• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

QX6700 vs Cell processor which is better?

H

HardLiner

Gawd
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
746
I'm just curious,Is the QX6700 processor better than the PS3 cell processor for gaming,folding,video encoding and general use?
 
A QX6700 is way better than the cell as a general purpose processor. In most applications the cell runs like a G4.
 
In terms of raw power, a Cell would be better... But show me an OS that does, "gaming,folding,video encoding" on a cell CPU ;).
 
for raw power the cell owns all. For proof just look at the recent numbers for the folding@home project. PS3's account for only like 10% of the total number of cpu's, but they account for more than half of the overall computation that is done. 13,000 PS3's are doing twice as much number crunching than 160,000 PC's (source)

Now surely every pc isn't running a QX6700 (and that number is including the Pentium 2's that are still out there folding :p ) but I think the point still stands. Cell is a beast when it comes to raw processing power.
 
Big deal. They've finally find one thing the cell is good at, folding. So what; a midrange ATI card stomps all over it in folding. You know a lot of those PC's that are being used for folding are old PCs that have been retired from main use and are now used for folding, and there are also lots of low power energy efficient CPUs like VIA.

I'll just basically repeat what I wrote in the last thread.

1.6 G5 vs. PS3 and I added some Xeon benchmarks they also had. bZip and JPEG seemed like the most common and useful of the benchmarks so here they are. Check out their site for the rest. http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/11/playstation-3-performance/

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 before it came out.

It would get totally crushed by a Quad core processor.
 
Cell is only going to perform well in things that are optimized for it, and in general purpose computing it's performance isn't going to be that great. This is something that we've all known for about 2 years, since developers leaked word that the Xbox 360 and PS3 CPU were equivalent to a 1.5 GHz PIII in general purpose computing.

There is still a large potential market for Cell, even though it's not going to be the general mass market. It's scalable and it's FP performance/cost is going to make a very good solution for performing tasks like 3D rendering and scientific applications. I can see a lot of workstations using Cell and running the apps it's good at.
 
didn't some utube vid say they (cell) had 9 cores? Sounds impressive but I know shit about them.
 
BladeVenom said:
Big deal. They've finally find one thing the cell is good at, folding. So what; a midrange ATI card stomps all over it in folding. You know a lot of those PC's that are being used for folding are old PCs that have been retired from main use and are now used for folding, and there are also lots of low power energy efficient CPUs like VIA.

I'll just basically repeat what I wrote in the last thread.

1.6 G5 vs. PS3 and I added some Xeon benchmarks they also had. bZip and JPEG seemed like the most common and useful of the benchmarks so here they are. Check out their site for the rest. http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/11/playstation-3-performance/

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 before it came out.

It would get totally crushed by a Quad core processor.
Click to expand...

the PS3 is has 7cores (not real cores persay) and the 'true' Cell processor, like the ones sold by IBM have 8cores, which makes hugh difference in performance from my understanding. Though it also drives the price up to like $18,000 (8core) vs the $600 PS3 version of the Cell.
 
Pkirk618 said:
didn't some utube vid say they (cell) had 9 cores?
Click to expand...

One Power core and eight SPEs. The latter are, AIUI, fancy floating point processors. That's why the Cell can do so well at the Folding@home project - it's all number crunching. That's also why it's good at games - the number crunching. Ditto the ATI GPU.

BTW - IIRC, the PS3 only enables 7 of the 8 SPEs - I guess that allows them to ship chips with one defective SPE.

Most computers don't need much in the line of floating point power, hence as a general purpose computer, the Cell isn't so hot. The C2Q, OTOH, has four general purpose processors, which makes it better for a multitasking environment.
 
Eva_Unit_0 said:
for raw power the cell owns all. For proof just look at the recent numbers for the folding@home project. PS3's account for only like 10% of the total number of cpu's, but they account for more than half of the overall computation that is done. 13,000 PS3's are doing twice as much number crunching than 160,000 PC's (source)

Now surely every pc isn't running a QX6700 (and that number is including the Pentium 2's that are still out there folding :p ) but I think the point still stands. Cell is a beast when it comes to raw processing power.
Click to expand...

Cell is a beast when it comes to *floating point* processing power. It's also worth noting that PS3 folding is only doing SOME kinds of operations, because the Cell isn't capable of doing the entire suite of folding.
 
Why is this thread still alive and why are you guys still compairing both of the them? Both of them are two different things, Cell will crush QX6700 in certain application and QX6700 will crush Cell in general purpose application. Why don't you guys just compare the QX6700 with a 8800GTX... :rolleyes: Btw I doubt that a system with a QX6700, 256MB RAM and geForce 7600GT can beat the PS3 in applications that are designed for the console like games and etc...
 
BladeVenom said:
A QX6700 is way better than the cell as a general purpose processor. In most applications the cell runs like a G4.
Click to expand...

Uhh, yeah, when you only use ONE of the EIGHT cores, in addition you're using that ONE core with software that is NOT optomzied for it... Yeah, real accurate comparison :rolleyes:

But you are correct, for GENERAL purpose computing, a QX is better simply becuase general computing software is designed for it... If we're talking about raw processing power though... Not so much.
 
BladeVenom said:
Big deal. They've finally find one thing the cell is good at, folding. So what; a midrange ATI card stomps all over it in folding. You know a lot of those PC's that are being used for folding are old PCs that have been retired from main use and are now used for folding, and there are also lots of low power energy efficient CPUs like VIA.

I'll just basically repeat what I wrote in the last thread.

1.6 G5 vs. PS3 and I added some Xeon benchmarks they also had. bZip and JPEG seemed like the most common and useful of the benchmarks so here they are. Check out their site for the rest. http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/11/playstation-3-performance/

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 before it came out.

It would get totally crushed by a Quad core processor.
Click to expand...

Geekbench also isn’t able to exploit the eight vector processors on the Cell processor. Any program designed and optimized for the Cell processor should be a lot faster than one designed for a generic processor (like, say, Geekbench). So while the Geekbench results might seem disappointing, keep in mind that Geekbench can’t exercise the PlayStation 3 to its full potential.
Click to expand...

If you are going to quote an article I suggest quoting all relevant points. Where did you get the xeon numbers?
 
RamonGTP said:
Uhh, yeah, when you only use ONE of the EIGHT cores, in addition you're using that ONE core with software that is NOT optomzied for it... Yeah, real accurate comparison :rolleyes:

But you are correct, for GENERAL purpose computing, a QX is better simply becuase general computing software is designed for it... If we're talking about raw processing power though... Not so much.
Click to expand...

That's the real world comparison because most software isn't going to be optimized for it. It runs Linux, but out of the tens of thousands of Linux programs how many are optomized for the cell? Same with games. Most games are cross platform, so once again most games aren't going to take advantage of the cells.
 
BladeVenom said:
That's the real world comparison because most software isn't going to be optimized for it. It runs Linux, but out of the tens of thousands of Linux programs how many are optomized for the cell? Same with games. Most games are cross platform, so once again most games aren't going to take advantage of the cells.
Click to expand...

I think your analysis is a bit off... Cross platform does NOT mean it will not use the additional cores, I dont know where you are getting this information. It simply means the games are available for more than one platform. You do realize that the code is recompiled depending on what platform it is being used on do you not? And in most of not all cases, the source code is also modified, sometimes extensively. To say that none of the PS3 games make use of more than one core is simply false. You made this claim before and I asked you to show me some evidence to backup your claims and you failed to do so.
 
RamonGTP said:
To say that none of the PS3 games make use of more than one core is simply false. You made this claim before and I asked you to show me some evidence to backup your claims and you failed to do so.
Click to expand...

I asked you to show me some evidence to backup your claims and you failed to do so. Show me what software takes advantage of the cell then.

It's simple logic. You can't prove a negative. If they exist you show me. I can however show you hundreds of thousands of programs that don't use the cell processor.

So far for the cell all I've seen is Folding@home. Show me the rest.

The last thing I've heard was that Ken Kutagari was made Chairman of Cellius to make games that for the Cell processor. If there are games and software already out that did that, why would they need to form a new company to do that?
 
BladeVenom said:
I asked you to show me some evidence to backup your claims and you failed to do so. Show me what software takes advantage of the cell then.

It's simple logic. You can't prove a negative. If they exist you show me. I can however show you hundreds of thousands of programs that don't use the cell processor.

So far for the cell all I've seen is Folding@home. Show me the rest.

The last thing I've heard was that Ken Kutagari was made Chairman of Cellius to make games that for the Cell processor. If there are games and software already out that did that, why would they need to form a new company to do that?
Click to expand...

How about Playstation 3 games :rolleyes:

Your theory is nothing more than guess work. The Cell was DESIGNED to play PS3 games and you're saying PS3 games don't use it? I know several apps that don't use the Cell, that was my point for your vary inaccurate comparsion. PS3 games DO use the Cell processor, some games impliment it better than others. Cross platform does NOT mean they don't use it. Period. That statement of yours is simply wrong. You seem to have a misconception of what crossplat form means.

I will not continue this argument of guess work any further. The fact that you continually reference that G4 to Cell compariosn and call it fair when even the editors of the article say that it is NOT a fair compariosn is proof enough that your stance is based on nothing more than you being a fan boy.

Put a Cell cpu in a desktop machine and yes, the QX will outperform it, becuase of the software. Put the QX in a PS3 and play PS3 games, and it will not touch the Cell... Because of the software.
 
BladeVenom said:
I asked you to show me some evidence to backup your claims and you failed to do so. Show me what software takes advantage of the cell then.

It's simple logic. You can't prove a negative. If they exist you show me. I can however show you hundreds of thousands of programs that don't use the cell processor.

So far for the cell all I've seen is Folding@home. Show me the rest.

The last thing I've heard was that Ken Kutagari was made Chairman of Cellius to make games that for the Cell processor. If there are games and software already out that did that, why would they need to form a new company to do that?
Click to expand...

The cell is designed for programs that are optimized for it. For example, if you want to use the Cell to play HD movies, you design a program that takes advantage of the cores. If you want it to play games, you design an engine that uses the cores. If you want it to run on a server, you design an OS that will take advantage of it. Get it?

General purpose cores are different because you can tell them to do just about anything and they'll do a decent job without optimization.
 
Not to get in on any flame, but...

<Pause Flame War>

It is sorta general knowledge that games that are cross platform are recompiled to use the platforms architecture.

Take for example the Xbox and PS2. Do you honestly think no recompiling was done to make games work on both a P3 Processor and the Emotion Engine? The Xbox was practically a dedicated PC while the PS2 had the emotion engine that was pretty much nothing like a standard Pentium PC.

Still this is an argument going no where. You cannot use a cell from a PS3 in a normal PC (try finding a mainboard that supports it, what about OC abilities?!? :p). The IBM cells are used for specific data crunching and only cost a mere $15,000 or more than the QX6700. And you cannot use a QX6700 in a PS3.

I think it has also been generally acknowledged between the 360 and PS3 that the PS3 has the more powerful processor, but the 360 has the more powerful graphics card. The two tend to cancel out a bit though so results are similar right now and flucuate game to game.

<Resume your War>
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
isnt this a pre-release article, I wonder what they would say after game release, hmmmmms!
Click to expand...

I fail to see your point... I highly doubt the developers are thinking... "oh damn, this game is cross-platform, what were we thinking... We must scrap our plans to optomize this for the Cell processor and use inefficient code instead"
 
whats faster 8 ricers, or 4 Dodge Rams with V10 viper engines.

Well the 8 ricers might do very well at certain tasks, but the 4 BIG pick up trucks can do all kinds of tasks and still do them very fast.

What would you rather? Depends on the task.

If you think my comparison is stupid. Well it is... but so is comparing a Cell & QX6700. :mad:
 
chrisf6969 said:
whats faster 8 ricers, or 4 Dodge Rams with V10 viper engines.

Well the 8 ricers might do very well at certain tasks, but the 4 BIG pick up trucks can do all kinds of tasks and still do them very fast.

What would you rather? Depends on the task.

If you think my comparison is stupid. Well it is... but so is comparing a Cell & QX6700. :mad:
Click to expand...


hehe.. yeah but the ricers will last longer ;)
 
chrisf6969 said:
whats faster 8 ricers, or 4 Dodge Rams with V10 viper engines.

Well the 8 ricers might do very well at certain tasks, but the 4 BIG pick up trucks can do all kinds of tasks and still do them very fast.

What would you rather? Depends on the task.

If you think my comparison is stupid. Well it is... but so is comparing a Cell & QX6700. :mad:
Click to expand...

Too bad that anology does not work here. Cars and Computers are not the same thing. ;) And I'll take 8 Enzo's to 4 Dodge RAM's. :p
 
Proven wrong?
BladeVenom said:
Most games are cross platform, so once again most games aren't going to take advantage of the cells.
Click to expand...
I said most games aren't going to take advantage of the cells, and so far I'm still right. Oblivion is only one game out of how many? One day that may change, but right now it still holds true.
 
BladeVenom said:
Proven wrong?

I said most games aren't going to take advantage of the cells, and so far I'm still right. Oblivion is only one game out of how many? One day that may change, but right now it still holds true.
Click to expand...

No actually that isn't what you said. in a previous thread you said there are not ANY games becuase they arecrossplatform. Furthermore, in this thread, you said the only thing that uses the cells is Folding@Home... So you are proven wrong in two ways... 1) There ARE games, just becuase I gave you one does not mean only one exists... And 2) Crossplatform games can and do take advantage of the cells.

Even in your own quote you sare saying that because the games are crossplatform, they won't take advantage of Cell, which again, is wrong. Give it up, your argument is full of holes. I think it's time for me to unsubscribe from this thread... It's impossible to reason with someone that makes up his own "facts" and doesn't even realize they don't know what they're talking about. I thought I could stay away on will power alone but I'm to weak apparently.
 
All developers and all games on the PS3 take advantage of the cell. They have to. They might not be able to harness all the power with the first generation of games, but they will soon. But to say that no games utilize the cell is plain wrong.
 
HardLiner said:
Could the cell run windows as good as an intel chip?if programmed correctly?
Click to expand...

I'd say yes but that'd take forever to program and definitely not worth it.

We shouldn't even be having this discussion. They are completely different chips.:mad:
 
RamonGTP said:
I fail to see your point... I highly doubt the developers are thinking... "oh damn, this game is cross-platform, what were we thinking... We must scrap our plans to optomize this for the Cell processor and use inefficient code instead"
Click to expand...

My point is, wait and see the final result before judging, there are alot of games that seem to look better on Xbox 360 =p

XBOX360!!!!!! said:
Ahh, video console comparisons. As flamebait goes, it doesn't get much better than video console comparisons. Wary as we are of this, we can't help but post GameTrailers' recent video comparison of the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of Oblivion. Granted, Bethesda has had a substantial amount of time to improve the PS3 version, but there are some undeniable differences. In particular, at about 1:30, you'll witness some nasty pop-up on the 360 version. We're only speculating here, but that may be the result of all PS3's containing a hard drive; Bethesda didn't have to account for a Core version as on 360. There are some other subtle differences, you can see a few more wrinkles on the King's face in the PS3 version and some of the weapon textures look sharper. Other textures look better on the 360, though, most notably the textures of the cobblestones on the city streets.

Now, Bethesda has made it known that many of the graphical additions made to the PS3 version will be made available for the 360 version as well. Hopefully, we'll see another comparison after that comes to pass
Click to expand...
http://www.xbox360!!!!!!.com/2007/03/23/oblivion-ps3-vs-xbox-360-comparison/

comparison video

The biggest difference i really see is the lighting is better on the ps3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top