Xbox 360 1 Teraflop of Performance Explained

[blakjedi]

OK OK vysez... Can someone explain non programmable flops and why RSX has twice as many as Xenos? For some reason Im NOT getting that part. Is it just spec inflation? Is it and estimated ratio? (ie 400 Programmable flops = 500 non programmable therefore 800 programmable flops = 1000 Non programmable?)

However they (NVidia & ATi) count those figures, that's how they count them..there's little tranparency in the process. I'm sure technically they could sit you down and walk you through it, but they're not likely to do so Don't worry about them. If you wish, just focus on what you can derive (programmable flops)..that's what a lot of people do.

I remember J Allard using the term "targetted" to describe the teraflop performance x360... would that be the equivalent of z only pass?

I think "targetted" was simply a flattering adjective thrown in there, it's not a technical term relating to anything. Targetted suggests something focussed etc. They just wanted to communicate the idea that this power is well focussed.

Thanks for the tip titanio. too much marketing speak... makes me wonder though... cause based on your definition X360 has only 343 Gflops of targetted performance....*shrug*

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

I don't see that there would ever be any sort of logic to it. You can pretty much claim anything you want for the non-programmable flops. You can say, "Our implementation of texture decompression on read is far more needlessly complex than the other guys. This is very important as it allows us to wow you with big numbers."

I'm sure there will be a time when even more completely meaningless stats are compared... nVidia's new board is a 12-layer card! ATI's is only 10-layer! Oh, but ATI's chip package is 1102 pins vs. nVidia's 996! Oh, yeah?!?!? Well my dad could beat up your dad!

 

[Powderkeg]

PS3 was the raison detre for Cell, despite its diversification into other markets. It can be applied in different areas, but so could XeCPU (although it is not, afaik..). The requirements of a processor for games are not completely disjoint from those of other areas.

No, Cell was always intended to be a mutlipurpose processor. The PS3 had next to nothing to do with it.

When Toshiba invested over $400 million into Cell development, and spent the money to build an entirely new manufacturing plant just to make them, you don't think they cared about the PS3, do you? They care about investing in a processor that they intend on using in stereos, DVD players, televisions, DVR's, and just about everything else they make.

 

[randycat99]

That's pretty ridiculous overkill for the applications you cited. Obviously, PS3 had quite a bit to do with performance targets of Cell. You are off-topic in bringing this up, anyway. It's a bit silly to argue if one processor is more "multi-purpose" than another, being so close in PPC origin in the first place. It's not like something built out of 3 general purpose cores can suddenly become more "dedicated" at a specific purpose. Computer tasks just don't fall into such easy categories- not even the ones that make a game function. Also consider that it has been adamantly asserted over and over here how neither CPU in question here would make particularly good desktop processors compared to Pentiums, Athlons, and G5's, etc. That is, by far, the domain of "general purpose", and it is quite clear that Xenon and Cell are quite a bit in their own domain in that continuum, rather than apart from each other.

 

[Gholbine]

PS3 was the raison detre for Cell, despite its diversification into other markets. It can be applied in different areas, but so could XeCPU (although it is not, afaik..). The requirements of a processor for games are not completely disjoint from those of other areas.

No, Cell was always intended to be a mutlipurpose processor. The PS3 had next to nothing to do with it.

When Toshiba invested over $400 million into Cell development, and spent the money to build an entirely new manufacturing plant just to make them, you don't think they cared about the PS3, do you? They care about investing in a processor that they intend on using in stereos, DVD players, televisions, DVR's, and just about everything else they make.

That's not entirely correct. It was Kuturagi who sparked the development of the Cell, and it was obviously with the PS3 in mind. Sony enlisted the help of Toshiba and they worked up some designs. When the team moved to "silicon valley", they teamed up with IBM as well. At this point they might have more plans for the Cell, but it was designed because of, and for the PS3.

Also, Toshiba was heavily involved in the development of the Emotion Engine, which was used exclusively in the PS2.

 

[Powderkeg]

That's not entirely correct. It was Kuturagi who sparked the development of the Cell, and it was obviously with the PS3 in mind. Sony enlisted the help of Toshiba and they worked up some designs. When the team moved to "silicon valley", they teamed up with IBM as well. At this point they might have more plans for the Cell, but it was designed because of, and for the PS3.

No, that was entirely correct.

Cell has been, since it's inception, a chip designed to go into just about every Sony and Toshiba product that uses a processor. It was specifically designed to be flexible, and multi-purpose, allowing it to be suitable for everything from development workstations to HDTV's. It was never designed nor intended to be "just" a PS3 processor.

It's as much of a multipurpose processor as the Mobile Celeron in the Xbox.

Also, Toshiba was heavily involved in the development of the Emotion Engine, which was used exclusively in the PS2.

Exclusively?

Oh, you are so wrong about that. Toshiba has many products that use the R4000/R5000 mips chips. (Toshiba's name for the Emotion Engine) So does Sony. You can't buy a WEGA television without getting a variation of the "Emotion Engine" chip in it.

 

[pc999]

People here seems not bellive that Cell is not made for PS3 only, I am not saing that it is a bad CPU because of not being console only (thought, I belive, it could probably be not so big if it has PS3 only), and I am happy for that because we may/will get some serios HQ tv and etc..., hopefull at relatevely low price (probably a reason to 1080p PS3 games).

I am not saying that Cell is worst because that, just that Cell=PS3 only CPU, is wrong, there is a lot of markets here Cell can/will enter (in fact even Intel will be inside ours tv , but, I guess, with a special porpose chip).

 

[Arty]

Isnt Toshiba & Sony at each others throats when it comes to next generation media (HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray), interesting that they worked together on the CELL.

On topic, did Anand claim any numbers in that article which was pulled ?

 

[Powderkeg]

That's pretty ridiculous overkill for the applications you cited. Obviously, PS3 had quite a bit to do with performance targets of Cell.

Cell's very architecture says you are wrong.

It was designed from the start to be scalable. You can add or remove SPE's, and you can use more than one core. Why would either of those options be necessary unless you intended from the start to use it in multiple products?

You are off-topic in bringing this up, anyway. It's a bit silly to argue if one processor is more "multi-purpose" than another, being so close in PPC origin in the first place. It's not like something built out of 3 general purpose cores can suddenly become more "dedicated" at a specific purpose. Computer tasks just don't fall into such easy categories- not even the ones that make a game function. Also consider that it has been adamantly asserted over and over here how neither CPU in question here would make particularly good desktop processors compared to Pentiums, Athlons, and G5's, etc. That is, by far, the domain of "general purpose", and it is quite clear that Xenon and Cell are quite a bit in their own domain in that continuum, rather than apart from each other.

You are confusing "General Purpose" processors with "Multiple Purpose" processors.

"General Purpose" processors run any kind of computer code, but are only used in Server/business workstation/home PC products. You won't find an AMD 64 in a cars ECU, a Tivo unit, or a microwave oven.

"Multiple Purpose" processors are designed to work in a wide variety of very different products. Cell will be in television sets, workstations, microwave ovens, Tivo/DVR's, DVD Players (Especially Blu-Ray players), medical imaging products, and even automobile suspensions.

Much of Cell's architecture is designed to allow for Multiple Purpose use. It's got silicon there that really was never intended to be used in a gaming system specifically, such as the large array of SPE's which no one seems to be able to figure out what they are going to use them all for. It makes it look like one hell of a powerful processor, but not so much in a way that will work well for games specifically.

The 360 on the other hand has a "General Purpose" processor that's been altered in a way that lowers it's "General Porpose" usefullness, but improves it's performance specifically with games. (Loss of OOP while gaining the VMX-128 unit)

 

[Powderkeg]

Isnt Toshiba & Sony at each others throats when it comes to next generation media (HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray), interesting that they worked together on the CELL.

Sony Vio computers come with MS Windows. Blu-Ray also adopted MS's VC1 codec.

 

[Megadrive1988]

ok so its becoming apparent (should have done years ago, i know) that the floating point ops rate alone cannot tell us how "powerful" or how "exellent" a gaming platform really is. it is only one basic measurment of calculating speed, and things are not always the same, one systems flops vs another systems flops.

we will just have to wait to see the on-screen, in-game results displayed and played in each systems games. all we really know is both PS3 and X360 are large improvements over the current generation consoles and PC rigs.

developers have been given a larger 'canvas' in which to express themselves and implement their gaming ideas and dreams. the new consoles significantly 'loosen' many of the restrictions imposed by the current PS2 which is the most widely used single platform that has the exact same specs (PCs differ) other than the GBA. the new consoles are also still well beyond the younger Gamecube and Xbox consoles which have not even been on the market 4 solid years.


sigh.....where am i going with this post. i dont know. we just should realize that flops, while important, are not the be all end all of measuring how good a console is.

 

[Powderkeg]

I agree completely. You've got 2 different designs that come up with 2 different raw numbers, but how that directly relates to games is a big unknown.

No one here can give a definative answer on which is better for gaming. I doubt developers who are working on both systems right now could give you a definative answer on which is better for gaming, and 1st or 2nd generation games aren't going to give you the answer either.

It's going to take until the 3rd to 4th generation 1st party games before any real judgement can be given. We'll have to wait and see what the people with the best understanding of the architecture can do when they've had the time and budget to do their very best work on the system. Until then, it's all guesswork.

 

[3roxor]

It was designed from the start to be scalable. You can add or remove SPE's, and you can use more than one core. Why would either of those options be necessary unless you intended from the start to use it in multiple products?

Not really..the whole Cell Spe count is based on some type of law(..forgot which 1..) and around 8 is the most feasible.

Much of Cell's architecture is designed to allow for Multiple Purpose use. It's got silicon there that really was never intended to be used in a gaming system specifically, such as the large array of SPE's which no one seems to be able to figure out what they are going to use them all for. It makes it look like one hell of a powerful processor, but not so much in a way that will work well for games specifically.

I read there is plenty of work to do for those Spe's. ..Just curious..where do you get all this knowledge from

[/b]

 

[Gholbine]

The SPE's are the Cell processor. Most of the processing power of the Cell lies in the SPE's, and the PPE is meant mainly as a controlling CPU. SCEA have said themselves that each SPE is designed to be more powerful (but less flexible) than the PPE.

BTW Powderkeg, I read an article about the creation of Cell, and it states implicitly that Kuturagi headed the Cell development team with the PS3 as the main focus. I'm looking for the article now.

 

[randycat99]

That's pretty ridiculous overkill for the applications you cited. Obviously, PS3 had quite a bit to do with performance targets of Cell.

Cell's very architecture says you are wrong.

It was designed from the start to be scalable. You can add or remove SPE's, and you can use more than one core. Why would either of those options be necessary unless you intended from the start to use it in multiple products?

Scaleable, yes. However, your assertion that because it is suitable for those applications you cited, then that makes it less suitable for "gaming" is equally wrong. For all we know, gaming falls into the same list, after which there would be very little bite to your argument. ...but we must reserve some special "application" that only Xenon is equipped to handle, right? It's inspirational, but ultimately, Xenon fits in exactly the same application domains that you would reserve for Cell- Xenon just ends up being not as scaleable in either direction. Whether or not there are many uses or one use is hardly indicative, on its own, of aptitude to a use.

You are confusing "General Purpose" processors with "Multiple Purpose" processors.

"General Purpose" processors run any kind of computer code, but are only used in Server/business workstation/home PC products. You won't find an AMD 64 in a cars ECU, a Tivo unit, or a microwave oven.

"Multiple Purpose" processors are designed to work in a wide variety of very different products. Cell will be in television sets, workstations, microwave ovens, Tivo/DVR's, DVD Players (Especially Blu-Ray players), medical imaging products, and even automobile suspensions.

They would all be "multiple purpose". The only difference is the range of applications. That you make an arbritrary line in the sand to demarcate applications means very little. You would be surprised that "general purpose" CPU's comprise a family far larger than an AMD64 chip as the baseline.

Much of Cell's architecture is designed to allow for Multiple Purpose use. It's got silicon there that really was never intended to be used in a gaming system specifically, such as the large array of SPE's which no one seems to be able to figure out what they are going to use them all for. It makes it look like one hell of a powerful processor, but not so much in a way that will work well for games specifically.

This excerpt is clearly your personal interpretation. No one can find how to use an SPE, but somehow the utilization of VMX128 is absolutely clear? It's very much the same problem set, so forget about having it "both ways".

The 360 on the other hand has a "General Purpose" processor that's been altered in a way that lowers it's "General Porpose" usefullness, but improves it's performance specifically with games. (Loss of OOP while gaining the VMX-128 unit)

OOP? Are you really sure you know what it is that makes Xenon so much better at game processes, or is this what you read in a Major Nelson article (of sorts)? I'm sure there is no convincing you otherwise, as your mind seems very set on this "distinction", but understand that your theory may not be as based in fact as you hope. A few custom instructions isn't going to spontaneously transform a PPE into a monster gaming processor anymore than the PPE was in the first place.

 

[Titanio]

It's got silicon there that really was never intended to be used in a gaming system specifically, such as the large array of SPE's which no one seems to be able to figure out what they are going to use them all for.

If SPEs can't be used for games, I'm not sure where they could be used or what games you're thinking of

Seriously, if you put an ear out you'll have heard what devs are looking to use them for, and what they may be used for in the longer term - and they're not exactly trivial tasks. There are some things that should readily fit with them..after that it's an open question.

Anyway, this if very OT..