By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Why is there soo much negativity in any 360 related thread?

selnor on 09 March 2010
libellule said:
themanwithnoname said:
I dunno what's funnier, that this thread is a microcosm of what the OP's talking about or that libellule's argument boils down to "lots of people agree with me, so I must be right!"

"lots of people agree with me, so I must be right!"

keep your shit out of my mouth plz

When I said the "whole internet", I m referring to the main review websites.
Considering how the "whole internet" is OVER dominated by the american propaganda and has bashed the PS3 to hell (just check the rating of Uncharted1 compared to Halo3 ...), I do believe that, when the same internet people change their opinion then it means something has changed.

To put it clear : despite all anti PS3 biais, it is common knowledge that the more technically impressive games are on PS3.

(see my signature, even jesus kung fu magic say it !)


Yes, but you and I both know that the 360 has not been pushed. a Multiplatform engine is the best graphics on 360 right now. Alan Wake is gonna be the first proper engine designed fully for 360. Both U2 and KZ2 were designed from the ground up using PS3 hardware. 360 is finally getting that treatment.



Around the Network
selnor on 09 March 2010
Scoobes said:
selnor said:
Stop. Your so far off the mark. Ok. Those figures are from IBM yes. But not actual usage data. Efficiency is where the figures are at. And Cell in PS3 gets nowhere near it's claims.Here the following is from IBM's actual tests on their own website. Something Sony fans never ever use. And something they always push aside hoping noone will ever see it. Table 9. Comparison of Linpack performance between Cell BE and other processors
Linpack 1kx1k (DP) Peak GFLOPS Actual GFLOPS Efficiency
SPU, 3.2GHz 1.83 1.45 79.23%
8 SPUs, 3.2GHz 14.63 9.46 64.66%
Pentium4, 3.2GHz 6.4 3.1 48.44%
Pentium4 + SSE3, 3.6GHz 14.4 7.2 50.00%
Itanium, 1.6GHz 6.4 5.95 92.97%
Now at this point I will point out to you, the SPU's also according to IBM CANNOT run an operating system. They are only designed for Floating work. IBM's own words. Now the Pentium + SSE3, 3.65GHz is a single core processor. If that was a quad core it would destroy 8 SPU's together even though the SPU's are designed for the work this test provides and the Pentium isn't. The Pentium is a PPE processor. Doing 7.2 Actual GFLOPS in a test which Cell was designed to be good at, and 8 SPU's actual is only 2 GFLOPS above a single core PPE back in 2006.Also bear in mind take off some for PS3 has a dormant SPU and 1 dedicated to OS and PS3 has only 6 SPU's available for making games.This is where the figures come from. When all is added up, under actual performance the Cell does 114.2 GFLOPS and Xenon 115.4. But remeber games that require more General purpose work, have considerably more power on the Xenon as the SPU's CANNOT do it at all. So PS3 has just 1 PPE to do those jobs.Table 7. Performance of parallelized double-precision Linpack on eight SPUs
matrix size # of Cycles # of Insts. CPI Dual Issue Channel Stalls Other Stalls Used Regs SPEsim GFLOPS Measured GFLOPS Model Accuracy Efficiency
1Kx1K 236.7M 69.1M 3.42 2.9% 6.7% 68.5% 128 9.704 9.46 97.49% 64.66%
2Kx2K 1.64G 44.9M 3.65 2.2% 3.3% 72.5% 128 11.184 11.05 98.80% 75.53%
Table 4. Performance of parallelized Linpack on eight SPUs
Matrix size Cycles # of Insts. CPI Single Issue Dual Issue Channel Stalls Other Stalls # of Used Regs SPEsim Mea- sured Model accuracy Effi- ciency
1024x1024 27.6M 2.92M 0.95 27.9% 32.6% 26.9% 12.6% 126 83.12 73.04 87.87% 35.7%
4096x4096 918.0M 1.51G 0.61 29.0% 56.7% 10.8% 3.4% 126 160 155.5 97.2% 75.9%
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cellperf/Now IBM also state the following:

The PPE was designed specifically for the Cell processor but during development, Microsoft approached IBM wanting a high performance processor core for its Xbox 360. IBM complied and made the tri-core Xenon processor, based on a slightly modified version of the PPE.[33][34]

Anything the PS3 needs the PPE for, the 360 is more than 3 times as powerful at doing so. Because the SPU's cannot do it at all.


Do we know what the developers use PPE's for and how efficiently the 360's 3 cores are utilised? As far as I'm aware most of the power hungry stuff is shifted to the GPUs and in the PS3's case the SPEs. As far as I'm aware AI and physics are mainly covered on the CPUs but physics can also be done on the GPU and more efficiently, and I didn't think AI was particularly power hungry.

On PC I'm running on an AMD 3800 X2 (V.old) and games run fine whilst looking better than most console games as I'm running on an 8800GTS GPU.

Compared to a modern personal computer, the relatively high overall floating point performance of a Cell processor seemingly dwarfs the abilities of the SIMD unit in desktop CPUs like the Pentium 4 and the Athlon 64. However, comparing only floating point abilities of a system is a one-dimensional and application-specific metric. Unlike a Cell processor, such desktop CPUs are more suited to the general purpose software usually run on personal computers. In addition to executing multiple instructions per clock, processors from Intel and AMD feature branch predictors. The Cell is designed to compensate for this with compiler assistance, in which prepare-to-branch instructions are created. For double-precision floating point operations, as sometimes used in personal computers and often used in scientific computing, Cell performance drops by an order of magnitude, but still reaches 20.8 GFLOPS ( Theoretical 1.8 GFLOPS per SPE, 6.4 GFLOPS per PPE). The PowerXCell 8i variant, which was specifically designed for double-precision, reaches 102.4 GFLOPS in double-precision calculations.

But from the tests we know An individual SPU on it's own has an actual GFLOP of 1.4 not 1.8. and further when using more together the efficiency decreases. as 8 SPU's only mnage 9.46 GFLOPS. Whereas 1.4 x 8 should be giving 11.2 GFLOPS not 9.46.

So as you can see, Sony through around the theoretical numbers of PS3 Cell. Didnt mention to their customers that it was based on 8 SPU Cell when the PS3 would only have 7 available with a further locked for Linux help. And then further forgot to mention that in real world terms it gets nowhere near 218GFLOPS.

 



libellule on 09 March 2010
selnor said:
libellule said:
themanwithnoname said:
I dunno what's funnier, that this thread is a microcosm of what the OP's talking about or that libellule's argument boils down to "lots of people agree with me, so I must be right!"

"lots of people agree with me, so I must be right!"

keep your shit out of my mouth plz

When I said the "whole internet", I m referring to the main review websites.
Considering how the "whole internet" is OVER dominated by the american propaganda and has bashed the PS3 to hell (just check the rating of Uncharted1 compared to Halo3 ...), I do believe that, when the same internet people change their opinion then it means something has changed.

To put it clear : despite all anti PS3 biais, it is common knowledge that the more technically impressive games are on PS3.

(see my signature, even jesus kung fu magic say it !)


Yes, but you and I both know that the 360 has not been pushed. a Multiplatform engine is the best graphics on 360 right now. Alan Wake is gonna be the first proper engine designed fully for 360. Both U2 and KZ2 were designed from the ground up using PS3 hardware. 360 is finally getting that treatment.

- I dont know if PS3 and/or 360 have been pushed to the maximum.
- I agree that the unreal engine is not at 100% optimized for the 360.
- I agree that Alan Wake seems to be developped in a optimized way for the 360.
- I agree about the KZ2/U2 comments.
- I dont know how Alan Wake will perform and will be considered at his release.



Time to Work !

Scoobes on 09 March 2010
selnor said:
Scoobes said:

Do we know what the developers use PPE's for and how efficiently the 360's 3 cores are utilised? As far as I'm aware most of the power hungry stuff is shifted to the GPUs and in the PS3's case the SPEs. As far as I'm aware AI and physics are mainly covered on the CPUs but physics can also be done on the GPU and more efficiently, and I didn't think AI was particularly power hungry.

On PC I'm running on an AMD 3800 X2 (V.old) and games run fine whilst looking better than most console games as I'm running on an 8800GTS GPU.

Compared to a modern personal computer, the relatively high overall floating point performance of a Cell processor seemingly dwarfs the abilities of the SIMD unit in desktop CPUs like the Pentium 4 and the Athlon 64. However, comparing only floating point abilities of a system is a one-dimensional and application-specific metric. Unlike a Cell processor, such desktop CPUs are more suited to the general purpose software usually run on personal computers. In addition to executing multiple instructions per clock, processors from Intel and AMD feature branch predictors. The Cell is designed to compensate for this with compiler assistance, in which prepare-to-branch instructions are created. For double-precision floating point operations, as sometimes used in personal computers and often used in scientific computing, Cell performance drops by an order of magnitude, but still reaches 20.8 GFLOPS ( Theoretical 1.8 GFLOPS per SPE, 6.4 GFLOPS per PPE). The PowerXCell 8i variant, which was specifically designed for double-precision, reaches 102.4 GFLOPS in double-precision calculations.

But from the tests we know An individual SPU on it's own has an actual GFLOP of 1.4 not 1.8. and further when using more together the efficiency decreases. as 8 SPU's only mnage 9.46 GFLOPS. Whereas 1.4 x 8 should be giving 11.2 GFLOPS not 9.46.

So as you can see, Sony through around the theoretical numbers of PS3 Cell. Didnt mention to their customers that it was based on 8 SPU Cell when the PS3 would only have 7 available with a further locked for Linux help. And then further forgot to mention that in real world terms it gets nowhere near 218GFLOPS.

 

I'm actually more interested in knowing what and how developers actually use the CPUs as my current belief is that the CPUs on both consoles haven't really been utilised fully. What exactly do developers use the 3 cores and the SPUs on the HD consoles for and how efficiently are they being used?

And as for the numbers, MS and Sony love to throw out BS numbers to make their respective console sound good. Anyway they can think of to inflate the numbers to outdo the competition and say "My cock is much bigger than yours!". I think the lesson is to not listen to bullcrap PR.




Get your Portable ID!

Recon1O1 on 09 March 2010

I'm sure I read a thread years ago about the site being 45% PS3, 40% Wii and 15% 360 but I can't find it and don't remember what they were quoting. If anything I would say the Wii and 360 numbers would have dropped. Even the Wii owners seem a little browbeaten. With the growing no. of multi-console ppl. there is just no way to accurately poll or judge.

I can't understand the mentality of someone who verbally attacks when a system, game, co., or person are having it rough. Your grandma is weak and slow so smash her and take the silver! Just the internet I guess. I try to behave like I would face to face.

Lower M$ excl. and multi-plat. review scores and PS3 excl. GOTYs are inevitable on VGC. Any 360 fan needs to seriously adjust their expectations and language.



Around the Network
Vergis on 09 March 2010

Im guessing cause most people ( Like me ) remember what Microsoft really are....

Gaming belongs to Nintendo ( im saying that not even liking the wii ) Sega and Sony for bringing into a new era.

Microsoft bought their way in for easy $$$

I hate them with a passion lol



Black RL on 09 March 2010

Although the 360 is ahead in the HD war I notice what the OP says in this site, I think it's because it's filled with SONY "fanboys". I just don't know where are all the 360 "fanboys".....

Maybe playing?




jesus kung fu magic on 09 March 2010
Vergis said:
Im guessing cause most people ( Like me ) remember what Microsoft really are....

Gaming belongs to Nintendo ( im saying that not even liking the wii ) Sega and Sony for bringing into a new era.

Microsoft bought their way in for easy $$$

I hate them with a passion lol

You represent everything that is wrong with gaming forums......no offense though.



N64 is the ONLY console of the fifth generation!!!

Jordahn on 09 March 2010

Usually the way you judge others is a reflection of your own attitude. Therefore after that's been displayed, the 360 owners as a whole responding in this thread are the ones really being negative. Just saying, just and observation.



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

selnor on 09 March 2010
Scoobes said:
selnor said:
Scoobes said:

Do we know what the developers use PPE's for and how efficiently the 360's 3 cores are utilised? As far as I'm aware most of the power hungry stuff is shifted to the GPUs and in the PS3's case the SPEs. As far as I'm aware AI and physics are mainly covered on the CPUs but physics can also be done on the GPU and more efficiently, and I didn't think AI was particularly power hungry.

On PC I'm running on an AMD 3800 X2 (V.old) and games run fine whilst looking better than most console games as I'm running on an 8800GTS GPU.

Compared to a modern personal computer, the relatively high overall floating point performance of a Cell processor seemingly dwarfs the abilities of the SIMD unit in desktop CPUs like the Pentium 4 and the Athlon 64. However, comparing only floating point abilities of a system is a one-dimensional and application-specific metric. Unlike a Cell processor, such desktop CPUs are more suited to the general purpose software usually run on personal computers. In addition to executing multiple instructions per clock, processors from Intel and AMD feature branch predictors. The Cell is designed to compensate for this with compiler assistance, in which prepare-to-branch instructions are created. For double-precision floating point operations, as sometimes used in personal computers and often used in scientific computing, Cell performance drops by an order of magnitude, but still reaches 20.8 GFLOPS ( Theoretical 1.8 GFLOPS per SPE, 6.4 GFLOPS per PPE). The PowerXCell 8i variant, which was specifically designed for double-precision, reaches 102.4 GFLOPS in double-precision calculations.

But from the tests we know An individual SPU on it's own has an actual GFLOP of 1.4 not 1.8. and further when using more together the efficiency decreases. as 8 SPU's only mnage 9.46 GFLOPS. Whereas 1.4 x 8 should be giving 11.2 GFLOPS not 9.46.

So as you can see, Sony through around the theoretical numbers of PS3 Cell. Didnt mention to their customers that it was based on 8 SPU Cell when the PS3 would only have 7 available with a further locked for Linux help. And then further forgot to mention that in real world terms it gets nowhere near 218GFLOPS.

 

I'm actually more interested in knowing what and how developers actually use the CPUs as my current belief is that the CPUs on both consoles haven't really been utilised fully. What exactly do developers use the 3 cores and the SPUs on the HD consoles for and how efficiently are they being used?

And as for the numbers, MS and Sony love to throw out BS numbers to make their respective console sound good. Anyway they can think of to inflate the numbers to outdo the competition and say "My cock is much bigger than yours!". I think the lesson is to not listen to bullcrap PR.

Yes. I understand that First Party Sony devs use SPU's to help out the inferiority in RSX. But then tha is taking away resources for CPU intensive tasks like, physics, AI and Cross edging. This is why it's always important to look at whole systems and never just one component.