Xbox 2 Processors
Posted 16 January 2005 - 08:12 PM
I attended a seminar given by an IBM higher up that mainly works on the iSeries. Maybe he said more than he was supposed to, but this information was stated. The "Xbox 2" (as he called it) will use three Power 5 processors. Power 5 processors are 64 bit processors developed by IBM to run in high demand application servers. These are incredibly powerful and can function and appear in some instances as 2 32 bit processors. %'s of the processing power can be doled out in a variety of ways. I think the Power 5's I've used were able to be split 10 ways. So the point, the three Power 5 chips will give the Xbox plenty of processing power to do an insane amount of processing.
Posted 16 January 2005 - 08:39 PM
Posted 17 January 2005 - 07:49 AM
If multiple processors is true (which it seems to be), then I think we well be seeing console games looking much better than any PC games. In the past, console games have looked about on par (or slightly better at launch) with PC games, but if they run multiple processors than that would be the first time that they had a clear and huge lead hardware wise on PCs.
Posted 17 January 2005 - 01:50 PM
lol.. thats because I have a job that takes up a LOT of my time, AND I'm busy on 4 other forums hourly.
Posted 17 January 2005 - 04:35 PM
Posted 19 January 2005 - 01:25 PM
But im not sure this can be correct. Apple had a problem with cooling these cpués down. iIn a midi tower cabinet with only 2 of them... How is MS supposed to keep them cool in a small box, witout it sounding like a jet motor.. Whitch by the way wont be a great sale pitch in a home entertainment system..
2 nd. apple offers in their most powerfull systems only 2 of these in each system.. And they are known as some of the most powerfull personel computer systems in the world.. So why would microsft have 3 ??? that dosent make any sense...
and well even if they do this the price tag vil run thrue the roof. more than the average bayer is even remotely interesting in spending..
so if all this is true MS is basically producing a failure.
Dahm i hope im wrong Xbox Rules even thoug MS Sucks.
Posted 19 January 2005 - 02:20 PM
Posted 19 January 2005 - 06:52 PM
i think making the xbox2 as powerful as possible for the future is a very smart thing to do, that way the system can last as long as possible and not have its new games in two years creating bottlenecks and having low frame rates.
whats the point of releasing a console that is (at launch) already slower than new pc's? sounds like ms knows exactly what they are doing.. now lets just hope for a good price
Posted 19 January 2005 - 11:22 PM
the specs say 3 cores on one die, that means, 1 cpu, 3 logical proccesors.
So you just need the cooling for one cpu....
Like 3 people under one roof so to speak....
Edited by jedi223, 19 January 2005 - 11:26 PM.
Posted 19 January 2005 - 11:35 PM
seriously....theres no way dual G5's are more powerful than any of the AMD 64 chips or any P4 above 2.4 Ghz.
Multi-core processors are the direction all the major chip manufacturers are taking (AMD and Intel). in fact AMD is working with IBM on their multicore processors. If Xenon does get this processor, it will be just about neck and neck with PC's.
Posted 20 January 2005 - 01:06 AM
rememebr ps2, everyone thought the 128 or 256-bit or whatever the architechure was going to make it the most powerful computer on the planet, but when it came out it had a really low clock speed
Posted 20 January 2005 - 05:25 AM
so thats what will make the Xenons processor so awesome. The sticky has the processor speed as 3.5 GHZ....which is pretty awesome, especially having the multi core design with will make it behave like a much faster processor.
Posted 20 January 2005 - 04:55 PM
Power PC based
3 cores, 2 HW threads per core
ATI r500+ based
the information that makes a difference to you is this
Power PC is FASTER than intel & amd. If someone would like an explanation then I will oblige but needless to say
3.5Ghz PowerPC running 6 threads on 3 cores is MUCH faster than a P4 3.5Ghz
Posted 20 January 2005 - 05:56 PM
is this gonna get into another 32-bit vs 64-bit debate?
what most peopel dont realize is that clock speed is only one of many things that effect a processors performance, and just becuase a 3.5ghz g5 is faster than a 3.5ghz p4 doesnt necessarily mean the g5s are better, g5 and pentium are about neck and neck actually (look at whats avalaible now, 3.5ghz pentiums are out, but you cant even buy a 3.5ghz g5)
when you get right down to it its like comparing a p4 to an old duron 800 (they are both 32-bit processors, so its a valid comparison, right?) well teh p4 is much faster, so intel must be better than amd, right? wrong, of course the p4 is gonna be faster, its newer
BTW theres not a chance in hell xenon will have a 3.5ghz processor, it owuld be too expensive
Posted 20 January 2005 - 11:00 PM
The comparisen between a pentium4s overall performance the performance I'm seeing now on the G5 stands simply because of the empirical evidence I see EVERY day.
I'm not saying that 32bit is better than 64bit or anything of the sort... I'm simply saying that this peice of code running on both systems runs significantly faster on the G5 (@ 2Ghz).
I will never be able to compare the full game as such simply because we don't write PC games.. only console games.
and re: the Xenon not having a 3.5Ghz CPU... I have to agree but for different reasons. I don't think it will be the expense on each chip. The CPU's are designed to run over a range of speeds and are tested at said speeds to find out where in the spread they generate the least heat.
Currently the yeild on the Xenon processor is nowhere near that posted to be used in the Xenon... but we shall see.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users