Xbox One (Durango) Technical hardware investigation

Ya my bad, if I only had read further. From what doctorjay posted it looks like 1/2 rate of dual precision for gcn explains the different flop numbers for ps4.

 

That graphic isn't sufficient to define what memory types are present. It's indicating that the ACE is responsible for handling error correction for on-chip and off chip memory, and for the GCN products at the time that meant almost without exception SRAM on-die and GDDR off-die.
The one possible exception is the eventual lower-end GPUs that can do either GDDR5 or DDR3.

Storage is storage, and it's a matter of allocating the extra bits and the extra checks to compare them against the data they're protecting.

 

Intel Haswell chip pic from Vr-zone via Anand

http://anandtech.com/show/6892/haswell-gt3e-pictured-coming-to-desktops-rsku-notebooks

Does it mean anything RE Durango?

I guess without knowing EDRAM quantity, it's tough.

But the EDRAM is still a separate die...

Looks like an Anand commenter worked out possible sizes (no idea if accurate)

 

I'm not sure it means anything for Durango exactly, but I do think this is the way all integrated solutions including AMD APU's will go.

 

yeah. only

80mm is pretty darn big

the edram isn't integrated

just interesting to see edram in a brand new high profile pc design

 

Having the RAM on a separate die makes it easier for intel to offer a modular product lineup aimed at different market brackets. It also improves production yields, since an APU is smaller by using a separate DRAM die compared to having it integrated on-chip. Especially if the DRAM is 512MB, as has been claimed by some.

 

512 MB??? Wow...

Granted it's on 22nm, but still if that is the case, wow.

Given that scaling, you could reasonably put 128MB in a 28nm console very cost effectively. Maybe it means Durango is indeed 6T ESRAM.

 

80mm on 90nm is the same size of the 10MB eDram die in the original 360. Granted that die had also some functionality, but that size isn't that remarkable. I'm going to guess that die contains 128MB.



If you look at the die sizes of the original 360 (numbers from Anandtech):

CPU: 176mm2 GPU: 182mm2 EDRAM: 80mm2

and the first revision (Falcon):

CPU: 135mm2 GPU: 156mm2 EDRAM: 64mm2


and compare to the hypothetical Durango, it seems to me that MS is going for manufacturing size/budget of that they hit with the first revision, but all on one die from the get go.

CPU: 8 Core Jaguar + all other coprocessors <100mm2
GPU: should be around 150mm2 (in between 7770 and 7790)
ESRAM: 64-80mm2 for 6T.

 

So Durango is using 2x as much (with an additional 1GB reserved for future expansion).

The OS is not that bloated then really, seeing as it runs Win8/RT and has to keep the Kinect skeletal and voice databases in memory.

 

umm, how did kinect work on 360 then? You know, that console with a total of 512MB RAM? 32MB reserved?

Sure Kinect 2.0 is said to be better, but the changes are clearly minor. Nothing to suddenly require up to 4X the total RAM of the 360.

At some point I think MS needs to worry about keeping their specs "close enough" to the PS4. That's why I still think higher clocks and other upgrades are very possible. The delay to May 21 unveil may be related.

If the deficit is too big, they risk developers leaving them out altogether. If some third parties come to them and say "look, you really need to beef this up, or else, it's going to be really tough to squeeze our ps4/PC games onto this so we might not bother" they wont have any choice in the matter, regardless what MS execs supposedly think.

15% less is a whole lot different than 40% less in that regard. To read the internet, Durango is already more than 40% behind.

 

The 32MB was reserved for the 360 OS, not Kinect. Kinect titles use additional memory depending on what features of Kinect you are using.

If they want to have Siri like voice control (without relying on cloud processing for speech) across the entire device the speech databases might take up a bit of memory - though I'm not sure how much.

 

that website post fake rumors all the time,take their articles as grain of salt.

 

It's unlikely either the PS4 or 720 will end up with a lopsided PS2-like lion share of the market, which means regardless of what developers complain about, they will make games for both systems. There's a reason why 3rd party console exclusives are a rarity these days (hint: they didn't exist because Sony paid for them back on the PS2).

 

The way Kinect 2.0 does tracking seems to be totally different than Kinect 1.0. Kinect 2.0 takes your input depth data (a bit more detailed this time), along with voice data and RGB data, and can use them all together to guess your motion. Specifically for the depth tracking, it takes that data and can look at individual frames (by themselves) and calculate the most probable pose based on comparing your inputs with a massive set of test poses stores in memory. The MSR paper on it suggests it is incredibly accurate given they only look at a single frame. Adding in multiple frames would then significantly improve accuracy obviously on top of that.

That said, I doubt even the hundreds of thousands of poses stored take up much actual space. But maybe they do. Or maybe they want to let your poses be tracked and stored for better/faster tracking in the future by fleshing out the databases or by narrowing them down.

I do think the voice stuff will be primarily cloud-based though, with only a handful of basic functions tied to the hardware storage itself.

Well the VGLeaks claim about the BC Xbox mini and their source's ambiguous statements on always online etc also included a claime that specs have been adjusted. So who knows. I could see clocks ticking up a bit. What is realistic for a clock increase? There's a 1GHz version of both the 7700 and 7790, which Durango's GPU seems to closely related to. Since it's on the same die as the CPU, maybe we could realistically get a 2GHz/1GHz CPU/GPU clock upgrade? Or do ppl think that is too much?

Devs have said for a while now that flops aren't important really. And given the display planes I doubt the ROPs difference, whatever it is in actual games, is going to matter. The bandwidth the GPU sees isn't remarkably different either. So I'm not really sure I'd trust the internet on this, since this consensus you talk of is really just ppl comparing numbers on metrics that either aren't all that tangibly related to game visuals or they are in areas with highly diminished returns as is.

 

OS and Kinect 2.0 can't possibly require 3GB but what about SmartGlass.
Could Smart Glass be the reason behind the rumored 3GB reserved to "non gaming purposes"?

 

What do you think "display planes" are? Like every modern console have some kind of display planes, it doesn't have anything to do with fillrate anyway.

1 Ghz gpu is unrealistic as well as being probably inefficient with the core voltage difference you would need. It's not a pc gpu with dedicted pcb, heatsink and so on.. It's a SoC. If both have set their chip at 800 Mhz, there s a (good) reason, and AMD knows better for sure.
If you want more raw gflops, you pick a new one in some different gpu series for your SoC, you don't clock that one higher (not +200 Mhz at least). Also the eSRAM clock will be tied to the gpu frequency so it's another concern.

 

There's only about 2GB reserved for the OS, about 1GB is reserved but currently unused, MS can release the memory to devs (unlikely) if they wish, they're keeping it for future OS expansion and features.

 

So is it 3 in total now or 2? Not sure I'm reading your sentence correctly.

 

No, 3GB is reserved (ie devs only have access to 5GB) , but only 2GB is actually being used by the system at the moment, the remaining 1GB is spare.

 

Why do you know this?