Xbox 2 set to go multiprocessor

"with Sony's PS3 expected to use up to eight of its new Cell microprocessors"

I thought the PS3 was going to use a multi-core CPU.

This really does seam strange to me, I would like to know the reasoning behind multiple cpu's. On the workstation market you would have multiple CPU's because you need more power than any one cpu can deliver and I think you can have more ram? on the console market however you want power but at a reasonably low price so they can't put 8 of the most powerful CPU's on the market in there machine because it will cost way too much. They would have to put 8 not very powerful CPU's in there that would proberly be able to be equalled by one top of the range CPU. The only advantage's of that would be to have heat dissapated over a wider area and the abuility to have upto 8 threads running simutanoulsy and you don't need 8 threads running simutanously in a game.
 
Why would they take the hdd out? Probably because it was causing them so much trouble early on with the breaking and all. Still though, it's what XBox Live lives off of. I can't see it being as good of a system without it. God, how I loath memory cards.
 
This new generation look like it might actually be able to outshine computers, at least for the first year they're out anyway.
 
Could this have anything to do with the rumour that's flying about wherein the new IBM Power5 (970 I think) will have two seperate cores on-die?
 
Can someone tell me how you delete previously made messages???
 
I really hope Xbox 2 doesnt come out next year like planned i think it's way too soon. XBox really came into it's own last year i felt and it'll only grow with some of the releases planned, i really don't get how releasing Xbox 2 next year would be a wise desicion in any way. but that shit sounds cool!
 
I highly doubt a £300 console is going to be able to outperform a £1500 PC :)
 
some ofthe best games on the planet have been released on relatively unpowerful systems, tha tiz wot counts. The power gives developers more options and chance to really explore the potential, and I believe XBox is the first system that this has become truly apparent, including the PC considerin the amount of time the 2 have been around.
 
Wilco said:
I highly doubt a £300 console is going to be able to outperform a £1500 PC :)
They usually do for at least a few months, but the PCs quickly catch up and pass them.
 
I'd take any of this with a grain of salt, as its incomplete and far from official yet. It is interesting to hear what they're up to though.
 
Anable said:
Why would they take the hdd out? Probably because it was causing them so much trouble early on with the breaking and all. Still though, it's what XBox Live lives off of. I can't see it being as good of a system without it. God, how I loath memory cards.

maybe because the console alone is going to be a hefty price.. and with an added cost of a HDD, it may not be appealing to parents? and most teens/kids usually depend on parents for expensive items...

if consoles get more expensive.. as a consumer, i wouldn't be able to justify such a cost.. especially since u can do many more things on a pc..

obviously money is always a factor.. so these console companies better think it over before they price themselves out of the market.
 
OCybrManO said:
They usually do for at least a few months, but the PCs quickly catch up and pass them.

It's usually more like 2-3 years. Just compare the PS2 games released in 2001 and 02 to the PC games in the same year.
 
RandomPING said:
This new generation look like it might actually be able to outshine computers, at least for the first year they're out anyway.


thats pretty much on par with how consoles have been.... for the first year or so they are equal to a moderatly fast PC.
 
RandomPING said:
This new generation look like it might actually be able to outshine computers, at least for the first year they're out anyway.

it always seems like that. Then 3 months later pc gets better games (in terms of gfx and fps)
 
Jammydodger said:
Just found some more info saying that they will be using Three IBM-designed 64-bit microprocessors, And A graphics chip designed by ATI Technologies with speeds much faster than its upcoming R400 chip for the personal computer
Get the full story here - http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/7849191.htm
I severely doubt that, specs like that are so far ahead of a PC that it is just a rumor nothing more. Specs like that would make the X-box cost like $2000 at least.

Plus people would be buying X-boxes and turning them into personal computers since they would be so much more powerful.
 
smwScott said:
It's usually more like 2-3 years. Just compare the PS2 games released in 2001 and 02 to the PC games in the same year.

/me looks at Tribes 2 then at GT3

Tribes 2 looks better.

Anyway I heard these 3 IBM CPU's are very similiar to ones already in Apples G5. If thats the case i doubt the Xbox will be quicker than any highend PC.

Also the graphics chip won't be more powerful than what will be on the PC market by that time, a highend graphics card costs £300 which will be the price microsoft will be aiming at for the entire console. Also the orginal Xbox used a modified version of the GeForce 3 when the GeForce 4 was already out for the PC.
 
not really into consoles anymore, but why dont they just use a processor with some sort of hyper threading technology instead of multi-processors
 
X-FacToR said:
not really into consoles anymore, but why dont they just use a processor with some sort of hyper threading technology instead of multi-processors


pretty simple....if gives them some fancy specs and crap to put on the box.
 
Multiple processors allow real multitasking whereas hyperthreading does not always result in performance gains. Also, since this is a console and not a general-use PC the processors might be designed to do two completely different types of jobs rather than having one processor that does all kinds of work (which would allow more of that work to be done at lower speeds, thus producing less heat).

Anyway, the Apple processors have had something similar to HyperThreading for quite some time... at least since the G4, maybe earlier.

Whatever happens, the big winner in the next "Console War" is IBM... since they are producing the processors for all three major consoles.
 
Oh come on, I find this hard to believe. THREE 64 bit cpu's? Yeah, why not include 5 ATi chips that will be 'much faster than the R400'. Faster? Well maybe that's because it will be released in Fall 2005 (you can probably make that spring 2006), if ATI hasn't released the 400 a looong time before then they can just as well give all their money to nvidia right away.
Probably a rumor.

Btw, I heard the next playstation will have 5, yes FIVE 128 bit CPU's! And for some reason it will still have 3 graphics chips! Woohoo!

Consoles annoy me.
 
The PS3 is supposedly going to have 8 CPU's, I'm not sure what word size they will have but somone told me that the PS2 was 128bit but it didn't help a great deal so the PS3 will most likely be 64bit like everyone else.
 
Maybe they're using 8 small, lower clocked cpu's then. I don't think there will be 8 AMD64-comparable cpu's in there, so if I'm right that 8 CPU deal is pretty much marketing, unless they get a very efficient way of multiprocessing.

Oh I don't know, I don't even have any idea how the current consoles work, so I should shut up.
 
for a console working for one thing \the game\ i dont see how multiprocessors are needed how about a high end processor and a high end graphics chip whoa theirs a concept... i know theirs allot more to it \bang for buck\ but i dont think multiprocessors is a good way out.
 
But consoles have better games

//runs away and hides
 
Back
Top