Author Topic: Next gen CPUs suck. (Read 10027 times)

KDR_11k · « **on:** July 01, 2005, 09:28:13 PM »

Article

Linking to Slashdot because the site that posted the article removed it again and Slashdot has the Google cache link.

What the article said was that they've benchmarked the X360 and PS3 CPUs and found they were only twice as fast as the XBox. Also, they found that the RSX chip in the PS3 (the GPU) cannot handle 1080i properly, probably fillrate related.

Note: These tests were done with the beta (current "final") hardware, not the alpha kits.

ThePerm · « **Reply #1 on:** July 01, 2005, 10:00:24 PM »

perrin kapplan was right!

stevey · « **Reply #2 on:** July 02, 2005, 05:06:23 AM »

So dose this mean that the rev more powerful than ps3 and 360 because nintendo said that it's 3 times as powerful as the cube and nintendo never lies. and who didn't know that that sony was bull sh!ting the 30 times part.

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #3 on:** July 02, 2005, 05:14:05 AM »

I think it just goes to prove that technology isn't jumping that fast. Seriously 30X times is stupid. The Xbox360 being 5X as powerful as the Xbox is believable...and I am sure the hardware components are that....perhaps they just don't mesh well together, or work perfectly in sync.

nickmitch · « **Reply #4 on:** July 02, 2005, 07:42:04 AM »

Doesn't Sony have time to fix theirs?

stevey · « **Reply #5 on:** July 02, 2005, 08:48:58 AM »

"Doesn't Sony have time to fix theirs? "

It's not broke. It just that sony know they can make up lie like "it's more power than god" and get away with it.

OptimusPrime · « **Reply #6 on:** July 02, 2005, 10:47:59 AM »

I read the article and all i can say is that if Nintendo uses a 1 G5 but doesn't strip it of all the good parts, streamline it for better game-processing, add in a a GPU thats as powerfull as the X360's one and add a PPU they would kick X360's and PS3's ass combined.
Problem is nobody would believe it except some techheads who have done some benchmarks.

BigJim · « **Reply #7 on:** July 02, 2005, 11:40:33 AM »

I imagine most of us would like a system that doesn't cost $400. A G5 wouldn't work for a reasonable price point. But yeah, it would rip the other systems a new one.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #8 on:** July 02, 2005, 09:35:23 PM »

Optimus: Not necessarily. What matters is how much graphics you can easily archieve, MS claims you can get a 5-10 fold performance increase by "properly optimizing" your software for the hardwarer but it's anyone's guess how much that'll add to the cost of games. If N uses a "weaker" system but one that's easier to use their graphics will look better because few can be bothered with putting in so much extra effort. Kinda like the XBox, all power available from the beginning but no improvements over the course of the generation.

Galford · « **Reply #9 on:** July 02, 2005, 10:38:55 PM »

I guess Anandtech has pulled the article. I wonder why???
However, Ars-Technica has an article which I can't help but to agree with...

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050629-5054.html

KDR_11k · « **Reply #10 on:** July 03, 2005, 07:49:56 AM »

What he forgot was management. The coders might at some point be willing to spend twice as much time writing the same amount of code to run that quick but management wants everything done, yesterday. I assume it requires much more thought to write something heavily optimized than something "clean". When the coders are overworked as the deadline arrives, their ability to think goes down rapidly. More and more errors. And since they already take so long to reach basic functionality proper testing might not fit into the budget so the game goes out to distributors after minimal testing.

nickmitch · « **Reply #11 on:** July 03, 2005, 10:08:21 AM »

Well better graphics came later this gen so why not the same for next gen? As long as the initial titles look better than this gen's titles and the latter titles look better than initial ones then everything will be fine. But that's if and only if cost isn't too high.

Sir_Stabbalot · « **Reply #12 on:** July 03, 2005, 12:54:51 PM »

OH SWEET JESUS YES!

Finnaly something to shut up the PS3 fans raving about the cell!

nemo_83 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 03, 2005, 04:39:09 PM »

Nintendo should not exceed two cores. They could get by with one core along with a PPU, but two cores and a PPU will sound better.

Nintendo will be able to pull better frame rates and possible polygon performance by not going with HD.

Galford · « **Reply #14 on:** July 03, 2005, 09:02:33 PM »

"Time is money", that is true KDR.

One reason the PSX won against the Saturn was is was easy to code for. During the mid-ninties some programming houses were having a hard time transition themselves to 3D programming and when time became money, many of these houses dropped the Saturn and went exclusive PSX or PSX/N64.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #15 on:** July 04, 2005, 02:31:27 AM »

Well, the Saturn was also pretty weak at 3d but you're right, difficult architectures->costier development->less support.

Nemo: I doubt that. A single core would make much more sense since you could get a fairly big chip for that and have all the extras that make development easier. A PPU, maybe. But with a PPU there's really no need for a second core as long as you have al the basic chips, i.e. sound chip, network chip, etc. The PPU will take the bulk of the CPU load, the CPU won't have that much to do anymore. Unfortunately Agaeia is pricing themselves right out of the market.

nemo_83 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 04, 2005, 05:51:37 PM »

I would think developers would like it better if the REV had fewer more efficient cores than 360 and PS3. The PPU and maybe an AIPU would help such a single core processor do much more than the competitions' CPUs.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #17 on:** July 05, 2005, 12:07:51 AM »

PPUs are to expensive at the moment and AIPUs don't exist. Just make it a single CPU with a good floating point unit

nemo_83 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 06, 2005, 08:58:09 AM »

They will need a PPU for their controller if it uses gyros or something even further entrenched in technolust.

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #19 on:** July 06, 2005, 09:45:27 AM »

Why would a PPU be needed for Controllers with Gyros? A Gyros should just submit signals to the CPU to process much like an analog controler does, however it has more signals to read and interpret...or am I missing something?

I really don't think these stories are really that bad. What they say is the new CPUs are complex. They are very powerful, but to get all that you can out of them you must dedicate yourself to the code.

After the first few years the code will be easier to write because programmers will know their way around the hardware...until then we will still get software with superior graphics and functionality.

Also, anything they write about the Xbox 360 and PS3 may also equally apply to the Revolution...all we know is Nintendo is trying to prevent added development difficulties and costs, but we don't know if they succeeded.

couchmonkey · « **Reply #20 on:** July 06, 2005, 01:05:26 PM »

I'm glad to see someone cutting through the Microsoft/Sony bull about performance of their systems, but ultimately benchmarks and whatnot don't mean much to me. I'm more interested in the final product, how does it play? What does it look like? I do think that the graphics on 360 and PS3 will live up to a lot of people's expectations, but I admit it's beginning to sound a little iffy.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #21 on:** July 07, 2005, 09:04:32 AM »

Well, let's be realistic, as long as all you do is games this CPU design might work. Loadsa vector operations plus a little all purpose. BUT! Sony is trying to position the PS3 as a machine for more than games, going as far as offering an OS for it and perhaps some productivity apps. THAT is stupid. Productivity apps require everything in your processor and they aren't written with in-order processors in mind. They are heavy on branching logic and require a lot of power for that, unlike games which put most of their power into physics and maybe a little AI. Of course optimizing the vector units for physics would have been a smart move but that doesn't make a good buzzword. What I'm really worried about is Microsoft's approach, three all-purpose cores with weak vector units is pretty stupid, games don't need that much all purpose power and going multiprocessor will just complicate development. With the Cell you can at least know ahead of time which parts of your code have to multithread. Let's hope their threading scheduler is up to snuff, would suck if it choked on the number of entities a normal game throws at it

.

Either way, MS loses and Sony once again is talking crap with their supercomputer claims. Well, it IS a supercomputer as long as all you want to do is vector processing. If there's more you're screwed.

Draygaia · « **Reply #22 on:** July 07, 2005, 09:11:06 AM »

Can you imagine taking three weeks on one character? Think about it. What if that also included the crunching time.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #23 on:** July 07, 2005, 09:23:20 PM »

That's not the fault of the CPU, blame normalmapping for it.

Cube_King · « **Reply #24 on:** August 03, 2005, 02:02:35 AM »

Wow. While I never expected the consoles to live up to their technical hype it's suprising how weak and disappointing the CPUs are. Im no tech-head but the '360's got f***en THREE 3.0 Ghz processors o.O!! How the hell did that end up being equivalent to only 2x the power of the Xbox 733mhz chip....

News:

Author Topic: Next gen CPUs suck. (Read 10027 times)