intel quad core vs CELL

Intel bya mile.

The people are saying core 2 quad because its a good CPU but do any of us truly have enough knowledge of both of them to actually compare?:question:

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Intel bya mile.

600pc

[QUOTE="600pc"][QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Intel bya mile.

kidcool189

They can't be compared. Cell is more powerful than a Q8200, but is limited by a very low amount of memory (512kb if memory serve me right). This make the cell a better way to use seti@home, or any othe cpu-intensive program, but in video games the Q8200 would win, mainly because the graphic card that come with a pc these days are a lot better than the one in a ps3. Video card >cpu for gaming, that why Sony failed by investing into a strong cpu, nothing will use the full power of the cell this gen, the gpu will alway bottleneck it.

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Intel bya mile.

600pc

Teh Cell cannot. :P

They can't be compared. Cell is more powerful than a Q8200, but is limited by a very low amount of memory (512kb if memory serve me right). This make the cell a better way to use seti@home, or any othe cpu-intensive program, but in video games the Q8200 would win, mainly because the graphic card that come with a pc these days are a lot better than the one in a ps3. Video card >cpu for gaming, that why Sony failed by investing into a strong cpu.Franko_3

[QUOTE="kidcool189"][QUOTE="600pc"] PROVE IT !!!! 600pc

Considering Intel CPU's are based off of X86 architecture whereas the Cell is not i personaly wouldnt be able to provide an accurate performance analysis. The only logical explanation as to why an Intel based quad core CPU is better because the Cell is 2+ years old inside the PS3, and at its launch was still inferior to most CPU's at the time. Look at the GPU's of the PS3, and Xbox360 they are incredibly outdated compared to any PC videocard. I could only imagine a Q9550 would annhilate the Cell in gaming applications considering the cell cannot even run todays most advanced game Crysis. Unless of course Crytek ported it over with minimum settings.

[QUOTE="600pc"][QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Intel bya mile.

kidcool189

intel wins of course, it's not even close

[QUOTE="600pc"][QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Intel bya mile.

ZuluEcho14

Teh Cell cannot. :P

[QUOTE="ZuluEcho14"]

[QUOTE="600pc"] PROVE IT !!!! 600pc

Teh Cell cannot. :P

There's almost no meaningful way to compare the two since they have completely different aims, design philophies, and costs.

[QUOTE="600pc"][QUOTE="kidcool189"] you prove otherwiseFizzman

Considering Intel CPU's are based off of X86 architecture whereas the Cell is not i personaly wouldnt be able to provide an accurate performance analysis. The only logical explanation as to whyan Intel based quad core CPU is betterbecause the Cell is 2+ years old inside the PS3, and at its launch was still inferior to most CPU's at the time. Look at the GPU's of the PS3, and Xbox360 they are incredibly outdated compared to any PC videocard. I could only imagine a Q9550 would annhilate the Cell in gaming applications considering the cell cannot even run todays most advanced game Crysis. Unless of course Crytek ported it over with minimum settings.

[QUOTE="kidcool189"][QUOTE="600pc"] PROVE IT !!!! 600pc

This is a silly comparison, the Intel quad is a traditional multicore processor while Cell is a recent none standard design built for high floating point performance.

Cell is optimized to be good at work traditional general purpose processors struggle at, but the traditional processor would kick Cells arse in other work.

[QUOTE="600pc"][QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Intel bya mile.

ZuluEcho14

Teh Cell cannot. :P

The cell can. The bottleneck is the memory. You are basically comparing memory and gpu from a computer to the PS3. Hell, if my PS3 had 4 GB of memory and 260 GTX, I can play Crysis too.

I read somewhere that the cell is more powerful than the most powerful quad core cpu's. It's a drastically different architecture though not necessarily readily accepted as of yet. The cell is more powerful than a quad core cpu though at straight number crunching. In the real world that's another story. 1 cell processor>1 straight line quad core however. It's like an engine man. Is a straight like 6 cylinder more power than a v-6? But the cell was compared pretty readily to quad core cpu's when it was released and that is the probably the closest comparion right now as far as pure powah.

See what I meant? No one has enough accurate knowledge of both processors therefore any answer given here without backup is useless. I have a quad core comp and a PS3 but still cant compare CPU alone lol. You need a hardware computer technician that knows a lot to explain this.

I read somewhere that the cell is more powerful than the most powerful quad core cpu's. It's a drastically different architecture though not necessarily readily accepted as of yet. The cell is more powerful than a quad core cpu though at straight number crunching. In the real world that's another story. 1 cell processor>1 straight line quad core however. It's like an engine man. Is a straight like 6 cylinder more power than a v-6? But the cell was compared pretty readily to quad core cpu's when it was released and that is the probably the closest comparion right now as far as pure powah.

Walker34

Just curious i have never seen an analysis between Quad Core based CPU's and the Cell would you happen to have a link or two so that i could see. Not flaming im just genuinely curious to see how they stack up.

And the silly/ignorant comments begin :x

Pretty much anyone who says A CPU > Y CPU in this thread doesn't know what they are talking about.

And the silly/ignorant comments begin :x

Pretty much anyone who says A CPU > Y CPU in this thread doesn't know what they are talking about.

AnnoyedDragon

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

I read somewhere that the cell is more powerful than the most powerful quad core cpu's. It's a drastically different architecture though not necessarily readily accepted as of yet. The cell is more powerful than a quad core cpu though at straight number crunching. In the real world that's another story. 1 cell processor>1 straight line quad core however. It's like an engine man. Is a straight like 6 cylinder more power than a v-6? But the cell was compared pretty readily to quad core cpu's when it was released and that is the probably the closest comparion right now as far as pure powah.

Fizzman

Just curious i have never seen an analysis between Quad Core based CPU's and the Cell would you happen to have a link or two so that i could see. Not flaming im just genuinely curious to see how they stack up.

I've been reading a bunch. Ill see what i can find. I don't get into all the technical crap too much either although i have CS degree.

But my understanding is 1 core and 7 spu's is > quad core pc in straight number crunching scenarios though. It's actually more powerful because of its architecture and the way things are allocated. The difference is that will not translate into the real world right nwo because operating systems and branching is not set up to handle the cell as of yet. The software hasn't caught up. It may never because it's a war and intel and microsoft have their own plans on what they think is better right now and what they can sell.

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

I read somewhere that the cell is more powerful than the most powerful quad core cpu's. It's a drastically different architecture though not necessarily readily accepted as of yet. The cell is more powerful than a quad core cpu though at straight number crunching. In the real world that's another story. 1 cell processor>1 straight line quad core however. It's like an engine man. Is a straight like 6 cylinder more power than a v-6? But the cell was compared pretty readily to quad core cpu's when it was released and that is the probably the closest comparion right now as far as pure powah.

Walker34

Just curious i have never seen an analysis between Quad Core based CPU's and the Cell would you happen to have a link or two so that i could see. Not flaming im just genuinely curious to see how they stack up.

I've been reading a bunch. Ill see what i can find. I don't get into all the technical crap too much either although i have CS degree.

But my understanding is 1 core and 7 spu's is > quad core pc in straight number crunching scenarios though. It's actually more powerful because of its architecture and the way things are allocated. The difference is that will not translate into the real world right nwo because operating systems and branching is not set up to handle the cell as of yet. The software hasn't caught up. It may never because it's a war and intel and microsoft have their own plans on what they think is better right now and what they can sell.

cool thanks ill take your word on it since i fail at math, and dont have a CS degree.

This is one of the big questions I asked when I first came but I ended finding this:

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3&message.id=2843079

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

I read somewhere that the cell is more powerful than the most powerful quad core cpu's. It's a drastically different architecture though not necessarily readily accepted as of yet. The cell is more powerful than a quad core cpu though at straight number crunching. In the real world that's another story. 1 cell processor>1 straight line quad core however. It's like an engine man. Is a straight like 6 cylinder more power than a v-6? But the cell was compared pretty readily to quad core cpu's when it was released and that is the probably the closest comparion right now as far as pure powah.

Walker34

Just curious i have never seen an analysis between Quad Core based CPU's and the Cell would you happen to have a link or two so that i could see. Not flaming im just genuinely curious to see how they stack up.

I've been reading a bunch. Ill see what i can find. I don't get into all the technical crap too much either although i have CS degree.

But my understanding is 1 core and 7 spu's is > quad core pc in straight number crunching scenarios though. It's actually more powerful because of its architecture and the way things are allocated. The difference is that will not translate into the real world right nwo because operating systems and branching is not set up to handle the cell as of yet. The software hasn't caught up. It may never because it's a war and intel and microsoft have their own plans on what they think is better right now and what they can sell.

[QUOTE="kidcool189"][QUOTE="600pc"] PROVE IT !!!! 600pc

There's almost no meaningful way to compare the two since they have completely different aims, design philophies, and costs.

Teufelhuhn

Anyone who says otherwise is either not very learned on the subject or a fanboy.

This is one of the big questions I asked when I first came but I ended finding this:

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3&message.id=2843079

Bazooka_4ME

umm the CPU that they used to compare was an Itel Pentium 4 not a dual core or Quad core based CPU.

i also found this post funny in that thread you linked.

As anticipated CELL murdered INTEL and AMD's new processors in terms of sheer PROCESSING POWER. Just to let others know that CELL is the only processor that can RAYTRACE at full 720P at 30 fps.

[QUOTE="600pc"][QUOTE="kidcool189"] you prove otherwise-GeordiLaForge-

Please post if you have knowledge of this. This is only speculation and not proved.

[QUOTE="themyth01"][QUOTE="600pc"] 3.2 GHz Cell with 8 SPEs delivering a performance equal to 100 GFLOPS on an average double precision Linpack 4096x4096 matrix.(wikipedia)600pc

Doesn't serve as a good comparison point at all since floating operations do not dictate performance in all but the most specialized of programs.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Just curious i have never seen an analysis between Quad Core based CPU's and the Cell would you happen to have a link or two so that i could see. Not flaming im just genuinely curious to see how they stack up.

600pc

I've been reading a bunch. Ill see what i can find. I don't get into all the technical crap too much either although i have CS degree.

But my understanding is 1 core and 7 spu's is > quad core pc in straight number crunching scenarios though. It's actually more powerful because of its architecture and the way things are allocated. The difference is that will not translate into the real world right nwo because operating systems and branching is not set up to handle the cell as of yet. The software hasn't caught up. It may never because it's a war and intel and microsoft have their own plans on what they think is better right now and what they can sell.

It's a little scary because Microsoft is an american company. It's like the japanese and american car battles of old pretty much. The japanese are coming up with all these v-tek and v stuff and the americans are just plopping multiple cores into a straight line. The japanese probably think we are silly and their math geniuses are probably laughing at us because there is no need to have multiple cores and it's a waste of material. Silly Americans.

The americans will use the general purpose argument and they probably have one, as having multiple cores does have some advantages for raw power, but I tend to think having 1 core and 7 spu's compounds itself to the point, where that advantage is not what it seems like it would be.

Please elaborate for the benefit of those people,. I think i know what you are getting at. :)thegoldenpoo

You're probably thinking of something else :P

I just think it is a ridicilous comparison, they are too different to compare. For example here is a folding@home performance chart for CUDA beta.

Clearly the Intel Quad core is making a joke of Cell at Folding@Home, does that mean then that the Intel Quad is better than Cell? No, this is just one of many different areas that Cell or the Quad could beat each other at. Cell would kick the Quads butt if this was a physics or graphics comparison, but the Quad will do allot better in most game logic.

The comparison is flawed because what is being compared is too different, you might as well compare a soft drink to a chocolate bar.

The CELL processor is a beast according this and this.

[QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"] Please elaborate for the benefit of those people,. I think i know what you are getting at. :)AnnoyedDragon

You're probably thinking of something else :P

I just think it is a ridicilous comparison, they are too different to compare. For example here is a folding@home performance chart for CUDA beta.

Clearly the Intel Quad core is making a joke of Cell at Folding@Home, does that mean then that the Intel Quad is better than Cell? No, this is just one of many different areas that Cell or the Quad could beat each other at. Cell would kick the Quads butt if this was a physics or graphics comparison, but the Quad will do allot better in most game logic.

The comparison is flawed because what is being compared is too different, you might as well compare a soft drink to a chocolate bar.

Those are GPUs NOT CPUs.

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="600pc"] im asking.. i have nothing to prove. he answered, i want factsUltramarine777

Please post if you have knowledge of this. This is only speculation and not proved.

I can prove the cell is worse off. And the evidence is in the most unlikely of places. Apple.

The first real problem here is one of logic, what this thread basically says is "Technology developed in 2001-2004 is better than technology developed 2004-2007" The core2 quad is newer, it is arguably still the best CPU on the market in terms of price and performance, it's newer than the cell and therefore utilises more up to date tech. All ps3 must be standardised and so are frozen in time in around 2006 (probably earlier).

Problem number 2, Power PC. Both the xeon and Cell are power PC CPUs developed by IBM, the fact the 360 and PS3 run so similarly is probably a testimony to this. Power PC was also used in Mac PC's. Apple dropped it like a stone in 2005/06 after being "disappointed by the performance", just as both consoles were reaching fruition, IBM has basically lost the processor war to Intel who have out-innovated them in many respects. Read more

Problem number 3, I am not using a Cell. None of us are in our PC's, if the cell is the might god chip then were are the innovatinos leading from it? Were is IBM? If the cell really was more powerful why are we not using it? The fact is that it is not.

[QUOTE="600pc"][QUOTE="Walker34"]

I've been reading a bunch. Ill see what i can find. I don't get into all the technical crap too much either although i have CS degree.

But my understanding is 1 core and 7 spu's is > quad core pc in straight number crunching scenarios though. It's actually more powerful because of its architecture and the way things are allocated. The difference is that will not translate into the real world right nwo because operating systems and branching is not set up to handle the cell as of yet. The software hasn't caught up. It may never because it's a war and intel and microsoft have their own plans on what they think is better right now and what they can sell.

Walker34

It's a little scary because Microsoft is an american company. It's like the japanese and american car battles of old pretty much. The japanese are coming up with all these v-tek and v stuff and the americans are just plopping multiple cores into a straight line. The japanese probably think we are silly and their math geniuses are probably laughing at us because there is no need to have multiple cores and it's a waste of material. Silly Americans.

The americans will use the general purpose argument and they probably have one, as having multiple cores does have some advantages for raw power, but I tend to think having 1 core and 7 spu's compounds itself to the point, where that advantage is not what it seems like it would be.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="600pc"] THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND INFORMATION!!! that was what i was expecting kind of.-GeordiLaForge-

It's a little scary because Microsoft is an american company. It's like the japanese and american car battles of old pretty much. The japanese are coming up with all these v-tek and v stuff and the americans are just plopping multiple cores into a straight line. The japanese probably think we are silly and their math geniuses are probably laughing at us because there is no need to have multiple cores and it's a waste of material. Silly Americans.

The americans will use the general purpose argument and they probably have one, as having multiple cores does have some advantages for raw power, but I tend to think having 1 core and 7 spu's compounds itself to the point, where that advantage is not what it seems like it would be.

True enough. But my analogy was funny although not true.

It's a little scary because Microsoft is an american company. It's like the japanese and american car battles of old pretty much. The japanese are coming up with all these v-tek and v stuff and the americans are just plopping multiple cores into a straight line. The japanese probably think we are silly and their math geniuses are probably laughing at us because there is no need to have multiple cores and it's a waste of material. Silly Americans.

The americans will use the general purpose argument and they probably have one, as having multiple cores does have some advantages for raw power, but I tend to think having 1 core and 7 spu's compounds itself to the point, where that advantage is not what it seems like it would be.

Walker34

Those are GPUs NOT CPUs.

Ultramarine777

The Core 2 Q6600 is the Intel Quad core.

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Walker34"]

It's a little scary because Microsoft is an american company. It's like the japanese and american car battles of old pretty much. The japanese are coming up with all these v-tek and v stuff and the americans are just plopping multiple cores into a straight line. The japanese probably think we are silly and their math geniuses are probably laughing at us because there is no need to have multiple cores and it's a waste of material. Silly Americans.

The americans will use the general purpose argument and they probably have one, as having multiple cores does have some advantages for raw power, but I tend to think having 1 core and 7 spu's compounds itself to the point, where that advantage is not what it seems like it would be.

Walker34

True enough. But my analogy was funny although not true.

Cell for certain area's, what it has always excelled at and I think intel would beat it out in what it has always beaten it in, General computer ...also a 2008-9 architech is not even fair comparing to cell which is older than 2006

[QUOTE="Ultramarine777"]

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]The Cell is a throwback to the era of the original Pentium and prior processors. The hardware logic was stripped out to allow for more SPE's. The programmable cache is the only advantage that the Cell has... -GeordiLaForge-

Please post if you have knowledge of this. This is only speculation and not proved.

I can prove the cell is worse off. And the evidence is in the most unlikely of places. Apple.

The first real problem here is one of logic, what this thread basically says is "Technology developed in 2001-2004 is better than technology developed 2004-2007" The core2 quad is newer, it is arguably still the best CPU on the market in terms of price and performance, it's newer than the cell and therefore utilises more up to date tech. All ps3 must be standardised and so are frozen in time in around 2006 (probably earlier).

Problem number 2, Power PC. Both the xeon and Cell are power PC CPUs developed by IBM, the fact the 360 and PS3 run so similarly is probably a testimony to this. Power PC was also used in Mac PC's. Apple dropped it like a stone in 2005/06 after being "disappointed by the performance", just as both consoles were reaching fruition, IBM has basically lost the processor war to Intel who have out-innovated them in many respects. Read more

Problem number 3, I am not using a Cell. None of us are in our PC's, if the cell is the might god chip then were are the innovatinos leading from it? Were is IBM? If the cell really was more powerful why are we not using it? The fact is that it is not.

thegoldenpoo