NJ5 said:
Having read the WSJ article now, I have to say this doesn't make any sense. They're saying the cores of the 360 chip are derivative of the Cell design (presumably the PPE).
Newsflash, both the Cell's PPE and the 360's three cores are pretty regular PowerPC cores which have existed and evolved for years now. If you have an old Mac laptop, you own one of those. By the way, there's this console called the Wii... yeah, it also has a PowerPC-based CPU.
I really don't see any meat to these claims, but of course I didn't read the book.
|
Not quite that regular as both the Cell's PPE and each of the 360's cores are in-order processors whereas most normal PowerPC cpu's are out of order. This allows to use less silicon as you do not have to put the reordering logic in but makes it less efficient and puts more stress on the compilers to keep the processor busy.
From what I read (don't have the source anymore, it was 1-2 years ago) both PS3 and 360 PPC cores where derived from a research project at IBM, but where the 360 got 3 of them the cell got a big numbers of advanced DSP's tacked on (the SPE's).
Coca-Cola: The PPE part of the Cell is very similar to one of the individual cores of the 360's CPU and both are very similar (but slightly less so) to the Wii's CPU though much faster (a bit like the difference between different generations of x86 chips). The part where the PS3 is drastically different is with the SPE's which while not as flexible as the PPE are good at number crunching. You could say they are half way between a CPU and a GPU. It is because programmers where more used to using traditional CPU's than less flexible SPE's that the PS3 had difficulty matching the 360 in multiplatform earlier on in its life. Now that they have more knowledge and better tools from earlier efforts you see both versions on par or slightly favoring one or the other.