ps3 cpu vs xbox 360 cpu

[quadcoreman]

hi guys

im wondering if you can answer this question for me. i know that people say that the ps3 CPU is more powerful, but IMO the 360 CPU is more powerful and i'll tell you why. (lol tell me if i am wrong)

this is what i think: (not sure if it's 100% true)
the xbox 360 CPU has 3 cores each running at 3.2 GHz, and each core can handle 2 threats simultaneously. which means it can do 6 things at once. Now the PS3 has a main CPU which is clocked the same, but also has 6 SPE's for gaming. My guess is that each SPE is 450 Mhz (because 3.2 divided my 8 = about 0.45) so the PS3 can also do 6 things at once but is clocked lower.

now maybe the ps3's SPE's are actually clocked higher than this, but even if they are, i dont see a significant advantage over the xbox 360.

please help me out on this one.

[Jack.Sparrow]

The PS3 actually has a total of 8.

Each SPE is composed of a "Synergistic Processing Unit", SPU, and a "Memory Flow Controller", MFC (DMA, MMU, and bus interface).[24] An SPE is a RISC processor with 128-bit SIMD organization[22][25][26] for single and double precision instructions. With the current generation of the Cell, each SPE contains a 256 KiB embedded SRAM for instruction and data, called "Local Storage" (not to be mistaken for "Local Memory" in Sony's documents that refer to the VRAM) which is visible to the PPE and can be addressed directly by software. Each SPE can support up to 4 GiB of local store memory. The local store does not operate like a conventional CPU cache since it is neither transparent to software nor does it contain hardware structures that predict which data to load. The SPEs contain a 128-bit, 128 entry register file and measures 14.5 mm² on a 90 nm process. An SPE can operate on 16 8-bit integers, 8 16-bit integers, 4 32-bit integers, or 4 single precision floating-point numbers in a single clock cycle, as well as a memory operation. Note that the SPU cannot directly access system memory; the 64-bit virtual memory addresses formed by the SPU must be passed from the SPU to the SPE memory flow controller (MFC) to set up a DMA operation within the system address space.

In one typical usage scenario, the system will load the SPEs with small programs (similar to threads), chaining the SPEs together to handle each step in a complex operation. For instance, a set-top box might load programs for reading a DVD, video and audio decoding, and display, and the data would be passed off from SPE to SPE until finally ending up on the TV. Another possibility is to partition the input data set and have several SPEs performing the same kind of operation in parallel. At 3.2 GHz, each SPE gives a theoretical 25.6 GFLOPS of single precision performance.

Compared to a modern personal computer, the relatively high overall floating point performance of a Cell processor seemingly dwarfs the abilities of the SIMD unit in desktop CPUs like the Pentium 4 and the Athlon 64. However, comparing only floating point abilities of a system is a one-dimensional and application-specific metric. Unlike a Cell processor, such desktop CPUs are more suited to the general purpose software usually run on personal computers. In addition to executing multiple instructions per clock, processors from Intel and AMD feature branch predictors. The Cell is designed to compensate for this with compiler assistance, in which prepare-to-branch instructions are created. For double-precision, as often used in personal computers, Cell performance drops by an order of magnitude, but still reaches 14 GFLOPS.

Recent tests by IBM show that the SPEs can reach 98% of their theoretical peak performance using optimized parallel Matrix Multiplication.[23]

Toshiba has developed a co-processor powered by four SPEs, but no PPE, called the SpursEngine designed to accelerate 3D and movie effects in consumer electronics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_mi...ents_.28SPE.29

[1 g0t 0wn3d]

No m atter how much i love my 360 the ps3's cpu is way more powerful

[ebackhus]

Too bad the SPEs aren't beuilt for that type of work.

[Jack.Sparrow]

What type of work eb?

[ebackhus]

They are essentially digital signal processors. Great for tiny tasks but rubbish for the more intense processing that games require.

[Aus_Karlos]

Yes the PS3 is more powerful but we have no games that can utilize all the cells. So we will find that amt Xbox-360 will have some better CPU intense games for a bit until game designers can utilize the PS3 cells.
I think GTA4 only uses 4 Cells

[3PointJ]

Can someone explain and clarify the Pro's and Con's of both Processors, I have done some reading, but have not really found much on which is better for whatc etc.

[Jack.Sparrow]

I don't think they can really be compared. From what I make of it, they have different architectures. The utilisation of which depends on the game being played and how it's programmed.

Theoretically, if the same game is played on both consoles without it being specifically coded for any particular one, the 360 will run it better, however, if it is coded to utilise the system to the max (which isn't the case at the moment) the PS3 will do it better.

[3PointJ]

Ah, ok that clears things up a bit.

Sick of hearing on other forums fanboys for each system going "Mines better cos of this..." and not having any idea how things actually work

[Jack.Sparrow]

That's what fan boys do.

They are both fairly powerful machines and because they both get games coded for that particular system, they'll run them (atleast for now) at fairly similar results.

I could be totally wrong about this, but all the readings has brought me to this conclusion

[ebackhus]

Heeeeeey! I'm no fanboy, but I do know the fundamental differences of both consoles AND how exactly each one works.

[Jack.Sparrow]

I know you're not EB. I refer to fan boys as people who make statements such as "360>PS3 or PS3>360" without any evidence other than hear-say and personal preference.
You'll find a few here (but I won't mention names )
PS3 or 360???

[cappilio]

When ps3 game designers build a game that brings out the best in its hardware you shall all see why its more powerfull:D

[ebackhus]

If properly utilized I can see the CELL chip being quite powerful. But from what I know and understand about the SPE's used in it I can't see it being a godly machine. Powerful yes, but not quite godly. That's not to say that the 360 would always be superior, but I think it'd be easier to make more efficient use of a tri-CPU architecture. One doing the main code, another for audio, and the third doing physics.

[Jack.Sparrow]

Originally Posted by ebackhus

Powerful yes, but not quite godly.

Agreed