http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2005-11-15-xbox-360_x.htm
Surely this can't be correct? That would be insanely powerful.
Surely this can't be correct? That would be insanely powerful.
Each Of 360's CPU cores are 10 times more powerful than Xbox's CPU
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
- Status
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 .
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 .
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:
scooby_dooby
Legend
Titanio 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
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?
Alpha_Spartan
Regular
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.jvd said:
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.
Alpha_Spartan
Regular
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?scooby_dooby said:
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.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Shifty Geezer said:
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:
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.
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.scooby_dooby said:
Megadrive1988
Veteran
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.
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:
Alpha_Spartan
Regular
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!"
I can see their faces light up: "Damn!"
- Status
Similar threads
