There's no shame in forgetting something that never happened...
Broadway specs
- Thread starter theafu
- Start date
There's no shame in forgetting something that never happened...
Just something I just saw (page 6)
http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techli...68725720400632685/$file/PwrArch_10.06.06c.pdf
I hope the features could used in others things too (or that they use it in broad sence, that almost (physics, animation, particles...) is gfx).
I hope this (and the pic) are usefull.
The 'graphics features' mentioned in that quote probably refer to the paired single-precision fp instructions offered in the Gekko coupled with the load-and-convert instruction to and from the FP pipes (which were also present in the Gekko). Looking at the 750CL datasheet it really seems that the 750CL and the Gekko have a lot in common (fully pipelined FP unit, faster/improved 60x bus, cache-locking, etc...). It's perfectly possible in fact that the 750CL is a shrink of the Gekko that IBM now markets as one of their offerings. If you look at the 750FL and 750GL those are just lower-power version of the respective FX and GX processors and both lack the extra paired-spfp instructions.
Power consumption seems in the ballpark too. The original Gekko consumed 4.9W (pulled this number from an HotChips presentation from IBM), we don't know what was its Vdd but the 750CL uses a fairly low one 1.15V@90nm vs 1.45V@130nm for the 750FL/GL and consumes between 1.7W and 2.0W in the frequency range of the original Gekko. The 970FX did run at 2.0GHz with a 1.0V Vdd in the same process but it is an entirely different design and it might just be possible that the higher Vdd in the 750CL is there to keep sub-thresold leakage at bay.
Given this information we might speculate that the Broadway really is a rebadged 750CL, what is for sure is that the 750C line of processors did split of from the main 750 line at the time of the Gekko (which sported some feature of the 750FX which was developed in parallel with it, namely the better 60x-bus interface, the fully-pipelined FPU with an extra reservation station and the cache-locking abilities). What I'm fairly certain of is that the Broadway has nothing todo with the 750GX/GL, however until more information comes out it is hard to say if Nintendo asked for more features to be integrated in the Broadway or if they decided to stick with a cheaper 750CL.
BTW first post here, hiya to everybody
Hmmm. Says on the left you've posted 12 times, and a post history throws up this (Nov 2004) as your last post before this one.BTW first post here, hiya to everybody
I guess this discredits everything you've posted above
Yikes!
Yikes! I had registered a lot of time ago but completely forgot that I already posted here /me flushes
Argh! I've got no credibility! Seriously what do you think about my post?I guess this discredits everything you've posted above
I dunno. I don't know much abut low-level processor architectures! I'm a 'big picture' kinda guy. Still, it all sounded plausible to me.
It seems possible althought I still think it didnt make much sense to waste all the extra 5mm^ (at very least not in a console version).
BTW the bus can go up to 240Mhz.
Last edited by a moderator:
wattage. nintendo have stated repeatedly that power consumption has been a prime factor in this design.
Didnt IBM have tech that allow to the CPU slower its speed and save power? Why dont use it in here?
they do. point is, you want low power draw while working at nominal workloads too - remember, wii is a home hub in a sort, not an on-for-a-while-then-off-for-the-rest-of-the-day device. it's a different device paradigm - like, say, you router - it cannot rely that it's gonna be sleeping/be off-line to meet its power budget - it has to be power-efficient while working at full/reasonable loads.
Variable clock speeds save power, but they don't magically make a power-hungry chip consume as little power as Broadway is said to need. It only keeps power down when the chip isn't doing anything, but Broadway's supposed specs indicate that top power is very low.
If the specs are right, Broadway at full bore may consume less than a lot of desktop CPUs do at idle.
Chips designed for high clock speeds have a lot of extra pipeline stages and leakier high-speed transistors that raise the lower bound of energy consumption for the chip. Being able to reach high speeds means trading off against the ability to run slow.
And perform worse too.
Just kidding! Just kidding!
Seriously though, why the need to be soooo power efficient? Couldn't they cope at 1GHz for a few more Watts? Does the whole power target for Wii rest on the idea of having no fan or something? A lot of Wii's performance bracket is attributed to form factor and power consumption, but I'm sure everyone would prefer a slightly larger device (which can be shrunk later) with considerably better innards.
Have you considered that maybe Nintendo needs all the power all the time?
The idle mode Wii, could be used to host a number of computationally intensive processes, both for direct benefit for the owner but also for the collective benefit of the whole Wii network.
Wii working as a sort of small server when idle would not be wholly unthinkable.
No, I haven't. And I'd be wary of that too. The idea of 'Always On' doesn't appeal to me (yes, i swtich off appliances rather than switch them into stand-by to save that extra electricity), and supplying processing power to a larger networked resource makes me question how much BW the console will be consuming (24/7 at only 512 kb/s would be something like 37 GB a week!), and what activities they'd be wanting to do! You think Nintendo have an eye on wrestling Protein Folding success from Sony? shoot him! shoot him!
*squad fires*
oops.
point is, not everybody would prefer a 'slightly larger and more power hungry device'. to answer your question we should be able to see in nintendo's strategic plans - who, how and why are they targetting with this device. even here on the b3d boards where the average power consciousness of the nettizens is as high as that of a wild boar, there are people who would not prefer what you assume everybody would.
see, shifty, many normal people actually don't mind to:
a) drive a car which is nice but still does not burn fuel like a v12 as they mostly drive it to their work and to the cottage on the weekends. and they do that regularly and frequently.
b) have a reasonalbe desktop that does not run a separate power supply for the videocard, but instead does the few tasks it is expected to do well and reliably - run office, the browser, a couple of home media/intraweb servers, one or two development IDE's
c) have a game console, which in its essence, is a toy that does not draw as much power as their prodcutive environment, i.e. their desktop, and offers them actual fun rather than promises of future miracles and the vague hints of computing prowess.
now i would go out on a limb here and say that chances are nintendo are trying to 1) cater to those people somehow, and 2) still try to lure them a bit further into the product than those people's original intentions were (hence the whole lot of nifty family hub features, which though have nothing to with game consoles). now, the really good thing here, is that an aware consumer can enjoy (1), but still not take the bate of (2) - i.e. you can still _power_off_ the wii whenever you like - it's not skynet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, if it means not paying for servers in MUDs and other large online games, and it means lightning fast startup, I'm all for it.
Also think about being able to visit your friends Animal Crossing towns at any time, or being able to race their Mariokart ghosts. Just a few examples of the many possibilities.
The bandwidth usage wouldn't even have to be very high at all, of only simple 3d positions and small pictures and soundbits was exchanged.
Well, 360's powerbrick is rated for what, 180W? (I looked at one a week ago) My dual core desktop PC with X850XT sucks about 260W playing games. I run my PC 24/7 running F@H and my ebill is like $35/month. Works for me. Don't think very many 360s run near 24/7. Granted it's just me using the electricity and I do leave most things off to save juice. Half that bill cost is electric company fees too that they seem to change monthly conveniently. And that's some A/C yet and high summer rates.
An electric heater radiator sucks about 700-900W on medium. A large window AC unit uses like 1000W. Yah that's a lot of 360s.
Power usage?!?! 360 doesn't use that much power. It's definitely below a typical PC. I really doubt that brick is running 100% output. Maybe I'll measure what my friend's 360 sucks during a game if I can remember to so do. There are laptops out there with bricks almost as large as 360's, by the way. XPS notes ship with a 120 W brick.
I fail to see why a console needs to run all the time anyway. I don't believe the low power excuse as some sort of customer benefit at all. The Wii looks to be designed to be as cheap as possible for several reasons:
1) Win all price wars and be cheaper than the competition at all costs
2) Be small so it can be cheap. Less materials. Lower performance off-the-shelf or rebuilt-old-tech parts. This brings with it convenient excuses like a) it's stylish cuz it's small and b) small means we can't use hot, high perf tech.
3) Low game development costs for Nintendo itself and 3rd parties. This is a cool strategy tho cuz it reduces risks for companies who are considering game development for the system. Definitely looks to be getting them the 3rd party support they need.
4) Put the majority of R&D and production cost into an unproven controller design.
An electric heater radiator sucks about 700-900W on medium. A large window AC unit uses like 1000W. Yah that's a lot of 360s.
Power usage?!?! 360 doesn't use that much power. It's definitely below a typical PC. I really doubt that brick is running 100% output. Maybe I'll measure what my friend's 360 sucks during a game if I can remember to so do. There are laptops out there with bricks almost as large as 360's, by the way. XPS notes ship with a 120 W brick.
I fail to see why a console needs to run all the time anyway. I don't believe the low power excuse as some sort of customer benefit at all. The Wii looks to be designed to be as cheap as possible for several reasons:
1) Win all price wars and be cheaper than the competition at all costs
2) Be small so it can be cheap. Less materials. Lower performance off-the-shelf or rebuilt-old-tech parts. This brings with it convenient excuses like a) it's stylish cuz it's small and b) small means we can't use hot, high perf tech.
3) Low game development costs for Nintendo itself and 3rd parties. This is a cool strategy tho cuz it reduces risks for companies who are considering game development for the system. Definitely looks to be getting them the 3rd party support they need.
4) Put the majority of R&D and production cost into an unproven controller design.
The thing I wonder about having things always on is that data is in volatile memory 24/7. If there is a power outage or surge, what happens to the data that was in RAM, assuming the machine doesn't just die?
Then there's the cumulative power draw of millions of the console running 24/7. It's low-power, but it could be more than the standby power of a lot of other appliances that stay partially on.
Megawatts of power go down the drain a year because of VCRs and TVs that go to standby, and they aren't doing as much as Wii might be doing.
There's a slight trend towards more efficient standby power devices, and some consumers are just unplugging the devices if they can. Wii might be going against that.
Then there's the cumulative power draw of millions of the console running 24/7. It's low-power, but it could be more than the standby power of a lot of other appliances that stay partially on.
Megawatts of power go down the drain a year because of VCRs and TVs that go to standby, and they aren't doing as much as Wii might be doing.
There's a slight trend towards more efficient standby power devices, and some consumers are just unplugging the devices if they can. Wii might be going against that.
Considering Wii is claimed to consume less or as much as a small lightbulb during idle mode, I'd say, that's some pretty good processing for that little power...
The "network backbone" theory may not be far off. This is gonna be interesting to observe.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
