Duo Core 2
- Thread starter barnettgs
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 6,846
- Location
- Cambs UK
totally different architecture mate. It's a bit like saying why not use the best fork in the world to eat soup
Permabanned
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 1,222
- Location
- Frodsham
5bjoshua said:
I hate reading that and people keep saying it. Cell processors are NOT like normal processors. They need special programming to take advantage of them and it is a tech very much in it infancy. 6 Cell Processor != 6 normal processors
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
doesnt an xbox 360 use 3 MAC processors? basically sony decided they wanted to commit financial suicide so they plunged billions into making a chip that is useless, but it was a big leap in technology and now companies know how not to make a chip, basically a kentsfield chip running at 3ghz would kill the cell - no matter what you were using it for
Interesting...I'm not sure why Sony decided to go their own way when it could have been easier to buy Duo Core 2 and easier to programme.
It's all right saying that both processor are very different but why go down a complicated route with cell? Just a thought.
It's all right saying that both processor are very different but why go down a complicated route with cell? Just a thought.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 1,222
- Location
- Frodsham
Whappers said:Errr... it's a very powerful chip if used correctly!
That is a pretty big IF and atm developers cant harness duel core processors so when u need ot write complex threading alogrithms and complex instructions to run a cell, it is gonna be a while before we see its true power.
But i do agree with you
barnettgs said:Duo Core 2 is probably the most powerful processor in the world and this got me thinking...why didn't Sony went with this one instead of IBM's 'Cell' processor? Also could it have been cheaper too?
Just curious to know.
Well technically if we are splitting hairs the Core 2 Quadro is probably the most powerful in the world right now, but that's getting picky.
The internal architecture of a Cell CPU and a X86 / X64 CPU are miles apart, sure they are both CPUs but it's like comparing apples and oranges.
Cell CPUs show off having huge FP numbers compared to the X86 chips but thats because they are just designed to process FP numbers at insanely high speeds - which is what you need in a games console - it has a really short pipeline for processing data and no branch prediction for speeding up tasks.
an X86 / X64 Processor - such as an AMD X2 or a Intel Core Duo 2 doesn't have this insanely high FP capability - although it can still process some huge numbers. The pipeline on the X86 / X64 CPUs is much longer with branch prediction so it can handle more tasks and have a more broad range of power - much as what is needed within a computer.
A CPU that is created with computer gaming in mind will always be able to just push FP numbers and triangles as fast as it can, while a desktop oriented CPU had a far broader range of abilities, just not as fast.
Rich
Psycho Sonny said:
Yeah the Xbox 360 uses PPC processors (or a variant of this) because PPC processors - the Power3/4 generation were known for there good FP number abilities (why do you think mathematic deptarments kept the G5s and didn't upgrade to Intels in the Mac transistion?).
Unfortunatley saying that a kenstfield Vs a Cell equals a win is both not very true and also quite untestable.
What situation are you testing this in? a Kentsfield is the all rounder, stick it in everyday tasks and it would kill the cell yeah, but this is like saying a Ford Focus is better than a Bugatti.....at pulling your caravan to Wales.
Put a Cell vs a Kentsfield in a mathmatics environment - and the Cell would plough through numbers like they were going out of fashion - as that is all it was designed for.
You can't compare the different architechtures.
Rich
5bjoshua said:
I thought that basically the Cell has seven out of a possible eight working cores when used in a PS3. Each core in the X360 has two threads (making 6 in total) whilst the PS3 has 7 threads. As mentioned though it's impossible to compare with a PC CPU.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
andy said:
i noticed when playing source my cpu usage on both cores when running the game was 55-60% but when i switches its affinity to 1 core it managed to use 100% and this is an e6600 running at 3.6ghz with 4 gbs of ram, but the other core was now at at 0-1% now this is a game that isnt multi threaded yet but if i had 7 cores theoretically my load would just be divided between the cores instead of them all doin completely seperate tasks they just do the same task but use 1/7th of the power, on a console its different the processor is used to do different tasks with different cores, im sure that if they used a core 2 duo instead it would have saved them billions and they would be in a position to re-take the gaming market, unfortunately i reckon they made a blunder, i dont care if its a new tech or what, its only good at doing 1 thing and people have slated it saying that console gaming will never use the cell properly because it is designed to do calculations which are purely maths based or the likes, so ig you were to compare a cell and a core 2 duo in a console gaming sense, im sure there would be only a very slight difference
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
andy said:never relised how small it is either
it had to be that small do you have any idea how much heat it outputs? basically the whole insides of the ps3 are designed as 1 big heatpipe to transfer the heat away from the cpu and the gpu
andy said:the cell is far more powerful than a core 2 duo if you measure it in terms of giga flops
its new technology that can only keep improving
im sure they didnt develop it just for the ps3 either
never relised how small it is either
CPUs in PCs are that small - look at the die on the CPU - that's the same.
Rich
Psycho Sonny said:
Did you breathe once while writing that?
Your seriously don't understand - it's not as simple as sticking a Core 2 Duo into a gaming console - have you never realised that year after year after year that games consoles have all had specialised CPUs that can handle gaming perfectly with little to no slowdown?
Because games console are so streamlined for the task of gaming - that's all they were designed to do - not like a Core 2 Duo which is a CPU that is meant to be good at all things, a games console CPU is designed to be amazing at one thing and one thing alone.
The Cell is a completely new age tech and will do leaps and bound as it continues to be worked on and improved.
You also state people say that it won't do games well as it's only meant to do maths...what do you think games are? they are all triangles and FPs - games are just huge chunks of numbers wanting to be processed - the Cell is the perfect candidate for this.
I suggest you research into the Cell before you start making more brash comments on the system.
Rich
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,062
titchard said:
Tis the problem though, the console is here now and the technology is still being tapped into. In terms of the PS3 it doesn't matter how good the cell can be, but it's what it can do now or in the very near future. And from current titles, nothing different to the 360.
By the time the developers really get to grips with the cell, going off all that I have read on the wee thing, the GPU in the PS3 will be a huge limiting factor which is a real shame.
But then the Cell isn't a PS3 machine exclusive and so over the next few years I am sure its developments will be avidly followed in computing.
Isn't a to of the range core Duo like £700??
Also the cell would wipe the floor with anything when it comes to multi processor environments, which iirc is why IBM wanted it, so they could whack 50 into a mainframe.
Also the cell would wipe the floor with anything when it comes to multi processor environments, which iirc is why IBM wanted it, so they could whack 50 into a mainframe.