I don't understand, what did I miss?
That is interesting.I've already spilled some details in the few next-gen threads, including differences in RAM access between the 360 and Durango. I've also specified that one of the pieces of special hardware augmenting the GPU is the depth color block. I've talked a little bit about the memory move engines and surface compression. I've specified that the audio hardware in durango is some crazy shit, not just an encoder. I've been told a number of things I've been explicitly asked not to share, and I don't want to get anybody fired.
How about: Durango's documentation refers to CUs as shader cores. There's a difference in philosophy and approach between the two systems architecture, though they share a lot of ancestral DNA.
Efficiency is related to SIMD performance, memory access, and other things. I've been told the ROPs are not in the ESRAM.
I don't understand, what did I miss?
The first dev to post a percentage power difference will have their names engraved in diamonds in GAF lore.It's scary to think that the heated "fanboyism" of these threads will only intensify in the future.
Off GAF?
Didn't Proelite mention that on gaf?
edit: never mind. This is getting silly. Any one user is not more important than the thread.
Yes, this is how the ESRAM is different than the EDRAM in the 360. It's much more flexible as you don't need to go through the ROPS to access that memory.Efficiency is related to SIMD performance, memory access, and other things. I've been told the ROPs are not in the ESRAM.
Edited
So developers (I'm guessing Crytek and Epic?) were the ones who asked for 8GB of slow RAM? Hmm. Wonder how this will play out as far as third party games go.
Yes, this is how the ESRAM is different than the EDRAM in the 360. It's much more flexible as you don't need to go through the ROPS to access that memory.
To the people making fun of people saying what you consider stupid things, do you mind just explaining or pointing to posts where it's enumerated why what they're thinking is dumb?
It would make this a more useful thread. Thanks in advance!
Because while i was writing Aegis answered my previous post. I was insisting on the low latency subject.Sorry, what have you edited and why?
Probably not, especially if the 2-3 GB overhead is true. What they wanted was probably 8 GB of GDDR5.
People are still putting DDR3 into their current builds. A year ago 8 gigs of the slowest most shitty RAM on the market was still thought of as ridiculous as most of the people here.
I think both systems well be announced before e3 then e3 they will talk more about features new games for the systems maybe price and release date if they wait like Nintendo I'm gonna be pissed I wanna know what to save for and what not to save for.
Because while i was writing Aegis answered my previous post. I was insisting on the low latency subject.
I don't know if it was talked about here. Someone asked, so I answered to the best of my knowledge.
Unless it's something with an audio out based on something like a Sabre DAC with proper implementation, I don't think what could qualify as "crazy shit". That, or binaural encoding. Hearing a true 360 spheric soundscape with headphones would be quite awesome.I've already spilled some details in the few next-gen threads, including differences in RAM access between the 360 and Durango. I've also specified that one of the pieces of special hardware augmenting the GPU is the depth color block. I've talked a little bit about the memory move engines and surface compression. I've specified that the audio hardware in durango is some crazy shit, not just an encoder. I've been told a number of things I've been explicitly asked not to share, and I don't want to get anybody fired.
How about: Durango's documentation refers to CUs as shader cores. There's a difference in philosophy and approach between the two systems architecture, though they share a lot of ancestral DNA.
As much as PS4 sounds more impressive I have a feeling those little extras and extra RAM in durango are going to make a big difference at some point. Especially when the dev tools mature from MS.
Talk about RAM amounts again...I swear this issue pops up every couple of a pages.
I know its only January, but this may be gif of the year.
Multiple people, including developers, have said again and again here that the difference in performance between the two for third party titles is negligible.
You better get used to it. It will be bandied about a lot in the upcoming fanboy warz.
Are you sure?
Irrc, this was last week, or close enough to last week. And I remember ProElite going off on a quite a tangent and talking about there being 3 DMEs etc...
I'm pretty sure you were there.
I asked if the DMEs were FPGA, and he just pointed to you...
You know what? never mind.... my memory has been letting me down as of late.
And I don't see why you have to prove your self to me. Everything'll come out in the wash. Just be patient I guess.
He's right. Digital Foundry will have a much harder time this generation than they did last generation. However, if a developer targets a specific feature set in either platform, it will be blatantly obvious. Each respective console has a particular strength, but third parties have one goal in mind- parity.
On paper, Orbis is more powerful. We've said this a trillion times over. However, that power will fail to manifest itself, if a developer targets the specific strengths of Durango.
I don't/can't read every page of every thread.
Also, there are four memory move engines.
You mean Data Move Engines.
From what I remember XDR RAM on PS3 allows for more bandwidth than the GDDR3 that's in the Xbox 360, yet PS3 still suffered from a split memory pool. Was the difference in bandwidth that marginal that there was no significant gain?
I mean, with this in mind is the gap in bandwidth between DDR5 and DDR3 really worth more than having more memory available at any given time for textures, etc ?
I don't/can't read every page of every thread.
Also, there are four memory move engines.
You mean Data Move Engines.
I guess if we're getting technical, Microsoft is calling them "move engines."
Thanks.Efficiency is related to SIMD performance, memory access, and other things. I've been told the ROPs are not in the ESRAM.
He's right. Digital Foundry will have a much harder time this generation than they did last generation. However, if a developer targets a specific feature set in either platform, it will be blatantly obvious. Each respective console has a particular strength, but third parties have one goal in mind- parity.
On paper, Orbis is more powerful. We've said this a trillion times over. However, that power will fail to manifest itself, if a developer targets the specific strengths of Durango.
PS3-----to----360.
25GB/s+22.4GB/s to 22GB/s
2x256mb to 512mb
PS4-------to--Durango
176GB/s to 68GB/s + 102GB/s
4Gigs.......to 8gigs + 32mb
Completely different set ups this time around.
And what are they?
Unless it's something with an audio out based on something like a Sabre DAC with proper implementation, I don't think what could qualify as "crazy shit". That, or binaural encoding. Hearing a true 360 spheric soundscape with headphones would be quite awesome.
With an additional 1-4GB of GDDR5 on their graphics card.
They're for copying data in and out of eSRAM. Or at least that would be the logical conclusion given the memory setup.
'Depth/color blocks' sounds like...well, depth/color hardware like in every GPU. I expect Durango's would be different from Xenos, though, in that they're probably using compression again, and would interface differently having to speak to two memory pools via a different bus.
Fixed that for you. The ps3 had a total of 48GB/s of bandwidth