Sword Of Doom
Member
Saying they just got lucky is simplifying it a bit. It was a calculated risk to some extent and I believe they actually worked with manufacturers closely to try make 8gb happen
eSRAM question
- Thread starter bGanci
- Start date
Saying they just got lucky is simplifying it a bit. It was a calculated risk to some extent and I believe they actually worked with manufacturers closely to try make 8gb happen
Embarrassingly some people are still trying to push it.
"The ESRAM allowed them to consider RAM choices that wouldn't have been feasible otherwise, which allowed them to increase the amount of RAM the box offered when it was determined that the previous reservation was going to be tighter than they'd hoped."
Sounds like were discussing which came first? The chicken or the egg? Because if you read that quote it is obvious that decided to go with ESRAM because they needed a larger amount of ram which is exactly what i said.
ethomaz
Banned
Yeap... you worded that better... it was a bet in the future... if the GDDR5 512Mbits modules didn't get ready in the schedule PS4 could be launched with 4GB.
This is the only thing that makes sense.
It's still a very pleasant almost shocking surprise that the modules came through in time for PS4 to bump up to 8GB. No doubt there was a lot of hard work involved, but it's still a rare occurrence.
Chocolate & Vanilla
Fuck Strawberry
Yes that is true. It's just something that has blown up massively with the internet and is exacerbated even more by social media. At least printed news bullshit is regularly kept in check by broadcast news outlets at least here in the UK as broadcast news is properly regulated. The internet on the other hand is a breeding ground for fan sites and wannabe journalists spouting a personal agenda without sources/facts.
Edit: Unless we are talking about Sky Sports News, which is an abortion of a channel. But this is all off topic so I'll shut up
ethomaz
Banned
You can guess Sony worked together with manufactures to make the modules ready in time... MS didn't want to take this risk because they didn't want to give up the 8GB... Sony was fine with 4GB so they could take the risk.
seventynine
Member
You've shot-gunned the kool aid.
It's a very weird step from the X360 solution, which was eDRAM. Had they gone with eDRAM again, then the result would have been quite different (nearly an order of magnitude more bandwidth to the small block, for example).
Instead, they went with eSRAM, which may be considered on par with GDDR5 in terms of bandwidth (depending on who's numbers you go by), and very unusual as far as modern GPUs go.
I think there were issues with process size? Only intel is fabbing CPUs with large amounts of edram and the foundries making the APUs for MS couldn't do that, so they had to go with larger (and slower) esram
The alternative would have been a daughter die like 360, so the edram and CPU/GPU could be on different process sizes, but MS seemed keen on a single chip - presumably for cost reduction benefits longer term,
There is absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever, it's fanboy spin of the highest order.
They went with it to get 8 gigs of ram in the system at a console price.
The Killzone demo that they showed at the PS4 conference was developed for 4 gigs of ram. Seems like Sony would have went with 4 gigs of ram at one point.
Sounds like reasoned argument, certainly not fanboy spin of the highest order.
Developers seemed surprised by Sony announcing 8GB in February, suggesting they were expecting less until the last minute. If we rule out 'Sony got lucky', then that would suggest sony's supply chain guys worked hard to secure the high density GDDR5 necessary to delver 8GB.
The eDRAM, like mrklaw said, couldn't be done using foundries. The Sony alternative that they moved away from was eDRAM 128mb with 1TB/s bandwidth and 4GB GDDR5....that would have been a faster solution than today. They moved away from it because of cost and trying to make it developer friendly.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Modern GPUs usually have 32MB of SRAM? Or did I misunderstand? ... Ah, you're referring to bandwidth.
I think it's clear MS could not secure 32MB of on-die eDRAM, otherwise they'd have gone with that.
Nothing about the choice was for "The Cloud" or any cunning future stuff as implied in your post OP - sorry to be Debbie Downer OP but there ain't some magic sauce in the decision as you seem to be hoping for (by implication in your post).
The choice was very much based in the now and involved providing faster memory in support of the slower main memory to provide better performance for gaming while still supporting the OS/media/TV and Kinect requirements that were very much central to XB1 design.
It's not going to "come into it's own" later and prove to be some hidden Trojan Horse of extra performance.
People need to accept the XB1 design is fine for what the device was designed for however it does leave it somewhat less well designed power-wise from a pure gaming point of view.
Sony decided to revert to a more pure gaming console angle post PS3 and embrace the idea that like most devices it would double up as yet another place you could access Netflix, etc and the design is very much about fast memory and ease of game development. MS chose a much more hybrid design with the HDMI in and an OS with a lot more features around media consumption and eSRAM is simply part of that differing design drive. That's all there is too it.
Cue GIF with the water funnels.
The choice was very much based in the now and involved providing faster memory in support of the slower main memory to provide better performance for gaming while still supporting the OS/media/TV and Kinect requirements that were very much central to XB1 design.
It's not going to "come into it's own" later and prove to be some hidden Trojan Horse of extra performance.
People need to accept the XB1 design is fine for what the device was designed for however it does leave it somewhat less well designed power-wise from a pure gaming point of view.
Sony decided to revert to a more pure gaming console angle post PS3 and embrace the idea that like most devices it would double up as yet another place you could access Netflix, etc and the design is very much about fast memory and ease of game development. MS chose a much more hybrid design with the HDMI in and an OS with a lot more features around media consumption and eSRAM is simply part of that differing design drive. That's all there is too it.
Cue GIF with the water funnels.
GDDR5 density isn't anything to do wih supply chain logistics, though, it's to do with maturation of fabrication technologies. And we have absolutely no reason to rule out 'Sony got lucky'. In fact it fits the facts more closely. The system was originally going to have 4GB GDDR5, and the upgrade was last minute and highly dependent on circumstances outside of Sony's control, hence developers didn't know.
I call it fanboy spin because it seems to suggest that luck isn't a good enough reason for the PS4 having 8GB of RAM, Sony must have worked really hard for it. In reality there's no reason to think luck isn't the chief factor. Certainly I know of no source that suggests otherwise. If anyone has one please feel free to share it.
Errrr....I see you say you're joking, but I wouldn't do that.
LukasTaves
Member
They wanted a follow up of 360 design, but with less limitations. The edram on 360 was only useful for render targets, and the only way render targets could be rendered were in the edram. For the next gen they want the developer to have this small/fast ram available for the developer to use as it saw fit, so the gpu could access it transparently as if it was the main ram.
There are also other advantages about having more memory on chip. People around here say gpu's are already super efficient in hiding latencies, but I'm not so convinced of that, specially with more complex shaders...
Chobel
Member
The second link says that DDR3 was chosen even before they decided to go with 8GB RAM
So eSRAM was probably chosen because of DDR3 low bandwidth.
------------
Are there some studies to prove that?
lol
LukasTaves
Member
Again, cause and consequence. The esram allowed them to chose cheaper ram, and when the need to have 8GB came (and the esram choice was already made by then) it was a no brainer because of the ram choice.
The difference in what came first is that one is a well planed and though design, it might not be the best, but it was a deliberate choice. The other sounds like a hack design to comply with requirements that were forced by executives.
soul creator
Member
I'd be really curious to see the bizarro universe where the PS4 had the camera still included, had 4GB of RAM, and was $499. In that world, all of MS decisions with hardware and pricing probably made a ton of sense.
Unfortunately...
Unfortunately...
You might be right but the earam taking up more space on the apu then the gpu cores is the crutch.
Not sure what your first comment means.
LukasTaves
Member
Using compute for non graphical tasks, yeah. Using compute shaders for replacing pixel shaders? Never seen anything direct, only papers like this:
http://developer.amd.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/Efficient Compute Shader Programming.pps
They talk about how the greater flexibility of compute shaders allows for more optimization, and knowing the hardware they are able to maximize thread throughput and cache access.
The results are very interesting, with performance gains of up to 3 times.
It's not directly stated, but if by just optimizing thread usage and cache access pattern they were able to maximize performance by this much, then trading up a little ALU for more on chip memory doesn't sound like such a bad design choice... If anything to allow a performance increase without the developer having to know so much about the underlying hardware...
LukasTaves
Member
The one about the cloud? That the only thing special about cloud computing on xbone is that it is (or will) be seemingly available to any developer that want to use it.
From where? If anything they should have already been showing this mystical power of the cloud.
LukasTaves
Member
Look for other posts of Bkilian. He has addressed the issue before and explicitly said that. He does say in these quotes that esram was deliberately chosen by them, and it was not a second though after any other memory choices were made, though.
BeforeU
Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.
They some what already did, in their build 2014 conference.
Astral Dog
Member
I am dying to finally see the potential of the Cloud at E3
Brad Grenz
Member
You are confusing the result with the reason. Bkilian only ever denied that MS originally targeted 8gb, but what they obviously DID target was "lots of inexpensive RAM". They knew that would never provide enough bandwidth on its own so a fast on chip memory would be required. In deciding between ESRAM or EDRAM they chose the former because it gave them far more flexibility on where the chip could be fabricated, and how quickly it could be shrunk to new processes. Had they gone with EDRAM it could have been 4-8 times as large and many times faster. GDDR5 was never a serious consideration for Microsoft. Remember, the initial version of PS4 only had 2GB of RAM, which was upgraded twice over the course of development. Microsoft assumed they would have an advantage there.
I can't square that circle, it just makes no sense. Deciding on esram after DDR3, or even at the same time (I.e if we have esram does that mean we can use cheaper DDR3?) both make sense. But the esram decision being first and other decisions coming afterwards? I don't buy it. Bkilian says he wasn't there at the start so that could be down to interpretation of his posts or lack of context.
Edit: 64-128MB edram with 1Tb/s bandwidth and 8GB DDR3 Vs PS4 with 4 or 8GB gddr5 would have been a very interesting thing to see. If that meant the edram was on a daughter die, you could have had similar raw GPU performance on both too...
LukasTaves
Member
Perhaps it was made at the same time. What I meant to say is that esram + cheap memory was not a decision forced on the engineers, they chose to.
Metalingus5150
Member
How long until certain people accept that the Xbone is not as powerful as the PS4?
Or will we go through this the entire generation?
Or will we go through this the entire generation?
Well anyone can use "cloud" computing for any game on any console but if cost is a concern then by the time ms get things going Sony might also have a option on the table as well.
MrPregnantBear
Banned
I think people are in their right to believe in the cloud. Especially after the framerate demo for cloud compute at the last MS developers conference.
Seems like idle speculation based on posts from someone on Beyond3D, nothing hard evidence based. The end product seems like a misstep on their part, hard to believe it wasn't pushed due to trying to stay under a certain dollar amount per unit constructed tbh.
Brad Grenz
Member
Yeah, they chose it based on the design directives they were working under which included TVTVTV, multitasking, Kinect and controlling costs. No one is saying they acted irrationally, but there is no question the strategic goals resulted in a weaker device.
That demo which needed a fuck ton of azure instances?
LukasTaves
Member
The problem with a daughter die is that you end with the same limitations you had with 360.
You can't have the gpu to access the other die with the same bandwidth, so that limits it usefulness. You'd probably have to put fixed hardware in the daughter die again, most likely the ROPs. So for instance, the shader cores wouldn't access it, and having all that memory tied to the ROPs is already not a compelling design this generation, because compute shaders allows the code to bypass them.
Then probably, for the sake of die space (and since bandwidth is "cheap" for logic on the daughter die, they would probably go again with simpler ROPs, that lack compression for instance, since bandwidth is not a concern... Which means all that bandwidth is actually going to be waste most of the time...
By putting the ram on the same chip as everything else they make the design much more flexible. Not sure if it beats having a large pool of very fast ram, but I wouldn't say it was a bad design either...
Laser123454321
Neo Member
Ok, What I remember reading about at around the announcement time - and I do think the logic makes sense here - was that they had decided that the cost was too prohibitive to go with 8gb of GDDR5 because of the memory target they had. So they decided to build in some eSRAM on the die for three reasons.
1) The speed and location of the memory would makeup for a lot of bandwidth loss when trading data between the CPU and GPU cores. The PS4 CPU and GPU have to access their data over a bus capable of supporting the GDDR5 (more chips = more money), while the eSRAM on die doesn't need separate control hardware, because direct access.
2) Because they were building it on die, the cost of the memory would go down over time due to advances in production (Think going from 45nm to 22nm, less heat and less power, more chips per die = lower cost per chip).
3) It was more or less a proven technology at the time. Microsoft, not wanting to repeat the mistakes of the last generation, were more careful in their hardware design leading to longer hardware change iterations. Meaning once they had selected an architecture, they would be unlikely to change it.
In general, integrated components - while initially more expensive to produce - get cheaper over time. The "gamble" they made was that GDDR5 was not going to come down in price in time for them to be able to make their launch window. Sony was "lucky" in that even though they had designed the system to use (for sake of argument) 4x 1GB GDDR5 chips, these 2GB chips came out that were at an acceptable price point and were a pin-for-pin replacement. (Take the old out, pop the new ones in, BAM, double the memory).
EDIT:
Yep, and most of the reports at the time were that even though the XONE's lower memory bandwith, the display targets that both consoles are trying to meet could be satisfied with even lower memory bandwith
EDIT: Woops!
Found that Eurogamer article that points out the bandwith: eSRAM 206GB/s, GDDR5 176GB/s, DDR3 68GB/s
Think of the XB1 as a suped-up Box truck working with a train vs a fleet of 18 wheelers. Both will get your data there, PS4 is "faster" when you consider the average over time of data transfer, but the XB1 is faster but only with a few MBs of data, otherwise it relies on its slower DDR3
1) The speed and location of the memory would makeup for a lot of bandwidth loss when trading data between the CPU and GPU cores. The PS4 CPU and GPU have to access their data over a bus capable of supporting the GDDR5 (more chips = more money), while the eSRAM on die doesn't need separate control hardware, because direct access.
2) Because they were building it on die, the cost of the memory would go down over time due to advances in production (Think going from 45nm to 22nm, less heat and less power, more chips per die = lower cost per chip).
3) It was more or less a proven technology at the time. Microsoft, not wanting to repeat the mistakes of the last generation, were more careful in their hardware design leading to longer hardware change iterations. Meaning once they had selected an architecture, they would be unlikely to change it.
In general, integrated components - while initially more expensive to produce - get cheaper over time. The "gamble" they made was that GDDR5 was not going to come down in price in time for them to be able to make their launch window. Sony was "lucky" in that even though they had designed the system to use (for sake of argument) 4x 1GB GDDR5 chips, these 2GB chips came out that were at an acceptable price point and were a pin-for-pin replacement. (Take the old out, pop the new ones in, BAM, double the memory).
EDIT:
Yep, and most of the reports at the time were that even though the XONE's lower memory bandwith, the display targets that both consoles are trying to meet could be satisfied with even lower memory bandwith
EDIT: Woops!
Found that Eurogamer article that points out the bandwith: eSRAM 206GB/s, GDDR5 176GB/s, DDR3 68GB/s
Think of the XB1 as a suped-up Box truck working with a train vs a fleet of 18 wheelers. Both will get your data there, PS4 is "faster" when you consider the average over time of data transfer, but the XB1 is faster but only with a few MBs of data, otherwise it relies on its slower DDR3
LordOfChaos
Member
I can't see how it would help cloud compute at all. What it does is precache things the GPU may need so that it has to access the slower main memory less. It's like what your RAM does for your hard drive, but in turn for RAM.
Link?
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
I'm here to clear up the misconceptions people have about esram. When someone asks, "so which console has the faster memory?" You have to immediately say Xbox one with its esram and it's not even up for debate. That's the single fastest piece of tech in either console. It's faster than anything in amazon's console as well. The truth is People like to downplay it because it's exclusive to Xbox one. The true developers like carmak know that when you need to do something fast in a game like shaders and bump maps, esram is the bees knees. This is why crytek chose to only bring Ryse to Xbox one and why call of duty was able to sustain a silky smooth. Why jump through unnecessary hoops?
The Cloud is a way to further future proof the console even though esram should be more than enough once Microsoft grants developers the access to code to the metal. It's the same reason people get insurance on their cars, you know? In case it's needed one day and not because the car won't work without it. We got a taste of how great cloud gaming can be on the pc with the launches of sim city and diablo 3. That's what Microsoft wants to bring to the comfy couches around the world and people hate them for it I don't know why. So imagine in five years when everyone wants the newest consoles and then Microsoft says bam you don't need one because every city now has google fiber one and pair it with Xbox one (hint hint) and you get a whole new console called xbox one cloud that will last you another five or so years. Nintendo just realized this so their next console will be a copy of Xbox cloud tech. It's too late for Sony to implement it haha.
The Cloud is a way to further future proof the console even though esram should be more than enough once Microsoft grants developers the access to code to the metal. It's the same reason people get insurance on their cars, you know? In case it's needed one day and not because the car won't work without it. We got a taste of how great cloud gaming can be on the pc with the launches of sim city and diablo 3. That's what Microsoft wants to bring to the comfy couches around the world and people hate them for it I don't know why. So imagine in five years when everyone wants the newest consoles and then Microsoft says bam you don't need one because every city now has google fiber one and pair it with Xbox one (hint hint) and you get a whole new console called xbox one cloud that will last you another five or so years. Nintendo just realized this so their next console will be a copy of Xbox cloud tech. It's too late for Sony to implement it haha.