Wii U hardware discussion and investigation *rename

Status
Not open for further replies.
If so, that's quite a change to expectations. It means split RAM, 512MB GDDR5 + 1536 MBs slow system RAM.
Not sure how we'd get 1.5GB of RAM using an even number of memory devices...unless there's a third RAM chip hidden away on the reverse side of the board, that is. That would require a wider, more costly and more complicated bus and memory controller, more pins on the GPU and more traces in the board. Unlikely.

If there's actually a split between different RAM types I would much rather think it's 1GB of each type of memory. There could be 4 GDDR devices, with two more on the reverse side running in clamshell mode that we haven't seen.

That might also be the reason Nintendo reserved a full gig of RAM for the OS, to stop devs from whining and worrying about having to manage separate memory pools. All DDR3 would be OS-only, GDDR would be for games. <--- Hypothetic speculation <TM> ;)
 
I think he made a mistake with regards to the different RAM types. I also thought at first that the upper Mem chips look like their shape is different, but once you magnify the picture by 500% the chips look and measure as absolutely identical.
 
"768MB modules?" Are they using defective 1GB chips to save money? Speaking of which (saving money, not excessive sarcasm), two memory pools also sounds silly given the EDRAM, at least to this clueless guy.

Unless we're talking a separate GDDR5 pool for the GPU? No unified RAM in a system aimed at efficiency? Still sounds silly.
 
"768MB modules?" Are they using defective 1GB chips to save money?
I should have stopped to think about that a moment longer. ;) I guess the reasoning comes from the 2GBs total RAM. If there's 512 MBs GDDR5, then there'd have to be 1.5 gigs DDR3, across 2 different chips is 768 MBs each. Which of course isn't a standard RAM capacity. Looking at the mobo photo myself, they look the same size. They measure different sizes but that's going to be affected by perspective. When I use my CSI Enhancement software, I can read they are all Samsung K4G10325FE-HC05 GDDR5 chips.
 
We need a way to determine bus size and transfer; it makes little sense to have fast GDDR5 in there..

Not if they have a small bus, high clocked GDDR5 on a 64Bit bus would be just as effective as 128bit bus on GDDR3, maybe even more effective depending on the GDDR5's clock rate.

Running 64bit would gretly reduce the amount of transistors used on the die.
 
Not if they have a small bus, high clocked GDDR5 on a 64Bit bus would be just as effective as 128bit bus on GDDR3, maybe even more effective depending on the GDDR5's clock rate.

Running 64bit would gretly reduce the amount of transistors used on the die.
That's what I mean by determining the bus size. GDDR5 is typically considered fast RAM, but it's also more efficient so, as you say, a small bus might explain its adoption. Although if we consider it's 2 GBs of the same format chips because the initial idea of their being different chips in use seems wrong, then it's more likely to be DDR3 than 2 GBs GDDR5.
 
Yes, really. I'm using the same software used on CSI, which is absolutely 100% authentic, what with TV being so well researched and all. I can zoom in on a 14 x 8 pixel grey blob and make out individual letters on the chips...

:devilish:
 
When Nintendo says:

with the CPU at the top, high-speed low-capacity cache memory serving as short-term memory underneath, followed by low-speed large capacity main storage for managing hardware, and auxiliary storage for managing the OS on the bottom.

Do you think they are talking about two different types of memory when they
make a distinction between "low-speed large capacity main storage for managing hardware"
and "auxiliary storage for managing the OS"

Because if I look up auxiliary memory:
auxiliary memory (also called physical memory or external memory) that stores information over the long term, including after the computer is turned off. Auxiliary memory corresponds to magnetic storage devices such as the hard drive, optical storage devices such as CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMs, as well as read-only memories.

Could Nintendo be using FLASH memory for the OS?

If so, then Nintendo really means there is only 1GB for games.
 
When Nintendo says:

with the CPU at the top, high-speed low-capacity cache memory serving as short-term memory underneath, followed by low-speed large capacity main storage for managing hardware, and auxiliary storage for managing the OS on the bottom.

Do you think they are talking about two different types of memory when they
make a distinction between "low-speed large capacity main storage for managing hardware"
and "auxiliary storage for managing the OS".

High speed low capacity cache memory is more then likely the CPU L1 cache.

Low speed large capacity main storage is more then likely the L2 and L3 cache

Auxiliary storage is the main system RAM.
 
"high-speed low-capacity cache memory" is L1 + L2 for me, slower memory is RAM and auxiliary storage is flash.
there's nothing to read in those phrases, it was just a basic explanation of what is a memory hierarchy.

Could Nintendo be using FLASH memory for the OS?

If so, then Nintendo really means there is only 1GB for games.

You must have missed the bluray drive (not called bluray because of no license to play movies)
Or I have trouble understanding you. Of course the OS will execute in RAM.
 
"high-speed low-capacity cache memory" is L1 + L2 for me, slower memory is RAM and auxiliary storage is flash.
there's nothing to read in those phrases, it was just a basic explanation of what is a memory hierarchy.



You must have missed the bluray drive (not called bluray because of no license to play movies)
Or I have trouble understanding you. Of course the OS will execute in RAM.

Why? They can store and execute programs from Flash. Isn't 1GB of Flash cheaper to use than 1GB of Ram?
 
The flash memory they put in consoles is similar in access speed to the flash found in SD cards or to hard drive access times. It is not as fast as SSDs, and even if it was it's no where near as fast as RAM access speeds. Storing all operations on flash instead of RAM would make the OS run like Molasses, which is not a great way to endear your product to people.

BJ - thanks for being the voice of reason here, I think there's far too much reading between the lines going on. I think you're exactly right.
 
If Nintendo wants it to be "always on" with background downloading during the night, push notifications and what not, a split pool with low power RAM for the OS might be useful, so everything can be powered down and the CPU heavily throttled. (the Wii was already criticized for consuming way too much power on standby, maybe they paid attention to it)
 
Well, I am the one who made that Diagram, I used it for this post:

http://josepjroca.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/nintendo-revela-las-tripas-de-wii-u-i/

The problem is that the diagram is wrong, initially I assumed that the system used 2 types of memory but after a few advices in NeoGAF and a checking i did another post:

https://josepjroca.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/nintendo-revela-las-tripas-de-wii-u-ii/

That included a completely new diagram and a more insight speculation and remember this, this is only speculation and the only information that I got in all this time is not valid anymore since Nintendo refused the 1T-SRAM macros for GPU7. I should add that the second post is related to the GPU and I made one related to the CPU.

https://josepjroca.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/nintendo-desvela-las-tripas-de-wii-u-iii/

Remember, this is all speculation from a single individual, don´t ask me for specs, I don´t know anything and the speculation is only for relaxing my mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top