Xbox360 vs PS3: Fair and Balanced

[Jeff]

Here's an unbiased comparison from someone who loves his 720P capable Xbox and cant believe some of the ridiculous hype coming out of both camps such as Sony's simply absurd 2 Trilliion flops or Microsofts hilarious bandwidth claims.

Hardware threads
Xbox360: 4.5 (each pair of threads compete for execution resources)
PS3: 8.5 (one double threaded core + 7 single threaded cores)

CPU Floating point (32 bit) based on IBM test data
Xbox360: 76.8 Billion/sec
PS3: 204.8 Billion/sec

CPU Integer (32 bit) based on IBM test data
Xbox360: 76.8 Billion/sec
PS3: 115.2 Billion/sec

CPU cache
Xbox360: 1024kb
PS3: 2,304kb

System bandwidth:
Xbox360: 22.4 GB/s
PS3: 48 GB/s

Main memory efficiency ([cycles-latency]/cycles)
Xbox360: 79% (700mhz GDDR3)
PS3: 94% (3,200Mhz XDR)

GPU Programmable Floating Point Operations
Xbox360: 240 Billion/sec
PS3: 308 Billion/sec

So its clear where the power advantage lies.

Now there have been repeated claims on this forum that the Xbox360 has some magical 256GB/s bandwidth that can be added to system memory bandwidth. This is just plain ridiculous.

1) The real bandwidth from the GPU to the eDRAM daughter card is 32GB/s.

2) The data traveling via the 32GB/s is only partially compressed (Z-data) but without color compression SSAA is out of the question. This means Xbox360 games are stuck with the inferior MSAA method of anti-aliasing which is really a sort of glorified hack as far as FSAA goes.

3) The 256GB/s number frequently quoted is internal to the eDRAM unit does not in any way help out with system bandwidth. If you add that to the system RAM you might as well add the 307GB/s of the CELL (that connects all the different processors) to the PS3 system bandwidth number. Internal bandwidth is internal and only marketing morons would add it to system bandwidth. System bandwidth is the speed at which the system can access memory and that is 22.4GB/s for the Xbox360 and 48GB/s for the PS3.

4) The 10MB eDRAM frame-buffer of the Xbox360 is too small to contain a single 720P frame with even 2x MSAA, let alone 4x MSAA. This is why the release titles of the Xbox360 render at less than 720P and simple stretch it to fit 720P TVs. PGR3, for example, renders at what would approximately be 600P).

5) Rendering at true HD is a nightmare for developers. Because of the small frame-buffer, in order to render at 720P with 2x or 4x AA the developers must use a process called "tiling", which requires each frame to be rendered in little pieces (tiles), then each tile is saved to main memory, then all the tiles are stitched together to form the full frame. On the Xbox360, this leads to a huge performance hit which under ideal circumstances is about 5% hit on the GPU and 20% on the system as a whole. This is probably why most developers have decided to simply render at non-HD resolutions (like PGR3) and stretch the frame to fit HD screens (like the PS2 does with GT4 1080i) instead of using tiling and actually rendering at true HD.

6) As for anyone having doubts about the bandwidth of the PS3, they should consider that the original Xbox has only 6.4GB/s of total memory and had no problem rendering at 720P. Do they seriously think the PS3 with 48GB/s of total bandwidth will have the slightest problem rendering at 720P? Did they forget the GPU in the PS3 is designed by the same people who designed the one in the original Xbox? Give me a break!

Don't get me wrong. The Xbox360 is a fine machine as was my Xbox but in terms of hardware capability its not really in the same class as the PS3. However I strongly believe that software and gameplay that will determine the winner, not hardware, so this means that unless PS3 can come up with something to compete with Halo3, DOA4, etc, its going to have some problems.

[ChuckSteak0331]

wow. welcome to the Late Club. The only way to get the hard facts is to talk directly to the people that make the system. Cause according to your numbers, they are way off to BOTH web page numbers. (xbox and sony's webpage) so screw that, just enjoy the system.

[Jeff]

wow. welcome to the Late Club. The only way to get the hard facts is to talk directly to the people that make the system. Cause according to your numbers, they are way off to BOTH web page numbers. (xbox and sony's webpage) so screw that, just enjoy the system.

The only way to get meaningless marketing hype is by talking to Sony and Microsoft directly.

[Leostorm]

Hi i was thinking that both systems have their difference in power. Yes the Playstation 3 is more powerful than the xbox 360 but for the game makers is going to be more difficult to make games for it. While the x-box 360 is more simple to make games. One other advantage that the Playstation 3 has over the Xbox-360 is the Blu-ray which can hold more data and can display more thanks to the Nvidia RSX GPU processor. Either way am getting both systems because of exclusives games that will appear for each system. One more thing the X-box 360 looks fantastic way to go Microsoft.

[FordGTGuy]

The only way to get meaningless marketing hype is by talking to Sony and Microsoft directly.

untrue Sony is the one who always overhypes and MS gives what they said they would unless something happens to stop it.

*warning made by experts* read this "warning made by experts*

http://www.majornelson.com/2005/05/20/xbox-360-vs-ps3-part-1-of-4

[Leostorm]

untrue Sony is the one who always overhypes and MS gives what they said they would unless something happens to stop it.

*warning made by experts* read this "warning made by experts*

http://www.majornelson.com/2005/05/20/xbox-360-vs-ps3-part-1-of-4
I appreciate the link it really explains the facts. Thanks again...

[Zrolimit]

Did they forget the GPU in the PS3 is designed by the same people who designed the one in the original Xbox? Give me a break!


I think we all remember that NVidia did the GPU for the XBOX and that later their company was dropped due to the fact that they had agreed with Sony to design their next generation GPU for the PS3. NVidia makes great products and all, but when compared to the performance and reliabilty of ATI's newer generation chipsets, the NVidia products have been met with skepticism, plaguing problems (heat and power required to use) and performance specs (lower framerates at higher resolutions when compared to ATI). Of course I'm talking from a PC perspective and the new GPU chipsets in the XBOX 360 and PS3 are on a different level. I can only hope that NVidia has taken a different step in designing their products and finally have something that can outperform what ATI has done for the 360. But I wouldn't put my money on it.

[bentout]

No offense - none of those numbers mean S@&t! Look at the Nintendo DS and the PSP. The PSP is far and away more powerful, has many more media features, and superior graphics - but, the DS is still out selling the PSP two to one!

The bottom line is great games and online service!

Most users who read those numbers have no idea what they mean nor how they are applied! Unless you are a programmer/engineer that has in depth knowledge of both processors, developing and writing code for multi core die, and extensive experience with both SDKs what your stating is only opinion and speculation.

It's funny how everyone wants to say which machine has more horse power when most developers have already expressed that the potential of both systems will be explored for the next several years! Not to mention the hardware is useless unless the developer knows how to use it!

Everyone just needs to relax and realize that both systems are great achivements in technology and gaming. In the end we the gamers benefit and are in a win win situation!!!

[duvalcounty1690]

No offense - none of those numbers mean S@&t! Look at the Nintendo DS and the PSP. The PSP is far and away more powerful, has many more media features, and superior graphics - but, the DS is still out selling the PSP two to one!

The bottom line is great games and online service!

Most users who read those numbers have no idea what they mean nor how they are applied! Unless you are a programmer/engineer that has in depth knowledge of both processors, developing and writing code for multi core die, and extensive experience with both SDKs what your stating is only opinion and speculation.

It's funny how every wants to state which machine has more horse power when most developers have already stated that the potential of both systems will be explored for the next several years! Not to mention the hardware is useless unless the developer knows how to use it!

Everyone just needs to relax and realize that both systems are great achivements in technology and gaming. In the end we the gamers benefit and are in a win win situation!!!
Very perfect way to put it.Like your point makes alot of sense.

[bentout]

Thanks for the Kudos

[stuntman101]

Here's an unbiased comparison from someone who loves his 720P capable Xbox and cant believe some of the ridiculous hype coming out of both camps such as Sony's simply absurd 2 Trilliion flops or Microsofts hilarious bandwidth claims.

Hardware threads
Xbox360: 4.5 (each pair of threads compete for execution resources)
PS3: 8.5 (one double threaded core + 7 single threaded cores)

CPU Floating point (32 bit) based on IBM test data
Xbox360: 76.8 Billion/sec
PS3: 204.8 Billion/sec

CPU Integer (32 bit) based on IBM test data
Xbox360: 76.8 Billion/sec
PS3: 115.2 Billion/sec

CPU cache
Xbox360: 1024kb
PS3: 2,304kb

System bandwidth:
Xbox360: 22.4 GB/s
PS3: 48 GB/s

Main memory efficiency ([cycles-latency]/cycles)
Xbox360: 79% (700mhz GDDR3)
PS3: 94% (3,200Mhz XDR)

GPU Programmable Floating Point Operations
Xbox360: 240 Billion/sec
PS3: 308 Billion/sec

So its clear where the power advantage lies.

Now there have been repeated claims on this forum that the Xbox360 has some magical 256GB/s bandwidth that can be added to system memory bandwidth. This is just plain ridiculous.

1) The real bandwidth from the GPU to the eDRAM daughter card is 32GB/s.

2) The data traveling via the 32GB/s is only partially compressed (Z-data) but without color compression SSAA is out of the question. This means Xbox360 games are stuck with the inferior MSAA method of anti-aliasing which is really a sort of glorified hack as far as FSAA goes.

3) The 256GB/s number frequently quoted is internal to the eDRAM unit does not in any way help out with system bandwidth. If you add that to the system RAM you might as well add the 307GB/s of the CELL (that connects all the different processors) to the PS3 system bandwidth number. Internal bandwidth is internal and only marketing morons would add it to system bandwidth. System bandwidth is the speed at which the system can access memory and that is 22.4GB/s for the Xbox360 and 48GB/s for the PS3.

4) The 10MB eDRAM frame-buffer of the Xbox360 is too small to contain a single 720P frame with even 2x MSAA, let alone 4x MSAA. This is why the release titles of the Xbox360 render at less than 720P and simple stretch it to fit 720P TVs. PGR3, for example, renders at what would approximately be 600P).

5) Rendering at true HD is a nightmare for developers. Because of the small frame-buffer, in order to render at 720P with 2x or 4x AA the developers must use a process called "tiling", which requires each frame to be rendered in little pieces (tiles), then each tile is saved to main memory, then all the tiles are stitched together to form the full frame. On the Xbox360, this leads to a huge performance hit which under ideal circumstances is about 5% hit on the GPU and 20% on the system as a whole. This is probably why most developers have decided to simply render at non-HD resolutions (like PGR3) and stretch the frame to fit HD screens (like the PS2 does with GT4 1080i) instead of using tiling and actually rendering at true HD.

6) As for anyone having doubts about the bandwidth of the PS3, they should consider that the original Xbox has only 6.4GB/s of total memory and had no problem rendering at 720P. Do they seriously think the PS3 with 48GB/s of total bandwidth will have the slightest problem rendering at 720P? Did they forget the GPU in the PS3 is designed by the same people who designed the one in the original Xbox? Give me a break!

Don't get me wrong. The Xbox360 is a fine machine as was my Xbox but in terms of hardware capability its not really in the same class as the PS3. However I strongly believe that software and gameplay that will determine the winner, not hardware, so this means that unless PS3 can come up with something to compete with Halo3, DOA4, etc, its going to have some problems.
WOW DUDE.. thats harsh.. why come to an XBOX FORUM.. and pratically diss the 360.. what you have posted is fake... you must be a sony fanboy

[three-sixty]

Fanboys fanboys wat u gunna do, wat u gunna do, when they come for u

[DeadOneWalking]

Ok, by all practical means the PS3 will be more powerful. Just slightly to the 360. The problem is that the Cell processor will be too difficult to program for. The CPU design is extremely tuned for specific utilization code. Therefore, it's less appealing to developers. The 360 on the other hand, even with only having 3 cores, is much easier to program for and has some major kick with just one core! That makes it attractive to developers on multiple levels, the big shots (Sega and EA for example) and the smaller people who make arcade games.
In the end, I think the 360 will win. But, if the PS3 has enough fellowship, it can easily stay in the race. The only way to really know is to wait for it to be released later this year.

How’s that for fair!

[Gamerkid360]

No offense - none of those numbers mean S@&t! Look at the Nintendo DS and the PSP. The PSP is far and away more powerful, has many more media features, and superior graphics - but, the DS is still out selling the PSP two to one!

The bottom line is great games and online service!

Most users who read those numbers have no idea what they mean nor how they are applied! Unless you are a programmer/engineer that has in depth knowledge of both processors, developing and writing code for multi core die, and extensive experience with both SDKs what your stating is only opinion and speculation.

It's funny how everyone wants to say which machine has more horse power when most developers have already expressed that the potential of both systems will be explored for the next several years! Not to mention the hardware is useless unless the developer knows how to use it!

Everyone just needs to relax and realize that both systems are great achivements in technology and gaming. In the end we the gamers benefit and are in a win win situation!!!


Very well put, it is easier to understand. And it's true......

[ezekillu]

numbers blumberz!!! look at gears of war!!! ill wait ,but lets see sony beat that!!!!!!!

[Shotty]

Wow the sony fanboys have managed to find this site and post some pathetic info so they can feel some superiority. Those facts are bull. I remember reading somewhere that for the other system calculations, which is the teraflop value, microsoft was like 1Teraflop for the cpu while sony posted a value of 2 Teraflops for the ps3 which was later discoved that sony actually posted total calculations of the cpu and gpu combined which was why that value was higher. These sony fanboys have no logic and believe every thing uncle ken tells them. The reason why 360 has less cache that the ps3 is because the 360 uses embedded memory (a.k.a smart memory) which takes in most of the video data and performs the Anti-aliaisng and the others tricks. While the the ps3 some of the spe have to be used for anti-aliasing therefore taking a performance hit.

[Grindstone]

And yet, the screen shots we have seen thus far convince us otherwise to the superiority of the PS3. All those higher numbers are not adding up to improved games. True, 8 more months until the launch. So we shall see.

I feel these numbers generated by Jeff are misleading as well. Unfortunately, I am not the best person to detract from them...

[General Tso]

Where are the Nintendo fanboys. You never hear them argue. Seems like Sony fans need an outlet to vent their frustration. In their narrow minds, they never thought the 360 could be so good. But I have bad news for the 360 bashers, the best is yet to come. For example Gears of War, Blue Dragon, Oblivion, and lets not forget some game called Halo 3.

[psuedohippy]

WOW, those were a bunch of posts that I just dont understand. I guess that is why I like console gameing and not computer gaming as much.

What I do understand is that I am going to go home tonight and play more GR:AW and 2k6 and FN3 and that sony dork is gonna go home and read about more PS3 delays lol. Dont get me wrong, I will probably have the PS3 also but I sure cant have it right now.

[DeathDealer]

man i keep forgetting how Microsoft showed what they had let people play there demos and ran it on the real system not a empty box with CGI movies running off a computer, talk to me when they let us play the system..

[booger2000]

well, beyond the numbers, i think there are other elements of the system that are a bit overrated. the first thing that pops into my head is the blu-ray drive. i think it's great that sony has the ambition to incorporate a brand new technology into their optical drive, but their innovations aren't always practical.

so all games are going to in blu-ray format eh? while some people may regard this decision to be for the purpose of defining next gen gaming, the real reason, first and foremost, is to implement copy protection. granted, i can regard the playback of blu-ray movies to be "next-gen," but i'm not saying that this has any relevance to next gen gaming (next-gen movie watching, if you will..).

it's a bit of a double-edged sword. you've got this bleeding edge technology that can enable you to do more, but on the other hand, it's gonna cost you more to do it. or, because you have a certain innovation, now you'll be forced to utilize this innovative feature, all the time. i can see that this could quickly become, in a sense of irony, simply a limitation. it'll be easier, in fact, to NOT use it all the time. i'd be willing to say that plenty of studios simply don't have the 20 million+ budget to maximize the capacity of blu-ray. furthermore, i don't think it's any coincidence that there is a multitude of cross-platform games being announced. sure, sony will have its treasure chest of exclusives, but these days, whenever you see a next-gen title announced, sure enough its for both ps3 and 360. there isn't gonna be a 5-7GB version of FNR3 for 360 as well as a 50GB version of FNR3 for ps3. that sort of crap simply isn't gonna happen. sadly, it's the consumer that has to pay for a blu-ray game that's perhaps 15% more expensive, but only 15% of the disc's capacity. so why not save the customer some hard earned cash and put it on dvd then? copy protection. thanks a lot sony. i'd rather pay for the cheaper dvd version of the exact same game.

oh, as for the idea of ps3 being a trojan horse for blu-ray household dominance..
blu-ray, honestly, is a great format (that is, if we take price out of the equation). technically, it IS superior (but not as pratical or versatile) to hd-dvd. but, i can't help but think it's still a bit of an enthusiast format. if more than 80% of the american public doesn't even own an hdtv, then they surely are not ready for a mainstream adoption of blu-ray. we don't even need to go as far back as beta-max to draw parallels with blu-ray. look at sacd. it sounds absolutely great, and you can pick up a basic sacd player for around 200 bucks. but, it didn't really go anywhere, except in the niche market of the audiophile community. another example could even be UMD. let's just say that sony's marketing dept decided that the public needs to have the convenience of movies on the go in a very compact package. they could've said, "the psp is not a gaming handheld...it's a portable entertainment center.." (sound familiar?). they could've pushed umd as hard as they're pushing blu-ray, but it wouldn't have changed the failure of the format as we are seeing today. people just don't care about it.

yes, the ps3 is a trojan horse for blu-ray, but who's to say that people are even going to use that functionality? are we ready to shell out 40 bucks for a movie? (confirmed). i sure as hell am not. ..although i have an HDTV, i don't (or any of us) even own a 1080p tv, so why should i pay more for blu-ray movies when it'll give guys like me the same exact fidelity of the more affordable hd-dvd? in any case, i think i'll even be sticking to dvd for quite some time. that is a definite reality for the majority of us.

sony, tell me why i need this expensive technology for anything other than your copy protection initiative. it's not gonna revolutionize the way we play games or watch movies. it's only gonna give you more revenue. beyond that, trying to revolutionize the way people do things doesn't always become adopted by the masses; sometimes they don't want or need it. a $5000 blue laser toilet could revolutionize the way i take a dump...but, i'd pass on it.

i know this thread started with spec. comparisons, so i apologize for ranting so much off topic, just needed to get this off my chest. again, my apologies.

[taylor410]

xbox 360 and Play Station 3..... 360/3=120. Therefore, by my reasoning the 360 is 120 times gooder. Yes, i said gooder.

However, no matter what the playstation has on the 360 we have better, namely Halo 3, the holy grail of all games. Bungie will make this game amazing.

[Grindstone]

Also, we still have no idea the Blu-ray reading speed. So despite having a Blu-ray drive, if it is anything less than 2X, it'll be slower than the DVD-9 drive in the 360. In other words, sure, you have more storage, but at a loading cost to the gamer. I suppose that is a good time to get up and get a snack or use the restroom. Same could be said of swapping discs I guess.

Then there is Blutooth controllers... meh, another day I suppose.

[booger2000]

oh man, bluetooth controllers...one word. WHY?

and seven of them? i believe that is the physical limit of bluetooth technology. but, to consider sony was like "we should use bluetooth so that we can support SEVEN controllers" is absurd. why would you need seven?
if it's not for that reason, then i just don't understand why they went with bluetooth as opposed to anything else. maybe it just sounds sophisticated or something...maybe it's supposed to give the wow factor to the prospective consumer.

indeed, for another day...


EDIT:
Also, we still have no idea the Blu-ray reading speed. So despite having a Blu-ray drive, if it is anything less than 2X, it'll be slower than the DVD-9 drive in the 360. In other words, sure, you have more storage, but at a loading cost to the gamer.

Considering that blu-ray will launch in May, it is entirely plausible that the PS3 will ship with a 1X drive. For one, if 2X drives are available at that time, then it should be more cost effective to utilize a 1X drive. I just can't imagine how they can eat the cost of the Cell and a 2X drive. Perhaps this is why they have opted to include the HDD as standard...because the console will require the performance boost a HDD can offer. Otherwise it may be too slow in loading data. Taking the average between the min. and max 12X DVD transfer speeds, we get roughly 12 megabytes/sec. compared to 1X blu-ray's constant transfer rate of about 4.5 megabytes/sec. So, data that DVD would load in 10 sec. would take blu-ray about 30 sec. Ouch. They might actually NEED that HDD. Perhaps that was taken into account when deciding on the HDD to be standard in every PS3.

Also, don't let any ignorant Sony fanboy tell you that blu-ray is faster by giving you the whole 36.5 megabit/sec. vs. 11 megabit/sec. crap. 11 megabit/sec. is the transfer rate for 1X DVD. I've seen that argument used so many times, and it's just plain pathetic.

[Ecliptic]

Wow. very good points booger2000.

[Don_Rico]

Lol, seven players on splitscreen...

I can barely stand two players on splitscreen...

[booger2000]

it's funny how they went from TWO controller ports on PS2 to SEVEN controllers on PS3. Maybe they haven't figured out yet that FOUR is the sweet spot.

[Shotty]

Here is a fact from none other that Shotty:
Xbox 360 is 120 times better than ps3 point blank, it has been proven by xbox guys. PS3 is like dividing by 0, it doesnt exist.

[Grindstone]

Shotty, I know that pot is legal in Canada, but you need to lay off it man, its begining to affect you in ways that may be permanent.

[Daboy]

well lets see if this helps, I found specs from official xbox 360 site and ps3 portal hear are the specs.

-------------------PS3------------------
CPU
Cell Processor
PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB L2 cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE

* 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS
GPU
RSX @550MHz
1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
Sound

Memory
256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

-------------------Xbox360------------------
CPU
Three symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each
Two hardware threads per core; six hardware threads total
VMX-128 vector unit per core; three total
128 VMX-128 registers per hardware thread
1 MB L2 cache
GPU
500MHz processor
10 MB of embedded DRAM
48-way parallel floating-point dynamically scheduled shader pipelines
Unified shader architecture
Memory
512 MB of GDDR3 RAM
700 MHz of DDR
Unified memory architecture
thats that

[n2pizza]

Arkile your really ***

[EbonySeraphim]

It's funny how this post is actually far more factual than the other article I recently posted in (the only reason I signed up for this forum). That article was a clear bashing of the PS3's bandwidth and got many praises for have technical merit - that it didn't have. This one has more technical merit and is more accurate(though still very off) and is labeled as a complete fake. I might as well make better use of my registration and point out some issues with this thread too:

Hardware threads:
Err, I'm not sure how the XBox360 comes out to only 4.5 threads. Each of the XBox360 cores supports 2 hardware threads, and with 3 cores, the number goes up to 6. I'm pretty sure most of the general purpose execution hardware is duplicated so these threads are not competing much for execution resources. What is shared is the VMX-128 execution unit. Some sources have this wrong on the internet, but the exact nature of it is that there are two sets of 128 128-bit VMX registers, but only one execution unit.

Anyways, the Ps3 has a similar PPE core that supports two threads in the same way each XBox360 core does (separate pipelines with duplicated hardware), and has a single VMX-128 execution unit. It does not however have 2 VMX-128 register files, and the one it has, only has 32 128-bit registers, not 128 registers. The SPEs are single threaded for vector/SIMD execution, but have a separate pipeline for load/store and are dual-issue processors. It isn't an entirely separate thread, but while executing, the SPEs can keep memory flowing without stalling the execution pipeline. It's still primarily documented as single threaded though.

Hard fact: XBox360 6 hardware threads. Playstation 3 - 9 hardware threads.

System bandwidth:
I don't feel like looking this up, but I'm pretty sure those numbers are skewed. 22.4GB/s represents the maximum bandwidth any component can pull out of the main memory on the XBox360, which is the shared 512MBs of GDDR3 RAM. The 48GB/s is the figure adding the RSX's bandwidth to it's 256 GDDR3 video memory, with the bandwidth the Cell can read from it's 256 XDR main memory. Since they are on separate buses, this is a fair assessment to do as both the CPU and GPU will be accessing RAM simultaneously, and in the XBox360 setup, this will lead to contention in some cases - and the graphics chip would likely win over the CPU.

What is wrong is the label of "system bandwidth" as such a thing really needs to be represented by a visual diagram. What you should be looking at it the speed and bottlenecks any components may likely have with whatever it is trying to access.

Main memory efficiency:
I have no clue where the original poster's numbers and calculations are coming from. I think it is trying to illustrate the lower latency of XDR over GDDR3. That is a completely true fact as you'll find that

Most of the bandwidth arguements handed to the IGN article with Microsoft's assessment are true with a few broken areas. 10MBs is plenty of room to store a 720p buffer at 32bpp. This size framebuffer only comes out to 3.5MBs in memory. FSAA requires use of increasing the resolution by a multiplier. So 2xFSAA is possible, or 4xMSAA (just using bandwidth) are also possible without coming up with any tiling methods for rendering. Generally the contrains on this eDRAM are things that may increase the frame buffer size to more than 10MBs. If the entire frame buffer cannot fit there, then it has to be broken up and that logic may not be possible on the logic chip associated with this RAM.