BrayanA said:
haxxiy said:
Yeah, 165 million transistors, 1MB of cache and 3 cores are indeed very similar to 300 million transistors, 2,5MB of cache and 9 cores. That's why everybody uses X360 as cluster supercomputers like PS3.
No seriously, at its very best the X360's CPU is 3,2 GHz x 8 FLOPS/clock cycle (as any IBM PPE) x 3 cores = 76,2 GFLOPS of peak performance.
PS3 has nine cores (1 PPE, 8 SPEs) at 3.2 GHz which means 230,4 GFLOPS of peak performance or 179,2 in-game processing power avaliable.
Oh and btw the RSX is also a bit stronger than the Xenos (4 alus x 2 madds x 24 pipelines + 5 alus x 8 pipelines x 550 MHz = 255 GFLOPS verse 5 alus x 48 pipelines x 500 MHz = 240 GFLOPS)
X360 multiplats look better most of time because X360 has more memory avaliable (more memory = bigger textures and frame buffer) and PS3 is harder to work. Plus most PS3 multiplats do not even work with the whole Cell at all (only its single general purpose core).
Your haterboxes. |
Cell's claimed advantage is on streaming floating point work which is done on its seven DSP processors and is x2 of what 360 CPU can do, but Xbox 360's CPU has x3 general purpose processing power because it has three general purpose cores.
BTW 360 GPU totals 332 million transistors
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html
|
That's a theoretical point they will never reach since one of those SPEs is tied up with the OS effectively reducing the number of SPEs used for the actual games to 6. And while I'm not absolutely sure I think that Sony's numbers are for a fully running 8spe Cell. The PS3 is a wonder peice of hardware, but it's not a step ahead of the 360 as a game machine.
