nope, the gpu alone is 240, I was talking about the whole system
NGGP: NextGen Garbage Pile (aka: No one reads the topics or stays on topic) *spawn*
- Thread starter Barso
- Start date
- Status
nope, the gpu alone is 240, I was talking about the whole system
Unless I'm behind the time on this (which is possible since I haven't followed it for a while) I don't think any reliable source is claiming such power for WiiU.
There would be a very obvious graphical advantage in it's launch games for a start if this were true.
A decent level of understanding, or at least common sense, is valued here, and a lack of it in recent months has shortened my fuse considerably.
You cannot just compare flops numbers. How many times has that got to be repeated? That even falls down the moment you apply your reasoning to the Wii U vs. PS360. By your reckoning, Wii U is at least 2x XB360 in graphical power, yet can barely run the same games let alone demonstrate freely available extra performance to drive AA and higher framerates. Does that not seem contradictory to you, by which you might realise that sort of comparison is clearly inaccurate?
I also wonder where you are getting your flops count from, and how those flops compare to other flops.
They make a MASSIVE difference. XB360 would have been a dog if not for the eDRAM. Flops is a measure of how many calculations your processors can do per second. It says nothing about how much data you can feed them, resulting in processors all too often bound by data access. eg. As mentioned on this board, Xenon in XB360 was running at an IPC of 0.2, meaning it was running at 1/5th it's potential and could be outperformed by a process with lower peak Flops. No aspect of the consoles can be dismissed out of hand, which is what most of us like about discussing them here - they are complex puzzles always throwing up surprises in how they solve computing design issues.
Why is Wii U's eDRAM solution (seemingly simple eDRAM with questionable BW/ROP potential) elegant but Durango's eDRAM solution not?
Regarding Durango's special sauce, I'm going to guess that it is 2 things working in tandem:
1. 4 Data Move Engines which are really (semi?)programmable advanced DMAs that alleviate the need for CPU and GPU cycles to be wasted on compressing, moving, and decompressing data between the pools of memory (i.e., DDR3 RAM, ESRAM, and processor caches).
2. ROPs on both the ESRAM and on the GPU. This could afford the pushing of more triangles/vertices and increase GPU compute/floating point efficiencies so that it hits closer to its theoretical max output, as has been rumored. GPU work requiring high bandwidth (framebuffer, etc.) could be channeled one way and everything else the other.
What does everyone think of the feasibilty of what I'm suggesting as the "secret sauce"?
1. 4 Data Move Engines which are really (semi?)programmable advanced DMAs that alleviate the need for CPU and GPU cycles to be wasted on compressing, moving, and decompressing data between the pools of memory (i.e., DDR3 RAM, ESRAM, and processor caches).
2. ROPs on both the ESRAM and on the GPU. This could afford the pushing of more triangles/vertices and increase GPU compute/floating point efficiencies so that it hits closer to its theoretical max output, as has been rumored. GPU work requiring high bandwidth (framebuffer, etc.) could be channeled one way and everything else the other.
What does everyone think of the feasibilty of what I'm suggesting as the "secret sauce"?
I understand you, the E3 is near and this means a lot of people that came here drived by curiosity or other sentiments
excuse me if I made you aggressive, this is not what I want
I agree with you, but here a lot of people are doing this when they say orbis > durango, so this comparison fits for them, not for the smartest
I think that they will both have an elegant solution (and orbis too)
just to back to the topic Lherre is saying something very interesting, as he knows what we don't..
the exact specifications for durango are not here, maybe there is more, but the important thing is that both machines are close each other, from what I understood durango is better with geometry and orbis have a better ram system and some little advantage in computing
Last edited by a moderator:
What's your reference? Wikipedia? E6670, Turks XT, 768 Gflops, 66 watts power draw. Wii U's entire power draw is ~40 watts. It is not physically possible for Wii U to have that processor at that speed. The die size tell us it isn't shrunk to a smaller node, or else the GPU would be titchy, or the eDRAM huge.
The 6670 pulls more power than the entire wiiu making it an unlikely candidate.
The Wii U apologists living in denial have been just that bit too much for me!
But in the case of Orbis v Durango, it's the same architecture as far as we know. An apples to apples comparison. A lot is riding on the rumours of Durango maintaining higher efficiencies which we know nothing about.
We can't attribute any advantages to Durango at the moment without knowledge of the memory workings. It is inferior in compute in every way, so won't have a better geometry or pixel or displacement or GPGPU performance than Orbis. A lot needs to be discovered. Which was true of this whole pointless thread in the first place, people wanting to make judgement calls well ahead of reasonable data to base such a call on!
We can't attribute any advantages to Durango at the moment without knowledge of the memory workings. It is inferior in compute in every way, so won't have a better geometry or pixel or displacement or GPGPU performance than Orbis. A lot needs to be discovered. Which was true of this whole pointless thread in the first place, people wanting to make judgement calls well ahead of reasonable data to base such a call on!
the drawing speed advantage came from the same guy that knows the leaked memory structure of durango, before the leak
indeed he says "We are talking about a single digit percentage increase. nothing to fap over. Number is almost negligble."
I'm not sure that I can link source from other rival sites
and yes, at this moment we can only chat about durango and orbis, a lot needs to be discovered, I agree with you
Johnny_Physics
Newcomer
Just quote it then, ok?
And Beyond3D might not be the place for you if think of rivalries and things like that.
I'm just quoting. actually I'm only inscribed on B3D, I only pay attention to the laws
Thuway from Gaf.
That guy was a rabid fanboy and now all of a sudden he's an insider ?
Please ....
(((interference)))
Veteran
So what did thuway say exactly? He did have correct info on the amount of ESRAM and the memory bandwidths.
djskribbles
Legend
Did seem like he had insider info. What makes him a fanboy? Seriously asking. I'm not a member at GAF but I visit it quite often. Doesn't really come off as a fanboy to me... just someone who seems to overall prefer Orbis' specs on paper, which is how a lot of people seem to feel.
I know know the topic Brit, if you follow my words, I end with the conclusion that both are similar and very close, the same thing that some leaking sources (lherre, thuway and so on) says
Lherre
thuway
what disappoint me is that they seems to be both sub-200W systems, luckily we miss a lot of info on both and this is more true for durango, we need to know more even the TU's and ROP's of orbis are on debate (4x assuming they have not changed the GCN scheme on their custom gpu, but this is not confirmed by any source or rumor), as we become more and more near to E3, more will be leaked
Anyway and in my opinion stand to reason that both are APU+DISCRETE GPU and in the case of orbis there are 4 CU in the APU, this explain why 4 CU are splitted from the other 14
this explain even the "special sauce" of durango, the CU's not present in the very first leak but rumored later, simply the CU's of APU
they seems very close to me, the biggest difference here is the memory system, but:
so the BW of GDDR maybe is not a big advantage, but the same is for quantity if 3GB of durango are allocated by OS on gaming.
Again, very similar, if this is all the truth, then the developers will go for a easy common denominator and will be hard to spot any difference
He just said that on "paper" orbis looked better but that was on paper. He reckoned if the game was physic, animation, framerate heavy, orbis would have the advantage, which seems like a sweeping generalisation. He said nothing about the esram or bandwidths but say that Durango may have upper hand with regards to triangle/vertices drawing power.
To be honest I don't think he knows too much about durangos setup.
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
Well, if Durango GPU architecture is GCN2 with HSA and more efficient than GCN I wouldn´t bet Orbis to be more powerful. It could end up being Xenos vs RSX again.
Well there's no indication that Durango is GCN2 but I agree we really don't know that much about it.
- Status
Similar threads
