the 360 has 3 cores running at 3.2 ghz EACH they dont add up to 3.2 ghz the PS3 has 1 core running at 3.2 ghz with 7 SPEs the 360 has MORE processing power http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.htmlDanielr2Cell consists of 6 SPE's all running at 3.2GHz and 1 Controller. The 8th SPE is for redundancy.
Who has the bigger processor??
This topic is locked from further discussion.
If the cell is so good how come Sony uses Intel core 2 duo in its Vaio range of desktops and laptops? As stated before the Cell is poor at general processing thats why.
lazerluke
Erm. Considering they would have to completely rewrite an OS to make use of the Cell. I don't see why they would do that.
The cell cost more to produce and would force the industry to adapt to quickly to the change.If the cell is so good how come Sony uses Intel core 2 duo in its Vaio range of desktops and laptops? As stated before the Cell is poor at general processing thats why.
lazerluke
If the cell is so good how come Sony uses Intel core 2 duo in its Vaio range of desktops and laptops? As stated before the Cell is poor at general processing thats why.
The cell cost more to produce and would force the industry to adapt to quickly to the change.found this on beyond3d:
・Dhrystone v2.1
PS3 Cell 3.2GHz: 1879.630
PowerPC G4 1.25GHz: 2202.600
PentiumIII 866MHz: 1124.311
Pentium4 2.0AGHz: 1694.717
Pentium4 3.2GHz: 3258.068
・Linpack 100x100 Benchmark In C/C++ (Rolled Double Precision)
PS3 Cell 3.2GHz: 315.71
PentiumIII 866MHz: 313.05
Pentium4 2.0AGHz: 683.91
Pentium4 3.2GHz: 770.66
Athlon64 X2 4400+ (2.2GHz): 781.58
・Linpack 100x100 Benchmark In C/C++ (Rolled Single Precision)
PS3 Cell 3.2GHz: 312.64
PentiumIII 866MHz: 198.7
Pentium4 2.0AGHz: 82.57
Pentium4 3.2GHz: 276.14
Athlon64 X2 4400+ (2.2GHz): 538.05
source: http://rian.s26.xrea.com/nicky.cgi?D...121A#20061121A
remember this is a test made with x86 architecture Benchmark's and this is with out use of the spe..
Well, the 360 has 3 3.2 dual core processors. I guess those are each as big as the lone 3.2 processor in the PS3. donalbaneuh oh we got a mathematician ...
--------------------------
Speaking under conditions of anonymity with real world game developers who
have had first hand experience writing code for both the Xbox 360 and
PlayStation 3 hardware (and dev kits where applicable), we asked them (the developers) for
nothing more than their brutal honesty. What did they think of these new
consoles? Are they really outfitted with the PC-eclipsing performance we've
been lead to believe they have? The answer is actually quite frequently
found in history; as with anything, you get what you pay for.
What about all those Flops?
The one statement that we heard over and over again was that Microsoft was
sold on the peak theoretical performance of the Xenon CPU. Ever since the
announcement of the Xbox 360 and PS3 hardware, people have been set on
comparing Microsoft's figure of 1 trillion floating point operations per
second to Sony's figure of 2 trillion floating point operations per second
(TFLOPs). Any AnandTech reader should know for a fact that these numbers
are meaningless, but just in case you need some reasoning for why, let's
look at the facts.
First and foremost, a floating point operation can be anything; it can be
adding two floating point numbers together, or it can be performing a dot
product on two floating point numbers, it can even be just calculating the
complement of a fp number. Anything that is executed on a FPU is fair game
to be called a floating point operation.
Secondly, both floating point power numbers refer to the whole system, CPU
and GPU. Obviously a GPU's floating point processing power doesn't mean
anything if you're trying to run general purpose code on it and vice versa.
As we've seen from the graphics market, characterizing GPU performance in
terms of generic floating point operations per second is far from the full
performance story.
Third, when a manufacturer is talking about peak floating point performance
there are a few things that they aren't taking into account. Being able to
process billions of operations per second depends on actually being able to
have that many floating point operations to work on. That means that you
have to have enough bandwidth to keep the FPUs fed, no mispredicted
branches, no cache misses and the right structure of code to make sure that
all of the FPUs can be fed at all times so they can execute at their peak
rates. We already know that's not the case as game developers have already
told us that the Xenon CPU isn't even in the same realm of performance as
the Pentium 4 or Athlon 64. Not to mention that the requirements for
hitting peak theoretical performance are always ridiculous; caches are only
so big and thus there will come a time where a request to main memory is
needed, and you can expect that request to be fulfilled in a few hundred
clock cycles, where no floating point operations will be happening at all.
So while there may be some extreme cases where the Xenon CPU can hit its
peak performance, it sure isn't happening in any real world code.
The Cell processor is no different; given that its PPE is identical to one
of the PowerPC cores in Xenon, it must derive its floating point performance
superiority from its array of SPEs. So what's the issue with 218 GFLOPs
number (2 TFLOPs for the whole system)? Well, from what we've heard, game
developers are finding that they can't use the SPEs for a lot of tasks. So
in the end, it doesn't matter what peak theoretical performance of Cell's
SPE array is, if those SPEs aren't being used all the time.
latencies on the Pentium 4 vs. the Athlon 64. The Pentium 4 has two double
pumped ALUs, each capable of performing two add operations per clock, that's
a total of 4 add operations per clock; so we could say that a 3.8GHz Pentium
4 can perform 15.2 billion operations per second. The Athlon 64 has three
ALUs each capable of executing an add every clock; so a 2.8GHz Athlon 64
can perform 8.4 billion operations per second.By this silly console
marketing logic, the Pentium 4 would be almost twice as fast as the Athlon
64, and a multi-core Pentium 4 would be faster than a multi-core Athlon 64.
Any AnandTecb reader should know that's hardly the case. No code is
composed entirely of add instructions, and even if it were, eventually the
Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 will have to go out to main memory for data, and
when they do, the Athlon 64 has a much lower latency access to memory than
the P4. In the end, despite what these horribly concocted numbers may lead
you to believe, they say absolutely nothing about performance. The exact
same situation exists with the CPUs of the next-generation consoles; don't
fall for it.
There you have it.
It's all a marketing bull.
[QUOTE="fahadq8"][QUOTE="MGS9150"][QUOTE="Blackfallen"][QUOTE="MGS9150"]The 360 has 3 processors each running at about 1.06GHz to equal 3.2GHz. Its processor is the biggest. If you mean which processor is more powerful without a doubt CELL is the most powerful processor.MGS9150
LOL YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING LOL first of all 360 has 3 core running at 3.2 ghz each lol and the most powerful commrcial cpu out fright now if the intel core 2 duo geeze
Thats not how multi core processors work. All 3 cores together make 3.2GHz its just that they all share the load making processing more efficent. And CELL is more powerful that intel core 2 duo. Intel has ALOT of catching up to do. Why do you think the U.S military is adopting CELL based computer systems. N00B
loool http://www.intel.com/research/platform/terascale/teraflops.htm?iid=homepage+80core
80 core its comining
Intel’s first silicon tera-scale research prototype. It is the first programmable chip to deliver more than one trillion floating point operations per second (1 Teraflops) of performance
sony has ALOT of catching up to do
I said COMMERCIAL CPU, that chip is not a COMMERCIAL chip. CELL arcitecture can make a more powerful chip.
You're obviously not arguing with the brightest fellows. So my advice is let them wallow in thier own ignorance. ;)
[QUOTE="MGS9150"][QUOTE="fahadq8"][QUOTE="MGS9150"][QUOTE="Blackfallen"][QUOTE="MGS9150"]The 360 has 3 processors each running at about 1.06GHz to equal 3.2GHz. Its processor is the biggest. If you mean which processor is more powerful without a doubt CELL is the most powerful processor.Marduke382
LOL YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING LOL first of all 360 has 3 core running at 3.2 ghz each lol and the most powerful commrcial cpu out fright now if the intel core 2 duo geeze
Thats not how multi core processors work. All 3 cores together make 3.2GHz its just that they all share the load making processing more efficent. And CELL is more powerful that intel core 2 duo. Intel has ALOT of catching up to do. Why do you think the U.S military is adopting CELL based computer systems. N00B
loool http://www.intel.com/research/platform/terascale/teraflops.htm?iid=homepage+80core
80 core its comining
Intel’s first silicon tera-scale research prototype. It is the first programmable chip to deliver more than one trillion floating point operations per second (1 Teraflops) of performance
sony has ALOT of catching up to do
I said COMMERCIAL CPU, that chip is not a COMMERCIAL chip. CELL arcitecture can make a more powerful chip.
You're obviously not arguing with the brightest fellows. So my advice is let them wallow in thier own ignorance. ;) honestly, the cell's not a commercial chip either when measured by that benchmark. it really feels like that whole effeciency thing is sort of like the RISC vs CISC. the former is more elegant and effecient, but that's not what we need for running pc games right now hahah.
John Carmack a highly respected developer says PS3 is MORE POWERFUL than the 360.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8
CELL>>>>>>>>>>>XENOS
MGS9150
 Why don't you watch that video carefully, J. Carmack said the PS3 has more peak power, thats it, everyone knows the PS3 is extremely bottelnecked by its architecture.
 EDIT: He even says in that video, he thinks the decisions SONY made with the Cell and RSX were mistakes.
The 360 has 3 processors each running at about 1.06GHz to equal 3.2GHz. Its processor is the biggest. If you mean which processor is more powerful without a doubt CELL is the most powerful processor.MGS9150
Sorry. I had to stop at this quote. You are wrong with you specs.
- 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
--------------------------
Speaking under conditions of anonymity with real world game developers who
have had first hand experience writing code for both the Xbox 360 and
PlayStation 3 hardware (and dev kits where applicable), we asked them (the developers) for
nothing more than their brutal honesty. What did they think of these new
consoles? Are they really outfitted with the PC-eclipsing performance we've
been lead to believe they have? The answer is actually quite frequently
found in history; as with anything, you get what you pay for.
What about all those Flops?
The one statement that we heard over and over again was that Microsoft was
sold on the peak theoretical performance of the Xenon CPU. Ever since the
announcement of the Xbox 360 and PS3 hardware, people have been set on
comparing Microsoft's figure of 1 trillion floating point operations per
second to Sony's figure of 2 trillion floating point operations per second
(TFLOPs). Any AnandTech reader should know for a fact that these numbers
are meaningless, but just in case you need some reasoning for why, let's
look at the facts.
First and foremost, a floating point operation can be anything; it can be
adding two floating point numbers together, or it can be performing a dot
product on two floating point numbers, it can even be just calculating the
complement of a fp number. Anything that is executed on a FPU is fair game
to be called a floating point operation.
Secondly, both floating point power numbers refer to the whole system, CPU
and GPU. Obviously a GPU's floating point processing power doesn't mean
anything if you're trying to run general purpose code on it and vice versa.
As we've seen from the graphics market, characterizing GPU performance in
terms of generic floating point operations per second is far from the full
performance story.
Third, when a manufacturer is talking about peak floating point performance
there are a few things that they aren't taking into account. Being able to
process billions of operations per second depends on actually being able to
have that many floating point operations to work on. That means that you
have to have enough bandwidth to keep the FPUs fed, no mispredicted
branches, no cache misses and the right structure of code to make sure that
all of the FPUs can be fed at all times so they can execute at their peak
rates. We already know that's not the case as game developers have already
told us that the Xenon CPU isn't even in the same realm of performance as
the Pentium 4 or Athlon 64. Not to mention that the requirements for
hitting peak theoretical performance are always ridiculous; caches are only
so big and thus there will come a time where a request to main memory is
needed, and you can expect that request to be fulfilled in a few hundred
clock cycles, where no floating point operations will be happening at all.
So while there may be some extreme cases where the Xenon CPU can hit its
peak performance, it sure isn't happening in any real world code.
The Cell processor is no different; given that its PPE is identical to one
of the PowerPC cores in Xenon, it must derive its floating point performance
superiority from its array of SPEs. So what's the issue with 218 GFLOPs
number (2 TFLOPs for the whole system)? Well, from what we've heard, game
developers are finding that they can't use the SPEs for a lot of tasks. So
in the end, it doesn't matter what peak theoretical performance of Cell's
SPE array is, if those SPEs aren't being used all the time.
latencies on the Pentium 4 vs. the Athlon 64. The Pentium 4 has two double
pumped ALUs, each capable of performing two add operations per clock, that's
a total of 4 add operations per clock; so we could say that a 3.8GHz Pentium
4 can perform 15.2 billion operations per second. The Athlon 64 has three
ALUs each capable of executing an add every clock; so a 2.8GHz Athlon 64
can perform 8.4 billion operations per second.By this silly console
marketing logic, the Pentium 4 would be almost twice as fast as the Athlon
64, and a multi-core Pentium 4 would be faster than a multi-core Athlon 64.
Any AnandTecb reader should know that's hardly the case. No code is
composed entirely of add instructions, and even if it were, eventually the
Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 will have to go out to main memory for data, and
when they do, the Athlon 64 has a much lower latency access to memory than
the P4. In the end, despite what these horribly concocted numbers may lead
you to believe, they say absolutely nothing about performance. The exact
same situation exists with the CPUs of the next-generation consoles; don't
fall for it.
There you have it.
It's all a marketing bull. This is pure console ownage, console CPUs are owned by Pentium4s, and there are fanboys comparing console CPUs to Core 2 duo. :-)
[QUOTE="lazerluke"]If the cell is so good how come Sony uses Intel core 2 duo in its Vaio range of desktops and laptops? As stated before the Cell is poor at general processing thats why.
KoreanX
Erm. Considering they would have to completely rewrite an OS to make use of the Cell. I don't see why they would do that.
Erm. Linux perhaps? Does the PS3 and the IBM servers not have Operating Systems then?
[QUOTE="MGS9150"]The 360 has 3 processors each running at about 1.06GHz to equal 3.2GHz. Its processor is the biggest. If you mean which processor is more powerful without a doubt CELL is the most powerful processor.dapmediainc
Sorry. I had to stop at this quote. You are wrong with you specs.
- 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
I think you might your information skewed. If the 360 was running at 3.2 GHz each then Microsoft would obviously brag about a 9.6 GHz system. Do they? Nope but for marketing purposes you bet your tale end they would. From what I understand they have three that are all capable of 3.2 GHz separately yes. But in the 360 system they can only run at a combined 3.2 GHz. Thats how I see it. Or we'd hear and ear full on the topic.
[QUOTE="dapmediainc"][QUOTE="MGS9150"]The 360 has 3 processors each running at about 1.06GHz to equal 3.2GHz. Its processor is the biggest. If you mean which processor is more powerful without a doubt CELL is the most powerful processor.caseypayne69
Sorry. I had to stop at this quote. You are wrong with you specs.
- 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
I think you might your information skewed. If the 360 was running at 3.2 GHz each then Microsoft would obviously brag about a 9.6 GHz system. Do they? Nope but for marketing purposes you bet your tale end they would. From what I understand they have three that are all capable of 3.2 GHz separately yes. But in the 360 system they can only run at a combined 3.2 GHz. Thats how I see it. Or we'd hear and ear full on the topic.
That is, in NO WAY, how clock speed works dude. 20 cars driving side by side on the highway, going 20mph, each car is STILL going 20mph, not 1 mph, right?Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment