So no actual indication that it will use HBM RAM or lack embedded RAM? Maintaining the pool of ESRAM is the best way to insure compatibility with titles that use it. There's no way I've seen to move things like that off-die without significant issues (though AMD claims a similar performance from HBM with it's higher speed and closer orientation to the CPU). Even with the bandwidth from faster GDDR5 (or more likely, GDDR5x), the physical distance the signals must travel and the higher latency of the GDDR5 modules will come into play.
There's no indications.
12 GDDR5 6700Mhz modules with 384 bit bus yields about 321 GB/s . E3's video shown 12 GDDR5 modules and stated "more than 320 GB/s memory bandwidth".
n terms of logical programming model, XBO's ESRAM is treated like PC's VRAM but the storage is tiny on XBO.
On PC and DX12, CPU can not access VRAM i.e. needs GPU's move engines to fetch data from SYS MEM.
On Xbox One, CPU can not access ESRAM i.e. needs GPU's move engines to fetch data from SYS MEM.
GDDR5 module has full duplex links i.e. two link channels per module. HBM is just DRAM in a different form factor and interconnections. GDDR5 is a type of DRAM.
To access ESRAM, programmers uses MS supplied APIs. API's memory write location can be remapped to another memory locations. It's not my problem that you missed Brad Wardell's spill on Xbox One's old vs new ESRAM APIs.
Fury X's HBM is no where near CPU's SRAM efficiency.
The reason for HBM is to reduce power consumption. The reduced power consumption can then be used to boost CU count e.g Fury X's 64 CU instead of R9-390X's 44 CU.
like i say before all this charts are irrelevant to consoles
and Where did you get DX12, CPU can not access VRAM DX12 its a API do you even know what that means
not only do it have asses to vram but it's the first direct x to communicate between Multi-GPU
Log in to comment