Some great info in this article that, in my opinion, cuts through a lot of the noise focused on trying to make ESRAM sound like a terrible inclusion.
Real information with real examples. Reading this sounds in stark contrast to a lot of the arguments that were being made around here. 32MB is useless for this or that, or too small for this. The render target argument was thrown around quite heavily actually, but they clearly point out that you can mix and match your render targets quite easily between the two pools, sticking specific things in the right pool to maximize utilization of the ESRAM, and that they've improved on popular compressed render target formats that were used regularly on the 360. See, there's nothing wrong with thinking this is less optimal than Sony's design, which has been acknowledged on more than one occasion, but people that have tried to make it look like Microsoft just slapped this thing together with no idea what the fuck they were doing, or without a clear plan to get the most out of it, if those people even pay attention to some of the facts presented in this article, then they'll see that there's a little bit more to it than that.
Anyway, I like the article, and will add to my favorites, just like I've done with the awesome PS4 articles also written on this same site, many of which are, ironically, written by the same person.
No, you CHOOSE to see the Xbox One's eSRAM as not being a bonus and a crutch, despite the very clear evidence presented of how it is a serious improvement on the more limiting eDRAM on the Xbox 360. Seriously, this is coming straight from the people that worked on this system. They are actually presenting some real facts about the limitations on the Xbox 360 compared to the limitations that have been lifted on the Xbox One, and even then people continue to say "No, they're wrong. We know better." Come on. Anyway, I'm done.