Um, The processor in the 360 is a lot more powerful then a Intel p4. There is no question
Wii U CPU confirmed (by respected game producer) As weak.
Started by
Guest_TRON_*
, Jul 10 2012 04:48 AM
118 replies to this topic
#61
MorbidGod
-
- Members
-
- 1,717 posts
Hammer Bro.
Posted 12 July 2012 - 06:19 AM
Whovian12 -- Nintendo Network ID.
#62
3Dude
-
- Section Mods
-
- 5,482 posts
Whomp
Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:40 PM
all I know is, that POWER PC is a better technology that POWER ... I ve read that recently by a tech guy... I will try find his post (he answered to me) and copy paste it here..
Power 7 cpu, is nice.. if nintendo didnt downgrade it that much.. I mean, originally this cpu is 4 cores 16 threads and 16mb cache..
here it is :
" porting games from x86 to PPC isn't an issue if the PowerPC CPU is reasonably powerful. POWER7 has out of order execution and branch prediction, so it's not that bad. It would easily get outperformed by a modern Intel CPU clock for clock, but that's not a huge deal. "
that gives me the info, that power 7 is a totally different tech, so its harder to port games, especially if these games are for much more powerfull x86 cpus... instead a power PC is much easyer.
thats why power 7 4 cores and 16 threads is about equal to an intel i7 980x (6 cores 12 threads = 98-99 gflops)... And power 7 = 95-96 gflops
Whoa... You really misread that quote. Its comparing power 7 and i7 to power pc.
Not comparing power pc to power 7 to i7.
Power pc is going down the drain... has been since 2006. (power maybe to)
and icore is rising. There is a reason for this. Icore IS the new powerPC. Literally. In 2005 ibm lost its contract with apple to intel. Now 2 out of the 3 companies that made power pc make the icore.
Power architecture IS vastly different than icore, this is true. It prioritizes its solution in instructions per cycle vs cycles per second.
You are fixated on floating point operations as a measure of power. This is erroneous, and a reason why whetstone bench marks are cited as no longer being relevent as an accurate measure of performance.
Measuring flops doesnt take into account general purpose performance, which is where modern architectures derive the bulk of their power. Which is why the dryhstone benchmark was made.
Flops are incredibly dubious as a measure of performance in modern processors, particularly because of amdahls law and the difference between peak and sustainable flops.
Its amazing how things like whetstones and the mhz myth are still this prevelant.
Oh and about unreal engine 4
It WILL run on wii u.
www.videogamer.com/news/unreal_engine_4_games_could_be_ported_to_wii_u_epic.html
But epic has no plans to port the engine code to power isa to run on the wii u. They dont feel its worth the effort to port the code to the different instruction set.
#63
Dwarphkin
-
- Members
-
- 62 posts
Red Koopa Troopa
Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:49 PM
Thats good, I'm just worried about weather game developers could make use of the controller.Ofcourse not
This whole thread has been taken by a storm of "taking stuff out of context" again!
The clock speed does not matter, but the publis sees it as an big number that tells us "everythign", that's why they removed those aspects because it would lead to this kind of speculation in a much larger scale.
All in all, you have nothing to worry about, nothing has changed, the CPU is way more advanced than X360 has.
I sometimes wish life was like Fallout 3 ^-^
#64
silverismoney
-
- Members
-
- 100 posts
Cheep-Cheep
Posted 12 July 2012 - 01:55 PM
the wiiu cpu isnt about FLOPS ONLY AN IDIOT THINK THAT WAY
IT IS ABOUT DATA THRU PUT AND MAXIMUM PROCESSING POWER AT MINIMUM COST OUT OF ORDER EXECUTION INTEGRA DESK TOP MEDIA AND 3D DATA FLOW THE CPUS ARE CUSTOM DESIGNED FOR GAMECENTRIC GRAPHICS CENTRIC DATA THERE TOTALLY 100% MULTI TASK AND OUT OF ORDER AND BRANCH PREDICTION READY
TRY DOING MULTI TASK ON XENON TRY BRANCH PREDICTION ON XENON AND TRY OUT OF ORDER ON XENON I WISH YOU LUCK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4TO1 DATA COMPRESSION WITH REAL WORLD DECOMPRESSION AND A 3MB CATCH IS INSANE AMOUNTS OF DATA AND BANDWIDTH THIS TRI CORE BROADWAY COULD HAVE
a gekko cpu in gamecube had twice the catch of xbox cpu but due to 4to1 compression and graphics write gather burst pipes the level 2 catch was upto 10 x more effective than xbox cpus level 2 catch
the data thru put of a tri core broadway at say 1.6ghz and a 3mb catch programmed the nintendo way and using maxium compression would give a real world bandwidth and data thru put many times above a dual core intel at the same clock speed it would also conbined with the gpu be a physics and A.I monster as its a proper general purpose out of order branchy cpu with 2 way sims custom 2x32 bit fpu vector engine conbined with massive compue shader support from the gpu
3MB CATCH AT 4TO1 COMPRESSION = 12MB CATCH THATS MASSIVE
Pentium 3:
Bus Interface Unit to System Bus = 32 bit * 133 mhz = 1.0 GB/s
Bus Interface Unit from chip: 23 + 2.9 = 25.9 GB/s
L2 Data cache to L1 Data cache: 256 bit * 733 mhz = 23 GB/s
L2 Instruction cache to L1 instruction cache = 32 bit * 733 mhz = 2.9 GB/s
Gekko:
Bus Interface Unit to System Bus = 64 bit * 167 mhz = 1.3 GB/s
Bus Interface Unit from chip = 11.6 GB/s
L2 Data cache to fill buffer 64 bit * 485 mhz = 3.8 GB/s
L2 Instruction cache to L1 instruction cahe = 32 bit * 485 mhz = 3.8 GB/s
DMA controller to fill buffer 64 bit * 485 mhz = 3.8 GB/s
Fill buffer to L1 Data cache 256 bit * 485 mhz = 15.5 GB/s
Write Gather Pipe from Load/Store Unit 64 bit * 485 = 3.8 GB/s
*with data compression of 3.8:1 average data compression:
Bus Interface Unit to System Bus = 64 bit * 167 mhz = 1.3 GB/s * 4 = 5.2 GB/s
Bus Interface Unit from chip = 11.6 GB/s * 4 = 46.4 GB/s
L2 Data cache to fill buffer 64 bit * 485 mhz = 3.8 GB/s * 4 = 15.2 GB/s
L2 Instruction cache to L1 instruction cahe = 32 bit * 485 mhz = 3.8 GB/s
DMA controller to fill buffer 64 bit * 485 mhz = 3.8 GB/s * 4 = 15.2 GB/s
Fill buffer to L1 Data cache 256 bit * 485 mhz = 15.5 GB/s * 4 = 62.2 Gb/s.
Write Gather Pipe from Load/Store Unit 64 bit * 485 = 3.8 GB/s * 4 = 15.2 GB/s
The Gekko architecture is suited much more for streaming a large amount of data then the Pentium 3.
And finally, L2 and L1 cache must be taken into account. The native RISC code on the Gekko makes the instructions bigger then the CISC counterpart, lets say around 30% larger.
Pentium 3:
L1 Instruction cache: 16 Kbytes * 1.30 = 20.8 Kbytes
L1 Data cache: 16 Kbytes
L2 Instruction cache: 128 Kbytes * 1.30 = 20.8 Kbytes
L2 Data Cache: 64 Kbyte
In the data caches, transient data, or data making its way back up to the bus interface unit, displaces memory coming into the CPU core. So the above figures are generous, the actual amount of cache dedicated to storing data to be sent to the CPU core is around half that number.
*10 fill buffers with undisclosed sizes.
Gekko
L1 Instruction cache: 32 Kbytes
L1 Data cache: 32 Kbytes
L2 Instruction cache: 128 Kbytes * .70 = 89.6 Kbytes
L2 Data cache: 128 Kbytes * 4 = 358.4 Kbytes
Transient data does not displace data coming in, so the numbers above are solid. The outgoing data is stored in these buffers:
*128 Byte Write Gather Pipe for streaming over Memory bus, which yields 512 Kbytes with compression.
*32 byte fill buffer between L2 and L1 data cache, and L1 data cache to the DMA.
*15 entry DMA queue, each moving 4 Kbyes for 60 Kbytes, or 240 Kbytes with compression.
The L2 data cache actually available to the Gekko is around 10 times greater then the amount available on the Pentium 3. The Gekko makes use of this bandwidth when operating in vector mode.
The Gekko is very good at what it was designed to do, which is to keep the data moving with no bottlenecks stopping data flow.
The Gekko plays an important part in the rendering of the scene, it is responsible for the local lighting, custom effects, custom geometry (transformation interpolation, interesting concept), and AI and collision detection.
-Half the L1 data is locked to keep needed information without wasting reads to L2 cache, and ultimately main memory
-A 128-byte FIFO write gather pipe accumulates data to be sent in 32-byte bursts to the graphics chip.
-32 byte fill buffer rests between the L2 cache and the L1 cache, and between the L1 cache and the FIFO write gather pipe.
-4:1 vertex compression can be held in the L1 cache, with a small cache for decompression.
-256 KB L2 Cache can hold a large amount of data.
-Native RISC architecture is a strong point.
In comparison to the Pentium 3, the integer performance for both systems are around the same, and the floating point performance lies in favor of the Gekko. As for SIMD performance, we don't know the number of parallel registers used for vector processing, but a large amount of data can be moved in and out, with 1.9 GFLOPS performance (tied with Pentium 3 733 mhz).
The differences of the two systems that optimizes the Gekko for graphics more then the Pentium 3 are:
-Seperate FIFO write gather pipe for bursts of graphics data to main memory while the bus is not busy.
-Highly customizable implementation
- A multi-core mode similar to hyper threading
- Vector engine for processing of a large amount of data
- Dual pipeline to FP units for increased efficiency
-Lockable L1 cache
-4:1 inline compression (L1 and L2 cache), the Pentium 3 supports data compression in the GPU, it must be uncompressed before entering the CPU.
Internal CPU data bus:
Pentium 3 - 733 mhz * 64 bit data bus = 5.6 GB/s
Gekko - 485 mhz * 64 bit data bus * 4 (compression) = 15.5 GB/s
now appply the above to 3xcore 3mb catch a clockspeed of 1.6ghz and 5 instructions effiecency vs 1 instruction for geko cpu and of course all manner of other upgrades and improvments !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A TRI CORE BROADWAY HIGH CLOCK SPEED 128 BIT BUS 3MB CATCH IS A DATA THRU PUT MONSTER
explain pc gaming benchmarks were single core intels at 3.2ghz and running windows are raping xenon over and over in gaming and explain how a celeron dualcore at 1.6ghz is raping xenon in gaming benchmarks again whilst running windows
AND EXPLAIN HOW MEAR SOUND PROCESSING IS TAKING UPTO A WHOLE CORE IN XENON
IT IS ABOUT DATA THRU PUT AND MAXIMUM PROCESSING POWER AT MINIMUM COST OUT OF ORDER EXECUTION INTEGRA DESK TOP MEDIA AND 3D DATA FLOW THE CPUS ARE CUSTOM DESIGNED FOR GAMECENTRIC GRAPHICS CENTRIC DATA THERE TOTALLY 100% MULTI TASK AND OUT OF ORDER AND BRANCH PREDICTION READY
TRY DOING MULTI TASK ON XENON TRY BRANCH PREDICTION ON XENON AND TRY OUT OF ORDER ON XENON I WISH YOU LUCK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4TO1 DATA COMPRESSION WITH REAL WORLD DECOMPRESSION AND A 3MB CATCH IS INSANE AMOUNTS OF DATA AND BANDWIDTH THIS TRI CORE BROADWAY COULD HAVE
a gekko cpu in gamecube had twice the catch of xbox cpu but due to 4to1 compression and graphics write gather burst pipes the level 2 catch was upto 10 x more effective than xbox cpus level 2 catch
the data thru put of a tri core broadway at say 1.6ghz and a 3mb catch programmed the nintendo way and using maxium compression would give a real world bandwidth and data thru put many times above a dual core intel at the same clock speed it would also conbined with the gpu be a physics and A.I monster as its a proper general purpose out of order branchy cpu with 2 way sims custom 2x32 bit fpu vector engine conbined with massive compue shader support from the gpu
3MB CATCH AT 4TO1 COMPRESSION = 12MB CATCH THATS MASSIVE
Pentium 3:
Bus Interface Unit to System Bus = 32 bit * 133 mhz = 1.0 GB/s
Bus Interface Unit from chip: 23 + 2.9 = 25.9 GB/s
L2 Data cache to L1 Data cache: 256 bit * 733 mhz = 23 GB/s
L2 Instruction cache to L1 instruction cache = 32 bit * 733 mhz = 2.9 GB/s
Gekko:
Bus Interface Unit to System Bus = 64 bit * 167 mhz = 1.3 GB/s
Bus Interface Unit from chip = 11.6 GB/s
L2 Data cache to fill buffer 64 bit * 485 mhz = 3.8 GB/s
L2 Instruction cache to L1 instruction cahe = 32 bit * 485 mhz = 3.8 GB/s
DMA controller to fill buffer 64 bit * 485 mhz = 3.8 GB/s
Fill buffer to L1 Data cache 256 bit * 485 mhz = 15.5 GB/s
Write Gather Pipe from Load/Store Unit 64 bit * 485 = 3.8 GB/s
*with data compression of 3.8:1 average data compression:
Bus Interface Unit to System Bus = 64 bit * 167 mhz = 1.3 GB/s * 4 = 5.2 GB/s
Bus Interface Unit from chip = 11.6 GB/s * 4 = 46.4 GB/s
L2 Data cache to fill buffer 64 bit * 485 mhz = 3.8 GB/s * 4 = 15.2 GB/s
L2 Instruction cache to L1 instruction cahe = 32 bit * 485 mhz = 3.8 GB/s
DMA controller to fill buffer 64 bit * 485 mhz = 3.8 GB/s * 4 = 15.2 GB/s
Fill buffer to L1 Data cache 256 bit * 485 mhz = 15.5 GB/s * 4 = 62.2 Gb/s.
Write Gather Pipe from Load/Store Unit 64 bit * 485 = 3.8 GB/s * 4 = 15.2 GB/s
The Gekko architecture is suited much more for streaming a large amount of data then the Pentium 3.
And finally, L2 and L1 cache must be taken into account. The native RISC code on the Gekko makes the instructions bigger then the CISC counterpart, lets say around 30% larger.
Pentium 3:
L1 Instruction cache: 16 Kbytes * 1.30 = 20.8 Kbytes
L1 Data cache: 16 Kbytes
L2 Instruction cache: 128 Kbytes * 1.30 = 20.8 Kbytes
L2 Data Cache: 64 Kbyte
In the data caches, transient data, or data making its way back up to the bus interface unit, displaces memory coming into the CPU core. So the above figures are generous, the actual amount of cache dedicated to storing data to be sent to the CPU core is around half that number.
*10 fill buffers with undisclosed sizes.
Gekko
L1 Instruction cache: 32 Kbytes
L1 Data cache: 32 Kbytes
L2 Instruction cache: 128 Kbytes * .70 = 89.6 Kbytes
L2 Data cache: 128 Kbytes * 4 = 358.4 Kbytes
Transient data does not displace data coming in, so the numbers above are solid. The outgoing data is stored in these buffers:
*128 Byte Write Gather Pipe for streaming over Memory bus, which yields 512 Kbytes with compression.
*32 byte fill buffer between L2 and L1 data cache, and L1 data cache to the DMA.
*15 entry DMA queue, each moving 4 Kbyes for 60 Kbytes, or 240 Kbytes with compression.
The L2 data cache actually available to the Gekko is around 10 times greater then the amount available on the Pentium 3. The Gekko makes use of this bandwidth when operating in vector mode.
The Gekko is very good at what it was designed to do, which is to keep the data moving with no bottlenecks stopping data flow.
The Gekko plays an important part in the rendering of the scene, it is responsible for the local lighting, custom effects, custom geometry (transformation interpolation, interesting concept), and AI and collision detection.
-Half the L1 data is locked to keep needed information without wasting reads to L2 cache, and ultimately main memory
-A 128-byte FIFO write gather pipe accumulates data to be sent in 32-byte bursts to the graphics chip.
-32 byte fill buffer rests between the L2 cache and the L1 cache, and between the L1 cache and the FIFO write gather pipe.
-4:1 vertex compression can be held in the L1 cache, with a small cache for decompression.
-256 KB L2 Cache can hold a large amount of data.
-Native RISC architecture is a strong point.
In comparison to the Pentium 3, the integer performance for both systems are around the same, and the floating point performance lies in favor of the Gekko. As for SIMD performance, we don't know the number of parallel registers used for vector processing, but a large amount of data can be moved in and out, with 1.9 GFLOPS performance (tied with Pentium 3 733 mhz).
The differences of the two systems that optimizes the Gekko for graphics more then the Pentium 3 are:
-Seperate FIFO write gather pipe for bursts of graphics data to main memory while the bus is not busy.
-Highly customizable implementation
- A multi-core mode similar to hyper threading
- Vector engine for processing of a large amount of data
- Dual pipeline to FP units for increased efficiency
-Lockable L1 cache
-4:1 inline compression (L1 and L2 cache), the Pentium 3 supports data compression in the GPU, it must be uncompressed before entering the CPU.
Internal CPU data bus:
Pentium 3 - 733 mhz * 64 bit data bus = 5.6 GB/s
Gekko - 485 mhz * 64 bit data bus * 4 (compression) = 15.5 GB/s
now appply the above to 3xcore 3mb catch a clockspeed of 1.6ghz and 5 instructions effiecency vs 1 instruction for geko cpu and of course all manner of other upgrades and improvments !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A TRI CORE BROADWAY HIGH CLOCK SPEED 128 BIT BUS 3MB CATCH IS A DATA THRU PUT MONSTER
Um, The processor in the 360 is a lot more powerful then a Intel p4. There is no question
explain pc gaming benchmarks were single core intels at 3.2ghz and running windows are raping xenon over and over in gaming and explain how a celeron dualcore at 1.6ghz is raping xenon in gaming benchmarks again whilst running windows
AND EXPLAIN HOW MEAR SOUND PROCESSING IS TAKING UPTO A WHOLE CORE IN XENON
#65
ianh05
-
- Members
-
- 175 posts
Blooper
Posted 13 July 2012 - 03:35 AM
I think people are too obsessed with the title "next-gen" being all about uber-leaps in graphics, guess what? graphics won't be that much better, unlike when the Nintendo 64 was released and gave us all 3d graphics. We aren't re-entering the 16/32 bit era's again lol.
All it is, is better lighting and what not..so who really cares? Thankfully I don't know much about all this tech talk so I see consoles for what they are, not for every little detailed spec in the machine, If it gives me great games, new gameplay and appealing graphics then I'll take one.
All it is, is better lighting and what not..so who really cares? Thankfully I don't know much about all this tech talk so I see consoles for what they are, not for every little detailed spec in the machine, If it gives me great games, new gameplay and appealing graphics then I'll take one.
"The consensus was that power isn't everything for a console. Too many powerful consoles can't coexist. It's like having only ferocious dinosaurs. They might fight and hasten their own extinction." - Shigeru Miyamoto
#66
MorbidGod
-
- Members
-
- 1,717 posts
Hammer Bro.
Posted 13 July 2012 - 07:39 AM
explain pc gaming benchmarks were single core intels at 3.2ghz and running windows are raping xenon over and over in gaming and explain how a celeron dualcore at 1.6ghz is raping xenon in gaming benchmarks again whilst running windows
AND EXPLAIN HOW MEAR SOUND PROCESSING IS TAKING UPTO A WHOLE CORE IN XENON
This is what I said,
Um, The processor in the 360 is a lot more powerful then a Intel p4. There is no question
P4 = Pentium 4 processor. P4 does not mean Celeron, Intel i5 and Intel i7, which the later two actually are more modern and more advanced then what is in the Xbox 360. The Celeron is not a very powerful processor, but I'll get to that in a minute.
The Xenon on the Xbox 360 was based off PowerPC, or Power ISA, which was always more powerful then the Intel counterpart. The latest PowerPC was the G5, so obviously some of that technology probably found it's way into the IBM Xenon for the 360. The G5 blew the P4 (again, Pentium 4) out of the water.
According to Apple-published SPEC CPU2000 benchmarks, and independently tested by Veritest, the Power Macintosh G5 destroys comparable Windows PCs. In "SPEC rate" tests, the
Power Macintosh G5/2.0 DP (PCI-X)was 95% faster than a Windows PC with a single 3.0 GHz
[font=inherit !important][font=inherit !important]Intel [/font][font=inherit !important]Pentium[/font][/font][font=Verdana, sans-serif]4 processor and 42% faster than the Windows PC with dual 3.06 GHz
[/font][font=inherit !important][font=inherit !important]Intel[/font][/font][font=Verdana, sans-serif]Xeon processors.
[/font]
This is from EveryMac.com. As you can see, the Xenon (PowerPC) smokes a P4, like I said. I wasn't talking about the other processors you mentioned, but now I will.
The Celeron has always been entry lvl processors. Xeon has always been high end, usually for servers. The PowerPC smokes a dual Xeon processor. So why would you think the Intel Celeron is more powerful then the Xenon in the Xbox 360? Again, do you think IBM went to Microsoft and downgraded their processor for them? No, thats not what they did.
I don't know what benchmarks your talking about, I couldn't find any comparing the processors you mentioned (comparing against 360). But I am sorry, you are sadly mistaken. And BTW, all those numbers you mentioned don't really mean anything. It has been proven long ago that the spec numbers don't always mean better performance. Just saying.
Anyway, to make this somewhat on topic, this is why the Wii U is going to have some of the technology in the POWER7 processor, combining what Nintendo needs for their console. The PowerPC was abandoned when Apple left IBM and went to Intel. Yes, PowerPC is Power ISA, but thus a Intel Pentium 4 is x86 ... doesn't make the P4 the same as an Intel i7, now does it?
Whovian12 -- Nintendo Network ID.
#67
ianh05
-
- Members
-
- 175 posts
Blooper
Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:55 AM
this just in - Nintendo confirms plans to make gamers stay young by slowing down the clock.
"they'll enjoy games more if they don't grow up"
"7 year olds aren't elitists"
"7 year olds aren't told by the internet what to buy"
"they can make up their own minds as to what is fun"
"they don't care about the graphics"
"they'll enjoy games more if they don't grow up"
"7 year olds aren't elitists"
"7 year olds aren't told by the internet what to buy"
"they can make up their own minds as to what is fun"
"they don't care about the graphics"
"The consensus was that power isn't everything for a console. Too many powerful consoles can't coexist. It's like having only ferocious dinosaurs. They might fight and hasten their own extinction." - Shigeru Miyamoto
#68
silverismoney
-
- Members
-
- 100 posts
Cheep-Cheep
Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:01 PM
a powerpc broadway type core at 128 bit 45nm and a clock speed of around 1.6ghz has around 100GB internal bandwidth x 3 cores is 300GB internal cpu bandwidth vs 15 for gamecube cpu and 22ish for broadway based on bus and clock speeds.......
300 GB bandwidth is almost 15 x broadway starting to see the picture the catch memory is 12 x broadway and also a higher clock speed AND IF THE CATCH IS EDRAM ITS BANDWIDTH IS AGAIN UPED OVER SRAM AS EDRAM IS HIGHER BANDWIDTH
300 GB bandwidth is almost 15 x broadway starting to see the picture the catch memory is 12 x broadway and also a higher clock speed AND IF THE CATCH IS EDRAM ITS BANDWIDTH IS AGAIN UPED OVER SRAM AS EDRAM IS HIGHER BANDWIDTH
Edited by silverismoney, 13 July 2012 - 02:03 PM.
#69
Dragon
-
- Members
-
- 1,070 posts
Pokey
-
- Fandom:
- Playing my Wii U!
Posted 13 July 2012 - 11:54 PM
I'm confused here. Where does he say that the CPU is weak? He was just stating that it runs slower than the PS3 and 360 CPUs. That doesn't mean it's weaker.
#70
silverismoney
-
- Members
-
- 100 posts
Cheep-Cheep
Posted 14 July 2012 - 12:59 AM
I'm confused here. Where does he say that the CPU is weak? He was just stating that it runs slower than the PS3 and 360 CPUs. That doesn't mean it's weaker.
exactly and the thread heading has CONFIRMED IN IT TOO there was no weak weaker or confirmed it was lower clock and thats it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so some guy made this chinesee wispers thread
a out of order cpu at a much lower clock than xenon can still kick its azz SUGGESTION
This is what I said,
P4 = Pentium 4 processor. P4 does not mean Celeron, Intel i5 and Intel i7, which the later two actually are more modern and more advanced then what is in the Xbox 360. The Celeron is not a very powerful processor, but I'll get to that in a minute.
The Xenon on the Xbox 360 was based off PowerPC, or Power ISA, which was always more powerful then the Intel counterpart. The latest PowerPC was the G5, so obviously some of that technology probably found it's way into the IBM Xenon for the 360. The G5 blew the P4 (again, Pentium 4) out of the water.
This is from EveryMac.com. As you can see, the Xenon (PowerPC) smokes a P4, like I said. I wasn't talking about the other processors you mentioned, but now I will.
The Celeron has always been entry lvl processors. Xeon has always been high end, usually for servers. The PowerPC smokes a dual Xeon processor. So why would you think the Intel Celeron is more powerful then the Xenon in the Xbox 360? Again, do you think IBM went to Microsoft and downgraded their processor for them? No, thats not what they did.
I don't know what benchmarks your talking about, I couldn't find any comparing the processors you mentioned (comparing against 360). But I am sorry, you are sadly mistaken. And BTW, all those numbers you mentioned don't really mean anything. It has been proven long ago that the spec numbers don't always mean better performance. Just saying.
Anyway, to make this somewhat on topic, this is why the Wii U is going to have some of the technology in the POWER7 processor, combining what Nintendo needs for their console. The PowerPC was abandoned when Apple left IBM and went to Intel. Yes, PowerPC is Power ISA, but thus a Intel Pentium 4 is x86 ... doesn't make the P4 the same as an Intel i7, now does it?
since F**KING WHEN WAS A XENON A POWERPC LAST TIME I CHECKED IT WAS A POWERPE an pe IS THE GIMPED RANGE OF IBM CPUS
POWER AND POWERPC ARE THE COOL GUYS POWERPE IS INLINE HEAVILY STRIPPED GIMPED CRUD THERE IS NO POWERPC IN PS3 OR X360 ONLY GAMECUBE AND WII ONLY HAVE POWERPC
LOL FOR 6 YEARS STUPID FANBOYS THINK PS3 AND X360 HAD POWERPC G5S WITH BIG CLOCK SPEEDS AND IN X360S CASE 3 OF THOSE SUCKERS LOL THE XENON WOULD KICK ALL AZZ EVEN TODAY WITH 3 XG5 POWERPC CORES
in reality there powerpe i.e not powerful at all
example powerpc g5 had like 9 execution units powerpe xenon had 3 1 per core """"""sad"""" g5 had 9 per core
Edited by silverismoney, 14 July 2012 - 01:02 AM.
#71
Desert Punk
-
- Members
-
- 656 posts
Chain Chomp
Posted 14 July 2012 - 04:48 AM
I don't get the need to pretend a Nintendo console is more powerful than it is. We know the performance now of the Gamecube and wii and how it fits in with other consoles. Clearly it can be demonstrated that something like the original xbox is more powerful than both Gamecube and wii and that had a 733mhz Celeron processor in it. You only have to look at something like Conkers bad fur day on original xbox to see it is far superior technically to wii even if something like Mario Galaxy is incredibly beautiful and well designed you can see the limitation of the textures in it. Where games co-exist on both the Xbox version is likely much improved.
When you look at the homebrew scene on wii and original xbox you will see not only does the original xbox offer higher emulation speed but often 5.1 sound emulation and even high definition support for those emulators.
As someone who has played a huge number of games on both original xbox and wii I can tell you the original xbox is more powerful based on comparison of similar games.
Its clear we are getting a mixed picture from developers regarding wii u. Some are saying a bit more powerful, others are saying inferior or other wording. if you take the average we are looking at something similar to current performance levels from 360/PS3 there abouts.
The wii was an utterly pathetic console technically for its launch time, there is no other way you can describe it. It was literally the same gamecube console again speeded up 50% with 64meg extra ddr memory bolted on and the 16meg of slow memory of the Gamecube removed. It still had an identical gpu, cpu and sound system architecture. In comparison both Sony and Microsoft hugely upgraded their consoles for their next gen.
Wii U appears to be Nintendo's entry into the current generation rather than a next generation console beyond them.
I think if you keep your expectations of the wii u at about 1-2x current levels you won't go far wrong but if you start thinking its going to compare well with the next xbox and playstation I think you are heading for a big disappointment.
When you look at the homebrew scene on wii and original xbox you will see not only does the original xbox offer higher emulation speed but often 5.1 sound emulation and even high definition support for those emulators.
As someone who has played a huge number of games on both original xbox and wii I can tell you the original xbox is more powerful based on comparison of similar games.
Its clear we are getting a mixed picture from developers regarding wii u. Some are saying a bit more powerful, others are saying inferior or other wording. if you take the average we are looking at something similar to current performance levels from 360/PS3 there abouts.
The wii was an utterly pathetic console technically for its launch time, there is no other way you can describe it. It was literally the same gamecube console again speeded up 50% with 64meg extra ddr memory bolted on and the 16meg of slow memory of the Gamecube removed. It still had an identical gpu, cpu and sound system architecture. In comparison both Sony and Microsoft hugely upgraded their consoles for their next gen.
Wii U appears to be Nintendo's entry into the current generation rather than a next generation console beyond them.
I think if you keep your expectations of the wii u at about 1-2x current levels you won't go far wrong but if you start thinking its going to compare well with the next xbox and playstation I think you are heading for a big disappointment.
#72
Dragon
-
- Members
-
- 1,070 posts
Pokey
-
- Fandom:
- Playing my Wii U!
Posted 14 July 2012 - 04:57 AM
I think if you keep your expectations of the wii u at about 1-2x current levels you won't go far wrong but if you start thinking its going to compare well with the next xbox and playstation I think you are heading for a big disappointment.
So you're saying that the PS4 and 720 will be a huge jump like everyone is expecting? This sounds like hypocrisy at it's best. "Don't expect Nintendo to make a huge jump, but expect Microsoft and Sony to do it."
The leaked documents of the "720" show a $299 price point for a Holiday 2013 release bundled with Kinect 2.0. There's not much room for extra power if they want to keep that $299 price point.
- Andy likes this
#73
MorbidGod
-
- Members
-
- 1,717 posts
Hammer Bro.
Posted 14 July 2012 - 08:22 AM
exactly and the thread heading has CONFIRMED IN IT TOO there was no weak weaker or confirmed it was lower clock and thats it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so some guy made this chinesee wispers thread
a out of order cpu at a much lower clock than xenon can still kick its azz SUGGESTION
since F**KING WHEN WAS A XENON A POWERPC LAST TIME I CHECKED IT WAS A POWERPE an pe IS THE GIMPED RANGE OF IBM CPUS
POWER AND POWERPC ARE THE COOL GUYS POWERPE IS INLINE HEAVILY STRIPPED GIMPED CRUD THERE IS NO POWERPC IN PS3 OR X360 ONLY GAMECUBE AND WII ONLY HAVE POWERPC
LOL FOR 6 YEARS STUPID FANBOYS THINK PS3 AND X360 HAD POWERPC G5S WITH BIG CLOCK SPEEDS AND IN X360S CASE 3 OF THOSE SUCKERS LOL THE XENON WOULD KICK ALL AZZ EVEN TODAY WITH 3 XG5 POWERPC CORES
in reality there powerpe i.e not powerful at all
example powerpc g5 had like 9 execution units powerpe xenon had 3 1 per core """"""sad"""" g5 had 9 per core
http://en.m.wikipedi...enon_(processor)
Whovian12 -- Nintendo Network ID.
#74
silverismoney
-
- Members
-
- 100 posts
Cheep-Cheep
Posted 14 July 2012 - 09:37 AM
so this power7 100 core sqazillion thread 1000watts cpu witha 1gb level 1 catch and a 4gb level 2 catch and a 16gb level 3 catch and 100 spe co-processors in the wiiu will it answer the meaning of life
#75
MorbidGod
-
- Members
-
- 1,717 posts
Hammer Bro.
Posted 14 July 2012 - 10:25 AM
The POWER7 professor might, that is correct. But that is in Watson. The Wii U is based off Power ISA, and has similar technology to the CPU in the Watson super computer. But it's not the same processor.
Just like the Xbox 360 is based.off PowerPC but its not a PowerPC G5.
Just like the Xbox 360 is based.off PowerPC but its not a PowerPC G5.
Whovian12 -- Nintendo Network ID.
#76
Thugbrown
-
- Members
-
- 98 posts
Spear Guy
Posted 14 July 2012 - 12:01 PM
Some times I just don't get it... Low clock speeds does not matter!!!!!!! Rember back in the 90's if any of your were gaming then, the SNES also had a low clock speed cpu compared to the Genesis but it also had other features the Genesis could not do like mode 7 scaling, 256 colors that could be displayed compared to the Genesis's 64, and it had a better sound chip. Even though it had a low clock speed the games still looked amazing and the SNES could do things the Genesis couldn't do without the aid of an extra peripheral (Sega cd). I am sure that the Wii U is more that capable of doing what can be done this current gen and will be able to compete with the next gen because it is indeed a next gen console people just refuse to believe it an let rubish like this tell them otherwise. Use that tool between your two shoulders.
#77
silverismoney
-
- Members
-
- 100 posts
Cheep-Cheep
Posted 14 July 2012 - 02:12 PM
The POWER7 professor might, that is correct. But that is in Watson. The Wii U is based off Power ISA, and has similar technology to the CPU in the Watson super computer. But it's not the same processor.
Just like the Xbox 360 is based.off PowerPC but its not a PowerPC G5.
correct
Some times I just don't get it... Low clock speeds does not matter!!!!!!! Rember back in the 90's if any of your were gaming then, the SNES also had a low clock speed cpu compared to the Genesis but it also had other features the Genesis could not do like mode 7 scaling, 256 colors that could be displayed compared to the Genesis's 64, and it had a better sound chip. Even though it had a low clock speed the games still looked amazing and the SNES could do things the Genesis couldn't do without the aid of an extra peripheral (Sega cd). I am sure that the Wii U is more that capable of doing what can be done this current gen and will be able to compete with the next gen because it is indeed a next gen console people just refuse to believe it an let rubish like this tell them otherwise. Use that tool between your two shoulders.
correct LOOK SIMPLE CPU RULES PEOPLE SEEM TO FORGET OR NEVER NEW AS FOLLOWS
cisc vs risc rule of thumb risc is double at same clock speed again out of order vs inline processing rule of thumb out of order is double inline so a cpu that was risc and out of order could be 4x a competing cpu thats cisc and inline (double isnt always the case but its a good starting point )
example a broadway core vs a intel you could expect double due to risc vs cisc and again a powerpc broadway or other vs x360s inline cpu per clock would be double
XBOX INTEL CELERON 733MHZ VS GEKO 485MHZ GEKO WAS BY FAR THE BETTER CPU
Edited by silverismoney, 14 July 2012 - 02:13 PM.
#78
MorbidGod
-
- Members
-
- 1,717 posts
Hammer Bro.
Posted 14 July 2012 - 02:46 PM
@Desert Punk Why is it that when the official leaked Doc for xbox says basically the power increase will 4 to 6 % increase, you ignore that, but when the leaks are saying a 2 to 4 % increase for Wii U its gospel. Even if all these rumors are true, that means the difference wont be a bug gap and wont matter - especially since it has been confirmed that the Wii U can Handle UE4. I don't see the big deal.
And I agree with the statement below.
And I agree with the statement below.
So you're saying that the PS4 and 720 will be a huge jump like everyone is expecting? This sounds like hypocrisy at it's best. "Don't expect Nintendo to make a huge jump, but expect Microsoft and Sony to do it."
The leaked documents of the "720" show a $299 price point for a Holiday 2013 release bundled with Kinect 2.0. There's not much room for extra power if they want to keep that $299 price point.
Whovian12 -- Nintendo Network ID.
#79
Desert Punk
-
- Members
-
- 656 posts
Chain Chomp
Posted 15 July 2012 - 04:13 AM
@Desert Punk Why is it that when the official leaked Doc for xbox says basically the power increase will 4 to 6 % increase, you ignore that, but when the leaks are saying a 2 to 4 % increase for Wii U its gospel. Even if all these rumors are true, that means the difference wont be a bug gap and wont matter - especially since it has been confirmed that the Wii U can Handle UE4. I don't see the big deal.
And I agree with the statement below.
Firstly my expectation of Nintendo is a very low cost console based on past experience and the information that is being leaked plus the small form factor of the console and the graphics shown that the console produces. Also the wii u doesn't appear to be capable of running typical 360 or PS3 games at 1080p which surely anything claiming to be next gen could do easily, its not a huge step. So I'm near positive we are looking at something close to current gen with the wii u.
Looking at the leaked xbox 720 document the next Xbox will be a lot more powerful in cpu terms and graphics. Its likely the PS4 will match it using PC architecture maybe a AMD fusion type chipset.
Running UE4 does not indicate the wii u is as powerful as a PC or next gen at all. The humble wii runs UE3 as do PS3 and 360. I don't see the wii as powerful as 360 or PS3 because of it. Clearly such a game engine can be modified or simplified to suit the hardware its a complete nonsense to use it for any sort of power comparison. Besides I'm sure I've already read that UE3 will be the likely unreal engine for most wii u games which again puts it in the 360/PS3 camp.
I've included the above videos just for a demonstration of what the PS3 can achieve in comparison to the wii u. For me the ps3 gameplay is far more intense and shows far more graphical features and physics processes going on. Admittedly I haven't seen a ZombiU boss fight to compare but both ps3 and 360 are very capable systems. The 360 has a better gpu than ps3 but doesn't have the same amount of cpu power.
#80
silverismoney
-
- Members
-
- 100 posts
Cheep-Cheep
Posted 15 July 2012 - 06:18 AM
IBM Introduces New PowerPC CPU Core
At last week's Linley Tech Processor Conference, IBM announced the successor to its PowerPC 440/464 CPUs, the PowerPC 476FP. Able to issue up to five instructions at a time and process instructions out of order, the 476FP will likely achieve industry-leading single-thread throughput for a CPU core. Having a nine-stage pipeline and implemented as a hard core, the 476FP is conservatively rated at 1.6GHz in IBM's 45nm SOI process. In this configuration, the core measures 3.6mm2 and consumes 1.6W. Customers can begin designing ASICs using the CPU in October. IBM expects the first 476FP-based products to qualify for production in 2010. A synthesizable version will also be available.
The most similar CPUs to the 476FP are the e500mc from Freescale and the CPU used in RMI's XLP832. To conserve power, Freescale limits the speed of the e500 to 1.5GHz in 45nm, and it can issue only two instructions per cycle. Interestingly, both the 476FP and the e500mc incorporate floating-point units. The XLP's CPU is billed as running at up to 2GHz. It's a four-issue machine and thus likely to deliver similar single-thread performance as the 476FP. Being multithreaded, it has the potential for greater throughput than the 476FP, however.
http://parisbocek.typepad.com/blog/2011/04/ibm-introduces-new-powerpc-cpu-core.html read the resty here
as i keep telling you people powerpc 32bit at 45nm and big improvments in bus etc and a custom catch like that rumored will kick some big butt at a mear 1.6ghz powerpc single thread out of order with 5 INSTRUCTIONS PER CLOCK and big catch power and main ram with assistence from a DSP and a ARM will kick cells stupid azz
zombiu has been in development for 6 months and replaced killer freaks and ubisoft were using non final dev kits and iwata stated in ign interview developers are only yet able to use 50% of the power
ps3 fanboy please step back into reality LOL at that comparason
At last week's Linley Tech Processor Conference, IBM announced the successor to its PowerPC 440/464 CPUs, the PowerPC 476FP. Able to issue up to five instructions at a time and process instructions out of order, the 476FP will likely achieve industry-leading single-thread throughput for a CPU core. Having a nine-stage pipeline and implemented as a hard core, the 476FP is conservatively rated at 1.6GHz in IBM's 45nm SOI process. In this configuration, the core measures 3.6mm2 and consumes 1.6W. Customers can begin designing ASICs using the CPU in October. IBM expects the first 476FP-based products to qualify for production in 2010. A synthesizable version will also be available.
The most similar CPUs to the 476FP are the e500mc from Freescale and the CPU used in RMI's XLP832. To conserve power, Freescale limits the speed of the e500 to 1.5GHz in 45nm, and it can issue only two instructions per cycle. Interestingly, both the 476FP and the e500mc incorporate floating-point units. The XLP's CPU is billed as running at up to 2GHz. It's a four-issue machine and thus likely to deliver similar single-thread performance as the 476FP. Being multithreaded, it has the potential for greater throughput than the 476FP, however.
http://parisbocek.typepad.com/blog/2011/04/ibm-introduces-new-powerpc-cpu-core.html read the resty here
as i keep telling you people powerpc 32bit at 45nm and big improvments in bus etc and a custom catch like that rumored will kick some big butt at a mear 1.6ghz powerpc single thread out of order with 5 INSTRUCTIONS PER CLOCK and big catch power and main ram with assistence from a DSP and a ARM will kick cells stupid azz
Firstly my expectation of Nintendo is a very low cost console based on past experience and the information that is being leaked plus the small form factor of the console and the graphics shown that the console produces. Also the wii u doesn't appear to be capable of running typical 360 or PS3 games at 1080p which surely anything claiming to be next gen could do easily, its not a huge step. So I'm near positive we are looking at something close to current gen with the wii u.
Looking at the leaked xbox 720 document the next Xbox will be a lot more powerful in cpu terms and graphics. Its likely the PS4 will match it using PC architecture maybe a AMD fusion type chipset.
Running UE4 does not indicate the wii u is as powerful as a PC or next gen at all. The humble wii runs UE3 as do PS3 and 360. I don't see the wii as powerful as 360 or PS3 because of it. Clearly such a game engine can be modified or simplified to suit the hardware its a complete nonsense to use it for any sort of power comparison. Besides I'm sure I've already read that UE3 will be the likely unreal engine for most wii u games which again puts it in the 360/PS3 camp.
I've included the above videos just for a demonstration of what the PS3 can achieve in comparison to the wii u. For me the ps3 gameplay is far more intense and shows far more graphical features and physics processes going on. Admittedly I haven't seen a ZombiU boss fight to compare but both ps3 and 360 are very capable systems. The 360 has a better gpu than ps3 but doesn't have the same amount of cpu power.
zombiu has been in development for 6 months and replaced killer freaks and ubisoft were using non final dev kits and iwata stated in ign interview developers are only yet able to use 50% of the power
ps3 fanboy please step back into reality LOL at that comparason
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
