Digital Foundry on Xbox One's RAM :

Very early on it was established that ESRAM is indeed incorporated into the Xbox One design - essentially a large, very fast cache of embedded memory attached to the GPU and CPU that helps to make up the bandwidth deficit inherent in using slower memory. So even without direct confirmation, we now knew that the 8GB of memory in Xbox One is indeed DDR3 as opposed to the bandwidth-rich GDDR5 found in the PlayStation 4 (and Wired's internal photography of the One confirms 2133MHz DDR3 Micron modules). Xbox One may well have a latency advantage over PS4 and power consumption will probably be lower, but GPU bandwidth - a key element in graphics performance - is indeed more limited on the Microsoft hardware.

The result is a complex architecture - 32MB of ESRAM is added to the processor die, along with "data move engines" to courier information around the system as quickly as possible with bespoke encode/decode hardware to alleviate common bottlenecks

Why don't these fuckers point this out when message-board ignorance reigns on Wii U's "slow RAM" setup. It has the same flipping set up with eDRAM + eSRAM on an Multi Chip Module to reduce latency.

Oh wow:

"Sony made a specific gamble that Microsoft could not - the utilisation of a unified pool of GDDR5 memory. In the early days of PS4 development, only 2GB of this type of memory looked viable for a consumer-level device. As higher density modules became available, this was duly upgraded to 4GB. By the time of the reveal back in February, Sony had confidence that it could secure volume of 512MB modules and surprised everyone (even developers) by announcing that PS4 would ship with 8GB of unified GDDR5 RAM. The design of its surrounding architecture would not need to change throughout this process - one set of 16 GDDR5 chips would simply be swapped out for another.

Microsoft never had the luxury of this moving target. With multimedia such a core focus for its hardware, it set out to support 8GB of RAM from day one (at the time giving it a huge advantage over the early PS4 target RAM spec) and with serious volume of next-gen DDR4 unattainable in the time window, it zeroed in on supporting DDR3 and doing whatever was necessary to make that work on a console. The result is a complex architecture - 32MB of ESRAM is added to the processor die, along with "data move engines" to courier information around the system as quickly as possible with bespoke encode/decode hardware to alleviate common bottlenecks. Bottom line: if you're wondering why Xbox One has a weaker GPU than PlayStation 4, it's because both platform holders have similar silicon budgets for the main processor - Sony has used the die-space for additional compute units and ROPs (32 vs. 16 in One), while Microsoft has budgeted for ESRAM and data move engines instead. From the Xbox perspective, it's just unfortunate for Microsoft that Sony's gamble paid off - right up until the wire, it was confident of shipping with twice the amount of RAM as PlayStation 4."

Dvader said:

at the Wii U bit when his face crumbled.

Foolz said:

3GB of ram for OS...why not just put Windows on it? It would be less demanding, and could do more than is on offer.

There is a Windows kernal on it. 3 OS's

"Folks, this thing just runs a modified version of Windows 8. And I can prove it."

So let me break down the DF info for you. Sony waited around to see how much GDDR RAM they could get for PS4 and as prices dropped they could secure more for a decent price, they started with 2, then 4GB. Microsoft bet early on that Xbox One would have these advance multimedia features so early on set on an 8gb DDR setup + ESRAM. Then the prices for RAM dropped and Sony could just swap in a bigger amount. Meanwhile Microsoft was stuck with DDR3 and the ESRAM (and EDRAM too) is very expensive for small amounts because it's so fast and useful. Meanwhile because Sony didn't have to pay for ESRAM they could afford a better GPU.

So at the end of it Sony ended up with a better RAM setup in terms of bandwidth and a better GPU just because early on they didn't bet on this multimedia focus. BAM there it is.

So avatars are dead?

aspro said:

So avatars are dead?

No, just the Xbox brand.

edgecrusher said:

So basically Sony just got lucky by thinking MS was going to go for a more games focused approach?

Lol, looks that way.

Omg.  My third graders know better.

7 gif sums it up for me.

Thread at GAF: Xbox One TV functions: Doesn't the WiiU already do that?

But can't WiiU already do the majority of what was shown yesterday?


- Switching inputs? Check.

- Switching cable/satellite channels? Check.

- Browsing the web while watching videos or television? Check.

- Favorites and guide for television? Check.

- Checking fantasy sports/stats during a game? Check.

- Playing a video game while watching TV? Check.

- Being able to multi-task while pausing a game? Check.


There's no Nintendo Tvii here so I don't know, USA, this true?

Nintendo tvii feels like ancient tech compared to Xbox. It just shows how far behind Nintendo is. The Xbox doesn't just switch inputs the input gets directly connected to the xbox, no need to change inputs. The multimedia features are super basic, you can only communicate with people also on wii not with normal people online. It has no guide, no quick switching between mediums.

Oh and most importantly wii has no fantasy sports, Xbox does.

The MS NFL deal is wild! So surface tablets is going to be used by coaches and players. MS tech will be all over the field, so wierd. That's some big advertising for Xbox, Sony simply can't match it in the US.