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.
BTW 360 GPU totals 332 million transistors
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html
|
A three year old link to a X360 site... very nice.
The X360's CPU advantage shows up only when one is assuming the Cell will work on it's conventional way (chaining the SPEs together, each handling a step on a complex operation and using the PPE to start, stop, interrupt, and schedule the processes running on the SPEs). Otherwise the PS3 outperforms the X360 since it has more threads working on the very same AltiVec base.
And the X360's GPU totals only 232 million transistors or the like. Since the EDRAM is localized on a separate die is bullshit to merge its transistor count (around 100 million) together with the X360's gpu. Is nothing, for instance, like the GC chip which had its embedded memory and GPU on the same die.
