Core 2 Extreme QX6700 vs PS3 Cell processor

S

Scooby22B

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
142
Is the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Quad Core 2.66GHz equal to a PS3 Cell Processor, or it doesn't stand a chance? anyone have any specs.... im just curious
 
The PS3 cpu is HIGHLY overrated. 1 main core and like 4(6?) LIMITED other cores...

It's not as advanced as you think.
 
Oh, the Cell processor by far. I popped a Cell in my computer and it simply came alive; my computing experience will never be the same again!!! :rolleyes:
 
I'm sure the QX would beat the shit out of the Cell with a vengeance if they were somehow running the same highly threaded app in a fair environment....

doesnt the Cell have limited or no branch prediction and a very narrow execution core, which is why it can attain such high clockspeeds? I thought the IPC on the cell was horrible from the many, many articles I've read on it.

Besides, 4 very powerful cores is better than 1 good and 7 shitty ones any day of the week
 
I think Cell is better for games than QX(PS3 games are optimizely designed to use it) but QX is better for everything else, you don't need to have the QX in a console and you can't use the Cell for your PC.
 
alg7_munif said:
I think Cell is better for games than QX(PS3 games are optimizely designed to use it) but QX is better for everything else, you don't need to have the QX in a console and you can't use the Cell for your PC.
Click to expand...

Say what?
 
Look at the higher resolution test in this review, is there any difference between the CPUs? On PS3, Cell can also be used for graphic processing.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
I'm sure the QX would beat the shit out of the Cell with a vengeance if they were somehow running the same highly threaded app in a fair environment....

doesnt the Cell have limited or no branch prediction and a very narrow execution core, which is why it can attain such high clockspeeds? I thought the IPC on the cell was horrible from the many, many articles I've read on it.

Besides, 4 very powerful cores is better than 1 good and 7 shitty ones any day of the week
Click to expand...


So the PS3 Cell processor is like a Hyper threading cpu..like the P4 was... so the Cell processor is a single core with 7 virtual cores..just like a PC detecting a P4 HT as a dual core when it wasnt, right?..understand what i mean?...lol
 
alg7_munif said:
I think Cell is better for games than QX(PS3 games are optimizely designed to use it)
Click to expand...

Well yeah, no kidding. A Pentium 3 could kick the crap out of a Core 2 Quadro if the software is specifically written to and optimiszed for that architecture.
 
Scooby22B said:
So the PS3 Cell processor is like a Hyper threading cpu..like the P4 was... so the Cell processor is a single core with 7 virtual cores..just like a PC detecting a P4 HT as a dual core when it wasnt, right?..understand what i mean?...lol
Click to expand...

No, all cores are real, physical cores.
The difference is that with a QX6700 you have 4 equal, generic processing cores, where the Cell has one generic processing core, and the rest are special-purpose mini-cores so to say.
Think of it like a GPU and a CPU.
The GPU is a special-purpose device, which can perform tasks very quickly, and independent of the CPU... However, it still needs the CPU to send it data and run the actual programs.
Cell is exactly like that... The generic core sets up the other cores for processing.
So technically you can only run one program at a time, but you can offload tasks to these extra cores.
With a QX6700 you can either run 4 complete programs at the same time, each on their own independent core... or you can use all cores for separate tasks in a single program.

And that's exactly why it's impossible to compare performance. Some routines may look taylor-made for the Cell, others may work much better on the more generic QX6700.

Personally I think the QX6700 is better overall though.
 
Scali2 said:
No, all cores are real, physical cores.
The difference is that with a QX6700 you have 4 equal, generic processing cores, where the Cell has one generic processing core, and the rest are special-purpose mini-cores so to say.
Think of it like a GPU and a CPU.
The GPU is a special-purpose device, which can perform tasks very quickly, and independent of the CPU... However, it still needs the CPU to send it data and run the actual programs.
Cell is exactly like that... The generic core sets up the other cores for processing.
So technically you can only run one program at a time, but you can offload tasks to these extra cores.
With a QX6700 you can either run 4 complete programs at the same time, each on their own independent core... or you can use all cores for separate tasks in a single program.

And that's exactly why it's impossible to compare performance. Some routines may look taylor-made for the Cell, others may work much better on the more generic QX6700.

Personally I think the QX6700 is better overall though.
Click to expand...
Bull's eye!

brucedeluxe169 said:
he basically is saying nothing at all, lol

and yea, there can be games "optimized" for the too (quad core optimized), so his statement really gets you nowhere
Click to expand...
:eek:
 
spy2520 said:
is this legitimate use of the english language? :D
Click to expand...
Sorry I wasn't borned in an english speaking country, I'm not raised in an english speaking country and now I'm not studying in an english speaking country. :p
 
Dont forget that the cell is also a pain in the a** for devs to program for right now where the QX is in the relatively known area.

Many game devs have been talking about how it will take many years to utilize fully what the cell can use. Yet another reason many devs are liking the Xbox 360 as it too uses a known arc. to program for.
 
The Cell is a great design, it just needs special code so especially shine. An IBM Power(whatever number they are up to now) will absolutely kill and Intel or AMD proceosser it is put against for the code it is meant to run, given the right OS, but it will sham itself in general purpose apps on a mainstream OS. The Core procesor is meant for highly specialized fields (gaming in the sense of the PS3, and Database/Media-Rendering/Scientific Alalysis in the others) so it should not ever be expected to be a mainstream CPU.
 
IBM is currently designing a Supercomputer that will use the Cell processor along with Opterons. I'm too lazy to look it up but its going to be able to calculate at 1.5+ petaflops.
 
the PS3 cell uses something called one step processing or something like that. the QX (or all desktop cpus) are multi-step i believe.


This is why when you put a linux desktop on a PS3, its as fast as a P3 1.6ghz

Their used for tottaly different things
 
I can't believe this debate is still going on. Cell is a *stripped down* PowerPC (lacking ANY branch prediction capability) with 8 (7 in case of PS3, 5 of which are useable as one's dedicated for certain OS functions and another for DRM--err, "security") SPE's that are basically *really* good at floating point operations but useless for integer (ie "general purpose" operations. It'd probably be good for certain kinds of graphics, but in PS3 the graphics processor is the 7600GT--err, "RSX"--which uses a completely different instruction set.

Cell is primarily good for things like Physics, Media Encoding/Decoding (which is what it was designed for, not games), video and audio streaming, etc.

There's no contest here whatsoever. In everything with the possible exception of media and physics ops, the Intel would abuse the Cell 6 ways 'til Sunday.
 
Just read an interview with Carmack in which he stated he wasn't thrilled about the PS3 at all mainly from a development standpoint. Until Sony learns their lesson and put together something that is simple enough to program yet powerful enough to create something mind-blowing I don't think they'll be able to hang on to their overall lead in sales.
 
I found some benchmarks last month and posted them in the console section. Maybe not the best place with all the Sony fans there.

1.6 G5 vs. PS3 and I added some Xeon benchmarks they also did. bZip and JPEG seemed like the most common and useful of the benchmarks so here they are. Check out their site for the rest. Geek Patrol

bzip2 Compress (multi-threaded scalar)
PlayStation 3 - 124.1
Power Mac G5 - 168.4
Xeon 5160 - 1194.4

bzip2 Decompress (multi-threaded scalar)
PlayStation 3 - 99.5
Power Mac G5 - 133.1
Xeon 5160 - 1353.3

JPEG Compress (multi-threaded scalar)
PlayStation 3 - 94.8
Power Mac G5 - 103.0
Xeon 5160 - 877.6

JPEG Decompress (multi-threaded scalar)
PlayStation 3 - 72.9
Power Mac G5 - 119.2
Xeon 5160 - 788.9

So basically in performance the PS3 processor usually isn't going to be as good as a three and a half year old budget G5 processor. The PS3 is probably about equal to a G4 processor at most general tasks. Kind of pathetic after all the hype Sony made about it over a year ago.

It would get totally crushed by a Quad core processor. Think Godzilla vs. Bambi.
 
BladeVenom said:
I found some benchmarks last month and posted them in the console section. Maybe not the best place with all the Sony fans there.

It would get totally crushed by a Quad core processor. Think Godzilla vs. Bambi.
Click to expand...


LORFL&L! Cleans Coffee off Keyboard. I think this should end the thread.
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
I can't believe this debate is still going on. Cell is a *stripped down* PowerPC (lacking ANY branch prediction capability) with 8 (7 in case of PS3, 5 of which are useable as one's dedicated for certain OS functions and another for DRM--err, "security") SPE's that are basically *really* good at floating point operations but useless for integer (ie "general purpose" operations. It'd probably be good for certain kinds of graphics, but in PS3 the graphics processor is the 7600GT--err, "RSX"--which uses a completely different instruction set.

Cell is primarily good for things like Physics, Media Encoding/Decoding (which is what it was designed for, not games), video and audio streaming, etc.

There's no contest here whatsoever. In everything with the possible exception of media and physics ops, the Intel would abuse the Cell 6 ways 'til Sunday.
Click to expand...

No this should end the thread, you can't compare an apple to an orange.
 
if you could throw a cell in a desktop PC, (yes i know its impossible)
it will get creamed by almost any cpu of the last 2-3 years
it lacks out of order processing architecture
 
Donnie27 said:
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html

Also see ARS?
Click to expand...

...."Performance matters again," Otellini said, disclosing that the quad-core desktop processor will deliver 70 percent faster integer performance than the Core 2 Duo...
....Intel's prototype uses 80 floating-point cores, each running at 3.16GHz...
Click to expand...
The floating-point cores are better at doing their specific task, the QX is better for general purpose. Can you answer my question, which is better, the 8800GTX or the QX6700? Why can't you understand that they are different type of processors and can't be directly compared.
 
alg7_munif said:
The floating-point cores are better at doing their specific task, the QX is better for general purpose. Can you answer my question, which is better, the 8800GTX or the QX6700? Why can't you understand that they are different type of processors and can't be directly compared.
Click to expand...

So let me see, you're an AMD F@n as well, right? WITF are talking about? I didn't post that anything was better worse LOL. I asked you a Question?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060926-7840.html

ARS said:
Note that these cores are almost certainly in-order, and are certainly less complex than the Cell processor's SPEs. The whole thing is very reminiscent of Sun's Niagara, and in fact I've heard that internally Intel uses their own little water-based metaphor for it; they call it the "sea of cores" approach.
Click to expand...

So, I ASKED you to see ARS for a reason, NOT that I was saying anything sucked or that I didn't understand something LOL! I understand CPU power enough to buy a C2D and not an Opteron, oh brother!
 
We need to ban these type of threads. Even if one was better than the other, it doesn't matter!!! Your not going to be running a Cell Processor in your computer anytime soon nor are you going to be running Windows on your PS3 anytime soon.

They are made for completely different things.

These types of questions keep coming up

PS3 CPU v PC CPU

PS3 GPU v PC GPU

STOP ASKING!!!!!
 
BladeVenom said:
I found some benchmarks last month and posted them in the console section. Maybe not the best place with all the Sony fans there.

1.6 G5 vs. PS3 and I added some Xeon benchmarks they also did. bZip and JPEG seemed like the most common and useful of the benchmarks so here they are. Check out their site for the rest. Geek Patrol
Click to expand...
I am not certain on the details, but I was under the impression that the linux distribution that was running on the PS3 was not given direct access to all the cores on the system. I would like to have someone verify this information for me, since it would make quite a large difference w.r.t. the outcome.
 
alg7_munif said:
The floating-point cores are better at doing their specific task, the QX is better for general purpose. Can you answer my question, which is better, the 8800GTX or the QX6700? Why can't you understand that they are different type of processors and can't be directly compared.
Click to expand...
Well said alg. Apples and Oranges should not be compared against each other.

Perhaps some of you will find one of my threads on Cell interesting:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1125337

drizzt81 said:
I am not certain on the details, but I was under the impression that the linux distribution that was running on the PS3 was not given direct access to all the cores on the system. I would like to have someone verify this information for me, since it would make quite a large difference w.r.t. the outcome.
Click to expand...
That's correct. Only the PPE was used and no SPE was used. Of course it's going to be slow, it's using a fraction of the Cell's resources.

What I don't understand is why they didn't use the SPEs. I know for a fact it's accessible under Fedora as I've implemented MD5 encryption/decryption on PPE + 2 SPE's before. Perhaps it's a PS3 specific thing.
 
stogez said:
IBM is currently designing a Supercomputer that will use the Cell processor along with Opterons. I'm too lazy to look it up but its going to be able to calculate at 1.5+ petaflops.
Click to expand...

Yeah the Opterons will do all of the processing, and the Cell processors will power the integrated coffee makers. Yes, all high end supercomputers come with coffee makers and cup holders.:D

As to comparing the chips, you can't, they aren't the same thing, and they each have their strengths.
 
morfinx said:
Well said alg. Apples and Oranges should not be compared against each other.

Perhaps some of you will find one of my threads on Cell interesting:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1125337


That's correct. Only the PPE was used and no SPE was used. Of course it's going to be slow, it's using a fraction of the Cell's resources.

What I don't understand is why they didn't use the SPEs. I know for a fact it's accessible under Fedora as I've implemented MD5 encryption/decryption on PPE + 2 SPE's before. Perhaps it's a PS3 specific thing.
Click to expand...

It's quite likely the fact that the SPE's simply aren't appropriate for certain kinds of tasks. What's clear about Cell--and has been from the outset--is that it will excel at things like media encoding/decoding/streaming, and quite likely physics operations. What it won't ever be good at are integer based "General Purpose" operations.

Those saying you can't compare the Cell with a PC processor simply don't know what they're talking about, however. What you need to do is compare performance in certain kinds of operations, with software that's optimized for the specific platform. For example, a video compression program optimized for cell versus one that's optimized for AMD64, then compare the results. Or get even more specific and compare software specifically written to gauge integer performance on each platform, as well as software to specifically gauge floating point performance.

In either case it's immaterial: Cell's chance of supplanting the established x86/x64 processing base is exactly *Zero*. It'll live in PS3, some TV's and maybe a handful of other consumer electronics devices, but then it will be replaced by the next big MMP (Marketing Moniker Processor) from Sony when PS4 hits. If you'll recall, we were supposed to be running high-end workstations with the so-called "Emotion Engine" processor by now. I think we all know how that ended up :)
 
Cell is really good at floating point operations because it was designed for gaming and that's what game related calculations require. Cell completely destroys a QX6700 in that regard but gets owned by the QX6700 for general purpose calculations.
 
Skunt said:
Cell is really good at floating point operations because it was designed for gaming and that's what game related calculations require. Cell completely destroys a QX6700 in that regard but gets owned by the QX6700 for general purpose calculations.
Click to expand...

No, Cell was NOT designed for gaming. Cell was designed for multimedia processing. It's good at Floating Point operations for that reason.

Game code is primarily *Integer* code, with the exception of Physics and 3D models. In the case of PS3, the 3D is handled exclusively by the RSX GPU (Cell doesn't support the same instructions so it can't share the workload in that area) while physics, of course, will likely be offloaded to the SPE's. In any case, Cell isn't going to "Completely destroy" a QX6700 in any kind of operation. With a fully optimized app it'd probably be a tough showdown for video/audio encoding and decoding, for virtually anything else the Cell would get pummeled.
 
Game code which consists of anything from ai to physics is mostly floating point operations and not integer. PS3 was designed in such a way that Cell would be helping RSX on the graphics workload. Cell would annihilate QX6700 in floating point intensive operations and lose elsewhere.
 
Donnie27 said:
I understand CPU power enough to buy a C2D and not an Opteron, oh brother!
Click to expand...
And I understand CPU power enough not to throw away my money for a new CPU, mobo and RAM that wouldn't help me much when playing games at a high resolution(note that my native resolution is 1920x1200). I'm pretty sure that even at 1600x1200 my crappy Opteron rig will be faster than your great C2D rig in these games:
Prey, Rise of Legend, Oblivion, Titan Quest, and Half Life 2.
This is because of my graphic specific processor(7950GT) is faster than your graphic specific processor(X1800XT). Eventhough your general purpose processor(e6600) is faster than mine(Opteron), your performance at a high resolution is still limited by your graphic specific processor. However on PS3, the Cell can be used to help the graphic specific processor(RSX) on the graphics workload.
 
Skunt said:
Game code which consists of anything from ai to physics is mostly floating point operations and not integer. PS3 was designed in such a way that Cell would be helping RSX on the graphics workload. Cell would annihilate QX6700 in floating point intensive operations and lose elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. QX6700 still has 4 cores, each loaded with a high-performance SSE-unit, which still racks up quite respectable floating point numbers. It also has the advantage of a much higher clockspeed.
The idea of Cell is nice, but its current implementation is getting a bit long in the tooth.
I don't think the Cell would be all that much faster even in the best case scenario.
Don't forget that there's also a lot of overhead to keep all these SPEs busy, and that adding more units to the same processing routine doesn't usually scale linearly, but more logarithmically.
Also, AI generally is more about lots of conditional branches than it is about heavy floating point processing. And that's the sort of thing where the SPEs won't help at all, and you're down to the slow main processor.
The heaviest floating point processing part of a game is still the 3d visualization, and that is mostly accelerated by a GPU anyway, even on PS3.
 
alg7_munif said:
However on PS3, the Cell can be used to help the graphic specific processor(RSX) on the graphics workload.
Click to expand...

You think? Can you explain how it would do that? Or at least link to an article that explains this?
In my experience it's generally incredibly inefficient to try and aid a GPU with its processing, because of locking issues on the framebuffer and such. Since the PS3 uses a standard nVidia GPU, I don't see how it would be different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top