Results 1 to 25 of 58

Thread:

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date: Jul:2001
    Location:
    Posts: 10,936

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date: Jul:2001
    Location:
    Posts: 10,936
    http://www.webfile.ru/381738 -
    http://forum.xbox365.com/ubb/ultimat...578;p=1#000009 -
    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...054.html?97637 -

    .
    .
    ...

    Right now, from what weve heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox. Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 - 5 years, its nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective, floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a Pentium 4.
    The Cell processor doesnt get off the hook just because it only uses a single one of these horribly slow cores; the SPE array ends up being fairly useless in the majority of situations, making it little more than a waste of die space.
    The Cell processor is no different; given that its PPE is identical to one of the PowerPC cores in Xenon, it must derive its floating point performance superiority from its array of SPEs. So what's the issue with 218 GFLOPs number (2 TFLOPs for the whole system)? Well, from what we've heard, game developers are finding that they can't use the SPEs for a lot of tasks. So in the end, it doesn't matter what peak theoretical performance of Cell's SPE array is, if those SPEs aren't being used all the time.

    Don't stare directly at the flops, you may start believing that they matter.
    Another way to look at this comparison of flops is to look at integer add latencies on the Pentium 4 vs. the Athlon 64. The Pentium 4 has two double pumped ALUs, each capable of performing two add operations per clock, that's a total of 4 add operations per clock; so we could say that a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 can perform 15.2 billion operations per second. The Athlon 64 has three ALUs each capable of executing an add every clock; so a 2.8GHz Athlon 64 can perform 8.4 billion operations per second. By this silly console marketing logic, the Pentium 4 would be almost twice as fast as the Athlon 64, and a multi-core Pentium 4 would be faster than a multi-core Athlon 64. Any AnandTech reader should know that's hardly the case. No code is composed entirely of add instructions, and even if it were, eventually the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 will have to go out to main memory for data, and when they do, the Athlon 64 has a much lower latency access to memory than the P4. In the end, despite what these horribly concocted numbers may lead you to believe, they say absolutely nothing about performance. The exact same situation exists with the CPUs of the next-generation consoles; don't fall for it.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date: Apr:2002
    Posts: 1,050
    ( ) IBM - ( - 2-4 $) , Apple PowerPC , - -

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date: Mar:2004
    Location:
    Posts: 3,748
    game developer-, ... .

    , cell . , , . . , :
    Quote Originally Posted by arstechnica
    Of course game developers would much rather have an Athlon64 or a Pentium D to work with than either of the two console chips, and of course either of those two CPUs would outperform Xenon and Cell in the first generation or two of console games.
    ...
    The developer frustration expressed in the article is in large part a result of the fact that the free ride is over for the software industry...
    arstechnica.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date: Feb:2004
    Posts: 23
    Quote Originally Posted by barnie
    game developer-, ... .
    !
    , .

  6. #6
    Banned lilos's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov:2003
    Posts: 353
    Athlon 64 X2 4400+ ......

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date: Mar:2004
    Location:
    Posts: 3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by lilos
    Athlon 64 X2 4400+ ......
    . "X2" .

  8. #8
    acdc's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul:2001
    Location:
    Posts: 15,473
    Quote Originally Posted by chavv

    .
    .
    ...
    , svetlyo

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date: Jul:2001
    Location:
    Posts: 15,344
    ...
    Xbox360 .

    ( ) -
    - 2.8 64 ?

    - - - .
    - . 3 .
    CoreDuo@MacosX

  10. #10
    Registered User dsp's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec:2004
    Location:
    Posts: 5,962
    Quote Originally Posted by svetlyo

    - - - .
    - . 3 .
    ( ) , . (.. - )

    , , .. .. .
    (2022)

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date: Jul:2001
    Location:
    Posts: 15,344
    dsp
    - ... ... .

    . , - .

    . .

    ,
    CoreDuo@MacosX

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Copyright © 1999-2011 . .
iskamPC.com | mobility.BG | Bloody's Techblog | | 3D Vision Blog |