What if x360 used a dual core AMD or Intel proc. instead...

[Edge]

The Xenon can dish out 9,6 billion Dot products/s, 115,2GFlop/s and 90.000 DMIPS.
How can this be slow compared to an Amd 64 FX60+ which can only dish out about 1-2 billion Dot products/s, 8-12GFlop/s and 25.000DMIPS?

It was not too long ago where people on this board/ or elsewhere on the net said Xenon was far superior to CELL because of it's "general purpose" code performance, but now Xenon is far superior to the AMD 64 FX60, and no question slower when it come to "general purpose" code performance.

Using your reasoning now, CELL is far superior to Xenon because it has much higher dot products/sec, much higher flops/sec, and much higher dmips.

So 360 fans are making the argument for CELL?

 

[TurnDragoZeroV2G]

I can't be the only one getting sick of these "I think it's ironic that Group K was using Argument B against Product 8, but is now using Argument B to support their own product." Half the time, the people being accused of flip-flopping the use of arguments were never on the other side in the first place (coughhintcough). Or maybe I'm the only one...

Apologies for going off-topic, but felt compelled to say it. Though I imagine those comments won't make me very popular as far as Christmas colors go.

*makes me feel kind of sick thinking that I've (probably) used the same thing on people before. Though perhaps not within the last year or on these boards.

 

[thekey]

I highly doubt that a64 line processors (even fx) are better than the Power PC processors.
Plus you have to remember the xbox360 has 3 cores (NOT ONE) so you are far beyond in performance even compared to the best single-core desktop processors.
Powerpcs are riscs processors, they are expensive and typically more powerful than x86 processors.
The XBOX360 is a plain gift when seen from its hardware specs, particulary on the processor side

 

[Hardknock]

It was not too long ago where people on this board/ or elsewhere on the net said Xenon was far superior to CELL because of it's "general purpose" code performance, but now Xenon is far superior to the AMD 64 FX60, and no question slower when it come to "general purpose" code performance.

Using your reasoning now, CELL is far superior to Xenon because it has much higher dot products/sec, much higher flops/sec, and much higher dmips.

So 360 fans are making the argument for CELL?

Actually Xenon has the best of both worlds. Decent General Purpose performance and high products/flops/dmips per second. It may not be the best at either, but it has both bases well covered. Nice try though

 

[randycat99]

Not surprisingly this applies even more so to a certain competitor's CPU design, as well. i think that is what Edge was implying.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I can't be the only one getting sick of these "I think it's ironic that Group K was using Argument B against Product 8, but is now using Argument B to support their own product." Half the time, the people being accused of flip-flopping the use of arguments were never on the other side in the first place (coughhintcough). Or maybe I'm the only one....

You're right, and I think this type of comment should be banned. It contributes nothing to the technical discussion and can't be substantiated anyway (unless they keep a record of everything everyone's said!). As per the FAQ, if what you're writing doesn't contribute to the discussion, don't say it.

Which...erm...doesn't contribute to the topic of x86 processors. Ummm...I'll be going now.

 

[MfA]

From a developer's point of view it doesn't really matter if a console has a slower but easier to program for processor. All other developers will be constrained to the same processor, so it's still a level playing field. It just removes a head ache for them. The best console to please developers is not the console which can produce the best end results. Carmack's opinions on Xenon and Cell are perfectly valid, but they are irrelevant to me ... he will just have to suck it up.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I dont think he's said that he's not 'happy' in the interviews I've seen. Isnt the 360 his new primary development platform? I think he's only been honest and cut through the hype on the new consoles and been honest about whats easier/more challenging for developing for them. If theres other quotes from him that say something different, i havent seen them. (though i dont deny they could be out there...)

I believe this is the latest report WRT about Carmacks development plans:

http://www.gameshout.com/news/012006/article2789.htm

John Carmack, the id Software guru said that he promises simultaneous development for both the PC and the Microsoft Xbox360.

John Carmack who is the man behind the original Doom and Quake engines, has revealed that id Software will has chosen the Xbox360 platform for next-gen video game console development. id Software is the maker for game giants DOOM and Quake.

Most of the id Software video games are distributed on the the PC platform, so the news does come as a shock to PC video game users. John Carmack did admit that despite the Xbox 360 technology, it still doesn't match up to PC performance, "They can quote these incredibly high numbers of giga-glops or tera-flops or whatever, but in reality they're significantly slower than a modern high-end PC."

However, the Xbox 360 graphic capabilities had Carmack most excited, "The graphics systems are much better. The capabilities of the Xbox 360 are really good on the graphics side - although, not head or shoulders above any PC stuff you can buy at a higher price point."

 

[Love_In_Rio]

Look at the Game Cube with its in order Gekko power pc processor, and afterwards look at the pentium 3 in the Xbox... in many games the first one, despite of having a in theory weaker gpu, got smoother games than the second one...

And Carmack is a genious, a software visionary, as Richard Garriot was a RPG games visionary. The problem is that now there are many other 3d good programers out there. I remember reading when programming Quake 2 he wrote the routine to make fire projectiles lightning enviroments in half an hour...

 

[Shompola]

isnt Gekko out of order?
And dunno what multiplatform games on GC were smoother than the Xbox version. Cant have been many, I cant even remember one.

 

[Blazkowicz]

I highly doubt that a64 line processors (even fx) are better than the Power PC processors.
Plus you have to remember the xbox360 has 3 cores (NOT ONE) so you are far beyond in performance even compared to the best single-core desktop processors.
Powerpcs are riscs processors, they are expensive and typically more powerful than x86 processors.
The XBOX360 is a plain gift when seen from its hardware specs, particulary on the processor side

PowerPC is just an instruction set. G5 is not faster than Athlon64 for instance. And x86 have been RISC underneath for ten years, giving them the speed of RISC with the code compacity of CISC
But it doesn't matter that much in the end.

Keep in mind, X360 core is not G5. Imagine a VIA C3 at 3.2ghz, or a 486 at 3.2ghz with SSE2.. not that sexy looking eh?


Now that the run to higher frequency has ended, we went from meaningless MHz to meaningless gigaflops..
though the new consoles have at least the required bandwith.

in-order is a 12 year leap backwards , though the chip will really fly with heavy number or threads (say 6). But to have so many threads well balanced and coordinated for gaming.. what a headache it will be. Looks like a good CPU for servers or supercomputing.

 

[superguy]

The true cost here should probably be looked at as transistors.

In that respect I think a dual core A64 or pentium would have been a better choice. At similar transistor count to XCPU. Devs would have loved the simplicity.

I imagine it would have to be an Intel to ensure solid supply, but this probably would not be a major drawback. You also might be able to use 65nm in that case..as Intel is on the forefront of manufactoring process, having recently got a 45nm chip working even.

 

[Guilty Bystander]

Keep in mind, X360 core is not G5. Imagine a VIA C3 at 3.2ghz, or a 486 at 3.2ghz with SSE2.. not that sexy looking eh?

No you're right it's not a G5 the cores are much better than G5's.
Otherwise please tell me which PowerPC can pump out 3,2 billion Dot products/s, 38,4 GFlop/s or 30.000DMIPS.
By the way DMIPS is a way to calculate MIPS under Drystone 2.1 which is integer and thus general purpose perfomance and like I said before one Xenon core can pump out more DIMPS than a dual core Amd 64 FX60+ (30.000DMIPS vs 25.000DMIPS).
So which one would be better in general purpose?

Amd 64's and Intel P4's are nothing more than single or dual core 386 with SSE3 and 64bit support.
Just look at how a 3,2GHz dual core G5 stacks up against it's x86 dual core competitors in universal benchmarks (meaning not x86 optimised ones).

Further note I don't give a rats a$$ what John Carmack says considering his ID software/Activision screw up Quake 4.
He might not have a hand in that one but it just shows the incompetence of his studio.
Also when I look at games like PGR3, SC: DA, N3 etc. then I see things Carmacky can only dream off getting out his engine.
Which could do CG graphics according to him (see the Doom 3 E3 2003 trailer for proof).

 

[London Geezer]

No you're right it's not a G5 the cores are much better than G5's.
Otherwise please tell me which PowerPC can pump out 3,2 billion Dot products/s, 38,4 GFlop/s or 30.000DMIPS.
By the way DMIPS is a way to calculate MIPS under Drystone 2.1 which is integer and thus general purpose perfomance and like I said before one Xenon core can pump out more DIMPS than a dual core Amd 64 FX60+ (30.000DMIPS vs 25.000DMIPS).
So which one would be better in general purpose?

Numbers are meaningless.
By the same token, do you really think the fact that ps3 pushes a grand total of 2TFlops means anything really?
You need to step down a little and stop shoving numbers down people's throats, trying to "prove" your very weak arguments.

Further note I don't give a rats a$$ what John Carmack says considering his ID software/Activision screw up Quake 4.
He might not have a hand in that one but it just shows the incompetence of his studio.
Also when I look at games like PGR3, SC: DA, N3 etc. then I see things Carmacky can only dream off getting out his engine.
Which could do CG graphics according to him (see the Doom 3 E3 2003 trailer for proof).

What did he screw up with Quake 4? In the end, it really comes down to the very very simple fact that John Carmack knows a lot more of what he's talking about than you do. End of story. Just reading this forum would help you a lot understanding, but that would require intelligence.

Amd 64's and Intel P4's are nothing more than single or dual core 386 with SSE3 and 64bit support.
Just look at how a 3,2GHz dual core G5 stacks up against it's x86 dual core competitors in universal benchmarks (meaning not x86 optimised ones).

You mean the benchies optimised for G5's? You know, there are reasons why Apple is using Intel chips now...

 

[Guilty Bystander]

in-order is a 12 year leap backwards , though the chip will really fly with heavy number or threads (say 6). But to have so many threads well balanced and coordinated for gaming.. what a headache it will be. Looks like a good CPU for servers or supercomputing.

Ever thought Microsoft needed a CPU powerfull enough to do heavy physics calculations like the PhysIX PPU.
They could have gone with an Amd 64 or P4 but they would have gone for a PPU aswell considering the lack of power to do physics by the CPU.
This would have gotten arround the same results in physics but would have cost a lot more money and would still lack in A.I. calculations.

That should show the Xenon is extremely more powerfull than any PC CPU considering the fact a PC CPU of $1000 needs a $300 PPU to do the same as a CPU in a $300 console.

 

[Guilty Bystander]

Numbers are meaningless.
By the same token, do you really think the fact that ps3 pushes a grand total of 2TFlops means anything really?
You need to step down a little and stop shoving numbers down people's throats, trying to "prove" your very weak arguments

Sure numbers are meaningless so all the more fillrate, vertices etc. numbers the GeForce 7800GTX has over the GeForce FX5950 Ultra are meaningless then right?
Ofcourse I don't believe the PS3 is capable of 2TFlop/s that's all highly theoretical and don't mean jack in realtime.
But the numbers I'm stating are theoretical for both the Amd 64 FX60+ and Xenon so that's like comparing oranges to oranges.

Instead of pissing down on other people's arguments with stupid responses like that you should make some arguments yourself.

What did he screw up with Quake 4? In the end, it really comes down to the very very simple fact that John Carmack knows a lot more of what he's talking about than you do. End of story. Just reading this forum would help you a lot understanding, but that would require intelligence.

Well have you even played Quake 4 on the Xbox 360?
Cause it seems like you didn't otherwise you would know what I'm talking about.
He knows more of programming than I do that's true but then again I'm no programmer.
Other programmers know a lot more then he does and he's clearly overated and I've got PGR3, Kameo, Condemned and King Kong to proof my argument.
Games which all look better and run better and I could have compared Quake 4 to GoW, N3, FN3 and BF2: MC but I decided to just compare it to other launchgames.

Yep I can clearly can learn a lot of your pissing down responses.
Like I said before make an argument yourself IF YOU HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE.

You mean the benchies optimised for G5's? You know, there are reasons why Apple is using Intel chips now...

There's a reason and the reason isn't power.
The reason is instead of throwing loads of time and energy into emulating x86 through MAC OS X and lose loads of power doing it why not just use a x86 CPU.
That's the reason and nothing else.

 

[Titanio]

Ever thought Microsoft needed a CPU powerfull enough to do heavy physics calculations like the PhysIX PPU.
They could have gone with an Amd 64 or P4 but they would have gone for a PPU aswell considering the lack of power to do physics by the CPU.
This would have gotten arround the same results in physics but would have cost a lot more money and would still lack in A.I. calculations.

Err..maybe I'm reading you wrong, but if I'm not, I think AGEIA would have something to say about that And in fact, they did, but I'll let you look that up yourself.

 

[j^aws]

This is just old news.

Spagetti code will run better on OOOe processors than in-order processors. Optimising spagetti code will benefit both types of processors. However, it will benefit in-order processors more. Adding OOOe support costs more transistors and it was traded for more ALUs for it to have legs over 5 years in a closed console design.

The XeCPU has higher theoretical specs/ potential than PC processors and more work/ effort is required to reach this. If he's not willing to invest time/effort in console land, then someone else will and make his game look like crud! Developers/ publishers are still in competetion with each other...

That being said, I do think 1 MB L2 cache for XeCPU across 3 cores/6 threads sounds too much of a compromise, so we'll see what happens...

 

[AlNom]

Well have you even played Quake 4 on the Xbox 360?
Cause it seems like you didn't otherwise you would know what I'm talking about.
He knows more of programming than I do that's true but then again I'm no programmer.
Other programmers know a lot more then he does and he's clearly overated and I've got PGR3, Kameo, Condemned and King Kong to proof my argument.
Games which all look better and run better and I could have compared Quake 4 to GoW, N3, FN3 and BF2: MC but I decided to just compare it to other launchgames.

Carmack had nothing to do with QIV programming-wise. There's a reason id got Raven to make the game...

 

[Guilty Bystander]

Err..maybe I'm reading you wrong, but if I'm not, I think AGEIA would have something to say about that And in fact, they did, but I'll let you look that up yourself.

I know what you're getting at but I've also read the Xenon can do fluid dynamics but it just needs some more effort.
And if it can't the Xenos will jump in.

The XeCPU has higher theoretical specs/ potential than PC processors and more work/ effort is required to reach this. If he's not willing to invest time/effort in console land, then someone else will and make his game look like crud! Developers/ publishers are still in competetion with each other...

QFT

That being said, I do think 1 MB L2 cache for XeCPU across 3 cores/6 threads sounds too much of a compromise, so we'll see what happens...

No man 1MB is sufficiënt but like you said above it takes optimising.
Typical PowerPC can cope with 256KB L-2 per core no problem.
It just takes some effort.