Specifications of Microsoft's upgraded Xbox 360 system

[~misfit~]

A PC gamer? We all make mistakes. ;-)


That's exactly what it stands for.


You're mistaking design for usage.

The term "GDDR" indicates that this particular double data rate memory
was *designed* to be used by a GPU. Should a system use it as system
memory at some point or another doesn't change that.

While it sometimes is not *used* as graphics memory, it still is GDDR
memory.


Your analogy is not correct in two ways:

a) It implies that a modification was made to the memory when there
was none. The memory units *are* GDDR-3 memory. If you remove them
from the system, any expert who looked at them would say they were
GDDR-3 memory units. The modification was in the design of the system
itself, which introduces methods for the CPU to use GDDR-3 memory *as
if* it were plain ol' system memory.

b) Your conclusion is incorrect in that it is merging "application"
and "design" as if they were the same concept. If Honda were to take
an engine designed for an airplane and design a new car that could use
said engine without modifications to it, the engine is still an
airplane engine - it just happens that it is being used as a car
engine. The very fact that the engine itself cannot be used in a car
without modifications being made to either the standard design of a
car's system or to the engine itself confirms that the engine is
indeed *not* classifiable as a car engine.

Consider this analogy:

If there was technology that allowed a human being in need of a heart
transplant to use a cow's heart in place of a human heart, the
aftermath of a successful transplant would not be a human being with a
human heart but a human being with a cow's heart thanks to technology
that allows that heart to work in a human body.


It is absolutely correct to call it graphics memory. It is, in fact,
graphics memory being used as system memory at specific times during
the operation of the console.


I hate to be the bearer of bad news...

Au contraire, I have no problem with being proved wrong as it means that
I've learned something. Today is one of those days.

Thank you for your patience and eloquence. It's a shame the mooks who jumped
in with comments such as 'stupid' and 'obtuse' felt the need to deride
without educating.

Kind regards,

 

[~misfit~]

"Graphics double data rate memory" describes a *type* of memory that
was *designed* to be used in a certain way. If someone figures out a
way to use the memory for a different purpose, this does not change
the *type* and *designed purpose* of the memory.

Heh! S'okay, I got it with your last post.

Cheers,

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* ~misfit~:

Thank you for your patience and eloquence. It's a shame the mooks who jumped
in with comments such as 'stupid' and 'obtuse' felt the need to deride
without educating.

Which is probably just a result of you still insisting that GDDR is not
GDDR if not used for graphics applications even when you have been
corrected by several people. Most people when they have been corrected
get it the first time already.

Benjamin

 

[~misfit~]

* ~misfit~:


Which is probably just a result of you still insisting that GDDR is
not GDDR if not used for graphics applications even when you have been
corrected by several people. Most people when they have been corrected
get it the first time already.

Then they're idiots. Why should I accept the word of some person I've never
met who could have the IQ of a turnip? Just because other turnips say the
same thing doesn't make it right.

However, if someone takes the time to explain it to me then they're doing
far more than the "me too" crowd by proving that they actually know what
they're talking about.

So, by your logic, if you say something and a retard incorrectly corrects
you, you 'get it' and change your mind?

Sad.

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

Au contraire, I have no problem with being proved wrong as it means that
I've learned something. Today is one of those days.

In that case, I'm glad that it turned out the news I bore was good
rather than bad.

Thank you for your patience and eloquence.

It's a refreshing change from trying to hammer a concept into a troll
or fanboi's stubborn head...

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* ~misfit~:

Then they're idiots. Why should I accept the word of some person I've never
met who could have the IQ of a turnip? Just because other turnips say the
same thing doesn't make it right.

Self reflection isn't obviously your strongest skill, right? If one
person tells you something, it could well be that this person is wrong.
However, when several people tell you the same thing then those you so
respectfully regard as "idiots" at least start thinking and consider
that it is very likely that they are wrong and that these several people
are probably right.

However, if someone takes the time to explain it to me then they're doing
far more than the "me too" crowd by proving that they actually know what
they're talking about.

So, by your logic, if you say something and a retard incorrectly corrects
you, you 'get it' and change your mind?

If I get corrected by multiple sources saying basically the same, then
yes, I start considering that in fact I might be wrong. You on the other
side seem to have your head so deep in your arse that despite being
corrected by multiple people several times you tell them that this can't
be, that it must be an "oxymoron" and that this shows a "lack of
technical understanding of the author" of the article (quite big words
from someone who doesn't know the difference between DDR and GDDR), and
then insist that of it's not used for gfx application it can't be GDDR
as defined by the JEDEC (whose specs if you had read and understood
them would have told you already that your are wrong).

And then you really wonder why people consider you as "obtuse".

Benjamin

 

[ksdj1]

* ~misfit~:
 >> Most people when they have been corrected



Self reflection isn't obviously your strongest skill, right? If one
person tells you something, it could well be that this person is wrong.
However, when several people tell you the same thing then those you so
respectfully regard as "idiots" at least start thinking and consider
that it is very likely that they are wrong and that these several people
  are probably right.



If I get corrected by multiple sources saying basically the same, then
yes, I start considering that in fact I might be wrong. You on the other
side seem to have your head so deep in your arse that despite being
corrected by multiple people several times you tell them that this can't
be, that it must be an "oxymoron" and that this shows a "lack of
technical understanding of the author" of the article (quite big words
from someone who doesn't know the difference between DDR and GDDR), and
then insist that of it's not used for gfx application it can't be GDDR
as defined by the JEDEC (whose specs  if you had read and understood
them would have told you already that your are wrong).

And then you really wonder why people consider you as "obtuse".

Benjamin

What does GDDR mean?



ha !! Just kidding.


Guns ,Dudes,Dames & Roses.

It was the 1st name picked by Axel rose , but he then figured out
after finally seeing Flash's face he actually wasn't a chick ,so they
ditched the double D's . and just called themselves Guns-n-Roses.

I googled it because I'm smart... I just can't help it . whatever man..

 

[~misfit~]

* ~misfit~:

Self reflection isn't obviously your strongest skill, right? If one
person tells you something, it could well be that this person is
wrong.

Yet you still said (as you quoted above): "Most people when they have been
corrected get it the first time already."

However, when several people tell you the same thing then
those you so respectfully regard as "idiots"

Comprehension isn't your strongest skill right? I said that you'd have to be
an idiot if you 'get it' when 'corrected' "the first time already". Nowhere
did I refer to anyone else as idiots.

at least start thinking
and consider that it is very likely that they are wrong and that
these several people are probably right.

Indeed, I did consider it. However, it wasn't until The alMIGHTY N took the
time to explain it logically (instead of just stating it as fact) that I
realised that I was indeed wrong. You however just jumped in with insults
and

If I get corrected by multiple sources saying basically the same, then
yes, I start considering that in fact I might be wrong.

That's not what you said, or what I'm alluding to. You said, and I quote yet
again: "Most people when they have been corrected get it the first time
already." My comment above was based on that statement. (That's why it was
written directly under it.) Nothing about multiple sources there, you're
talking about the first time.

You on the
other side seem to have your head so deep in your arse

Interesting phraseology. Does that thought excite you?

that despite
being corrected by multiple people several times you tell them that
this can't be,

These 'multiple people' hadn't shown that they fully comprehended the
concept and did nothing to convince me that they did, other than use
derogatory terms and deride me, rather like you are now. Newsflash: You
can't bully someone into changing their mind or into believing that what you
say is true. This isn't school.

that it must be an "oxymoron" and that this shows a
"lack of technical understanding of the author" of the article (quite
big words from someone who doesn't know the difference between DDR
and GDDR),

See? You're so busy trying to score points and belittle me that you state
something that is patently untrue. Why on god's green earth would I take
anything that you say, on your say-so alone, as truth? You display no
credibility and seem to think that insulting someone proves that you know
more than they do when in fact all it proves is your lack of eloquence and
inability to explain.

In this case you happened to be right although nothing you said yourself
demonstrated that fact or went any way toward convincing me. In fact the
contrary. People who resort to Ad Hominem attacks and talk down to others
are usually poor sources of accurate information.

[snip further drivel]