads) over and over again is greatly benefitted by having a large L4 cache on package.

u never give up huh. admit it ps4 is a beats compared to xbox one

let it go

[QUOTE="zero_cool098"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] X1 has 32MB ESRAM to patch the performance gap with GDDR5.

ronvalencia

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/3

...

It turns out that for current workloads, Intel didnt see much benefit beyond a 32MB eDRAM however it wanted the design to be future proof

....

Intel claims that it would take a 100 - 130GB/s GDDR memory interface to deliver similar effective performance to Crystalwell since the latter is a cache. Accessing the same data (e.g. texture reads) over and over again is greatly benefitted by having a large L4 cache on package.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="zero_cool098"] can you back that up with some good article? so far all I found is that 32mb ESRAM wont be enough as per this link http://www.examiner.com/article/ps4-gddr5-ram-compared-against-xbox-720-ddr3-ram-and-esram not exactly the best in credibility by how the website looks, but can you show one that actually support it on a positive light?

btk2k2

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/3

...

It turns out that for current workloads, Intel didnt see much benefit beyond a 32MB eDRAM however it wanted the design to be future proof

....

Intel claims that it would take a 100 - 130GB/s GDDR memory interface to deliver similar effective performance to Crystalwell since the latter is a cache. Accessing the same data (e.g. texture reads) over and over again is greatly benefitted by having a large L4 cache on package.

its not and he knows it but he never gives up.

xbox one is just a mainstream console

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="zero_cool098"] can you back that up with some good article? so far all I found is that 32mb ESRAM wont be enough as per this link http://www.examiner.com/article/ps4-gddr5-ram-compared-against-xbox-720-ddr3-ram-and-esram not exactly the best in credibility by how the website looks, but can you show one that actually support it on a positive light?

btk2k2

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/3

...

It turns out that for current workloads, Intel didnt see much benefit beyond a 32MB eDRAM however it wanted the design to be future proof

....

Intel claims that it would take a 100 - 130GB/s GDDR memory interface to deliver similar effective performance to Crystalwell since the latter is a cache. Accessing the same data (e.g. texture reads) over and over again is greatly benefitted by having a large L4 cache on package.

1. AMD PRT makes the smaller/faster memory into hardware managed last level cache.

2. SRAM has lower latency than DRAM e.g. no refresh overheads.

3. Intel's eDRAM has 50GB/s per direction, while AMD's eSRAM has 102 GB/s per direction.

4. AMD's eSRAM is GPU centeric.

DX11.2's tile resource goes together with ESRAM.

From http://semiaccurate.com/2013/06/18/a-glimpse-of-future-amd-graphics-offerings/

AMD has some future PC GCNs (e.g. Venus PRO MCM) with embedded DRAMs.

AMD betting on 3 horses

1. external GDDR5

2. external GDDR6

3. Embedded DRAM or Embedded SRAM or stacked embedded memory.

NEO's holistic architecture > PS4's piece meal architecture. :P

[QUOTE="zero_cool098"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"] That would be incorrect, GDDR5 is good for some things, Bad for others. DDR3 is good for some things bad for others there is not some measuring stick where GDDR5 is all of a sudden down pat better than DDR3 otherwise we'd have seen PC's using it as main ram years ago when GDDR5 was released. Instead DDR4 is being worked upon and is expected to be released in 2013 to the market.WilliamRLBaker

[QUOTE="btk2k2"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/3

 

...

It turns out that for current workloads, Intel didnt see much benefit beyond a 32MB eDRAM however it wanted the design to be future proof

....

Intel claims that it would take a 100 - 130GB/s GDDR memory interface to deliver similar effective performance to Crystalwell since the latter is a cache. Accessing the same data (e.g. texture reads) over and over again is greatly benefitted by having a large L4 cache on package.

legalize82

its not and he knows it but he never gives up.

xbox one is just a mainstream console

http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/gddr5/Pages/gddr5.aspx#2

Anyone can say anything otherwise?

zero_cool098

Those charts are really misleading. At best, it's 25% faster (and that was just one game). But, if you look at the chart, it looks like it is 2-3 times as fast.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="zero_cool098"] can you back that up with some good article? so far all I found is that 32mb ESRAM wont be enough as per this link http://www.examiner.com/article/ps4-gddr5-ram-compared-against-xbox-720-ddr3-ram-and-esram not exactly the best in credibility by how the website looks, but can you show one that actually support it on a positive light?

legalize82

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/3

...

It turns out that for current workloads, Intel didnt see much benefit beyond a 32MB eDRAM however it wanted the design to be future proof

....

Intel claims that it would take a 100 - 130GB/s GDDR memory interface to deliver similar effective performance to Crystalwell since the latter is a cache. Accessing the same data (e.g. texture reads) over and over again is greatly benefitted by having a large L4 cache on package.

u never give up huh. admit it ps4 is a beats compared to xbox one

let it go

[QUOTE="zero_cool098"]

http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/gddr5/Pages/gddr5.aspx#2

Anyone can say anything otherwise?

StormyJoe

Those charts are really misleading. At best, it's 25% faster (and that was just one game). But, if you look at the chart, it looks like it is 2-3 times as fast.

Did you actually read the side labels on the chart? For example, 120%, 140%

[QUOTE="btk2k2"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/3

...

It turns out that for current workloads, Intel didnt see much benefit beyond a 32MB eDRAM however it wanted the design to be future proof

....

Intel claims that it would take a 100 - 130GB/s GDDR memory interface to deliver similar effective performance to Crystalwell since the latter is a cache. Accessing the same data (e.g. texture reads) over and over again is greatly benefitted by having a large L4 cache on package.

ronvalencia

1. AMD PRT makes the smaller/faster memory into hardware managed last level cache.

2. SRAM has lower latency than DRAM e.g. no refresh overheads.

3. Intel's eDRAM has 50GB/s per direction, while AMD's eSRAM has 102 GB/s per direction.

4. AMD's eSRAM is GPU centeric.

DX11.2's tile resource goes together with ESRAM.

From http://semiaccurate.com/2013/06/18/a-glimpse-of-future-amd-graphics-offerings/

AMD has some future PC GCNs (e.g. Venus PRO MCM) with embedded DRAMs.

AMD betting on 3 horses

1. external GDDR5

2. external GDDR6

3. Embedded DRAM or Embedded SRAM or stacked embedded memory.

GDDR5 is better than DDR3. GDDR5 is also more costly but MS needed to cut corners when they wanted to include a motion sensor in the package.

SRTtoZ

Its only more costly to the end user.

Sony has the same kind of camera you can buy seperately for only 60 dollars, still 40 dollars cheaper than an xbox one with the camera, and PS4 has hardware advantages.

Microsoft just wanted to charge more is all, the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="btk2k2"] So you are saying that AMD and MS are using a similar system to the one Intel is using with Crystalwell? Do you have any links to show that the memory interface on the X1 APU is comparable to the one used on this Intel APU?btk2k2

1. AMD PRT makes the smaller/faster memory into hardware managed last level cache.

2. SRAM has lower latency than DRAM e.g. no refresh overheads.

3. Intel's eDRAM has 50GB/s per direction, while AMD's eSRAM has 102 GB/s per direction.

4. AMD's eSRAM is GPU centeric.

DX11.2's tile resource goes together with ESRAM.

From http://semiaccurate.com/2013/06/18/a-glimpse-of-future-amd-graphics-offerings/

AMD has some future PC GCNs (e.g. Venus PRO MCM) with embedded DRAMs.

AMD betting on 3 horses

1. external GDDR5

2. external GDDR6

3. Embedded DRAM or Embedded SRAM or stacked embedded memory.

1. The key statement for AMD PRT from AMD

Partially Resident Textures (PRT) enables future games to utilize ultra-high resolution textures with the same performance as today's small and often repetitive textures.

This basically says, the GPU will continue operate at high preforamce without being pulled down by memory related bottlenecks. Relative to X1, PS4 has lower memory bottlenecks i.e. fast single speed memory setup.

PC also has slow and fast memory setup, hence why Intel, AMD and NVIDIA are supporting the related DX11.2 extension. AMD PRT is just a workaround for systems with memory related bottlenecks.

To keep the high frame rates with traditional game engines, X1 would be lowering it's texture quality. AMD PRT+ESRAM was designed to workaround this problem. On the PC, the fast/smaller GDDR5 VRAM would use in place of ESRAM.

PS4 doesn't have this problem, hence the workaround has very little value.

3. AMD/MS/VGleak's theoretical number is higher than Intel's theoretical number.

4. The context was against Intel's eDRAM not GDDR5.

I frame my statements outisde of X1 vs PS4.

Great. I will happily await the games that clearly show off this amazing graphical difference between the PS4 and Xbox One. Until then I will choose the system that offers the most things I am interested in, and not just better graphics and the number 4 instead of the number 3. Xbox One Day 1 :)

You just notice this :|? Where've you been all this time? Up the mountain?rjdofu

dammit! aren't we done with this shit

I just want the systems to come out. Cows are gonna end up pretty disappointed with the graphics gap. Of course they will deny it but that's another story. I am just tired of the 360 and PS3 and want something new.

[QUOTE="rjdofu"]You just notice this :|? Where've you been all this time? Up the mountain?Douevenlift_bro

Does PS3 v.2 have Cloud and Titanfall? I thought so. Carry on. robybaggio

it can do "The Cloud" if needed.  and why are you bragging about a multiplat?

[QUOTE="StormyJoe"]

[QUOTE="zero_cool098"]

http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/gddr5/Pages/gddr5.aspx#2

Anyone can say anything otherwise?

ronvalencia

Those charts are really misleading. At best, it's 25% faster (and that was just one game). But, if you look at the chart, it looks like it is 2-3 times as fast.

Did you actually read the side labels on the chart? For example, 120%, 140%

[QUOTE="StormyJoe"]

[QUOTE="zero_cool098"]

http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/gddr5/Pages/gddr5.aspx#2

Anyone can say anything otherwise?

ronvalencia

Those charts are really misleading. At best, it's 25% faster (and that was just one game). But, if you look at the chart, it looks like it is 2-3 times as fast.

Did you actually read the side labels on the chart? For example, 120%, 140%

Perhaps I am confused. That chart represents GDDR5 vs DDR3 for threee different GPUs (6770, 6750, and 6730). Isn't this apples and oranges when comparing the PS4 and XB1? I thought they used the same GPU (AMD Radeon 7000 series), but the PS4 has 18 cores instead of the 12 the XB1 has?

PS4 has better specs than X1. We'll see how they're use in game development to improve PS4 exclusives. 

From the link below:

"

The PS4, in comparison, has an 8-core Jaguar AMD CPU, with a GPU thats around the same level as the Radeon 7870 (which is significantly more powerful than the 7790). The PS4 has 8GB of GDDR5 RAM, providing 176GB/s of bandwidth to both the CPU and GPU. The Xbox One mostly ameliorates this difference with 32MB of high-speed SRAM on the GPU, but it will be a more complex architecture to take advantage of.

In both consoles, the CPU and GPU will be on the same die (an AMD APU). Just as the PS4 has 8GB of high-speed memory that is shared by the CPU and GPU, the Xbox One, by virtue of being based on the same APU heterogeneous system architecture (HSA), will probably be the same. In short, while there are small hardware differences between the consoles, they will ultimately have very similar performance characteristics. The PS4, with its one, big block of fast RAM, and bigger GPU, probably has the edge."

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/156273-xbox-720-vs-ps4-vs-pc-how-the-hardware-specs-compare

Most non-fanboy sites I have searched say the same thing. The PS4 will probably be slightly more powerful. I have yet to read an article by a tech site that claims, for certain, that this "50% more powerful" figure is a reality, especially since the XB1 has the 32 MB of SRAM.

I am not saying that the "50% more powerful" figure isn't true, I just have not read an article that states that figure as fact.

It's 33% more powerful... People keep saying 50% because they don't know math.

SOOOOO STOP SAYING 50%!!!

God...

 X1 has 32MB ESRAM to patch the performance gap with GDDR5.

ronvalencia

Yes 32 MB which will no be enough..

Having 32MB of fast ram is not the same as having 8GB of fast ram,no matter what only the connection to the ESRAM is fast the rest is slow ass DDR3.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="zero_cool098"]

http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/gddr5/Pages/gddr5.aspx#2

Anyone can say anything otherwise?

zero_cool098

Anandtech PC site say the same it will not be enough.

[QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]

GDDR5 is better than DDR3.  GDDR5 is also more costly but MS needed to cut corners when they wanted to include a motion sensor in the package.

WilliamRLBaker

From the link below:

"

The PS4, in comparison, has an 8-core Jaguar AMD CPU, with a GPU thats around the same level as the Radeon 7870 (which is significantly more powerful than the 7790). The PS4 has 8GB of GDDR5 RAM, providing 176GB/s of bandwidth to both the CPU and GPU. The Xbox One mostly ameliorates this difference with 32MB of high-speed SRAM on the GPU, but it will be a more complex architecture to take advantage of.

In both consoles, the CPU and GPU will be on the same die (an AMD APU). Just as the PS4 has 8GB of high-speed memory that is shared by the CPU and GPU, the Xbox One, by virtue of being based on the same APU heterogeneous system architecture (HSA), will probably be the same. In short, while there are small hardware differences between the consoles, they will ultimately have very similar performance characteristics. The PS4, with its one, big block of fast RAM, and bigger GPU, probably has the edge."

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/156273-xbox-720-vs-ps4-vs-pc-how-the-hardware-specs-compare

Most non-fanboy sites I have searched say the same thing. The PS4 will probably be slightly more powerful. I have yet to read an article by a tech site that claims, for certain, that this "50% more powerful" figure is a reality, especially since the XB1 has the 32 MB of SRAM.

I am not saying that the "50% more powerful" figure isn't true, I just have not read an article that states that figure as fact.

StormyJoe

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/3

 

...

It turns out that for current workloads, Intel didnt see much benefit beyond a 32MB eDRAM however it wanted the design to be future proof

....

Intel claims that it would take a 100 - 130GB/s GDDR memory interface to deliver similar effective performance to Crystalwell since the latter is a cache. Accessing the same data (e.g. texture reads) over and over again is greatly benefitted by having a large L4 cache on package.

ronvalencia

Unlike previous eDRAM implementations in game consoles, Crystalwell is true 4th level cache in the memory hierarchy. It acts as a victim buffer to the L3 cache, meaning anything evicted from L3 cache immediately goes into the L4 cache. Both CPU and GPU requests are cached. The cache can dynamically allocate its partitioning between CPU and GPU use. If you dont use the GPU at all (e.g. discrete GPU installed), Crystalwell will still work on caching CPU requests. Thats right, Haswell CPUs equipped with Crystalwell effectively have a 128MB L4 cache.

The eDRAM clock tops out at 1.6GHz.

Theres only a single size of eDRAM offered this generation: 128MB. Since its a cache and not a buffer (and a giant one at that), Intel found that hit rate rarely dropped below 95%. It turns out that for current workloads, Intel didnt see much benefit beyond a 32MB eDRAMhowever it wanted the design to be future proof. Intel doubled the size to deal with any increases in game complexity, and doubled it again just to be sure.

Edram And ESRAM are not the same,which is another detail you miss.

Edram on xbox 360 is even faster than the ESRAM on xbox one,is 256GB/s,sure it doesn't have all the advantages ESRAM has,but it is faster,also that EDRAM you quote is clocked at 1600mhz,the xbox one i think 800mhz as well.

By the way Intel = AMD since when.?

Ronvalencia the selective reader.

Its a no brainier, PS4 has a big ram advantage.