Xbox One (Durango) Technical hardware investigation

Discussion in 'Console Technology' started by Love_In_Rio, Jan 21, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rangers

    Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    12,686
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    "Sources who've been briefed by Microsoft" doesn't imply the information is old.

    It really cant get a lot clearer there. You have to jump through hoops to see what you're seeing, not vice versa.

    It's also pretty fanciful to suggest "oh, the ESRAM is capable of 2X what we thought, we never knew you could write to it!". Which is why I have some questions about the article altogether.

    But lets say they are true, we should say it has 192 GB/s+68 GB/s =260 GB/s combined BW available to the GPU, all feeding fewer ALU's, so the real discrepancy per ALU is much higher. Wow! XB1 could have a pretty big advantage in a lot of alpha blending scenarios (just as X360 did)
     
  2. Brad Grenz

    Brad Grenz Philosopher & Poet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Oregon
    It does if you don't ignore the "original bandwidth claim" part of the sentence you quoted. I'm sure this is difficult for you, but try not to quote parts of the article that say the opposite of what you think they prove.
     
  3. Rangers

    Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    12,686
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    "remains true"

    The OVERWHELMING evidence of the article (and outside it) points to no downclock. a small, vague part can be, if you try really hard, interpreted to mean something else.

    That's what you're doing, fine, just admit it though.

    For example, they claim "real world" usage of 133 GB/s (only a modest uptick on the original 102 claim). So only 69% efficiency to 192 GB/s. Unless they're dealing in something different than A cross B=192 GB/s, that doesn't sound right to me.

    Would you say PS4 can only utilize .69X176=121 GB/s? Do PC GPU's hold to these kind of efficiencies?

    I know you have disdain for MS engineers, but would they really screw something up that badly?

    If not, then this ESRAM calculations altogether do not appear to be operating under normal "A cross B" rules. The 192 could refer to darn near anything, it's coincidence. The whole article is difficult to parse, but it does address and confirm 800 mhz directly.

    Again, the article is weird. I wish Richard would write an entire follow up tbh.

    Hell, it would be more believable to me that MS was flat lying about 102 GB/s in order to deceive the competition, then "oh whoops, it's actually a lot more".
     
  4. Tap In

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,382
    Likes Received:
    65
    Location:
    Gravity Always Wins

    This is really not even in question based on the article...

     
  5. Rangers

    Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    12,686
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Yeah you have to basically be like "well this part of the article is infallible, but this other part of the same article means nothing"

    At any rate though I dont believe it's been down-clocked, 50 mhz would certainly not be catastrophic unlike the previous rumors, and might even be more than canceled out by the (alleged) "found" bandwidth in real world usage. Something sure made those e3 titles look good.

    260 GB/s feeding only 1.2 TF's could be quite a lot of effective bandwidth, much more than equivalent PC GPU's.
     
  6. aaaaa00

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    23
    133gb/s while alpha blending makes some sense if they figured out some way to overlap reads and writes on the esram.

    To do an alpha blend you need to read pixel a, read pixel b, and write pixel a+b. That's 3 memory ops (two reads one write)

    Suppose you can overlap the write for a+b with the first read for the next pixel. read pixel a, read pixel b, write pixel a+b / read pixel c, read pixel d, write pixel c+d / read pixel e ...

    So you get 133 gb/s vs 100 gb/s while alpha blending. Seems plausible.
     
    #4186 aaaaa00, Jun 29, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2013
  7. Rangers

    Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    12,686
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    How would this explain the alleged 192 GB/s peak though?
     
  8. scently

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    370
    I think this amplification of bandwidth comes from doing framebuffer op similar to the way that writes to the eDRAM in 360 can only hit 256gb/s if you are doing 4xMSAA, so that would mean that if you are not doing MSAA on it the effective bandwidth is 64gb/s. So in the X1's case, it seems that for typical or general use its normal or effective bandwidth is 102gb/s but if you are doing writes with alphablending you have an effective bandwidth of 133gb/s and the 192gb/s effective bandwidth is only if you are doing a particular type of read and or writes operations.

    Anyway this is just my opinion based of what is available in the article and 360 eDRAM operation.
     
  9. Brad Grenz

    Brad Grenz Philosopher & Poet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Oregon
    Yeah, the laws of mathematics haven't change. The same math that gave use 102.4GBps still gives us that figure if you assume no data points have changed. Miraculous!

    Third parties saying they haven't heard about a change is not the same as incontrovertible proof that nothing has changed. Not when the math is giving us reasons to believe it has.
     
  10. SenjutsuSage

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    2
    May not count for much, but I've heard directly from a first party, and not an insignificant one, that there hasn't been any change to the clocks, and that they've yet to even hear anything of the sort, outside of what's been popping up on game forums, and by extension, gaming news sites. They are still targeting the specs as released by vgleaks.

    I've said it before, but if this person hasn't heard anything about a potential downclock, then that's a pretty scary thought.
     
  11. Rangers

    Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    12,686
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    You just have conflicting math, and choose which you think is right.

    All the evidence favors 800 mhz/second, but you can choose to believe the math the evidence doesn't favor (actually it is more like you are choosing to believe a specific application of math, that may not apply, eg the referenced 192GB/s likely is not derived from clock X bytes).

    Math also says the clock is 800 (800X128=102.4, "remains true"). Choose which text is correct.

    Also you didn't address my other issues (efficiency). Most likely because you agree with them in truth.

    Edit: after reading pages of prior comments on the article in this thread, plus my own very limited knowledge, the article borders on illogical. Mr Leadbetter needs to write a follow up if possible, explaining it better.

    BTW, I finally got around to looking up "Albert Panello"s comments on Neogaf and...yikes (if it's really him, and it certainly seems to be from his post history).
     
  12. Brad Grenz

    Brad Grenz Philosopher & Poet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Oregon
    Where do you see a conflict in my math?

    Can you point to it?

    Cause I don't believe you can.

    Yes, all the evidence supports your position, as long as you exclude counter evidence and twist other evidence so that it means what you want it to mean and not what it actually says or simply don't understand how English works.

    The problem is the 88% percent improvement figure makes very little sense, and I would wager a guess that it's a number Richard derived assuming 800Mhz was still true and was not one supplied to him by his new insider source.

    So what is more likely, that an 800Mhz memory interface can both read and write on 7 out of every 8 clock cycles by virtue of some ludicrous, unexplained hardware quirk to produce the 192GB/sec figure, or it's simply the product of doubling the bandwidth of a 750Mhz part?
     
  13. scently

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    370
    Who is he and what did he say?
     
  14. Rangers

    Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    12,686
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    The conflicting math is 128X800=102.4, and 750X128X2=192.

    One points at 800, one 750, both are in the article as facts. One (128X800) the derivation is outlined clearly, the other (192) it is not stated how it is derived.
     
  15. Brad Grenz

    Brad Grenz Philosopher & Poet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Oregon
    Yeah, that's been my point all along. 128*800=102.4 was the original assumed bandwidth figure. The new rumor being reported suggests that figure ignores the ability to read and write at the same time doubling the theoretical peak. That should give us 128*800*2=204.8, but instead we are presented with the figure 192GB/s. Richard assumes the base clock hasn't changed and makes a very strained argument about an 88% efficiency improvement through some undisclosed voodoo. The much simpler answer is that 128*750*2=192 and that the "upgrade" that is being leaked here actually implies a downgrade in the final clock speed, even if that hasn't been disclosed to third party developers yet.
     
  16. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    43,576
    Likes Received:
    16,033
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    If the bus was bidirectional and capable of 204.8 GB/s, we'd have heard it. That would have been the BW figure in the tech doc leaks, just as every BW figure is labelled clearly so devs know what they have to work with.

    http://www.vgleaks.com/durango-memory-system-overview/

    Audio/camera bus = 9 GB/s Read, 9 GB/s Write, clearly labelled
    DDR3 = 68 GB/s Read and Write, clearly labelled
    ESRAM = 102 GB/s Read and Write, clearly labelled

    What you're suggesting is in reality the ESRAM BW was 102 GB/s Read, 102 GB/s Write, but MS didn't tell anyone this or label their tech documents as such!

    The 192 GB/s figure is also not a clear bidirectional BW figure, otherwise there wouldn't be any confusion about what the BW rate is. It wouldn't be reported "The new bus is 192 GB/s but for some reason we only get 133 GB/s real use from it in general use."

    I agree that the voodoo of the memory is a mystery, but there's no way the original bus was capable of 204.8 GB/s communication yet devs weren't told. Neither explanation works!
     
  17. arijoytunir

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    12
  18. scently

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    370
  19. Cjail

    Cjail Fool
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,027
    Likes Received:
    210
    DF also says:
    "No, people are suggesting that GPU has been downclocked to 750MHz, but it hasn't. 88% more is combining read/write at same time"

    So that 88% increase is either adding BW or [insert believable explanation here]
     
    #4199 Cjail, Jun 29, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2013
  20. arijoytunir

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    12
    so where is this 88% increase coming from if the esram peak is 102gb/s ? from ddr3?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...