Each Of 360's CPU cores are 10 times more powerful than Xbox's CPU

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hardknock

Veteran
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2005-11-15-xbox-360_x.htm


Sleeker and lighter than today's black, boxy Xbox, the ivory 360 is powered by three IBM CPU "cores," each 10 times more powerful than the single chip in the current Xbox. A custom chip from graphics company ATI and more memory — 512 megabytes compared with Xbox's 64 — mean games "will be faster and look better," says P.J. McNealy, analyst for American Technology Research.

Surely this can't be correct? That would be insanely powerful.
 
I dunno about that , but if the flops and interger ratings are true on the 113 gflop rating (for got the interger power )

Then i would guess it be more than 10 times faster . All 3 cores together vs a celron 733mhz.

I dunno but isn't that chip around 2-3gflops ?

Of course having a peak of something and sustaining anywhere close to it is another matter .
 
It's saying 'each core' is ten times more powerful than a 733Mhz Celeron..

Altogether Xenon may be 10 times more powerful than a Celeron but each core unto itself...I gotta see that.
 
In terms of max floating point spec that seems to work out as the case, roughly, and that's likely where that comes from. They're significantly different types of CPU, bear that in mind (a "big" OoOE core vs a lean more fp-orientated IOE core, clocked over 4 times faster).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Titanio said:
In terms of floating point that seems to work out as the case, roughly. They're significantly different types of CPU, bear that in mind.
of course a celron is a much more general cpu
 
Titanio said:
In terms of floating point that seems to work out as the case, roughly. They're significantly different types of CPU, bear that in mind.

And FLOP ratings are meaningless, bear that in mind. Any comparison of real world GPU's or CPU's will show that. Peak FLOPs means approximately jack sh!t
 
Well if they're doing Flops counts essentially it's true. The XeCPU has far higher a theoretical max performance. But I mean we've been over this here a thousand times. As for the article though, it's USAToday - how could it be further from a tech-savvy news source?
 
xbdestroya said:
Well if they're doing Flops counts essentially it's true. The XeCPU has far higher a theoretical max performance. But I mean we've been over this here a thousand times. As for the article though, it's USAToday - how could it be further from a tech-savvy news source?

Highlights for kids ? Readers digest ?
 
jvd said:
I dunno about that , but if the flops and interger ratings are true on the 113 gflop rating (for got the interger power )

Then i would guess it be more than 10 times faster . All 3 cores together vs a celron 733mhz.

I dunno but isn't that chip around 2-3gflops ?

Of course having a peak of something and sustaining anywhere close to it is another matter .
They're talking about GFLOPS. The PIII 733MHz in Xbox does ~3 GFLOPS. Each core in the Xbox 360 can do ~33 GFLOPS. So that's about right. So leave it alone.

If Sony PR gets a pass when recklessly dropping PR numbers, please allow MS the same slack. GFLOPS are the new BITS. Let's agree to let it go.
 
scooby_dooby said:
And FLOP ratings are meaningless, bear that in mind. Any comparison of real world GPU's or CPU's will show that. Peak FLOPs means approximately jack sh!t
Peak FLOPS mean jack shit? If I were to run a search on various Cell [vs. XCPU] threads (which I wouldn't...this isn't that important), would I find this sentiment echoed throughout your posts?

I'm not challenging you, I'm just giving you an opportunity to clarify yourself.
 
Is that really that hard to beleive? At 3.2 GHz a single core is 4x the speed of the XB CPU. Assuming the core is 2x the improvement in peak processing performance given more and beefier execution units, that's 2x4 = 8x the performance, without doing anything magical.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Is that really that hard to beleive? At 3.2 GHz a single core is 4x the speed of the XB CPU. Assuming the core is 2x the improvement in peak processing performance given more and beefier execution units, that's 2x4 = 8x the performance, without doing anything magical.

Except the Celeron was OOO and the XeCPU is not. It's BS, but hey everyone's gotta play the hype game.
 
scooby_dooby said:
Except the Celeron was OOO and the XeCPU is not. It's BS, but hey everyone's gotta play the hype game.

Well it's not like the Flops should be viewed differently OOE to IOE, just the means to access that power. All of these architectures (even the OOE move to multi-core) seem like they are going to need a lot of work on the software side of things to get things moving towards efficient utilization. In-order just makes the task harder, but the potential rewards greater. We'll see what comes of it all. But it's not a lie to say that the XeCPU is potentially 30 times more powerful than the chip in XBox.
 
scooby_dooby said:
Except the Celeron was OOO and the XeCPU is not.
Which is an ease of programming thing more than a performance thing. If you know you're writing for IO execution you can do a good job of keeping the pipeline filled, especially in stream processing. It's not like going in-order halves processing efficiency.
 
ok well the original Xbox CPU, the Intel 733 Mhz, was rated at 3 Gflops. but more recently in the Xbox vs Xbox360 comparison, they rated the Intel 733 Mhz CPU at 1.5 GFLOPs.

if Xbox 360 CPU is rated at 115 Gflops, thats 38 times more poweful than Xbox CPU if you go by Xbox CPU being 3 Gflops. if you go by Xbox CPU being 1.5 Gflops, then Xbox 360 CPU is has 76 times more power.


if each core in Xbox360's Xenon CPU is producing ~38 Gflops, then yeah, each core is over 10 times more powerful than Xbox's Intel CPU in floating point performance.

sure we are looking at peak theoretical performance of Xbox 360 CPU, but then, 3 Gflops for Xbox CPU is also probably peak theoretical performance. Its also true that Xbox 360 CPU is a totally different architecture. And also, GFLOP figures are to be taken with a grain of salt.

it should also be noted that Xbox 360 graphics processor is only about 4 times more powerful than Xbox GPU, in raw performance figures like pixels and polygons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I'm going to tell my Xbox 360-less freinds. "You know, this console has 3 main processors and each of them is 10 times more powerful than one Xbox processor."

I can see their faces light up: "Damn!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top