• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

xbox360 can do 3.2ghz, why can't g5 do 3.2ghz?

Recommended Posts

l77Il7H    0

i don't understand. the xbox 360 has 3 cores, each running at 3.2ghz and it's based on ibm ppc processor. yet, steve job couldn't release a 3ghz g5 comp. why is that? are they not the same processor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hurmoth    518

I don't think they're the exact same processor. If I'm not mistaken, the XBOX 360 are custom made specifically for Microsoft. However, that is a good question, if IBM can make 3.2GHz processors for Microsoft, what's stopping them from doing it for Apple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xxdesmus    0

the xbox 360 doing 3.2Ghz is very different than a g5 doing 3Ghz because the xbox only has to worry about graphics, it doesn't need to do any of the "normal" computer processes like _________ (insert computer term here). I know this isn't much help. sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sundayx    127

its still computing isnt it? ahh i duno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
userguy    0

Correct, they are not the same processor. The Xbox CPU is highly customized and is not a standard G5. It has been specialized to be good at playing games, not general purpose computing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lasker    0
Correct, they are not the same processor. The Xbox CPU is highly customized and is not a standard G5. It has been specialized to be good at playing games, not general purpose computing.

586848494[/snapback]

the g5 from apple is also customized for apple, and not matter is for games only, is a processor like any others, will be interesting to ask this question to IBM representatives to see what they will say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
instant.human    45

4x 2,5 ghz g5

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SonComet    0

The cpu in the xbox 360 isn't nearly as complex as the G5 used in apple computers. The xbox 360 cpu is designed for one thing and one thing only: gaming. It would be extremely slow at doing normal computing tasks that we currently take for granted. A less complex cpu designed with a single purpose is much easier to clock high while keeping cool than a complex multi-purpose cpu. The xbox 360's cpu is not as powerful as todays top cpus by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to raw computing power. Clockspeed isn't everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustGeorge    1,658

Regardless of how complex the 360's cpu is or isn't, I think alot of IBM's ability to hit 3.2GHz was based on the fact MS is gonna shovel and assload of cash at them for the next few years. Imagine how many more cpus IBM will sell to MS compared to Apple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iconboy    3
The cpu in the xbox 360 isn't nearly as complex as the G5 used in apple computers.  The xbox 360 cpu is designed for one thing and one thing only: gaming.  It would be extremely slow at doing normal computing tasks that we currently take for granted.  A less complex cpu designed with a single purpose is much easier to clock high while keeping cool than a complex multi-purpose cpu.  The xbox 360's cpu is not as powerful as todays top cpus by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to raw computing power.  Clockspeed isn't everything.

586849173[/snapback]

wrong.

the 360s cpu is probably the only one of its kind, and by that reason alone is mroe complex, 3 cores- programming for 3 cores? also it has to deal with sooo many more floating point calculations its not funny, it needs all that power. I believe that it also runs a streamlined OS of either NT or CE version of windows in the background, so normal computing tasks? ha- its still all computing- heres the kicker- you know how much it takes to cool the 360? A LOT- theres your answer right there- it overheats guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
userguy    0
I believe that it also runs a streamlined OS of either NT or CE version of windows in the background, so normal computing tasks? ha- its still all computing-

586849414[/snapback]

Yeah, all computing is alike, which is why there's a single utility for benchmarking the performance of computers. Because it's all alike. That's why ATi and nVidia GPUs are in no way specialized or different from Pentium and Athlon processors. All the same.

Come on genius, if you're going to be all cocky in your reply--laughing at the person schooling you--at least be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NeoXY    7

hmmm...they are build with complet different ideas in mind my friend. Hell, the hardware archatecture is even hella different between the 360 and the G5, and ONCE you put the MOBO, GPU, RAM, and everything else in the picture, there is MUCH more things IBM need to work out for the G5 than say for the 360...

another reason?

Well...for one thing MS gave IBM TONES of money to make this processor, and while Apple didn't put in as much money, Apple's project got pushed onto the back burners...

Why did you think Apple switched? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr.Jones    0

Search for Ooo (out of order) and In Order processing on wikipedia, and you'll all understand why the Xenos is an extremely simplified chip, and a straight to the point one too. And you'll also understand why good programming practice will be required to get incredible performances out of the chip. Same goes for Sony's Cell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acro84    0
Yeah, all computing is alike, which is why there's a single utility for benchmarking the performance of computers. Because it's all alike. That's why ATi and nVidia GPUs are in no way specialized or different from Pentium and Athlon processors. All the same.

Come on genius, if you're going to be all cocky in your reply--laughing at the person schooling you--at least be correct.

586849458[/snapback]

Actually iconboy was right, I don't know wtf you're screamin for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iconboy    3
Yeah, all computing is alike, which is why there's a single utility for benchmarking the performance of computers. Because it's all alike. That's why ATi and nVidia GPUs are in no way specialized or different from Pentium and Athlon processors. All the same.

Come on genius, if you're going to be all cocky in your reply--laughing at the person schooling you--at least be correct.

586849458[/snapback]

yeah, but my argument isnt what makes them different, but what makes them the same- computing, you still run data through them right? regardless if its a P4 3G or a freakin' calculator! Which is exactly why you CAN run a benchmark to compare Intel and AMD chips and ATI vs. Nvidia cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Qumahlin    0
yeah, but my argument isnt what makes them different, but what makes them the same- computing, you still run data through them right? regardless if its a P4 3G or a freakin' calculator! Which is exactly why you CAN run a benchmark to compare Intel and AMD chips and ATI vs. Nvidia cards.

586850002[/snapback]

Your argument is highly flawed. You say your argument is about what makes them the same...which is essentially nothing other then the fact they both execute code, which is not what is being discussed herein, so either you don't know what your saying, or you missed the whole point of the thread

The discussion is about why the Xbox chip is not easily comparable to a normal PC chip and that lies in the way the chip handles instructions.

All you talked about is gibberish of all computing being alike (which it is not, I suggest you start reading about RISC, CISC, OOP, IOP, etc)

Fact remains that the Xbox CPU would not make a good desktop CPU compared to the current G5's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vice    1,593

The G5 is a server processor. it was designed for running allot of applications at once and addressing GB's of RAM it was also designed to be placed in dual environments. It cant get to 3GHz just like an AMD 3500+ cant get to 3.0GHz (maybe with water cooling eh?) the XBOX360's CPU is allot different to the G5's for instance it does not perform as many instructions per clock as the G5 does meaning there is less stress on the CPU and it is able to gain higher clock rates without deteriateing.

The XBOX360's CPU is not very good for computing. It was designed for gaming and doing floating point calculations in the millions it's not an all purpose CPU. Just like you wouldn't drive a milk cart on a race track it just wasn't designed for that but its good at what it was designed for.

BTW all 3 of the 360's core's share the same on die cache they don't have there own cache, severely decreasing the size of the chip and keeping heat down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D1g1talMan    0
wrong. 

the 360s cpu is probably the only one of its kind, and by that reason alone is mroe complex, 3 cores- programming for 3 cores? also it has to deal with sooo many more floating point calculations its not funny, it needs all that power.  I believe that it also runs a streamlined OS of either NT or CE version of windows in the background, so normal computing tasks? ha- its still all computing- heres the kicker- you know how much it takes to cool the 360? A LOT- theres your answer right there- it overheats guy.

586849414[/snapback]

I don't quite understand this reasoning. "Probably" does not make it so, but nevertheless, it is unique. However, "unique" doesn't mean "complex". It just means "different".

The Xenon CPU sheds alot of circuity from the traditional Power5, notably by sheading the large instruction window and the instruction reordering circuity. Those two components alone take up alot of space, use alot of power, (in terms of total percentage on the chip) that could yield significant gains if removed. The Xbox 360 forces developers to organize and optimize their code before hand in order to accomidate for lacking this capability. This can be done however, because game consoles (currently) do only one task at a time, and the limits of the hardware and software that will run are well known. This is not an option for the Power5, which is being used in servers and desktops, and will run a myriad of software, support a ton of hardware configurations, and will have to juggle multiple tasks.

For lack of a better technical explination, let me point out that simpler hardware tasks will be able to achieve higher clockspeeds than more complex ones. The Pentium 4 is a good example of this, who's long but simplified pipeline allowed it to scale tremendously. the Athlon and Pentium M are much the anti-thesis of this. More complicated pipeline stages that get more work done at the expense of clockspeed.

Xenon gives the best of both worlds and the expense of something else. By having three simplified cores, programs gain excellent parallelism and throughput while maintaining high clockspeed. The catch is that programmers much optimize and reorder their code before hand. This is not an option on PCs, but certainly doable for a game console.

Thanks to Dr. Jones for linking to the article, hope this simplifies what he was trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D1g1talMan    0
yeah, but my argument isnt what makes them different, but what makes them the same- computing, you still run data through them right? regardless if its a P4 3G or a freakin' calculator! Which is exactly why you CAN run a benchmark to compare Intel and AMD chips and ATI vs. Nvidia cards.

586850002[/snapback]

In the wide world of computing, Intel and AMD chips are, for the most part, similar. Both are general x86 processors. ATI and Nvidia cards are both designed to run in X86 PCs. But when you start moving into speciailzed hardware such as Xenon, you're nolonger comparing apples to oranges. The code that the hardware was designed to run is much different. Intel and AMD CPUs are designed to run out-of-order code and be able to switch amongst many tasks. These are generalized processors that specialize in nothing, but can handle anything thrown at them. Cell, Xenon, etc. on the other hand cannot process OOO, but can run single, optimized tasks very well. Itanium and UltraSPARC are some other examples of specialized server hardware (though not as specialized as Xenon or so) but nevertheless, they run the code they were designed for, and run it well. But you cannot measure each design by it's general number crunching ability: What it comes down to is how well it runs the code it was designed to run, and the quality of the results it produces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hotdog666al    31

Who cares, PPC Macs are becoming Obsolete.

X86 is the Future for Apple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoogleNinja    0
Who cares, PPC Macs are becoming Obsolete.

X86 is the Future for Apple.

586863783[/snapback]

A lot of people care because PPC Macs are a lot faster with floating point operations than the X86 Macs will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Krage    0
yeah, but my argument isnt what makes them different, but what makes them the same- computing, you still run data through them right? regardless if its a P4 3G or a freakin' calculator! Which is exactly why you CAN run a benchmark to compare Intel and AMD chips and ATI vs. Nvidia cards.

586850002[/snapback]

Perhaps you can get back to us with the results of a benchmark that you've run on a G5 and a 360?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.