I was browsing through the latest news over at PS3Blog.co.za this morning and I saw that they had a posting about what the co-creator of the Cell CPU (David Shippy)Â had to say about his little baby compared to the (also IBM developed) Xbox 360 Xenon CPU.
When asked about which was more powerful he had this to say about the PS3’s Cell
“So in the PS3, you’ve got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores… it’s got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that’s one processing paradigm — a heterogeneous paradigm.â€
and then when it came to the Xbox 360 he goes on to say
“you’ve got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you’ve got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads — so you’ve got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in XBox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 — but then you’ve got to factor in the GPU. The GPU is highly sophisticated in the XBox 360â€
and at the end of the day he actually thinks they are pretty equal.
This surprised me really as I was always under the impression that the Cell processor was far more powerful than the 360’s brain and it was simply the fact that the Cell was harder to develop for.
Maybe he was simply being diplomatic but from where I am sitting it seems like the 360’s simpler CPU is the more economically viable option.
Source: PS3Blog based on TechTree and tipped by Jimmy
Last Updated: January 27, 2009
darthdad
January 27, 2009 at 07:12
Lol, on this side of the fence we have………
He’s not exactly going to talk smack about either of them.
Strife Lives
January 27, 2009 at 07:34
They may very well be equal,but dont tell me space isnt a factor.space on dvd and a lack of HDD support.we could be playing even better games if both consoles made compromise.maybe he says the equal. . .but honestly. . .show me one game that has the graphical might of KZ2 on 360? It may be capable,but again,theres no way in hell KZ2 would fit on a dvd. I own a 360 and PS3 ,but. . .I tend to favor the 360 at times.but this whole thing is my opinion.
easy
January 27, 2009 at 08:26
of course he’s being diplomatic, its not in his best interest to knock either cpu. having said that, he’s not far off the mark.
alas, it will not stop the nonsense between the respective owners of each console spewing why there’s is better than the other’s.
koldFU5iON
January 27, 2009 at 08:41
:wassat: I thought we’re talking processing power
Lupus
January 27, 2009 at 08:43
Yes because having two DVDs for a game is such a pain. He is not bashing either console so why are you bashing the Xbox 360? We all know it has a better GPU which on 17 rounds of face offs has consistently won more times then the PS3. Both are great consoles so stop being such a fanboi.
koldFU5iON
January 27, 2009 at 08:44
it looks like he’s done them both justice i.e.
PS3 Cell Processor > XBOX360 PowerPC
PS3 GPU < XBOX360 GPU
Thus if you take GPU’s out of the equation the PS3 is the shizniz, on the other hand if you take out the CPU’s then XBOX360’s is da Bomb.
man I feel so scientific right now :happy: 😛
spl0it
January 27, 2009 at 09:13
360 rules , PS3 drools :kissing:
Lupus
January 27, 2009 at 09:37
Actually both CPUs are almost identical, they are both even made by IBM, the only real difference is that the Cell has SPE’s which are supposed to assist in parallel processing, the 360 just has a form of Hyper threading on each core which does a similar thing. So the CPUs are equal, it is the GPU,RAM that is different.
easy
January 27, 2009 at 09:55
identical? they both have different architecture, therefore are different in many respects. all cpu’s perform the same function, which makes them similar not identical or even almost identical.
its like saying all gpu’s are almost identical because they perform the same function.
Janrik
January 27, 2009 at 10:04
I could have told you all that 4 years ago.
Why is this still news?
I want to know where they are headed with the Xbox 720 and PS4 and Poo (wii 2)
Fox1
January 27, 2009 at 10:06
He never speak about the cache and clock differences. I wonder why :whistle:
Fox1
January 27, 2009 at 10:07
Why he never speak about the cache and clock differences? I wonder why :whistle:
Fox1
January 27, 2009 at 10:10
Ignore my reply. I mistakenly clicked on reply :blush:
Wolfy
January 27, 2009 at 10:12
I always knew the Xbox was more or less on par with the PS3. Too bad its so difficult for developers to design games for the dang thing!
‘nough said.
Next topic
baba
January 27, 2009 at 11:08
Because they’re clocked the same and neither has got any cache that is worth mentioning.
baba
January 27, 2009 at 11:21
Lazy
You thought right, the Cell is far more powerfull than the 360’s PowerPC. Of the 6 threads on the PPC processor only 3 can execute at any given time, because there are only 3 cores. On the Cell (PS3 version) you can have up to 8 threads execute at any given time. (7 SPU’s + PPC core) The article is a bit misleading concerning the CPU performance, but it is true that the Cell has to make up for a poor GPU, which is why the consoles are roughly equal.
I hope we can now lay the matter to rest after 3 years and just enjoy the excellent games both consoles have to offer.
Fox1
January 27, 2009 at 11:25
3.2ghz vs 2.6ghz :blink:
1mb L2 cache vs no L2 cache :angel:
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p2.html
Fox1
January 27, 2009 at 11:27
Some technical comparisons:
http://itvidya.com/playstation_3_vs_xbox_360
darthdad
January 27, 2009 at 11:34
You called it easy.
spl0it
January 27, 2009 at 11:34
The PS3 kicks the 360 ass. You bloody xbots
kab123
January 27, 2009 at 13:23
core i7
ToOkieMoNstZA
January 27, 2009 at 13:44
:biggrin:
baba
January 27, 2009 at 14:00
I don’t know where you get your info from, but both CPU’s run at 3.2GHz
And I stand by my point, compared to a modern PC CPU the cache is hardly worth mentioning because not one of the processors have got proper branch predicting code.
And the article you mentioned was obviously not written by a programmer. The cell is a totally different beast that needs a different apporach to programming than other CPU’s. Sony and IBM admitted it. There are A LOT of floating point arithmic going on in a 3d game (probably 60% – 90%, depending on the game). MS decided the GPU must do the majority of the work, Sony decided it must be the CPU. Games programmers are used to the GPU doing the work, that is why cross platform games are difficult on PS3, because nobody makes full use of the CELL, they just stream the data off to the inferior GPU.
At this moment in time it is a fact that PS3 exclusives look better than 360 exclusives because the games were designed from the ground up on the CELL / RSX architecture.
Wolfy
January 27, 2009 at 14:58
Sometimes the power of the GPU/CPU also depends on the talent of the programer. Take Jumper:Griffin’s Story for example. If the developing team didnt know what they were doin to start with , then it doesnt matter how strong the console is but how good the game developing company is. Thats my opinion. 😛
ewie
January 27, 2009 at 15:18
You are all noobs, its about the memory available.
Wolfy
January 27, 2009 at 15:25
tell that to the people that are having a hard time coding on Sony’s console point dexter
spl0it
January 27, 2009 at 15:34
The Xbox is more awesome than the PS3
ewie
January 27, 2009 at 15:44
You are just a closet wii fanboy.
baba
January 27, 2009 at 16:09
That is probably true, if it is not RRODing.
But unless MS announces something truly spectacular (*cough* Alan Wake) in 2009, the PS3 will be the console of awesomeness.
Fox1
January 27, 2009 at 20:06
“3.2ghz vs 2.6ghz”
My mistake :blush:
Wolfy
January 28, 2009 at 09:18
I just wish that Alan Wake will just get released already dammit, i wanna play it!