Intel Conroe: From a Console's Perspective

Discussion in 'Console Technology' started by basanti, Mar 9, 2006.

  1. basanti

    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    2
    Conroe is Intel's next generation architecture just like Cell is the next generation of IBM/Sony PPC Architecture. How would the performances compare if say Xbox 360 had a next generation Intel Conroe (single or triple core) vs a PS3 Next generation PPC Cell Processor. Would it make much of a difference over PPC Tri-core processor? Anyone have some knowledge of this new intel architecture?
     
  2. superguy

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    9
    It would be better.

    The just released benches show it easily besting a A64 by 20-50%, as I imagine you know.
     
  3. NANOTEC

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    10
    Tigerton
     
  4. dukmahsik

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    9
    and it'll cost what?
     
  5. Karma Police

    Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    433
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    192.168.2.1
    Don't forget that MS wants to own the IP of the hardware inside it's consoles, so an Intel-based Conroe chip is out of the question.
     
  6. dukmahsik

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    9
    true but anything can change in 5 years
     
  7. Jabjabs

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Michael Jackson


    ;)
     
  8. Belmontvedere

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    cardboard box
    who cares this won't be in any of the next-gen consoles. and by the time next-next generation consoles are here (2011?) there will be even newer stuff that blows this stuff away.
     
  9. Guilty Bystander

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    1

    Pfff... the Cell slamdunk owns a 2,7GHz G5 more than 50 times in powerhungry applications (and that's 1 SPE with the PPC).
    Cell is the most powerfull CPU out there why do you think engineers, developers etc. think it's a Revolutionairy CPU?
     
  10. ROG27

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    4
    For certain types of applications, I agree, CELL has revolutionary performance. For general computing purposes, it may fall short.
     
  11. Guden Oden

    Guden Oden Senior Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,201
    Likes Received:
    91
    I'd bet real money they don't own the IP of either xenos or xenon, except betting is illegal where I live, so I have to settle with just speculating. :p

    There's no reason to believe they own this IP, and every reason to believe they do not. For starters, if they did, IBM and ATi would have just pissed away a large chunk of their research and development efforts. So... Not really gonna happen, I say.

    Besides, a dual-core conroe is way too large and costly to make a console CPU out of. It would own on integer calculations, but FP would suck as usual when it comes to x86, particulary as clockspeed would be much less than the current xenon CPU. And a triple-core version would be friggin huge, and draw a lot of power as well.
     
  12. pipo

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    2,624
    Likes Received:
    28
    I'm pretty sure it was part of the deal..
     
  13. London-boy

    London-boy Shifty's daddy
    Legend Subscriber

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2002
    Messages:
    21,888
    Likes Received:
    6,001
    Why not? It has been said many times that they do own the IP for both chips, which allows them to later on shrink them, which is always a good thing. It's not like they can't afford it anyway.
     
  14. Gubbi

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,580
    Likes Received:
    980
    ATI and IBM were hired to develop specific SOCs for MS. MS owns the designs for these SOCs, they can do with them what they want, including integrating them on a single piece of Si in the future.

    Cheers
     
  15. pipo

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    2,624
    Likes Received:
    28
    http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/xbox360/xbox360theguts.htm

    Edit - searched for some other stuff we've been discussing (on the 360 subject) earlier on this forum. This is a good read too: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2005/08/a_walk_through_.html
     
    #15 pipo, Mar 9, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 9, 2006
  16. MfA

    MfA
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    7,008
    Likes Received:
    535
    Jeezus Christ the hardware sites are hard up for news, this much fuss about a tradeshow demonstration.

    As for what it does for the comparison between Xbox360/PS3 and PC desktop hardware, not a whole lot ... PC processors get incrementally faster, big whoop they always do that. Shifting the performance by a couple 10s of percentage points is not going to shift the balance that much.
     
  17. Karma Police

    Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    433
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    192.168.2.1
    Darnit, pipo, looks like you beat me to it!
     
  18. Bobbler

    Bobbler Shazbot!
    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,827
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    They may own the rights to that particular implementation of those chips and have the ability to fab it wherever they please (including getting it shrunk or whatever), but I doubt they could do any suing if IBM or ATI decided to use modified versions of those elsewhere -- who knows though.

    I think the whole "owning the IP" is a bit overplayed -- they likely didn't need to own the entire IP (which would be sort of impossible on the CPU side, as its still a power core, which is very much in IBMs control still) to get the benefits they needed (having more control over it -- getting it fabbed and shrunk wherever and whenever they please).

    I'm sure MS got themselves a good deal (surely better than the deals they had with Xbox1), but I have my doubts that IBM/ATI really gave up anything. It just isn't really necessary for either side.
     
  19. Asher

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    That's exactly it -- they basically own the configuration of Xenon, I'd assume the same is true for Xenos. Many components in Xenon are patented by IBM or even used in other IBM products. MS owns the right to that specific configuration/blueprint.
     
  20. swaaye

    swaaye Entirely Suboptimal
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    652
    Location:
    WI, USA
    I dunno about the floating point sucking. If Conroe can do single cycle SSE across the board that sounds awfully efficient. I wonder how that would compare to Xenon. A64 is more efficient than P4 which was more efficient than K7 for SSE, so I don't know how AMD64 compares to Conroe's SSE implementation.

    Xenon gets direct attention of code optimization on a totally different level than PC CPUs though. And Xenon would suck as a general purpose chip too with its simplistic architecture and limited cache.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...