| NATO said: Thanks for the false equivalency, arm vs x86 is not the same thing as power vs x86, and you know damn well it isn't. |
They all have one thing in common. They are separate ISA's.
x86 does have an advantage where it is a CISC design, but RISC internally, so schemes such as this are actually one of x86's strong points.
| NATO said: And microsoft knows this as well, that's why when you slap a 360 game into an xbox one it has to redownload the whole game that's been recompiled to work on the xbox one, rather than run it directly off of the disk. |
The games aren't being recompiled, in-fact for some games that is an impossibility anyway as the source code is out of Microsoft's hands.
Rather... They are being repackaged, hence the required download.
What Microsoft has done is created a virtualized space, with emulated hardware pieces and using something very similar to binary translation to make ends meet.
And that is in conjunction with the fact that the Xbox One has native backwards compatible support for various Xbox 360 and Original Xbox technologies in hardware which makes backwards compatibility that little bit easier on hardware requirements.
| captain carot said: Yeah, it was a floating point beast. But only under the right circumstances. Being in Order and depending massively on perfect scheduling it could be extremely slow at the same time though. |
Well that's just it.
If you were to throw double precision floating point, the Cell would not be breaking any speed records, unless you are comparing it against a Pentium 4. Jaguar can do 3flops per cycle for FP64 or 3 x 1,600 x 8 = 38.4 Gflop of FP64.
Cell is 20.8 Gflop. - 1.8 per SPE, 6.4 per PPE.
Which is why outside of a couple edge-cases... Jaguar beats Cell hands down, no contest. And to think it's a low-end, netbook CPU that is almost 5 years and was the worst x86 processor in AMD entire lineup of worst processors, but it still beats Cell.
The bulk of a modern x86 processor's transistor budget is actually not spent on processing capabilities itself, but rather on ways to keep the processor busy and hiding latency deficits.
We can throw all the cores we want at the problem... And those Cores can be as wide as you want... If they spend most of their time doing nothing, then it doesn't matter how fast the processor is, it's still doing nothing... And that is Cell in a bag.
| captain carot said: And over ten years later, why should anyone need an outdated Cell for floating point related stuff if he can go for GPGPU? Doesn't make the slighest sense. |
GPU's are parallel processing monsters, but tend to lack on serial processing capability that a CPU is more suited for, which is why the CPU continues to exist today.
The CPU and GPU are both good at different things, but can both technically do the job of the other, they just happen to be bad at it.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
