Was 360's CPU alpha plan of Cell?
- Thread starter Mikage
- Start date
PC-Engine said:version said:CELL's patent is 5 years old, and cell similar than emotionengine ...
"The Xbox 360 CPU was designed to be an economical alternative to the Cell with comperable performance and better time-to-market"
you show to me a xenons die-photocell is real...
and possible KK will make 65nm cell with 5 Ghz and 8 spe ..
http://img236.echo.cx/img236/1655/xbox2powerpchigh7hm.jpg
That's a vanilla Power5 I believe. I remember seeing that pic before on some webpage on gamespot or something, then checked out IBM's media photo pages. Just a Power5. I doubt they'll show the Xenon die anytime soon.
Does anyone think the 1Mb of cache is enough for the 3 cores? I know that price and performance are a factor here but from some of the things I have read about what "might be" the Xbox 360's CPU may depend on the cache alot. I would think 2Mb or even 3Mb would of been better. I know most would agree that die space and price is a huge factor but couldnt this end up being a big bottleneck when all the cores are being pushed to their max?
How much in transistor count, die size, (heat?) and price would of been added if 2Mb or 3Mb of cache was used? Sorry I have very limited knowledge to cost vs performance etc. in the silicon world
How much in transistor count, die size, (heat?) and price would of been added if 2Mb or 3Mb of cache was used? Sorry I have very limited knowledge to cost vs performance etc. in the silicon world
jpr27 said:Does anyone think the 1Mb of cache is enough for the 3 cores? I know that price and performance are a factor here but from some of the things I have read about what "might be" the Xbox 360's CPU may depend on the cache alot. I would think 2Mb or even 3Mb would of been better. I know most would agree that die space and price is a huge factor but couldnt this end up being a big bottleneck when all the cores are being pushed to their max?
How much in transistor count, die size, (heat?) and price would of been added if 2Mb or 3Mb of cache was used? Sorry I have very limited knowledge to cost vs performance etc. in the silicon world
Cache takes up a lot of realestate.
The Arstechnica article discussed this some. More cache IS better. But consoles are not desktop PCs. Specifically, 3D gaming does a lot of streaming and the XeCPU has specific features for those. Hannibal gives the example of Quake 3 which played as good on Celerons with no cache simply because the game did not need it.
So while more cache is better, the issue is more of how what is there is used. I think the bigger question is how long before developers really dive into using all the resources on these CPUs. Epic got UE3 up on one PPC core (that PPE in the PS3, which only has 512K cache). So I am not too worried about it. Yeah, you always want more but you have to make concessions at some point. A lot of desktop PCs are shipping with 512K (or even 256K) of cache, so a dedicated closed box for gaming with 1MB for 3 cores does not sound too bad. It only pales next to the top end expensive CPUs. And the return on performance for the extra cost is not worth it. You pay a premium for it (and those are the sacrifices of a $300 box).
jpr27 said:Does anyone think the 1Mb of cache is enough for the 3 cores? I know that price and performance are a factor here but from some of the things I have read about what "might be" the Xbox 360's CPU may depend on the cache alot. I would think 2Mb or even 3Mb would of been better. I know most would agree that die space and price is a huge factor but couldnt this end up being a big bottleneck when all the cores are being pushed to their max?
How much in transistor count, die size, (heat?) and price would of been added if 2Mb or 3Mb of cache was used? Sorry I have very limited knowledge to cost vs performance etc. in the silicon world
The size is probably fine. More is always better, but Xbox doesn't exactly thrash it's cache with 128Kb, and GC with 256Kb's hardly ever sees a miss. PC's and servers see large improvements from increases in cache size largely because the OS and other Apps make memory access patterns unpredictable.
As long as the cache configuration is reasonable (N-way set associative where N is resonably large) it should be fine. The danger with a shared cache is that one poorly behaved process can cause the cache to thrash for all running processes. However it also makes interprocess communication through memory much faster.
The Xenon CPU also as the ability to lock cache sections down, which allows it behave more like a segmented memory system, if that's what the developer wants.