Comments on: Ubisoft’s New Rendering Technique Allows Them To ‘Fit A Lot More’ In The Xbox One’s ESRAM

By: hiawa23

hiawa23 — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 23:16:00 +0000

In reply to theduckofdeath. Thanks for your informative response.

By: lagann

lagann — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 23:07:00 +0000

well…its pramath we are talking about here. He loves to spread FUD on MS articles.

If MS circumvents the use of ESRAM and only were to use DDR3….we would have horrible looking games with low resolution lol.

By: theduckofdeath

theduckofdeath — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 19:22:00 +0000

In reply to hiawa23.

To increase the eSRAM to that extent would dramatically increase the size of the chip die. For reference, from the chip lithography you can see that the eSRAM is about the size of the GPU. More eSRAM means more silicon per chip, less chips per wafer, greater complexity and chance for flaws, more heat, and ultimately higher cost.

IMO the uncertainty over GDDR5 supplies partlly lead the XB1 to its current state and position. The decision to ensure 8 GB of RAM with DDR3 necessitated some type of embedded RAM solution to make up ground (memory bandwidth). That would lead to a need to balance eSRAM density with GPU complexity, and voila, an “under powered” console at odds with itself.

New console SKUs with more eSRAM would still be held back by the 20+millions XB1s without.

By: sgt_hammertime

sgt_hammertime — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 16:10:00 +0000

You mean tiled resources that Microsoft has been saying from the beginning?
And also can you show evidence of where Microsoft has so-called circumvent the use of ESRAM? Or is this just you trying to make your article sound more interesting?

By: hiawa23

hiawa23 — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:56:00 +0000

I am curious, why couldn’t MS just release all new X1s with say 64, 112, 256, of 512megs or ESram? That seems like would cure some ills.