Oh i also forgot to add, no low level gpu access which is essential to the longevity of any console platform.
I'm sure this will come down with time.
What puzzles me is that if your going to go with DDR3 (which is dirt cheap), why not just put 12GB of it?
They believe 8 GB of RAM is sufficient enough to last the life cycle of the console. Remember, the console's main problem isn't the amount of RAM, it's the bandwidth of the RAM.
I think it was more Microsoft expected DDR4 to be in use by now, which would of provided substantially more bandwidth but its mainstream uptake hasn't even begun yet!
I don't think this was the case, it's obvious that DDR4 was a long time out when these consoles were being designed.
Cant we just be excited we are getting upgrades from current gen? It must be cool to call a product inferior without really knowing or understanding the reason behind manufacturer decisions.
We are excited about them that's why we discuss the spec sheets to death!
Because 8 GB is plenty enough. Hell, even the rumored 5 given to developers should sustain them. That is a 10 fold increase over the 360! 12 GB is overkill, imo, given the level of the APUs we're dealing with.
I think the backstory is pretty clear. MS needed memory, a lot of it, as they'd targetted a vast array of applications for their box from day one. GDDR was not only the more expensive solution, but they had no assurances as far as futur available quantities are concerned. They had to deal with the low bandwidth and constructed their system to avoid stalls and eliminate - partially- that shortcoming. Hence the eSRAM and move engines that keep the GPU well fed.
Sony, I imagine, was keen on putting a lot of bandwidth and avoiding the RAM dual setup of their previous console, but they weren't as focused on RAM quantity as their competitor. They went in with a 2GB and a target of 4. Luckily for them, things evolved in the right direction and they took advatntage of the favorable circumstances to have the best of both worlds.
That is the general consensus. If you take a look at past AMD APUs we can see that they were bandwidth starved and performance suffered so simply going with the standard method wasn't going to be enough (These machines are built to run games at the end of the day). The ESRAM and slower RAM with higher space was one option while faster RAM at the cost of space was the second option. Sony went with the latter while Microsoft took the former.
If Xbox One can't read all 5 GB per frame because of the bandwidth, why would more be needed so bad? I read if you increase the amount, you also need to increase the bandwidth with it or it's pointless. Can anyone explain? Would it be for storing parts of the game in RAM for later use?
Well, like I mentioned before the main problem isn't the amount of RAM but the speed of the RAM. The reason why ESRAM is needed is to help with the bandwidth because when APUs are bandwidth starved the performance suffers. At the time these consoles were being developed there were 2 options:
1.) Go with GDDR5 unified memory for the system and risk having less RAM or
2.) Go with DDR3 unified memory and have ESRAM to supplement the lack of bandwidth but you will guaranteed 8 GB of RAM.
Sony went with the former which is why in the earlier leaked specs we kept hearing about them having 4 GB of GDDR5 memory while Xbox One went with the latter and they always had 8 GB of RAM to work with.
The reason why Microsoft doesn't throw in more RAM is because it would be pointless at this stage of development. What problems does the Xbox One have that would be solved by throwing in more RAM? I know people are hung up on the 5 GB vs the 7 GB(?) available to developers but that won't be a big deal until much later in the generation and by them I am sure Microsoft will have optimized the OS enough to let the developers have access to more RAM if needed. Throwing in more RAM right now at the cost of delaying the launch would be a stupid decision.
On the issue of why Microsoft doesn't just throw in GDDR5 RAM into the Xbox One is because they would have to delay the console at least 6-12 months (you need to change the motherboard and possibly other components). ESRAM on the APU basically becomes worthless (not entirely but that die space would be much more useful if it had more CUs or a better CPU) and the R&D wasted on going around the bandwidth limitations is pretty much a sunk cost.