The RAM set up in the Series S is pretty underwhelming, and I wonder if they could have uses other options that would have been around the same cost, but a better outcome.
As it stands, the Series S has 10gb of GDDR 6, split into two pools, 8gb @ 224 GB/s and 2gb @ 56 GB/s. I fail to understand how the Series S would suffer from the same signalling issues that made MS go with the split pool on the Series X, nor how 2gb would be enough to cover the OS, CPU and audio on the Series S.
Could it have been a option for the Series S to have ran with 12gb of GDDR 5 RAM @ 326 GB/s bandwidth, similar to what's found on the One X?
It would have given more bandwidth than the current set up, more RAM, and the GDDR 5 costs should have been no more expensive than the 10gb of GDDR6 RAM.
Is there a reason they couldn't, or didn't, go with something like that as an option?
I understand their desire to keep the Series X and X as the same architecture, but surely the RAM could be different.
As it stands, the Series S has 10gb of GDDR 6, split into two pools, 8gb @ 224 GB/s and 2gb @ 56 GB/s. I fail to understand how the Series S would suffer from the same signalling issues that made MS go with the split pool on the Series X, nor how 2gb would be enough to cover the OS, CPU and audio on the Series S.
Could it have been a option for the Series S to have ran with 12gb of GDDR 5 RAM @ 326 GB/s bandwidth, similar to what's found on the One X?
It would have given more bandwidth than the current set up, more RAM, and the GDDR 5 costs should have been no more expensive than the 10gb of GDDR6 RAM.
Is there a reason they couldn't, or didn't, go with something like that as an option?
I understand their desire to keep the Series X and X as the same architecture, but surely the RAM could be different.