By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ViktorBKK on 31 May 2013
Edit Thread
walsufnir said:
ViktorBKK said:
Let's take things from the start. Technically, CPU architecture refers to the instruction set of a CPU. Examples are, x86, ARM, MIPS etc.

Both the 360 and Wii U use PowerPC architecture. There is no "exotic" architecture involved, like PS3's mixed-core solution. Now obviously, some people want to believe that there is immense untapped power in this system. The cold hard truth is that Nintendo's system is based on 40-45nm silicon and runs at 75 Watts during full blown game-play. 80 dollar video cards from the same process node run at 100-130 watts. If you understand the principles of semi-conductor size and power consumption, then you know what I'm talking about. There is barely any hardware inside that console.


"Let's take things from the start. Technically, CPU architecture refers to the instruction set of a CPU. Examples are, x86, ARM, MIPS etc."

 

Right, this is called "ISA" (Instruction Set Architecture).

 

"Both the 360 and Wii U use PowerPC architecture."

 

Right, also PS3 (excluding the spes).

BUT: ISA means nothing. The way the instructions are implemented on the CPU, how the pipelining works, branch-prediction, cache-sizes... All this differs even with the same ISA.

Example: Pentium 4 and Pentium M.  Both were "x86" but still Pentium M was faster at lower clock rates. Why? Read above.

 

"There is barely any hardware inside that console."

 

This disqualifies yourself for all future technical discussions.


1) The PS3 also has RISC co-processors, so it is not just PowerPC.

2) I am sure you agree that porting code to a system that shares the same instruction set, requires less work than porting it to one that doesn't.

3) You may not like my wording, but you know its true. Less than 100 watts for an entire system that runs on 40/45nm hardware is literally nothing these days.