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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - 360 CPU and Cell are fairly equal according to Dave Shippy

Cueil 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.

No one needs to read past your ignorant 9 core statement to know that you don't even have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.  How about doing some research on the Cell before spewing out number some idiot post on the official PlayStation forums.  SPEs are not cores and they most certainly don't all run at 3.2 ghz the Cell is an asynchronous processor.  If your ignorance was any greater you would choke and die on it.  Multiplats look better on the 360 because the system was designed as a gaming platform first and formost and was build with developers wishes in mind.

 

couldn't have said it better myself

 

lol

 





Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Around the Network

^^ The Cell concept yields more power per unit cost. That's the general idea, and that's why hardware manufacturers want to go there, even if it makes programming such chips more difficult.



 

UHG! another one of these threads. I would think this guy HAS to say they are equal because if he didn't then MS or Sony would be very much angry with IBM for gimping one of them. The Cell + RSX architechture trumps the 360s. It is tried......tested.........and proven on multiple occassions.

One man saying they are equal who obviously has an ulterior motive as he needs to please both sides pails in comparison to...
-multiple game developers stating the PS3 has more potential
-360 developers saying they have tapped out the 360
-THe fact that the PS3s architecture is the same being used in the worlds strongest super computer
-PS3 clusters used to break into a bank
-Games like Killzone outperforming the 360s best looking game in graphics and physics. Outrageous enemy counts in games like Heavenly Sword. And the pure beauty of Uncharted trumping anything on consoles as we speak.
-Dont forget the fact GOWIII and Uncharted stand to look even better then Killzone 2(Graphically Speaking).



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

Cueil 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.

No one needs to read past your ignorant 9 core statement to know that you don't even have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.  How about doing some research on the Cell before spewing out number some idiot post on the official PlayStation forums.  SPEs are not cores and they most certainly don't all run at 3.2 ghz the Cell is an asynchronous processor.  If your ignorance was any greater you would choke and die on it.  Multiplats look better on the 360 because the system was designed as a gaming platform first and formost and was build with developers wishes in mind.

 

I like this guy.  He's on something a lot stronger than beer, but he knows how to lay it on.

I love this part the best: "SPEs are not cores and they most certainly don't all run at 3.2 ghz the Cell is an asynchronous processor".

Where is the sense?  Its totally missing!  He just strung together words from other posts and made sentences.  Awesome.  Its like modern sarcastic poetry.

I salute your humor, sir.  Keep it to beer though man.  That harsher stuff will hurt ya over time.

 

 



 

heruamon said:
joeorc said:
Procrastinato said:

^^ The Cell's SPEs can perform many functions similar to GPUs, but they aren't GPUs. Anyone who has ever written a software rendering engine would concur that the SPEs downright phenominal, and supremely flexible, for such an endeavor -- but they aren't going to replace a dedicated GPU when it comes right down it it. They can assist the RSX by relieving it of some work, realistically. "Preprocessing" some graphics tasks, if you will.

That being said, in terms of real-world performance, the Cell is a little more powerful than the Xenon, but the 360's GPU usually typically makes up for the difference, unless the engine is a dedicated PS3 one, because not many games are CPU-bound, they are GPU-bound.

I think the issue most people fail to understand, regarding the Cell, is that the Cell itself is not some magical phenominon that is going to change the landscape of computation -- the idea* behind the Cell is, however. Future iterations of the same concept will outperform "full" multicore architectures, from a heat perspective, from a transitor count/cost perspective, and every other perspective that matters, except a software development perspective.

And that last bit is where architecture's like the Xenon get their praise from.  In the hurried modern world, where time and budget is always in a concern, the Xenon has a fair sized advantage, and that's not to be underestimated.

 

* The idea is that "convenience" features of a processor, like a huge cache, out-of-order execution, and a good branch predictor, are much more expensive, and much less worthwhile, than the extra basic cores you could put on a chip are, with the same transitor count.  More power, less heat, less raw materials.  The added performance comes at a cost to the software developer, who can no longer rely on the aforementioned crutches to allow his/her code to pass for "fast".

while i pretty much agree with what you stated..the Cell processor is indeed a CPU/GPU combo chip.

and yea it is not meant to replace a dedicated GPU for the most part. except now the smaller nm scale CPU/GPU combo chip's do provide the didicated GPU finction in Mobile devices, that would require such low power processor's with the graphic's use ability to replace dedicated GPU's that would otherwise offset the advantages of the CPU/GPU chip's provide like you stated in power /watt and transister count.

but here is DR. Hofstee has stated this here is the PDF

lanl.gov/orgs/hpc/roadrunner/rrinfo/RR%20webPDFs/Cell_Hofstee_Non_Conf.pdf


and how AMD and Intel and Ati are also heading in that same direction.

 

The shift of AMD and Intel is driven by profits, and not necessarily capability.  Don’t get me wrong, as I’m not saying it’s totally impossible to deliver on this capability, but in a lot of respects, this reminds me of M$ attempts to organically put more function into windows…it extremely complicates the solution, and leaves more room for loss of efficiency.   AMD is doing so, because they own ATI, and are looking to deliver a cheaper solution to compete and stay alive, but Intel is shifting in this direction to rebuff the comments from Nvidia about the importance of the CPU in the mix.  Overall, I don’t think its going to work, and I think at the end of the day, CPU/GPU will remain separate…another example is the Sound Card…you notice the difference when you have a dedicated soundcard, vice using the board sound. 

BTW, That pdf had an interesting comment that somewhat outlines the expectation some had for Cell and the PS3...

Innovative Chip is best high-performance embedded processor of 2005

We chose the Cell BE as the best high-performance embedded processor of 2005 because of its innovative design and future potential....Even if the Cell BE accumulates no more design wins, the PlayStation 3 could drive sales to nearly 100 million units over the likely five-year lifespan of the console. That would make the Cell BE one of the most successful microprocessors in history.

 

As far as I know, no other major system uses the Cell/Broadband Engine processor, although some are “planning” to use it, which means the ps3 had better start selling A LOT of console in the next year.  My gut tells me that Intel is going to make a very strong to M$ to get its chips in the next console, which would present some interesting dynamics on cost.

 

in reguard's to your fir's statement, it's too late, the Mobile market with cloud based computeing is where pretty much where thing's are going,

and already these HYBRID processor's power/watt is one of the big advantages with low cost and scaleable that it's pretty much a no brainer.

look at NETBOOK'S:

o'l how i love that disruptive technology...:D

it's gathered quite a strong position in market share that window's seven was pretty much needed to be the replacement OS for XP Vist'a requirement's was overkill for those NETBOOK'S but yet CPU/GPU combo chip's are perfect Hybrid's to go into Netbook's. Cell phone's the same.

 

as for the cell processor in the market:

you can ADD a PCI express Cell processor card to your PC right now

http://www.leadtek.com.tw/eng/tv_tuner/overview.asp?lineid=6&pronameid=447

price:

$308.608 USD

 only a 4 SPE Cell Processor with 64 MB of ram..

http://shop.tsukumo.co.jp/goods/4537694079815/



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Around the Network

John Carmack is the definition of a programming god, imho...so usually, when he says something about programming, I usually say...okay.

You have got statements from the David Shippy, then you've got comments from John Carmack...so unless somebody is a programmer, and they have some pretty robust data to back it up...I kinda have to believe what those guys have to say...over some fanboys screaming "Cellz Rulez"



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

heruamon said:
John Carmack is the definition of a programming god, imho...so usually, when he says something about programming, I usually say...okay.

You have got statements from the Dav id Shippy, then you've got comments from John Carmack...so unless somebody is a programmer, and they have some pretty robust data to back it up...I kinda have to believe what those guys have to say...over some fanboys screaming "Cellz Rulez"

I don't get it.  Carmack said that his engine is bound by having to cater to the lowest common denominator... i.e. the 360.  You think he is arguing that the Cell is the same?  He's talking about its being the same, as far as effective cross-platform development is concerned, which is totally true.  He's not saying anything about the Xenon and Cell being on par.  He's saying that he can't use any of the bonus speed of the Cell effectively, because he can't write to the metal of every chip his software runs on...

My beer writes some pretty fancy code, so I say beer is right, and so is Carmack, and you've got what he's saying $#*-backwards.

 



 

ChichiriMuyo said:
Sardauk said:
nen-suer said:
 

 

Thats the point, if u want something different and unique u have to pay money and work hard, it may come as a surprise to u but most great game makers care about the games more than the profit.

 

 

Well that is new to me: the video gaming industry which generates more money than movies btw... is about .. ART ? Not money ?

On your remark about the """"outdated UR3""": We are not talking about fundamental science here.... iterative development are the best way to obtain a good results. Making a new big bang from scratch is expensive and generally not worth the investment, if you cannot recycle it later.

The video game industry makes more money than box-office sales.  It's got nothing on DVD sales.

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/video-games-explode-global-revenues-now-on-par-with-box-office/?biz=1

Also, that's revenue, not profit.  The movie industry is still far, far more profitable.

 

 Not even that.

In 2K7 the games industry in the US passed box office sales.

Thing is that included the price of the hardware and services.

Take those away and it didnt even come close.

 

Now look at it world wide and the entire games industry INCLUDING hardware sales doesnt even come close to worldwide box office revenue(Bollywood thanks you).



Fishie said:

 Not even that.

In 2K7 the games industry in the US passed box office sales.

Thing is that included the price of the hardware and services.

Take those away and it didnt even come close.

 

Now look at it world wide and the entire games industry INCLUDING hardware sales doesnt even come close to worldwide box office revenue(Bollywood thanks you).

 

Actually, the video game market blew DVD sales (not DVD + Box Office.. yet) out of the water last year.  You're at least 0 for 2 now.

Here's an educational link:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6203677.html



 

joeorc said:
heruamon said:
joeorc said:
Procrastinato said:

^^ The Cell's SPEs can perform many functions similar to GPUs, but they aren't GPUs. Anyone who has ever written a software rendering engine would concur that the SPEs downright phenominal, and supremely flexible, for such an endeavor -- but they aren't going to replace a dedicated GPU when it comes right down it it. They can assist the RSX by relieving it of some work, realistically. "Preprocessing" some graphics tasks, if you will.

That being said, in terms of real-world performance, the Cell is a little more powerful than the Xenon, but the 360's GPU usually typically makes up for the difference, unless the engine is a dedicated PS3 one, because not many games are CPU-bound, they are GPU-bound.

I think the issue most people fail to understand, regarding the Cell, is that the Cell itself is not some magical phenominon that is going to change the landscape of computation -- the idea* behind the Cell is, however. Future iterations of the same concept will outperform "full" multicore architectures, from a heat perspective, from a transitor count/cost perspective, and every other perspective that matters, except a software development perspective.

And that last bit is where architecture's like the Xenon get their praise from.  In the hurried modern world, where time and budget is always in a concern, the Xenon has a fair sized advantage, and that's not to be underestimated.

 

* The idea is that "convenience" features of a processor, like a huge cache, out-of-order execution, and a good branch predictor, are much more expensive, and much less worthwhile, than the extra basic cores you could put on a chip are, with the same transitor count.  More power, less heat, less raw materials.  The added performance comes at a cost to the software developer, who can no longer rely on the aforementioned crutches to allow his/her code to pass for "fast".

while i pretty much agree with what you stated..the Cell processor is indeed a CPU/GPU combo chip.

and yea it is not meant to replace a dedicated GPU for the most part. except now the smaller nm scale CPU/GPU combo chip's do provide the didicated GPU finction in Mobile devices, that would require such low power processor's with the graphic's use ability to replace dedicated GPU's that would otherwise offset the advantages of the CPU/GPU chip's provide like you stated in power /watt and transister count.

but here is DR. Hofstee has stated this here is the PDF

lanl.gov/orgs/hpc/roadrunner/rrinfo/RR%20webPDFs/Cell_Hofstee_Non_Conf.pdf


and how AMD and Intel and Ati are also heading in that same direction.

 

The shift of AMD and Intel is driven by profits, and not necessarily capability.  Don’t get me wrong, as I’m not saying it’s totally impossible to deliver on this capability, but in a lot of respects, this reminds me of M$ attempts to organically put more function into windows…it extremely complicates the solution, and leaves more room for loss of efficiency.   AMD is doing so, because they own ATI, and are looking to deliver a cheaper solution to compete and stay alive, but Intel is shifting in this direction to rebuff the comments from Nvidia about the importance of the CPU in the mix.  Overall, I don’t think its going to work, and I think at the end of the day, CPU/GPU will remain separate…another example is the Sound Card…you notice the difference when you have a dedicated soundcard, vice using the board sound. 

BTW, That pdf had an interesting comment that somewhat outlines the expectation some had for Cell and the PS3...

Innovative Chip is best high-performance embedded processor of 2005

We chose the Cell BE as the best high-performance embedded processor of 2005 because of its innovative design and future potential....Even if the Cell BE accumulates no more design wins, the PlayStation 3 could drive sales to nearly 100 million units over the likely five-year lifespan of the console. That would make the Cell BE one of the most successful microprocessors in history.

 

As far as I know, no other major system uses the Cell/Broadband Engine processor, although some are “planning” to use it, which means the ps3 had better start selling A LOT of console in the next year.  My gut tells me that Intel is going to make a very strong to M$ to get its chips in the next console, which would present some interesting dynamics on cost.

 

in reguard's to your fir's statement, it's too late, the Mobile market with cloud based computeing is where pretty much where thing's are going,

and already these HYBRID processor's power/watt is one of the big advantages with low cost and scaleable that it's pretty much a no brainer.

look at NETBOOK'S:

o'l how i love that disruptive technology...:D

it's gathered quite a strong position in market share that window's seven was pretty much needed to be the replacement OS for XP Vist'a requirement's was overkill for those NETBOOK'S but yet CPU/GPU combo chip's are perfect Hybrid's to go into Netbook's. Cell phone's the same.

 

as for the cell processor in the market:

you can ADD a PCI express Cell processor card to your PC right now

http://www.leadtek.com.tw/eng/tv_tuner/overview.asp?lineid=6&pronameid=447

 

Do you use a netbook?  I've seen eye-popping projections for it, in the future, but I have zero plans on using one...in fact, I just got my Gateway FX with power galore.  Are they the future, methinks not, and imho, they were a fad last year, but I might be wrong.  WRT to putting a cell in your PC...huh...how many units have been sold?  If anything, the sales of gaming capable laptops have skyrocketed over the past 2 years, not decreased. 

 



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder