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

Ascended_Saiyan3 on 25 February 2009
Baggins said:
nen-suer said:
BrayanA said:
Gh0st4lifE said:
360s' CPU FAIRLY EQUAL TO PS3s' CPU

PS3s' GPU FAIRLY EQUAL TO 360s' GPU

360 is easier to program

BRs' transfer rate < DVDs'

-------------------------------

What else ?

Fixed

 

 

Transfer rate ''HD DVD < DVD < CD''

Wii easier to program than Xbox360

Fixed ver 2.00

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

 

What are you talking about CD transfer rate isn't faster than DVD. Don't tell me you think because CD's fastest drives are around 50x and DVD's around 20x....

 

lol

 

Base (1×) and (current) maximum speeds by generation
GenerationBaseMax
(Mbit/s)(Mbit/s)×
1st (CD) 1.17 65.62 56×
2nd (DVD) 10.55 210.94 20×
3rd (BD) 36 432 12× [2]

 

The DVD drive on the Xbox 360 is rated at 7x at the centre to 12x at outer edge, the Bluray drive on the PS3 is rated at 2x

 

Let's assume maximum 56x transfer for CD (outer edge) and what, 24x for the inner circle?, and work this out...

 

CD = 28.08 - 65.52 = 46.8mbit

PS3 = 72mbit

Xbox 360 = 73.85 - 126.6mbit Average = 100.225mbit

 

I've actually been pretty tight on the Xbox 360 here as since the transfer rate is variable, assets that need it will be placed on the outer edge of the disc, and assets that don't need to be loaded as fast say for streaming and music would be placed at the inner edge. With the Playstation 3 your stuck with 72mbits wherever your data is on the disc. Not only that but seek times on Bluray drives are much much higher than on DVD drives.

Conclusion? Leave being clever to people with facts to back up their answer ;)

Your math is off.

2x Blu-ray Drive (72Mbps(9MB/s))
Single Layer (2x CLV) - Constant Linear Velocity (Same speed across entire disk)
Double Layer - Couldn't find any data but no games have been released on a double layer yet.

Entire Blu-ray Disk is read at 9MB/s.

12x DVD-Rom Drive SL (9.25MB/S-15.85MB/s(AVG ~8x(10.57MB/s) DL (4.36MB/s-10.57MB/s(AVG ~6x(7.93MB/s)
SL(DVD-5) 12x Max (5-12x Full CAV) - Constant Angular Velocity (Speed Varies from edge to edge)
DL(DVD-9) 8x Max (3.3-8x Full CAV) - Constant Angular Velocity (Speed Varies from edge to edge)

SL DVD is 1.57MB/s > SL Blu-ray
DL DVD is 1.07MB/s < SL Blu-ray

Sources:
Hitachi 12x DVD-Rom Faq (Page 2)
http://www.hitachi.us/supportingdocs...ead%20speed%22
What is DVD?
http://www.videohelp.com/dvd
Blu-ray.com Blu-ray FAQ
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/
Wikipedia - Constant Linear Velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_linear_velocity
Wikipedia - Constant Angular Velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_angular_velocity

Almost all of X360 games are on DL DVDs.

 



Around the Network
headshot91 on 25 February 2009
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.

 

Maybe multiplats look better on the 360 because its usually the developers lead platform? Maybe that was only really in the first year or two of the ps3/360's lifespan and now that developers are starting to use the ps3 as its lead platofrm ie criterion games and ea, they look equal, or dare i say it, bett erlooking slightly on the ps3? Plus I think even though sony billed the ps3 as an entertainment hub, I sincerely doubt that was their main objective. I think it was desgined as a gaming platform too hence its name "playstation"?

 



Fishie on 25 February 2009
joeorc said:
Fishie said:
joeorc said:
Fishie said:
joeorc said:
Fishie said:
joeorc said:
Fishie said:
joeorc said:
NJ5 said:

@Procastinato: So now most engine programmers are newbs? That's like the "developers are lazy" argument, it completely ignores one of the most important matters of game development - cost. Time equals money, the Cell equals more invested time in engine programming, which equals more money spent.

It's not that developers are lazy or stupid, it's that they have limited time and budget. Sony needs to learn that lesson and make developer-friendly consoles.

 

it's not like that, yes more time does mean more money..but also it mean's you as a developer will not be prepaired for the next trend in Microprocessor's..like the Cell processor..if you look at the way the New processor's from Intel,Ati,Nvidia and Amd, IBM, STI they are all producing

CPU/GPU combo chip's it's learn it now or later ..that's the developer's choice, some are learning it now

 

 Why do you keep talking about stuff you dont understand and stuff like STI(Sony bailed out of the project, look it up so even Sony gave up on CELL)that no longer exists?

 

o'l brother..bailing..huh, look who happen's to hold patent's on the Cell processor, and guess what Sony can just buy chip's off of Toshiba

or build another plant and produce them their selves if Sony wanted too....you act like the Cell is a Failure..god you are dense

-beer is on tap

 

Sony has sold their chip facilities to Toshiba for cheap because they could no longer finance the losses.

Toshiba now holds more patents to CELL then Sony AND is making them for Sony and themselves.

Apart from the PS3 Toshiba is also the only company actually putting CELL in a consumer product because hey they have it so why not use it.

Toshiba and IBM hold all the cards here, Sony has none left. Sony cant demand further development of CELL because they abandoned the project themselves, Sony cant expect economies of scale to lower the price of CELL and is at the mercy of Toshiba since they have no fabrication facilities left nor the money to start any(that entire thing with being in debt several billion dollars and all you know).

 

In short the future of CELL is screwed and so is Sony with regards to CELL.

 

40% share's = sony is screwed in reguard's to the Cell

WOW....

link's

o'l you mean this: Sony, Toshiba finalize transfer of Cell chip production

 

Date: October, 2007


October 18, 2007 - Making official what had been reported for weeks, Sony and Toshiba have announced an agreement to transfer Sony's Cell microprocessor production lines to Toshiba under a new joint venture, reportedly at a price approaching 100 billion yen (about US $870 million).

 

Sony, Toshiba finalize transfer of Cell chip production

Date: October, 2007


October 18, 2007 - Making official what had been reported for weeks, Sony and Toshiba have announced an agreement to transfer Sony's Cell microprocessor production lines to Toshiba under a new joint venture, reportedly at a price approaching 100 billion yen (about US $870 million).

The deal involves setting up a JV majority owned by Toshiba (60%), with 20% stakes each by Sony and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., to take over 300mm lines at Sony Semiconductor Kyushu Corp.'s Fab 2 at the Nagasaki Technology Center, by the end of the current fiscal year (March 2008). The as-yet-unnamed JV, capitalized at 100M yen (US ~$857K) with top execs appointed by both sides (chairman/ and CEO by Toshiba, president and COO by Sony), will make chips for the Playstation 3 system using 300mm/65nm and eventually 45nm mass production.

As part of the deal, Toshiba also will take over assets from another Toshiba-Sony JV, Oita TS Semiconductor Corp., formed in 1999 to make chips for the Playstation 2 system, and slated to expire at the end of this fiscal year. Toshiba also will purchase Sony's manufacturing equipment for making its RSX image-processing chips for the PS3, made in the firm's Oita plant, for about 30B yen (~$257M), reports the Nikkei daily.

http://www.solid-state.com/articles/article_display.html?id=309463

 

 Your Google skills are impressive.

 

Now go Google what happened to the last remaining Sony chip manufacturing facility, then google some more as to what the Sony plans are going forward from here on.

 

You wont like what TEH GOOGLE might tell you.

 

well since you have already done that Link's please:

what plant are you talking about..fab 3?

Sony doesnt have a single facility left.

Nothing, nada.

On April first last year on they sold their last one to Toshiba.

 

it's not any problem for microsoft and Nintendo to buy Chip's from other companies

for any production of Cell  chip's So What

like i said Sony at a later time "could" start another fab plant would they prob. not

hell Sony dropped 1.6 Billion in to that fab plant when they bought it.

Sony along with Toshiba are in a

JOINT VENTURE

Sony still Own's 40% stock in the Venture

So Toshiba would close down a chip production plant that has these chip's that are already in Toshiba laptop's, going in to TV, Cell phone's. and still Sony is going to keep buying them for more PS3's. if there was no demand for the Chip that's one thing, but there is demand for the chip, server's Dept of Defense.          
   

 

Nintendo is buying a cheap almost of the shelf old chip which costs pennies to make and Microsoft has bought the rights for the GPU as well as the CPU, they can have it manufactured wherever they want by whoever they want.

They are not tied to two reluctant companies who dont like them to begin with(IBM wasnt too found of Ken K´s temper tantrums and Toshiba is still angry about that HD-DVD losing out thing).

 



NJ5 on 25 February 2009
joeorc said:
NJ5 said:

I don't deny that multi-core will become more and more prevalent, but which if Sony's games use all of the Cell's cores? Last I heard KZ2 uses 4 SPEs, and even then quite sparsely (a lot of idle time on those 4). It was on some presentation slide by Guerilla, unfortunately I can't find it right now.

EDIT - Found it:

 

that depend's on what you are wanting do do with Each core :

example Warhawk's developer stated this:

Incognito's talking about using Cell to render geometry:

4. What did you do on this game that you couldn’t do on another platform?

It’s hard to answer this and not sound like a gratuitous SONY sales pitch
Although I would say it’s the sum-total of all of our natural phenomenon in the game. Our clouds, procedural water, atmospheric scattering, terrain, etc. All of this stuff runs in parallel on all 7 SPUs simultaneously every frame – I’m still not sure if the game community is giving enough credit to just how fast the SPUs really are.

-dylan-jobe

 

 

I have to call BS on that quote, only 6 of the Cell's SPUs are available for games according to all accounts I've heard.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

stephen700 on 25 February 2009

Multicore in never as easy as single core -
Only a very few games on the PC can load balance multicore
Both Xenon and Cell are multicore but most developers probably just use one core while the others do almost nothing just like most pc games.
However once you get a good multicore balance algorythm happening then 3 cores or 8 cores is all the same and just as easy and last time i checked 8>3.



PS3 number 1 fan

Around the Network
NJ5 on 25 February 2009
stephen700 said:
Multicore in never as easy as single core -
Only a very few games on the PC can load balance multicore
Both Xenon and Cell are multicore but most developers probably just use one core while the others do almost nothing just like most pc games.
However once you get a good multicore balance algorythm happening then 3 cores or 8 cores is all the same and just as easy and last time i checked 8>3.

It's not just a matter of making an algorithm to do load balancing. You have to completely restructure your engine around the idea of multi-core. And of course it's only worth it to use additional cores if this makes performance better.

I've done a bunch of multi-threaded applications (not games) and I often found that using additional cores actually made performance worse, due to the need of synchronization and other forms of inter-thread communication.

From my understanding, game engines are complicated beasts with some interdependent parts, some of which are serial in nature (hence KZ2's diagram). While I'm sure that future engines and games will use multi-core CPUs better, progress will be slow and there will be roadblocks on the way.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

largedarryl on 25 February 2009
Ascended_Saiyan3 said:

The reality of it is that Killzone 2 "trounces" ALL games before it except Crysis.  KZ2 "trounces" Crysis in SOME areas (animations, character models, characters on screen, gun models, particle physics, 7.1 discrete audio, etc) but is close in other areas and gets beat in other areas

What are you smoking?  Have you ever played Crysis or seen it in motion.  I agree Killzone 2 looks amazing, but don't go making wild acusations about its actual abilities.

 



sergiodaly on 25 February 2009
heruamon said:
joeorc said:
heruamon said:
ROFLOL...yeah, but the cellz mafia will say, "What does he know?" Anyway, in gaming, your GPU is nearly as important as yyour CPU, so this cell worship something leaves me scratching my head.

yup..keep slamming it big boy, because the result's are speaking loud and clear..the Cell Processor is a very good processor for game's

you may not agree with it, and that's YOUR OPINION but your OPINION is far from a fact.funny you point out the GPU is nearly as important as your CPU

 

well its a great thing the "CELL Processor" is also a GPU chip. and before you say not a very good one..

30+ billion shader /ops per sec beg to differ. you may like to gloss over that but it's D@mn near half of the Main GPU in the PS3, and 75%

as much as the main GPU in the xbox360 with (it's base 48 billion shader op's/sec) not the 96 Billion used in code alignment

 

 

 

Once again, cell mafia take ANY critique as a mortal threat...I'm not saying the cell processer isn't powerful, just that it's not this CPU that is going to deliver results that totally can't be touched.  There are also the power usage considerations for how you set it up...

there are no cell mafia and every one knows that... the thing is... its hard for us humans to read things that aren't true and be shut up about it... funny thing is most of the guys here and in many foruns saying the xb360 gpu is better than the one in ps3 are nvidia fanboys  and cant pass the fact that they are xb360 fanboys even more than they are nvidia fanboys...

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

Words Of Wisdom on 25 February 2009

I'd like to thank everyone that participated in this discussion for making me laugh many times as I skimmed these past 4 pages.



heruamon on 25 February 2009
sergiodaly said:
heruamon said:
joeorc said:
heruamon said:
ROFLOL...yeah, but the cellz mafia will say, "What does he know?" Anyway, in gaming, your GPU is nearly as important as yyour CPU, so this cell worship something leaves me scratching my head.

yup..keep slamming it big boy, because the result's are speaking loud and clear..the Cell Processor is a very good processor for game's

you may not agree with it, and that's YOUR OPINION but your OPINION is far from a fact.funny you point out the GPU is nearly as important as your CPU

 

well its a great thing the "CELL Processor" is also a GPU chip. and before you say not a very good one..

30+ billion shader /ops per sec beg to differ. you may like to gloss over that but it's D@mn near half of the Main GPU in the PS3, and 75%

as much as the main GPU in the xbox360 with (it's base 48 billion shader op's/sec) not the 96 Billion used in code alignment

 

 

 

Once again, cell mafia take ANY critique as a mortal threat...I'm not saying the cell processer isn't powerful, just that it's not this CPU that is going to deliver results that totally can't be touched.  There are also the power usage considerations for how you set it up...

there are no cell mafia and every one knows that... the thing is... its hard for us humans to read things that aren't true and be shut up about it... funny thing is most of the guys here and in many foruns saying the xb360 gpu is better than the one in ps3 are nvidia fanboys  and cant pass the fact that they are xb360 fanboys even more than they are nvidia fanboys...

I don' think it's just Fanboys who say the 360's GPU is better, as that is what CArmack allude to...you couple that with 360 easier ability to program for, and that makes it a tough call to NOT program on the console.  Here's some M$ propaganda from way back:

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

Sony can always debunk this, if they wanted to, but they haven't, to my knowledge.

 



"...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