Support NeoGAF

[close to the edge]

I wish I could understand this stuff....it's so interesting

Basically, what he's saying about the RAM is that they were thinking about using eDRAM (super fast, super expensive, only available in small sizes) in addition to the GDDR5 main memory (still way faster than usual RAM but also more expensive) but they didn't want to since then they would make developers have to figure out what to put in the fast RAM and what to leave in the slower RAM. This costs time and brain power from the programmers and he probably thinks it's not worth it for them to do all this for a small performance increase.

 

[onQ123]

He said something about durango having a IBM cpu if im not mistaken.

This? seem like he was just talking.


http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1713042&postcount=832

Random blurp...

I wouldn't count on any major hardware alterations "if" the Xbox next system is Jaguar centric. There's only so much custom-customization one can do within a 25 watt vanilla-envelope, without exceeding TDP and cost. Adding random chips on improving certain compute functions isn't an option either... defeats the purpose of competitive pricing and quicker turnaround times on smaller future designs.

If there was a "secret sauce" (hate that phrase), I wouldn't bet it around the current leaked specs/designs. I Bet MS has B/C in the cards though - don't you think? "IF" B/C is available at the hardware level, then I can see their hardware not being Jaguar centric. AMD GPU yes, the rest not so much. My two cents...

Who knows... only MS can answer that. I was just wishful thinking out loud on the Jaguar capabilities of supporting 4 CUs on chip. It's somewhat (is) too late for Sony to make any dramatic changes to its current flavor. I'm more inclined to believe (97.9% sure) MS next system has a greater LC count - be it a AMD or IBM solution. The Kinect 2 is somewhat CPU intensive ...it's not hard to fathom the Win8 derivative reserving 1 core and Kinect reserving 1-2 cores alone.

 

[Limanima]

I wonder how many devs will take advantage of this stuff. Most ports I played on PS3 were rather piss poor. I guess only the first party studios will take advantage of it.

Maybe I got this wrong, but what I've understanded is that there's nothing to take advantage of.
They designed the hardware so that the devs don't have to figure things out. At least this is what I've understanded.

 

[benny_a]

I should've said diagram, but I'm pretty sure it says >1.8 GHz


Notice in contrast how it states the GPU clock as just 800mhz

It says ">1.8 GHz?"
It also says "(estimate)" in the title

These are not leaked specs according to what I can tell.

 

[RoboPlato]

Thanks for posting the new set of screens, danhese007. I do have two queries pertaining to information on the "overview (estimate)" image:

• Why does it say "32 or 16 ROPs"? I thought 32 was pretty much a given especially when cutting it to 16 effectively halves the performance from 25.6Gpixels to 12.8Gpixels/sec, the latter being a less than 3 times increase over RSX's 4.4Gpixels/sec.
  
• What does 5.5GT/sec for the GDDR5 RAM mean?

The ROPs confusion might be due to the way AMD groups things. The numbers always get weird and seem really low when you don't know that they need to be multiplied.

 

[Panajev2001a]

It's odd how he said "terabytes per second."

The bandwidth between DRAM macro to GS's Pixel Engines' page buffers was over 100 GB/s on PS2 already... they could probably extract much more than that now, but the size of the embedded memory would not be much bigger than 32 MB unless they wanted a super expensive GPU.