You keep saying the X1X CPU is shitty. Ya'll must've forgot!

@scatteh316:

when is the fluff necessary, though, to the meat of the game?

I wonder if crash bandicoot insane trilogy could be done on psx. They'd have to strip down a lot of the lighting embellishments, but I reckon the meat of the game could still be done on psx.

You're still not getting it. The 360 CPU was dog shit way back in 2005. It couldn't hang with anything. It's an in order processor that was built by IBM and it was actually a stripped down Power PC processor but with the extinct in order architecture.

Learn the difference between an in order processor and an out of order processor.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g18ux/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_inorder_vs/

Go ahead and find me that presentation or an article about it or something else that is credible that backs up what you're saying. I'm not doubting you, I just don't remember that presentation.

You don't even know that AMD processors have always been cheaper than Intel? The Pentium 4 was a disaster. I don't have the time to sit here and give you a history lesson but it was a disaster. The 360 CPU was not equivalent to a Pentium 4. It wasn't even made by Intel. It was developed by IBM who used to make those Power PC processors for Mac computers. You have no idea what you're talking about but you're here angry insulting people. At least don't be so ignorant if you're going to do that.

Don't fall for his bs, you were right. The Sega Saturn can do all of Uncharted 4's gameplay. Everyone knows this but that's not why people play Uncharted. They play it for the graphics and story. The Saturn could do all of the story sequences in CG cut scenes. The gameplay no problem.

1. Minor difference.

2. X360's PPE is also dual threaded.

3. You have forgotten GCN can run the cloth simulation just like SPUs.

Jaguar's lineage can be traced back to K7 Athlon MP. Jaguar has ejected most of the X87 hardware(not needed for X86-64 mode), removed 3rd integer unit, gained 128bit SSE4.x/AVX units.

I find it funny all the Xbox haters bashing the CPU that is the most powerful one ever put in a console and more powerful than the one in the PS4 pro that is going to play TLOU 2 and Death Strandling. lol

Couldn't hang with anything, yet there wasn't a single sub $200 processor that could beat it ?

If the Xenon is such dog shit then please provide a link of sub $200 processors in 2005 that are faster than it

I can list about 50 processors under $200 that are faster than the X1X CPU..........

I don't think your getting it (hence your constant trolling)

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/capcoms-framework-game-engine.31090/page-6#post-815108

"Though some say the performance of the Xbox 360 CPU is not very good, according to Capcom, the performance of a single core of the Xbox 360 CPU is 2/3 of the Pentium 4 with the same clock speed. When SMT is fully exploited, about 4 times larger performance can be observed. In terms of PC it's comparable with 4 SMT threads in a dual-core Pentium Extreme Edition 840 (3.2GHz)"

To beat the Xenon in 2005 you needed a $300+ AMD 64 or you had to wait the next year for core 2 duo or mainstream AMD X2

There wasn't a single CPU under $200 with better performance. I could list 50 CPU's under $200 that could beat the X1X CPU

What is an in order CPU?

I don't think there was even a desktop cpu that could hang with it, I mean dual cores weren't really a thing yet.

And even when they got released nothing used more then 1 core for ages, even at 4 cores most games where sitting at 1 core performance solutions.

Even while a 2 cored cpu on pc platform would be faster, nobody would use that second core. So those benchmarks that pushes 2 core performance forwards are misleading as hell. As that's not what the reality projected.

Cpu's where heavily focused on in that gen, 3 cores was a lot, cell was big news even for PC gamers. The gpu in the xbox360 was nothing to laugh about or the ram in it.

Some hillbilly calculations here.

however in today age.

PC has this year:

CPU front

1) amd threadripper 16 cores, 32 threads,

2) intel Core i9-7980XE 18 cores, 36 threads

Memory wise

48gb of v-ram can be pushed through 4x 12gb video cards.

128gb of ddr4 memory should be possible by now i guess. that's 176gb of memory total if you combine them.

A ultra high end pc in 2005 would consist out of

1gb memory ddr3

256mb video card 7800 ( sli ) 512mb

AMD FX-55 1 core 2,6ghz.

So that means:

PC had 1/3 of the cores, had 3x more ram when xbox 360 came out.

PC has now when the xbox one X comes out, 14,6x the memory and 6,7x the cores.

What the cores run at performance wise isn't interesting as both cpu's lacked on those departments. But the leaps of PC over consoles is just far bigger then back in the day.

This is also why for example sony stopped chasing PC's with ridicilous expensive hardware parts in the ps4, and microsoft opted for far more cheaper parts then what they usually did in order to try and turn a profit for once. and nintendo bailed out already ages ago as it simple couldn't keep up anymore.

If xbox one x would ship with the xbox360 cpu this year it should have come out with a cpu that would bring 54 cores, 108 threads, 58gb memory.

I dunno what you try to proof here.

Obviously this is some hillbilly math going on here, which in reality makes absolute zero sense. But just to showcase how much of a push forwards xbox360 and the cell really where at the time. nobody complained about there performance even for the slightest.

It was the price that was the issue, everybody was hyped for it.

xbox360 or ps3 meant, having to upgrade to a HD tv. Which where expensive. This also pushed a lot of people that couldn't afford that towards nintendo's console, as it would still function on there old tv's perfectly fine.

Yea because Crash is as large as Uncharted and doesn't have older generation roots........ Oh.... wait.... it does........

You really are trying to fight a debate you imply can't win.

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/815108/

Here you go..... an at the time $999 Pentium 4 D 840 XE (The fastest of the Pentium D's from that period) being beaten in game based CPU tests by cheaper, single core AMD CPU's.

They all so got beaten by LOWER priced AMD dual core CPU's..... So yes.....they were awful CPU's..........

From May 2005, K8 Athlon 64 X2 "Manchester/Toledo" was released. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2

AMD K8 Athlon 64 has up to 3 X86 instructions per cycle, dual core version yields 6 instructions per cycle. X86 instruction has instruction compression which can yield multiple RISC instructions. Out-of-order processing hardware.

IBM PPE has up to 2 PPC instructions per cycle, 3 core version yields 6 instructions per cycle. In-order of processing hardware.

AMD was in the process buying ATI during year 2006 time period, hence AMD's entry into game consoles hardware market. AMD K7 Duron was Xbox Team's choice for the original Xbox's CPU until Bill Gates overrides it with Intel's cut-down Pentium III.

XBO's 363 mm2 APU was side tracked by Kinect . Without Kinect's $80 BOM cost, the same XBO APU could have supported 28 CU level GPU. 32 MB ESRAM could be replaced by another 14 CU set, hence building a four lane of 7 CUs with four geometry engines GPU and 32 ROPS (each lane as 8 ROPS).

Without Kinect, $499 X1X like box could have been built in year 2013 with 28 CU and similar X1X PCB with 384 bit GDDR5 bus.

R9-290X with 44 CU would be AMD's top end card for year 2013.

The four lane structure is the current layout design for AMD GPUs from R9-285 to VEGA 64.

R9-285 based it's design from Bonaire's design i.e. each lane has 7 CU design.

X1X's APU layout with 359 mm2 size chip.

And also SMT aware patches for some games...... Notably Quake 4 comes to mind..

I don't think there was anything on the cpu market that could beat that though, the x360 is comparable to 1 core of an I7 920-930 on average (which I have pointed out in a previous post on this thread). That's about the same performance as an athlon x2 240. Devs could also get more out of the console with proper vectorized coding so I don't think there was anything till mid 2006 (with the release of the core 2 duo) that could beat the x360 on the cpu side, not for games anyway.

The bottleneck for X360's CPU is 1.6 Ghz L2 cache which is half the speed of 3.2 Ghz CPU core's clock speed.

http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=63677&page=28

bkilian

Senior Member

Everyone talks about this 100GFLOPS, but all I've ever said is that the entire 360 CPU would not be able to run Shape at 100%. Remember that the 360 CPU gets, on average, an IPC of 0.2. So while the chip is _technically_ 100GFlops, you will never see that in real running code. Jaguar cores have an IPC of close to 1. A single jaguar core could almost outperform the entire 360 CPU on production code.

Table from AMD.

For normal customers and end users, X86 CPUs murders IBM's PowerCrap. IBM didn't focus on updating a small PowerPC 750 out-of-order lite CPU with 128 bit VMX updates i.e. PPE like PowerPC A2 was offered and insufficient PPC 750 update for Wii U (missing 128 bit VMX). It's IBM's own fault for fcking-up PowerPC from the consumer market.

@scatteh316:

First, I think you take this site too seriously. At least that's the vibe at times.

But yes rail shooters could be done on older hardware imo. Sacrifices would be made here and there but the game segments could still be done I think.

Quite a few old articles do show developers saying 360 was CPU limited....... PS3 was obviously the opposite and was GPU limited.

@Xplode_games: lol want to bring back the Gen 7 race because I'm pretty sure we know who won that and they did so with a 249.99 GameCube

They made everyone and thier Grandma rebuy a GameCube with new controller and it worked which means Xbox 360 and ps3 got schooled by 6th Gen hardware it didn't help that ps2 also still sold decently compared to ps3 at Launch go home tc

You literally just proved my entire point with those charts

You posted a chart that shows AMD CPU's (most of which over $300) that are beating the pentium D 840 (thats exactly what I wrote)

I fail to see what exactly your trying to say ? There wasn't a single sub $200 processor that could beat the Xenon in 2005. The operton 148 which was the closest AMD CPU on the chart you posted was selling in 2005 for $275 and that was AFTER the price drop...... (thats a ton of money now, let alone 12 years ago)

Calling the Xenon proccessor in 2005 awful or slow is 100% ignorance. I like how the basis of your argument is "can't handle with single core amd stuff" when the single core AMD 64 series was ungodly expensive and it being a single core doesn't make it terrible (there's probably dual core i3s that could give equal if not better performance than the consoles 8 core CPU).

You have a false sense of prices at the time and a false sense of what the average/standard at the time was for desktop CPU's.

As many people have already stated in this thread, most didn't have a CPU significantly faster than the Xenon till 2007. If you want to talk "awful" then talk about how anyone who has a decent office computer in the last 5 years probably has a faster CPU than the Xboxone and X1X.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1026

For 3D particle movement benchmark

AMD (Llano) A8-3850 (the same Athlon II 4X quad CPU cores at 2.9 Ghz) = 252.33, scaled down to 2.4 Ghz, it may yield 208 score.

Athlon 5350 (quad core Jaguar at 2.05 Ghz) = 174.07, scaled to 2.3 Ghz, it may yield 195 score.

X1X's potato 8C/8T CPUs will beat Athlon II 4X.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1026

Intel (Skylake) Core i3 6320 (51W, $157), 2C/4T, 3.9 GHz, 0.5MB L2, 4MB L3 = 384.68 score This is similar to Kabylake based Pentium G4560 with 2C/4T at 3.5Ghz

X1X's 8C/8T at 2.3 Ghz estimated score based from Athlon 5350's score is 390 score. This is not factoring any X1X CPU's TLB optimizations.

I hate ignorant people that think they know everything. Look man, you're flat wrong. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. If the 360 CPU was so wonderful, IBM would've sold them on the PC market for $150 and been the king of PC CPUs. Instead, all of their CPUs have always been shitty so they had to leave the market. I know because I used to have a Cyrix 166 CPU back in the day(way before the 360 days). It wasn't terrible for the money but vastly inferior to a Pentium 166 and way worse than the Pentium 166 MMX.

At the time the 360 was released IBM was for the most part out of the mainstream PC market. What they mostly were known for was their Power PC processors that Apple used in their Macs. Eventually Apple ditched IBM and went to Pentium.

Everyone must be a f@cking idiot because according to you, IBM should've marketed that trash 3 Core garbage in order sh@t that was in the 360 for PCs. Why not? You say it was a the best thing out there in it's day and it came included in a $300 console(core 360).

Let's get back to reality. The reason the 3-core 360 CPU(Xenon) was never used in PCs is because it's pathetic garbage. The only way the 360 CPU can work for a console is because developers had to take their time optimizing their code to run on the in order execution garbage 360 CPU and the Cell was also in order so they could translate it to that as well.

Had Microsoft put a 1 core AMD or even the pathetic Pentium 4 running at 3.0 Ghz, it would've been way better than the trash CPU they used. But those CPUs were too expensive so they had to make a deal with IBM to strip down an old Power PC and they found one that was in order to make it just that pathetic. It's comedy gold that you think it was a great CPU, LOL!

From technet.microsoft.com/en-us/query/ee415832

Decoding of xWMA voices imposes a fixed CPU load of approximately 2 percent per voice on Xbox 360, and a small variable load on Windows (approximately 0.35 percent per voice on a 3GHz Prescott CPU).

3 Ghz Prescott is ~5.7 times better than Xbox 360 PPE. Pentium 4 could decode nearly 6 voices to match the load the 360 CPU endures.

PPE is no PowerPC 970 (G5) nor 7447 (G4plus). PowerPC 970 can rival K8 Athlon 64 on effective IPC. Intel Core 2 was a killer CPU in year 2006 which triggered Apple's move towards X86. Both AMD and Intel has dedicated CPUs for the embedded CPU markets.

AMD managed to offer K8 like CPU with 128 bit AVX updates at game console CPU prices, hence the design win for both PS4 and XBO. Jaguar FinFET will live on as AMD's ARM Cortex 57/772/73 price war embedded CPU. Ryzen hasn't arrived for embedded CPU markets.

@Xplode_games: XBX1 is shitty because not only the CPU is shit, the games are shit too. PS4 rulez! Maybe that will twitch your nerves >:D

I don't have a clue yet you can't post any factual data proving it was a terrible CPU in 2005 and you cannot list a single CPU under $200 in 2005 that outperforms it (funny thing is I can list 50 processors under $200 that can beat the X1X CPU).

I don't have a clue yet i've responded to both factual benchmarks and factual analyst from a game developer, both of which state it was a respectable CPU for its time.

I like how every single benchmark and every single MSRP chart disproves what your saying but you continue to repeat the same thing over and over hoping that it will make it true

If so then why can't you answer a simple question that I've asked you numerous times and you keep ignoring. Again, what is an in order architecture CPU?

It not my job to answer your questions. YOUR the one who made the initial claim/thread and have absolutely no factual data to back it up (just like in court, the burden is on YOU)

Every piece of factual data that has been posted in this thread (developer interview, performance benchmark, MSRP charts, and core breakdown) have shown that it was respectable for the time period.

If you have actual factual data or MSRP charts that disproves anything in this thread then go for it. If you don't then there is literally nothing else to discuss in this thread

@heirren: consoles are released when new ideas are not able to be done on old hardware...

What on switch can't be done in Wii u??

@bronxs15:

That's what I've been saying. I've been saying I don't understand the almost universal praise of the switch vs almost the complete opposite of Wiiu. Switch is merely a product refresh--Wiiu became a dead product in the eyes of mass consumer. So for Nintendo it made no sense to fund r&d for a product which is not growing. I've said it before; the first and second, maybe even third, batches of titles for switch were undoubtedly Wiiu games in production.

Do you even understand English?

I made a statement saying it mostly gets killed by single core AMD CPU's..... WHICH IT DID...... Simple statement.....

Then you try and bring price in to? I never mentioned price.... Adding in variables to try and flip the debate.....

So you fail to see what I'm trying to say because you fail at reading comprehension........

@heirren: good point. I hadn't considered these were originally Wii u games.

It just highlights how crappy Nintendo is in some aspects to me. And why sont was able to come in to the market and take it from them. Sony treated developers and consumers better.

I think Sony does a better job at supporting their systems than either Microsoft or Nintendo. If you owned an original Xbox support got cut as ms went on to 360. And if you owned a 360 towards the end of its life you didn't get anything major as they began focusing on Xbox one.

Wii u support just got cut the same way. And intended games transferred to the next system. Forget the 10 million users who supported their system.

Sony has more of a habit of offering support longer. Late in ps2 life cycle After the PS3 was released Sony still delivered god of war 2. You know if that was Nintendo they would of probably delayed the game to make a PS3 version or move it completely to PS3. And even late in the PS3 cycles they delivered things like last of us and beyond to souls which I'm sure Microsoft would of held for Xbox one.

My original statement was it was a good CPU in 2005 (Xenon). You then quoted me on two separate occasions saying I was wrong at that it was an awful CPU for its time.

Price is a big part of the "performance for the time" debate. If all the CPU's that where faster than the Xenon where borderline $300 and higher then that shows where is stand in relation to the time period (that's not a random variable, that shows where it stands in relation to the market).

There wasn't a single CPU in 2005 under $200 that outperformed this Xenon. There is literally no fucking way you can call that awful.

@ronvalencia said:

@commander said:

@Gatygun said:

And even when they got released nothing used more then 1 core for ages, even at 4 cores most games where sitting at 1 core performance solutions.

Even while a 2 cored cpu on pc platform would be faster, nobody would use that second core. So those benchmarks that pushes 2 core performance forwards are misleading as hell. As that's not what the reality projected.

I don't think there was anything on the cpu market that could beat that though, the x360 is comparable to 1 core of an I7 920-930 on average (which I have pointed out in a previous post on this thread). That's about the same performance as an athlon x2 240. Devs could also get more out of the console with proper vectorized coding so I don't think there was anything till mid 2006 (with the release of the core 2 duo) that could beat the x360 on the cpu side, not for games anyway.

The bottleneck for X360's CPU is 1.6 Ghz L2 cache which is half the speed of 3.2 Ghz CPU core's clock speed.

http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=63677&page=28

bkilian

Senior Member

Everyone talks about this 100GFLOPS, but all I've ever said is that the entire 360 CPU would not be able to run Shape at 100%. Remember that the 360 CPU gets, on average, an IPC of 0.2. So while the chip is _technically_ 100GFlops, you will never see that in real running code. Jaguar cores have an IPC of close to 1. A single jaguar core could almost outperform the entire 360 CPU on production code.

Table from AMD.

For normal customers and end users, X86 CPUs murders IBM's PowerCrap. IBM didn't focus on updating a small PowerPC 750 out-of-order lite CPU with 128 bit VMX updates i.e. PPE like PowerPC A2 was offered and insufficient PPC 750 update for Wii U (missing 128 bit VMX). It's IBM's own fault for fcking-up PowerPC from the consumer market.

You're forgetting that the x360 cpu was solely created for gaming and streaming.

X1X is a potato, deal with it.

And love how lems find this uncomfortable, all the redirection.

The Cell was a good CPU if devs new how to use it. PS3 only games looked alot better but lack on the multiplat at the begining.

@commander said:

@ronvalencia said:

@commander said:

@Gatygun said:

And even when they got released nothing used more then 1 core for ages, even at 4 cores most games where sitting at 1 core performance solutions.

Even while a 2 cored cpu on pc platform would be faster, nobody would use that second core. So those benchmarks that pushes 2 core performance forwards are misleading as hell. As that's not what the reality projected.

I don't think there was anything on the cpu market that could beat that though, the x360 is comparable to 1 core of an I7 920-930 on average (which I have pointed out in a previous post on this thread). That's about the same performance as an athlon x2 240. Devs could also get more out of the console with proper vectorized coding so I don't think there was anything till mid 2006 (with the release of the core 2 duo) that could beat the x360 on the cpu side, not for games anyway.

The bottleneck for X360's CPU is 1.6 Ghz L2 cache which is half the speed of 3.2 Ghz CPU core's clock speed.

http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=63677&page=28

bkilian

Senior Member

Everyone talks about this 100GFLOPS, but all I've ever said is that the entire 360 CPU would not be able to run Shape at 100%. Remember that the 360 CPU gets, on average, an IPC of 0.2. So while the chip is _technically_ 100GFlops, you will never see that in real running code. Jaguar cores have an IPC of close to 1. A single jaguar core could almost outperform the entire 360 CPU on production code.

Table from AMD.

For normal customers and end users, X86 CPUs murders IBM's PowerCrap. IBM didn't focus on updating a small PowerPC 750 out-of-order lite CPU with 128 bit VMX updates i.e. PPE like PowerPC A2 was offered and insufficient PPC 750 update for Wii U (missing 128 bit VMX). It's IBM's own fault for fcking-up PowerPC from the consumer market.

You're forgetting that the x360 cpu was solely created for gaming and streaming.

Shape deals with game's 3D audio workload i.e. running XBO's Shape 3D audio workload on Xbox 360's PPE.

Game simulation involves heavy branch usage.

Xbox 360's PPE is bad for gaming i.e. high latency (similar to Pentium 4 length pipeline), poor effective IPC , poor branch functions, poor TLB handling (resolving cache data to memory address), higher penalty on GPR to SIMD register data transfers (a known problem for PowerPC uArch, shall we restart Mac's PowerPC vs X86 debate again?), poor stack handling (for C/C++ style function calls), lacks storage compression (X86's CISC nature has instruction level compression which ARM CPUs somewhat copied with thumb instruction set) and 'etc'.

The main reason for X86's stack bias design is to optimally support C/C++ style function calls and PowerPC wasn't optimally designed for stack based workloads i.e. shall we restart Mac's PowerPC vs X86 debate again?

Ideal CPU design for gaming is Intel Core i series e.g. medium length pipeline, lowest latency, industry leading branch hardware and sufficient vector SIMD hardware.

Any CPU design that gets close to Intel Core i series design is superior to in-order PPE.

I can write an essay on how shit is IBM PPE for gaming.

The main problem with X86 prior to Core 2 is the lack of full 128bit SIMD units which is not a problem for Jaguar.

@ronvalencia said:

@commander said:

@ronvalencia said:

The bottleneck for X360's CPU is 1.6 Ghz L2 cache which is half the speed of 3.2 Ghz CPU core's clock speed.

http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=63677&page=28

bkilian

Senior Member

Everyone talks about this 100GFLOPS, but all I've ever said is that the entire 360 CPU would not be able to run Shape at 100%. Remember that the 360 CPU gets, on average, an IPC of 0.2. So while the chip is _technically_ 100GFlops, you will never see that in real running code. Jaguar cores have an IPC of close to 1. A single jaguar core could almost outperform the entire 360 CPU on production code.

Table from AMD.

For normal customers and end users, X86 CPUs murders IBM's PowerCrap. IBM didn't focus on updating a small PowerPC 750 out-of-order lite CPU with 128 bit VMX updates i.e. PPE like PowerPC A2 was offered and insufficient PPC 750 update for Wii U (missing 128 bit VMX). It's IBM's own fault for fcking-up PowerPC from the consumer market.

You're forgetting that the x360 cpu was solely created for gaming and streaming.

Shape deals with game's 3D audio workload i.e. running XBO's Shape 3D audio workload on Xbox 360's PPE.

Game simulation involves heavy branch usage.

Xbox 360's PPE is bad for gaming i.e. high latency (similar to Pentium 4 length pipeline), poor effective IPC , poor branch functions, poor TLB handling (resolving cache data to memory address), higher penalty on GPR to SIMD register data transfers (a known problem for PowerPC uArch, shall we restart Mac's PowerPC vs X86 debate again?), poor stack handling (for C/C++ style function calls), lacks storage compression (X86's CISC nature has instruction level compression which ARM CPUs somewhat copied with thumb instruction set) and 'etc'.

The main reason for X86's stack bias design is to optimally support C/C++ style function calls and PowerPC wasn't optimally designed for stack based workloads i.e. shall we restart Mac's PowerPC vs X86 debate again?

Ideal CPU design for gaming is Intel Core i series e.g. medium length pipeline, lowest latency, industry leading branch hardware and sufficient vector SIMD hardware.

Any CPU design that gets close to Intel Core i series design is superior to in-order PPE.

I can write an essay on how shit is IBM PPE for gaming.

The main problem with X86 prior to Core 2 is the lack of full 128bit SIMD units which is not a problem for Jaguar.

All well and good but intel core i series didn't exist when the x360 released. It was designed for gaming (it's a modified cell processor) and it dwarfed the pentium 4 in terms of computational performance for games. Even the first dual cores had trouble keeping up because of its high flops.

The x360 had no use for an all purpose cpu.

@commander said:

@ronvalencia said:

@commander said:

@ronvalencia said:

The bottleneck for X360's CPU is 1.6 Ghz L2 cache which is half the speed of 3.2 Ghz CPU core's clock speed.

http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=63677&page=28

bkilian

Senior Member

Everyone talks about this 100GFLOPS, but all I've ever said is that the entire 360 CPU would not be able to run Shape at 100%. Remember that the 360 CPU gets, on average, an IPC of 0.2. So while the chip is _technically_ 100GFlops, you will never see that in real running code. Jaguar cores have an IPC of close to 1. A single jaguar core could almost outperform the entire 360 CPU on production code.

Table from AMD.

For normal customers and end users, X86 CPUs murders IBM's PowerCrap. IBM didn't focus on updating a small PowerPC 750 out-of-order lite CPU with 128 bit VMX updates i.e. PPE like PowerPC A2 was offered and insufficient PPC 750 update for Wii U (missing 128 bit VMX). It's IBM's own fault for fcking-up PowerPC from the consumer market.

You're forgetting that the x360 cpu was solely created for gaming and streaming.

Shape deals with game's 3D audio workload i.e. running XBO's Shape 3D audio workload on Xbox 360's PPE.

Game simulation involves heavy branch usage.

Xbox 360's PPE is bad for gaming i.e. high latency (similar to Pentium 4 length pipeline), poor effective IPC , poor branch functions, poor TLB handling (resolving cache data to memory address), higher penalty on GPR to SIMD register data transfers (a known problem for PowerPC uArch, shall we restart Mac's PowerPC vs X86 debate again?), poor stack handling (for C/C++ style function calls), lacks storage compression (X86's CISC nature has instruction level compression which ARM CPUs somewhat copied with thumb instruction set) and 'etc'.

The main reason for X86's stack bias design is to optimally support C/C++ style function calls and PowerPC wasn't optimally designed for stack based workloads i.e. shall we restart Mac's PowerPC vs X86 debate again?

Ideal CPU design for gaming is Intel Core i series e.g. medium length pipeline, lowest latency, industry leading branch hardware and sufficient vector SIMD hardware.

Any CPU design that gets close to Intel Core i series design is superior to in-order PPE.

I can write an essay on how shit is IBM PPE for gaming.

The main problem with X86 prior to Core 2 is the lack of full 128bit SIMD units which is not a problem for Jaguar.

All well and good but intel core i series didn't exist when the x360 released. It was designed for gaming (it's a modified cell processor) and it dwarfed the pentium 4 in terms of computational performance for games. Even the first dual cores had trouble keeping up because of its high flops.

The x360 had no use for an all purpose cpu.

To quote again

Everyone talks about this 100GFLOPS, but all I've ever said is that the entire 360 CPU would not be able to run Shape at 100%. Remember that the 360 CPU gets, on average, an IPC of 0.2. So while the chip is _technically_ 100GFlops, you will never see that in real running code. Jaguar cores have an IPC of close to 1. A single jaguar core could almost outperform the entire 360 CPU on production code.

This is from a developer who worked on both XBO and X360. X360's 100 GFLOPS CPUs assumes effective IPC of 1.0 but 0.2 IPC will effectively reduce that 100 GFLOPS..

Shape is also a streaming workload for 3D game audio.

TLB comparison

K7 Athlon XP's L2 TLB has 256 entries.

K8 Athlon 64's L2 TLB has 512 entries.

Jaguar's L2 TLB has 512 entries.

Ryzen's L2 TLB has 1500 entries.

X1X CPU's L2 TBL has 2000 entries.

From TLB improvement generation, Jaguar is a relative from K8 Athlon.

For 3D particle movement benchmark

AMD (Llano) A8-3850 (the same K10 Athlon II 4X quad CPU cores at 2.9 Ghz) = 252.33, scaled down to 2.3 Ghz, it may yield 200 score.

Athlon 5350 (quad core Jaguar at 2.05 Ghz) = 174.07, scaled to 2.3 Ghz, it may yield 195 score.

For 3D particle movement, stock Jaguar is nearly like K10 and both has full 128 bit SIMD units. Jaguar needs higher clock speed and lower latency.

The Cell was a trash CPU that Sony incorrectly thought could take over the CPU market.

Even the 3 Core version in the 360 is Trash. In Order CPU's in general are trash that cause Extra work for developers to use properly.

Why should Devs spend more time trying to get there code running on garbage CPU's instead of working on their games??

That's why this Gen both Sony and MS went with AMD for their CPU's. Jaguar has better performance, is less of a hassle for Devs to work with and is Cheaper than those IBM CPU's as an added benefit.

MS made some significant improvements to Latency on the XB1X version of Jaguar. According to MS 20% improvement on Latency in the Jaguar cores on XB1X. That's huge considering latency is a major killer of performance on CPU's.

Cell was a great CPU specially for medical purposes and other purposes as well.

In 2005 nothing was even close to Cell capabilities,no the reason why sony went with AMD is because of their financial problems they simply could not afford to make another cell which was expensive at first for them,is more cost effective to just make an APU with both CPU and GPU inside which is also why you don't see the xbox and PS4 using dedicated processors and instead use APU,cost effective moderately powerful and can be shrunk as time moves on and made even cheaper.

20% latency improvement over WHAT? That is what you will never find out because those numbers are mostly use to trick suckers such as yourself into thinking that some how that 20% gain turn than Jaguar into something other than a shitty bottom of the barrel CPU which is what it is,and Destiny can't be 60FPS on xbox one X because of that CPU is simply not enough,which is why they claim in order to make it 60FPS on consoles they had to made the game smaller with less enemies which is a CLEAR indication of CPU bottleneck.

At least is sucks a little less than the Pro one is about the only good thing you can get out of that 20% and who knows since the xbox one runs 3 OS at once.

It's your job to know what the f*ck you're talking about. You can't have a discussion about CPUs when you don't know what you're saying. I'm sure you think it's cute that you're bsing your way through this argument and you think you're winning. You're not winning, you're making a fool of yourself. You don't know the difference between an in order execution and out of order execution processor. That's basic CPU 101.

The 360 CPU was so bad, it used an architecture that was completely obsolete even back in 2005. Even a $100 ONE CORE PC CPU from back then was EASILY better. I'm ok with you going on with your life thinking the 360 CPU was as powerful as an i7 CPU. That's fine if you want to believe that. It will just be evidence of and sum up your knowledge on the subject.

I know you're HC Sony Boy but you even have to admit that the Cell is trash. The truth will set you free.....

The 360 CPU was ok for the xbox 360 on those times you may argue that core vs core a Pentium 4 was faster or better,or another AMD CPU of the time all 3 cores 6 threads were faster than a pentium 4,but on those days multicore coding was on infancy there really were no games using multiple cores,in fact the 360 and PS3 were pioneer on that front,games started to use multiple cores on 360 and PS3 before than on PC,you can blame slow PC adoption rate for it.

Add to that that the very best top of the line hardware like today was reserve for a small minority,most people would not simply have a Pentium 4 black edition for gaming,they would have something cheaper.

You need to read a few developer white papers and see that your comment above is laughable.

Without Cell 360 would of completely decimated PS3 in graphics.

With all those white papers did you also read the developer stories of how they had 2 times as many devs working on the PS3 versions of their games and it still took longer to develop than the 360 version all while performing worse than the 360 version??

Yea that's a lot of work and money to get a game going.

My point still stands......