• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

VGLeaks Durango specs: x64 8-core CPU @1.6GHz, 8GB DDR3 + 32MB ESRAM, 50GB 6x BD...

That makes me wonder :who'll be paying for the bandwidth and storage ? I know youtube currently lets anybody upload anything for free (and I don't think they're profitable in the process), but millions of gamers having the possibility of uploading HD (?) videos at the press of a button could create a huge increase of traffic right ?

Its just as easy to upload from your cell phone and YouTube hasn't blown up yet....
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
BD speed will only define how quick your games are installed on your HDD...
Mandatory HDD install is an absolute given IMO.

Yep. The fastest BD-ROM drive isn't as fast as a standard shit traditional HDD. With SSD taking over (and likely for late revs of next gen consoles) and soon to break the SATA 6 Gb/s barrier, lol at optical media.
 
But YouTube is already drowning in exactly these types of videos. I guess all that Sony/MS are doing is making it easier to record/upload them without having to use a separate capture card and logging in to YouTube? I'm worried that making the uploading process as simple as just pressing one button might create an exponential growth in uploaded videos, making separating the wheat from the chaff a little tricky, and negating any possible benefits to the system.

It'll be horrible... youtube is already horrible because of capture cards and 12 year olds with fraps.

Signal to noise ratio has never been lower for anything gaming related on youtube and google search.
 

Karak

Member
It'll be horrible... youtube is already horrible because of capture cards and 12 year olds with fraps.

Signal to noise ratio has never been lower for anything gaming related on youtube and google search.

Could not agree more. Its fucked up right now.

But that has nothing to do, in my own use, when it comes to a feature on a system and doesn't lessen how cool it would be to be able to do this and share with pals and so on. Randoms is fine, but I would be doing this kind of thing to show others that I know and not Joebob1237@cool.com.

Then again that's assuming its for youtube and doesn't go to some kind of live website or something like that(doubt it)
 

Mandoric

Banned
Yeah, and how exactly do you get the total flops in a gpu? because I can assure you it is generated by a single computing element. Btw the eSRAM is read/write/modify so for all intent and purpose it is a memory for the console. The system has a total of 170gb/s of bandwidth to its memory pools, and that is a valid statement. Of course you can go further and say that 'of that bandwidth, the system can access one pool at.....gb/s and the other at.....gb/s' and you will also be correct.

Anyway if it helps you feel better then fine, phrase it how ever you want, and that's all I am saying of this issue. I would rather not get involved with trading insults when all I want to do is have a discussion.

It's a technically correct but disingenuous figure, comparable to walking into the PC thread and going on about how your 2004 Pentium 4 ticks along at 3.8ghz too. If you come up with it, either you honestly think it matters and deserve to learn better, or you're shilling and should be shouted down before some other poor fool makes the mistake of believing anything you say is relevant.
 

AgentP

Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
Yeah, and how exactly do you get the total flops in a gpu? because I can assure you it is generated by a single computing element. Btw the eSRAM is read/write/modify so for all intent and purpose it is a memory for the console. The system has a total of 170gb/s of bandwidth to its memory pools, and that is a valid statement. Of course you can go further and say that 'of that bandwidth, the system can access one pool at.....gb/s and the other at.....gb/s' and you will also be correct.

Anyway if it helps you feel better then fine, phrase it how ever you want, and that's all I am saying of this issue. I would rather not get involved with trading insults when all I want to do is have a discussion.

I would advise not saying anything definite, unless you work for MS and have used the final system. Otherwise you are making uneducated guesses about rumors from the non-technical background. If you want to repeat some B3D person, at least give a link and a name, I only trust about 5% of them.
 

Alx

Member
Its just as easy to upload from your cell phone and YouTube hasn't blown up yet....

True, but "cool things" happen more frequently in games than real life... I'm not sure exactly what gamers will want to upload on Youtube, but if the majority record their best kills or each achievement unlocked, it may produce a significant amount of data.
 

SSM25

Member
Yeah, and how exactly do you get the total flops in a gpu? because I can assure you it is generated by a single computing element. Btw the eSRAM is read/write/modify so for all intent and purpose it is a memory for the console. The system has a total of 170gb/s of bandwidth to its memory pools, and that is a valid statement. Of course you can go further and say that 'of that bandwidth, the system can access one pool at.....gb/s and the other at.....gb/s' and you will also be correct.

Anyway if it helps you feel better then fine, phrase it how ever you want, and that's all I am saying of this issue. I would rather not get involved with trading insults when all I want to do is have a discussion.

This is the way I see it.. The system needs data that sits partially in the esRAM and partially in main RAM, so it reads from the esram at 102 gbps and from the main RAM at at 68 gbps.. So it's either reading at one of those speeds giving the system a MAXIMUM speed of 102 gbps.

The data in the esRAM was available faster than the data in main ram so the GPU or processor actually had to wait for the data in main RAM if needed, so because of this it is not like bandwidth is added to the system.

I might be wrong though..
 

Lynn616

Member
This is the way I see it.. The system needs data that sits partially in the esRAM and partially in main RAM, so it reads from the esram at 102 gbps and from the main RAM at at 68 gbps.. So it's either reading at one of those speeds giving the system a MAXIMUM speed of 102 gbps.

The data in the esRAM was available faster than the data in main ram so the GPU or processor actually had to wait for the data in main RAM if needed, so because of this it is not like bandwidth is added to the system.

I might be wrong though..

The GPU can access both RAM and esRAM at the same time. I dont see how that is not 170 gbps. The GPU would receive 170 gb every sec.
 
The GPU can access both RAM and esRAM at the same time. I dont see how that is not 170 gbps. The GPU would receive 170 gb every sec.

And yet it is still not comparable to a unified pool that can do 170 GBps. There is overhead involved in copying data between the different pools that reduces your effective aggregate bandwidth, and hard limits such that you can never read or write faster then 102GBps to one pool and 68GBps to the other.
 

szaromir

Banned
And yet it is still not comparable to a unified pool that can do 170 GBps. There is overhead involved in copying data between the different pools that reduces your effective aggregate bandwidth, and hard limits such that you can never read or write faster then 102GBps to one pool and 68GBps to the other.
Vast majority of data and traffic on the ESRAM will not come from the main memory though but will be generated by the GPU I imagine?
 

szaromir

Banned
Possible. It's up to the devs what data they want to store there as the ESRAM is highly generic.
I just don't think Durango will be bandwidth starved, at least not anymore than Orbis for that matter. If you look at 360 vs PS3, total bandwidth was something 22GBps vs 47GBps for main memory pools yet 360 held its own thanks to that small embedded memory pool that apparently "doesn't count".
 

daxter01

8/8/2010 Blackace was here
I just don't think Durango will be bandwidth starved, at least not anymore than Orbis for that matter. If you look at 360 vs PS3, total bandwidth was something 22GBps vs 47GBps for main memory pools yet 360 held its own thanks to that small embedded memory pool that apparently "doesn't count".
ps3 47GBps came from two memory pools though which caused problems
 
8800GTX even today runs console ports better than a 360, yeah. that was a great investment back in 2006. 3 years old low end laptop GPUs run console ports better than 360 does today.

considering how similar the architecture is and how much healthier PC gaming is business wise today, I don't think ports will suffer, of course min spec will make a big jump and DX10 class GPUs will be obsolete.

You can't be serious haha, what a load of crap.
 
ps3 47GBps came from two memory pools though which caused problems

It only caused problems because of lack of flexibility with memory allocation. Combined with the fact that games had less available memory than on Xbox (larger OS footprint + the need to hold the frame buffer in video memory, as opposed to the 360's eDRAM), it was quite headache-inducing.
 

pelican

Member
These threads make my head hurt. You all haven't a clue what you're going on about.

Hope these help;p

pills225.jpg
 

TheD

The Detective
The GPU can access both RAM and esRAM at the same time. I dont see how that is not 170 gbps. The GPU would receive 170 gb every sec.

Just because you can add the bandwidth numbers of a really small fast pool of memory together with a large, slow pool does not mean it is the same as a single pool of memory with that bandwidth!

Anything in the small pool will be as fast to read and write as it is, anything in the large pool will be as slow to read and write as it is, on the other hand anything in a big fast pool will be as fast as it is, it does not matter what you can sum the two pools to.
 
Just because you can add the bandwidth numbers of a really small fast pool of memory together with a large, slow pool does not mean it is the same as a single pool of memory with that bandwidth!

Nobody is saying it's the same, it's not the same. However, in actual real-life scenarios, they might be utilized to achieve similar results. Presuming that memory will work at sustained theoretical peak performance is wrong, the utilization will depend on the overall system architecture, the nature of code and other factors. In other words, we have insufficient information to claim either that they will perform roughly equally or that they won't. The proof will be in the games so we'll just have to wait and see.
 
Nobody is saying it's the same, it's not the same. However, in actual real-life scenarios, they might be utilized to achieve similar results. Presuming that memory will work at sustained theoretical peak performance is wrong, the utilization will depend on the overall system architecture, the nature of code and other factors. In other words, we have insufficient information to claim either that they will perform roughly equally or that they won't. The proof will be in the games so we'll just have to wait and see.

The difference is that if you want to use the eSRAM to store the framebuffer you have only 32MB of RAM you can use, while in the PS4 you don't have this limitation since all 4GB have the same bandwidth.
 

Mandoric

Banned
Not likely — but not impossible. I could see a 10 second ad to kick start the ARG happening.

We have a list of who's advertising during the Super Bowl and what their spots are called. MS isn't on the list. Sony is, but theirs is for GOWA, not hardware.
 

iMax

Member
We have a list of who's advertising during the Super Bowl and what their spots are called. MS isn't on the list. Sony is, but theirs is for GOWA, not hardware.

That list isn't complete. Plenty of advertisers choose to withhold participation from that list.
 
Top Bottom