Memory Subsystem

With the same underlying CPU and GPU architectures, porting games between the two should be much easier than ever before. Making the situation even better is the fact that both systems ship with 8GB of total system memory and Blu-ray disc support. Game developers can look forward to the same amount of storage per disc, and relatively similar amounts of storage in main memory. That’s the good news.

The bad news is the two wildly different approaches to memory subsystems. Sony’s approach with the PS4 SoC was to use a 256-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface running somewhere around a 5.5GHz datarate, delivering peak memory bandwidth of 176GB/s. That’s roughly the amount of memory bandwidth we’ve come to expect from a $300 GPU, and great news for the console.

Xbox One Motherboard, courtesy Wired

Die size dictates memory interface width, so the 256-bit interface remains but Microsoft chose to go for DDR3 memory instead. A look at Wired’s excellent high-res teardown photo of the motherboard reveals Micron DDR3-2133 DRAM on board (16 x 16-bit DDR3 devices to be exact). A little math gives us 68.3GB/s of bandwidth to system memory.

To make up for the gap, Microsoft added embedded SRAM on die (not eDRAM, less area efficient but lower latency and doesn't need refreshing). All information points to 32MB of 6T-SRAM, or roughly 1.6 billion transistors for this memory. It’s not immediately clear whether or not this is a true cache or software managed memory. I’d hope for the former but it’s quite possible that it isn’t. At 32MB the ESRAM is more than enough for frame buffer storage, indicating that Microsoft expects developers to use it to offload requests from the system memory bus. Game console makers (Microsoft included) have often used large high speed memories to get around memory bandwidth limitations, so this is no different. Although 32MB doesn’t sound like much, if it is indeed used as a cache (with the frame buffer kept in main memory) it’s actually enough to have a substantial hit rate in current workloads (although there’s not much room for growth).

Vgleaks has a wealth of info, likely supplied from game developers with direct access to Xbox One specs, that looks to be very accurate at this point. According to their data, there’s roughly 50GB/s of bandwidth in each direction to the SoC’s embedded SRAM (102GB/s total bandwidth). The combination of the two plus the CPU-GPU connection at 30GB/s is how Microsoft arrives at its 200GB/s bandwidth figure, although in reality that’s not how any of this works. If it’s used as a cache, the embedded SRAM should significantly cut down on GPU memory bandwidth requests which will give the GPU much more bandwidth than the 256-bit DDR3-2133 memory interface would otherwise imply. Depending on how the eSRAM is managed, it’s very possible that the Xbox One could have comparable effective memory bandwidth to the PlayStation 4. If the eSRAM isn’t managed as a cache however, this all gets much more complicated.

Microsoft Xbox One vs. Sony PlayStation 4 Memory Subsystem Comparison
  Xbox 360 Xbox One PlayStation 4
Embedded Memory 10MB eDRAM 32MB eSRAM -
Embedded Memory Bandwidth 32GB/s 102GB/s -
System Memory 512MB 1400MHz GDDR3 8GB 2133MHz DDR3 8GB 5500MHz GDDR5
System Memory Bus 128-bits 256-bits 256-bits
System Memory Bandwidth 22.4 GB/s 68.3 GB/s 176.0 GB/s

There are merits to both approaches. Sony has the most present-day-GPU-centric approach to its memory subsystem: give the GPU a wide and fast GDDR5 interface and call it a day. It’s well understood and simple to manage. The downsides? High speed GDDR5 isn’t the most power efficient, and Sony is now married to a more costly memory technology for the life of the PlayStation 4.

Microsoft’s approach leaves some questions about implementation, and is potentially more complex to deal with depending on that implementation. Microsoft specifically called out its 8GB of memory as being “power friendly”, a nod to the lower power operation of DDR3-2133 compared to 5.5GHz GDDR5 used in the PS4. There are also cost benefits. DDR3 is presently cheaper than GDDR5 and that gap should remain over time (although 2133MHz DDR3 is by no means the cheapest available). The 32MB of embedded SRAM is costly, but SRAM scales well with smaller processes. Microsoft probably figures it can significantly cut down the die area of the eSRAM at 20nm and by 14/16nm it shouldn’t be a problem at all.

Even if Microsoft can’t deliver the same effective memory bandwidth as Sony, it also has fewer GPU execution resources - it’s entirely possible that the Xbox One’s memory bandwidth demands will be inherently lower to begin with.

CPU & GPU Hardware Analyzed Power/Thermals, OS, Kinect & TV
Comments Locked

245 Comments

View All Comments

  • bplewis24 - Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - link

    "the Xbox One is MORE about consuming media THAN it is about playing games."

    FTFY
  • twotwotwo - Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - link

    I hope it's just weak marketing, but what worries me is that the non-gaming extras don't sound all that new or interesting. A compelling, if unlikely, possibility would be to sell an upgrade that sticks Pro-compatible Windows 8 on the non-XBox side. MS is already selling a portable computer; why not sell a desktop/HTPC, too?
  • SymphonyX7 - Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - link

    If this was Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson would be busy saying unpleasant things about the Xbox One right now.

    "MORE SPEED and POWER!!!"

    Oddly enough, I dreamt the night before the Xbox One launch that the new Xbox had 16 GB of DDR4 RAM and shader count equivalent to Tahiti @ 1 Ghz. I hoped that Microsoft with their virtually bottomless pockets could someone improve on the leaked Durango and Orbis specs which didn't bode too well for Durango. I mean, Sony doubled the RAM from 4 to 8 GB. And it's GDDR5 to boot!

    Sigh. One can only dream -- no pun intended.
  • nafhan - Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - link

    Don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, BUT another reason why MS can have slightly lower specs than the PS4: XBO and PS4 are close enough that cross platform games are likely going to target the weaker platform. Sony will be spending money on more powerful hardware that will only be utilized in first party/exclusive games. Side by side comparisons will (in most cases) show minimal - if any - differences.
  • inherendo - Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - link

    Can someone explain to me what bluray dsp is. Curious as to what Anand meant but googling shows no info.
  • Kiste - Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - link

    That alway-on Kinect thing is really creeping the hell out of me.

    This THING is always watching. Always. Unblinking. And it can see you in the dark. It can hear you. It can even measure your heart rate just by looking at you! It has a huge HAL9000 eye staring at you.

    It even LOOKS evil.

    I really don't want this thing... looking at me.
  • tipoo - Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - link

    It's silicon. It's anonymized. I don't get what everyone has a problem with. It's not like this is letting the evil gub'ment spy on you.
  • scottwilkins - Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - link

    One thing I think that the article failed to point out was that even though there is a 33% difference in hardware on GPU, there is NOT a 33% different in performance. As the GPU grows in parts, the gains go up logarithmically, not linear like this article suggests. I'd say there is likely less than a 10% performance gain on the PS4 part. Yet it will use almost twice the power, be much more hotter requiring more loud cooling. Yuck! Add to that the performance of the Windows kernel for processing, something Sony could never be able to match, I'd bet that they are probably almost equal in the end.
  • scottwilkins - Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - link

    I believe I should have said "reverse logarithmically" meaning more parts equal less gain. I'm sure you guys get the point. Sony is betting on tech specs and market power rather than real processing power.
  • tipoo - Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - link

    In the absense of another bottleneck like memory bandwidth, within GPUs adding shader cores is actually a pretty good indicator of performance. And it's not just 12 vs 18 CUs, the PS4 also has double the ROPs and 172GB/s for its entire pool of memory.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now