Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41
  1. #1
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    20
    Posts
    8,322
    Rep Power
    83
    Points
    30,849 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim

    Memory Bandwidth vs Memory Amount, great read

    Thread
    The next gen speculation thread started to have interesting debate about memory bandwidth vs memory amount. I don't personally want to contribute to the next gen speculation, but the "memory bandwidth vs memory amount" topic is very interesting in it's own. So I decided to make a thread for this topic, as I have personally been doing a lot of memory access and bandwidth analysis lately for our console technology, and I have programmed our virtual texturing system (and many other JIT data streaming components).

    Historically memory performance has improved linearly (very slowly) compared to exponential (Moore's law) growth of CPU performance. Relative memory access times (latencies) have grown to be over 400x higher (in clock cycles) compared to first PC computers, and there's no signs that this development will slow down in the future, unless we invent some radically new ways of storing data. None of the currently known future technologies is going to solve the problem, just provide some band aid. So we need to adapt.

    Some links to background information first:

    1. Presentation by Sony R&D. Targeted for game technology programmers. Has a very good real life example how improving your memory access pattern can improve your performance by almost 10x. Also has nice charts (slides 17 and 1 showing how memory speed has increased historically compared to ALU:
    http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO...ng_GCAP_09.pdf

    2. Benchmark results of a brand new x86 chip with unified memory architecture (CPU & GPU share the same memory & memory controller). Benchmark shows system performance with all available DDR3 speeds from DDR3-800 to DDR3-1866. All other system settings are identical, only memory bus bandwidth is scaled up/down. We can see an 80% performance (fps) improvement in the gaming benchmark just by increasing the DDR3 memory clock:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0k,3224-5.html

    3. A GPU benchmark comparing old Geforce GTS 450 (1 GB, GDDR5) card to a brand new Kepler based Geforce GT 640 (2 GB, DDR3). The new Kepler based card has twice the memory amount and twice the ALU performance, but only half of the memory bandwidth (because of DDR3). Despite the much faster theoretical shader performance and twice the memory amount, it loses pretty badly in the benchmarks because of it's slower memory bus:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5969/z...gt-640-review-
    In the console space, using 2GB as a disk cache alone will make for a better end user experience than 2x or even 3-4x gpu performance.
    I completely disagree with this. And I try now to explain why. As a professional, you of course know most of the background facts, but I need to explain that first, so that my remarks later aren't standing without a factual base.

    --- ---

    I will use the x86 based Trinity APU [link 2] as my example system, as it has close enough performance and memory bandwidth compared to current generation consoles (it's only around 2x-4x faster overall) and it has unified memory (single memory bus shared between CPU & GPU). It's much easier to talk about a well known system, with lots of public benchmarks results around the net.

    Let's assume we are developing a vsync locked 60 fps game, so each frame must complete in 16.6 ms time. Let's assume our Trinity system is equipped with the fastest DDR3 it supports (DDR3-1866). According to Tom's Hardware synthetic bandwidth benchmark, this configuration gives us 14 GB bandwidth per second. Divide that by 60, and we get 233 MB bandwidth per frame. Let's round that down to even 200 MB per frame to ease up our calculations. A real game newer utilizes memory bandwidth as well as a synthetic benchmark, so even the 200 MB per frame figure is optimistic.

    Now I know that my game should never access more than 200 MB of unique memory per frame if I want to reach my vsync locked 60 fps. If I access more memory, my frame rate dips as the memory subsystem cannot give me enough data, and my CPU & GPU start stalling.

    How about CPU & GPU caches? Caches only help with repeated data access to the same data. Caches do not allow us to access any more unique data per frame. Also it's worth noticing that if you access the same memory for example at beginning of your frame, at middle of your frame and at end of your frame, you will pay as much as if you did three unique memory accesses. Caches are very small, and old data gets replaced very fast. Our Trinity CPU has 4 MB of L2 cache and we move 200 MB of data to the cache every frame. Our cache gets fully replaced by new data (200/4 =) 50 times every frame. Data only stays in cache for 0.33 ms. If we access it again after this period, we must fetch it from the memory again (wasting our valuable 200 MB per frame bandwidth). It's not uncommon that a real game accesses every data in the current working set (on average) twice per frame, leaving us with 100 MB per frame unique accessible memory. Examples: Shadowmaps are first rendered (to textures in memory) and sampled later during lighting pass. Physics simulation moves objects (positions & rotations) and later in frame those same objects are rendered (accessing those same position and rotation datas again).

    However let's keep the theoretical 200 MB per frame number, as engines differ, and access patterns differ (and we do not really want to got that far in the analysis). In a real game you can likely access only around 100 MB - 150 MB of unique memory per frame, so the forthcoming analysis is optimistic. A real game could likely access less memory and thus have a smaller working set.

    So far we know that the processing and rendering of a single frame never requires more than 200 MB of memory (we can't reach 60 fps otherwise). If your game has a static scene, you will not need more memory than that. However static scenes are not much fun, and thus this scenario is highly unlikely in real games (except for maybe a chess game with a fixed camera). So the billion dollar question becomes, how much does the working set (memory accesses) change from frame to frame in a 60 fps game?

    In a computer game, objects and cameras do not really "move" around, they get repositioned every frame. In order for this repositioning to look like smooth movement we can only change the positions very slightly from frame to frame. This basically means that our working set can only change slightly from frame to frame. According to my analysis (for our game), our working set changes around 1%-2% per frame in general case, and peaks at around 10%. Especially notable fact is that our virtual texturing system working set never changes more than 2% per frame (textures are the biggest memory user in most games).

    We assume that a game with a similar memory access pattern (similarly changing working set from frame to frame) is running on our Trinity example platform. Basically this means that in average case our working set changes from 2 MB to 4 MB per frame, and it peaks at around 20 MB per frame. We can stream this much data from a standard HDD. However HDDs have long latencies, and long seek times, so we must stream data in advance and bundle data in slightly bigger chunks than we like to combat the slow seek time. Both streaming in advance (prefetching) and loading in bigger chunks (loading slightly wider working set) require extra memory. Question becomes, how much larger the memory cache needs to be than our working set?

    The working set is 200 MB (if we want to reach that 60 fps on the imaginary game on our Trinity platform). How much more memory we need for the cache? Is working set x2.5 enough (512 MB)? How about 5x (1 GB) or 10x (2 GB)?

    Our virtual texture system has a static 1024 page cache (128x128 pixel pages, 2x DXT5 compressed layer per page). Our average working set per frame is around 200-400 pages, and it peaks as high as 600 pages. The cache is so small that it has to reload all textures if you spin the camera around in 360 degrees, but this doesn't matter, as the HDD streaming speed is enough to push new data in at steady pace. You never see any texture popping when rotating or moving the camera. The only occasion where you see texture popping is when the camera suddenly teleports to a completely different location (working set changes almost completely). In our game this only happens if you restart to a checkpoint or restart the level completely, so it's not a big deal (and we can predict it).

    If the game behaves similarly to our existing console game, we need a cache size of around 3x the working set for texture data. Big percentage of the memory accessed per frame (or stored to the memory) goes to the textures. If we assume for a moment that all other memory accesses are as stable as texture accesses (cache multiplier of 3x) we only need 600 MB of memory for a fully working game. For some memory bandwidth hungry parts of the game this actually is true. And things are even better for some parts: shadow maps, post processing buffers, back buffer, etc are fully generated again every frame, so we need no extra memory storage to hold caches of these (cache multiplier is 1x).

    Game logic streaming is a harder thing to analyze and generalize. For example our console game has a large free roaming outdoor world. It's nowhere as big as worlds in Skyrim for example, but the key point here is that we only keep a slice of the world in memory at once so the world size could theoretically be limitless (with no extra memory cost). Our view distance is 2 kilometers, so we do need to keep full representation of the game world in memory after that. Data quality required for a distance follows pretty much logarithmic scale (texture mip mapping, object geometry quality, heightfield quality, vegetation map quality, etc etc). Data required as distance grows shrinks dramatically. This is of course only true for easy cases such as graphics processing, heightfields, etc. Game logic doesn't automatically scale. However you must scale it manually to reach that 200 MB per frame memory access limit. Your game would slow down to halt if you just tried to simply read full AI data from every single individual NPC in the large scale world, no matter how simple your processing would be.

    Our heightmap cache (used in physics, raycasts and terrain visualization) keeps around 4x the working set. We do physics simulation (and exact collision) only for things near the player (100 meters max). When an object enters this area, we add corresponding physics objects to our physics world. It's hard to exactly estimate how big percentage of our physics world structures are accessed per frame, but I would estimate around 10%. So we basially have a 10x working set "cache" for physics.

    Basically no component in our game required more than 10x memory compared to its working set. Average requirement was around 3x. So theoretically a game with similar memory access patterns would only need 600 MB of memory on our example Trinity platform. And this includes as much texture resolution as you ever want (virtual texturing works that way). And it includes as much other (physics, game logic, etc) data as you can process per frame (given the limited bandwidth). Of course another game might need for example average of 10x working set for caches, but that's still only 2 GB. Assuming game is properly optimized (predictable memory accesses are must have for good performance) and utilizes JIT streaming well, it will not benefit much if we add more main memory to our Trinity platform beyond that 2 GB.

    More memory of course makes developers life easier. Predicting data access patterns can be very hard for some styles of games and structures. But mindlessly increasing the cache sizes much beyond working set sizes doesn't help either (as we all know that increasing cache size beyond working set size gives on average only logarithmic improvement on cache hit rate = diminishing returns very quickly).

    My conclusion: Usable memory amount is very much tied to available memory bandwidth. More bandwidth allows the games to access more memory. So it's kind of counterintuitive to swap faster smaller memory to a slower larger one. More available memory means that I want to access more memory, but in reality the slower bandwidth allows me to access less. So the percentage of accessible memory drops radically.

  2. Likes Kauldron, Lefein likes this post
  3. #2
    Elite Member
    D3seeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Severn, Maryland
    PSN ID
    D3seeker
    Posts
    1,816
    Rep Power
    54
    Points
    1,773 (20,000 Banked)
    Items PS3 Slim
    So outside of current methodology, ideally more is only really useful if it's fast.


  4. Likes Lefein likes this post
  5. #3
    Ultimate Veteran
    Lefein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    33
    Posts
    22,962
    Rep Power
    193
    Points
    107,327 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    It's like the difference between an SUV and a sports car trying to complete a lap (frame). The SUV can haul a whole lot around the track, but the car will complete the lap faster.



    vs

    Last edited by Lefein; 01-30-2013 at 01:40.

  6. Likes Kauldron likes this post
  7. #4
    Veteran
    Kauldron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,109
    Rep Power
    78
    Points
    6,323 (0 Banked)
    There is a reason RAM is designed to be faster.

    If there was no need to be faster, you would just add more chips in order to always increase size.
    _______________________________________________

    _______________________________________________

  8. #5
    Super Moderator
    PS4freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    PSN ID
    lsutigers19
    Age
    26
    Posts
    13,768
    Rep Power
    143
    Points
    84,728 (190,439 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIIIFinal Fantasy XCall of Duty: Black OPSDragon Ball ZPS3 SlimGoogle Chrome
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lefein View Post
    It's like the difference between an SUV and a sports car trying to complete a lap (frame). The SUV can haul a whole lot around the track, but the car will complete the lap faster.



    vs

    This is a great analogy.




    Currently Playing: ​ Watch Dogs
    Currently Waiting For: ​​ ​Destiny

  9. #6
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    41
    Posts
    17,536
    Rep Power
    162
    Points
    160,854 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Of course it all flies out the $#@!ing window if you throw edram or actually know whats in a system...

    Snore.

    Anybody who genuinely believes any of these systems has got ddr3 only in it is a wishful thinker and does simply not understand what they are trying to achieve with consoles.

    Ill friggin repeat what i have said a thousand times...

    Its how its put together...

    These sorts of postulations are
    Laughable, everyone already $#@!ing knows what sort of performance you get from ddr3 vram for $#@!s sake.


    Its called integrated graphics.
    Last edited by mynd; 01-30-2013 at 10:31.

  10. #7
    Elite Member
    D3seeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Severn, Maryland
    PSN ID
    D3seeker
    Posts
    1,816
    Rep Power
    54
    Points
    1,773 (20,000 Banked)
    Items PS3 Slim
    ^ I'd hate to seem crude. No

    Strait up, Was that really necessary?


  11. Likes Two4DaMoney likes this post
  12. #8
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    41
    Posts
    17,536
    Rep Power
    162
    Points
    160,854 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by D3seeker View Post
    ^ I'd hate to seem crude. No

    Strait up, Was that really necessary?
    This discussion isn't necessary. We all know a PC with "integrated graphics" isnt a gaming rig.
    Last edited by mynd; 01-30-2013 at 19:00.

  13. #9
    Veteran
    MonkeyClaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    PSN ID
    Tha_MonkeyClaw
    Age
    39
    Posts
    4,839
    Rep Power
    94
    Points
    148,874 (0 Banked)
    Items Protect yourself
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    This discussion isn't necessary. We all know a PC with "integrated graphics" isnt a gaming rig.
    Hey, with integrated graphics you can play a mean game of Angry Birds!

    -=[ PSN ID: Tha_MonkeyClaw ]=-

  14. #10
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,695
    Rep Power
    126
    Points
    60,349 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Never tried it myself but having higher speed RAM vs lower speed RAM but of the same amounts isnt going to do a great deal in terms of enhancing gaming performance at least on the PC side of things.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...g,3209-13.html

  15. #11
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    20
    Posts
    8,322
    Rep Power
    83
    Points
    30,849 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    Never tried it myself but having higher speed RAM vs lower speed RAM but of the same amounts isnt going to do a great deal in terms of enhancing gaming performance at least on the PC side of things.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...g,3209-13.html
    ddr3 frequency upgrades don't even compare to the jump between ddr3 and GDDR5

  16. #12
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,525
    Rep Power
    55
    Points
    3,984 (0 Banked)
    Items PlayStationSteam
    Quote Originally Posted by D3seeker View Post
    So outside of current methodology, ideally more is only really useful if it's fast.
    Or...Fast is only useful if there is _enough_

  17. #13
    Ultimate Veteran
    coolguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    long island ny
    Age
    38
    Posts
    20,893
    Rep Power
    112
    Points
    29,062 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I rather have faster memory and bandwidth.

  18. #14
    Dedicated Member
    Syphon_Filter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Canada, Toronto
    PSN ID
    Syphon_Filter
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,341
    Rep Power
    62
    Points
    6,639 (0 Banked)
    Items User name styleinFamousPSN LogoBattlefield 3NvidiaSteamPS3 SlimVita
Gift received at 01-31-2013 from Metal King SlimeColeBattlefield 3
    Iam sure the PS4 will have memory speed of 10,000 SDEGHA super and GPU OO7 super speed looooooooooool


    CPU: I7 3820--GPU: Asus Gtx 670 2GB--Motherboard: BioStar TpowerX79--HDD: Seagate 2TB--CPU COOLING: Corsair Hydro H80--Case: CoolerMaster RC932 Haf--RAM: 16GB 1333 DDR3 Corsair--Sony Dvd X18 Player: Power Supply: Seasonic 760W--Windows 7 64Bit, Monitor: HP Led 2311X--TV: Samsung LED TV 120HZ Un40d6000--PS3 Super Slim 1TB HDD--PS3 Slim 750GB--PS VITA 32GB.

  19. Likes mynd likes this post
  20. #15
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    20
    Posts
    8,322
    Rep Power
    83
    Points
    30,849 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    Quote Originally Posted by Rekmon View Post
    Or...Fast is only useful if there is _enough_
    both are true. Amount is useless if slow
    speed is unnecessary if amount is low to begin with.

    but 4GB AND high speed is a great balance imo so I don't have any worries for ps4 RAM amount

  21. #16
    Ultimate Veteran
    Lefein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    33
    Posts
    22,962
    Rep Power
    193
    Points
    107,327 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Sony is going to cut down on O/S overhead as much as possible (and, I surmise, still be able to offer more robust features than they were able to with PS3). 4GB is going to be sufficient, even if shared between GPU and CPU. Just consider that a lot of today's top graphics cards have 2GBs of VRAM and it's really just cray cray to me that people are trying to make a case that the PS4 is going to be starved @ 4GBs shared.

    The day that PC developers (!) start making the base-line of their games run out of bounds on a 2GB Graphics card is the day we're going to need a PS5, anyway.



    Just.Saying. You guys need to face the music. GDDR5 would be tits in a console. I'll start worrying about starvation when someone says this thing will have 2GBs, because then you're going to see developers start sweating bullets.
    Last edited by Lefein; 01-31-2013 at 04:42.

  22. #17
    Dedicated Member
    Zswordsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tacoma
    Age
    22
    Posts
    1,215
    Rep Power
    56
    Points
    1,557 (0 Banked)
    Items Full Metal AlchemistThe X-FilesFinal Fantasy VII
    Quote Originally Posted by itachi73378 View Post
    both are true. Amount is useless if slow
    speed is unnecessary if amount is low to begin with.

    but 4GB AND high speed is a great balance imo so I don't have any worries for ps4 RAM amount
    Computers do alright with 4gb when playing games so i doubt ram size will be an issue, especially since consoles dedicate most of their ram to just gaming unlike computers.
    You know, a lot of people are $#@!ing about the ram and stuff but ps3 did wonderful things with just 512mb so i can't wait to see what the ps4 does with 4gb.

  23. #18
    Administrator
    Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    PSN ID
    rokushakubo
    Posts
    12,781
    Rep Power
    132
    Points
    6,546,357 (100,956 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Awards PSU+ Patriot
    PS4 is going to be something that starts with F and ends in UCKING BEAST! Can you guess?

  24. #19
    Super Elite
    Sir_Scud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    PSN ID
    Sir_Scud
    Posts
    2,072
    Rep Power
    66
    Points
    10,718 (0 Banked)
    Items Naughty DogFinal Fantasy IVDark SoulsGuerrilla Games
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost-Rhayne View Post
    PS4 is going to be something that starts with F and ends in UCKING BEAST! Can you guess?
    A fire trucking beast? Never heard that one

  25. Likes Kauldron likes this post
  26. #20
    Elite Member
    D3seeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Severn, Maryland
    PSN ID
    D3seeker
    Posts
    1,816
    Rep Power
    54
    Points
    1,773 (20,000 Banked)
    Items PS3 Slim
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    This discussion isn't necessary. We all know a PC with "integrated graphics" isnt a gaming rig.
    Just lovely....................I suppose
    If that's what you make of it.


  27. Likes Two4DaMoney likes this post
  28. #21
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    41
    Posts
    17,536
    Rep Power
    162
    Points
    160,854 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by D3seeker View Post
    Just lovely....................I suppose
    If that's what you make of it.
    If anyone just stuck ddr3 only,then thats what you are going to get. Not one person has every said wohoo ddr3 only!
    We all know ddr3 is too slow as gpu vram

    And for the record, i believe both system will have a fairly similar "play area" for games.
    I suspect MS is reserving a lot of space for non core game related tasks.

    Does any one really beleive its really going to be 8 vs 4 for games?

    In all likely hood its probably going to be something like 4.5 vs 3.5gb if that.
    Last edited by mynd; 01-31-2013 at 06:38.

  29. #22
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,525
    Rep Power
    55
    Points
    3,984 (0 Banked)
    Items PlayStationSteam
    Quote Originally Posted by itachi73378 View Post
    both are true. Amount is useless if slow
    speed is unnecessary if amount is low to begin with.

    but 4GB AND high speed is a great balance imo so I don't have any worries for ps4 RAM amount
    I agree on the 4gb high speed ram will be plenty for the PS4. Hopefully the bean counters don't ruin it.

  30. #23
    Elite Sage
    Two4DaMoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,449
    Rep Power
    111
    Points
    15,302 (75,576 Banked)
    Items Naughty DogPS3 SlimNaughty DogUser name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I know MS will use edram but I'm just not buying all this bull$#@! that seems to come up from "insiders/developers" every time leaks come out. There's always some "magical" chip pulled out of the 720's ass to make a weaker chip out perform what's in the ps4 due to all the extra customization in the 720. With all these rumors, it's sounding like the 720 is more complex to code for. Sure they'll have tools but Sony tools will be on par. They aren't using any bull$#@! exotic tech this time.

    I know these rumors aren't 100% factual nor contains everything under the hood of these consoles. Save the preaching.
    Last edited by Two4DaMoney; 01-31-2013 at 16:00.

    Destiny and Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor is all I need for the rest of the year.

  31. #24
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    20
    Posts
    8,322
    Rep Power
    83
    Points
    30,849 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    Quote Originally Posted by Two4DaMoney View Post
    I know MS will use edram but I'm just not buying all this bull$#@! that seems to come up from "insiders/developers" every time leaks come out. There's always some "magical" chip pulled out of the 720's ass to make a weaker chip out perform what's in the ps4 due to all the extra customization in the 720. With all these rumors, it's sounding like the 720 is more complex to code for. Sure they'll have tools but Sony tools will be on par. They aren't using any bull$#@! exotic tech this time.

    I know these rumors aren't 100% factual nor contains everything under the hood of these consoles. Save the preaching.
    Orbis has 50% more compute units, don't worry durango has secret hardware to make up for that
    Orbis has more CPU modules and less dedicated cores for OS, don't worry Durango have special hardware blocks to assist the CPU
    Orbis has higher bandwidth, don't worry durango is probably using the same type of RAM

  32. #25
    Extreme Poster
    mistercrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Texas
    PSN ID
    mistercrow
    Posts
    25,535
    Rep Power
    166
    Points
    169,417 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I dont care which one ends up being more powerful or if theyre the same I just want Sony and MS to officially reveal these consoles so we can stop all these bs rumors. I'll go with whoever gives us some good powerful hardware for the developers to work with.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.