Xbox 360 true power?

Richard Beer

Richard Beer

Richard Beer

Associate
Joined
28 Mar 2007
Posts
114
The 360 has an IBM PPC Tri core 3.2ghz processor, and the ps3 has an 8core processor at 3.2ghz, how come there is virtualy no difference in performance? Also Ive heard that current games only utilize 1 core, so does this mean the xbox 360 has a lot more potential. Also, what is the possiblity of a 360 running an OS such as linux?
 
The 360 is a very powerful machine, its just that Mircosoft made the games do the talking while Sony went on about how powerful the Cell chip is but its nothing with poor designed and implemented games.
 
Richard Beer said:
The 360 has an IBM PPC Tri core 3.2ghz processor, and the ps3 has an 8core processor at 3.2ghz, how come there is virtualy no difference in performance?
Click to expand...

Yes, the 360 is a tri-cored PowerPC processor, with two hardware threads running on each core. As for games using only one core? No, there was mention some of the launch games were... but that certainly hasn't been the case for a long time.

The Cell in the PS3 consists of a single PowerPC core, plus eight SPE cores. The SPE cores are digital signal processors with limited memory and capability - and all tied up on a ring bus, essentially they are for number crunching and no where near as complex as a true CPU core. Also in the PS3, one SPE is disabled, and another is reserved for the system code.

In terms of sheer number crunching power, the Cell is fastest, as it can theoretically do nearly twice as many calculations per second as the 360. But in the real world, number crunching is not the be all and end all. With the 360 having three full PowerPC processors can be more beneficial - you divert tasks between the cores with no limitations - each core can get access other parts of the system. With the PS3 you have to optimise the code more to fragment tasks into small chunks suitable for the SPE's and get the PowerPC core to do everything else.
 
Last edited:
1 of the cores on the PS3 is disabled, another 1 is reserved by the OS (edit:ah, beaten to it), so developers get 6 to play with. TBH you're assuming clock speeds can be compared - a 3.2 GHz P4 is way slower than a one core of a 2.0 GHz C2D. I dunno how a single cell core compares to the cores in the 360 but it's not just as simple as 6 (or 7) vs 3.

Anyway, most console games simply don't need more than a fraction of the CPU power of either machine, they're almost all GPU limited. You could double the CPU power of both consoles and 99% of games would run no faster.
 
fish99 said:
I dunno how a single cell core compares to the cores in the 360 but it's not just as simple as 6 (or 7) vs 3.
Click to expand...

You're just talking about the SPEs - the glorified number crunchers! Remember the Cell consists of 1 PPC core and 8 SPEs. An SPE doesn't match up to a full CPU core, such as PPC, x86, etc, and they are also limited as to what they can access. If I remember correctly they only have 128K of memory each too.
 
LadFromWales85 said:
All quiet so far, I guess most people have got up and are demanding a refund at the ticket kiosk ;)
Click to expand...

Except from people who seem to want a fanboy fight.

Why though? Both processors have their strong points as i've put earlier about their archetecture. Cell in terms of raw number crunching, but harder to code for as the SPE's aren't much use for anything else, and the 360's Xenon processor for being able to do anything on each of it's cores. From a programming point of view, I'd favour the 360.

But, I just wish game companies would concentrate more on the actual gameplay instead of trying to make things look the best. So much linear rubbish these days I struggle to find any games that I enjoy playing. Graphics for me don't make a game - gameplay does and that is so overlooked these days :rolleyes:
 
Richard Beer said:
. Also, what is the possiblity of a 360 running an OS such as linux?
Click to expand...


My head memory is borked but I'm pretty sure there is a Youtube of some Dude running Linux on an XBox.
Just searched for 360 + Linux on Youtube & yes it's been done, Lots.
 
wtflobster.jpg


You_heard_me_crab_cig.jpg
 
Awhile ago all i heard was that the 360's CPU was easier to work with, whereas devs couldn't quite get to grips with the PS3's CPU hence the lack of good games. This was ages ago mind you when the PS3 was released, devs said that Sony never sent them dev kits of the PS3 whereas MS did, but im sure this is sorted by now.
 
Richard Beer said:
The 360 has an IBM PPC Tri core 3.2ghz processor, and the ps3 has an 8core processor at 3.2ghz, how come there is virtualy no difference in performance? Also Ive heard that current games only utilize 1 core, so does this mean the xbox 360 has a lot more potential. Also, what is the possiblity of a 360 running an OS such as linux?
Click to expand...

Xbox 360 is possible on Linux Unbuntu, I am in the process of doing my old premium, its not worth anything as it was on my back when i crashed by bike at about 70 ish mph :D

But its supposed to be very powerful with Linux.
 
ste_bla said:
Its like a penis, its not how big/fast its what you do with it!
Click to expand...
There's only so much you can do with what you're given though.

I have an Elite and I'm of the opinion we've hit peak judging from Mass Effect performance, and high-profile titles like Halo 3 having to be portrayed in less than 720p.

As for the CPU, it probably has got a lot of use left in it but at 720p you are not CPU limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom