Xbox 360 vs. Core 2 Duo

now i would have thought the xbox 360's cpu would have blown away a 2.0ghz core 2 duo, but i saw somewhere on here that it doesnt, so i was just wondering? heres the xenons(xbox 360 cpu) specs btw

Three symmetrical cores, each two way SMT-capable and clocked at 3.2 GHz
SIMD: VMX128 with 2× (128×128 bit) register files for each core.
1 MiB L2 cache (lockable by the GPU) running at half-speed (1.6 GHz) with a 256-bit bus
51.2 gigabytes per second of L2 memory bandwidth (256 bit × 1600 MHz)
21.6 GB/s Front-Side Bus
Dot product performance: 9.6 billion per second
116 GFLOPS theoretical peak performance
Restricted to In-order code execution
ROM storing Microsoft's Secure Bootloader
Big endian architecture.

 

They are all single core CPUs that are stuck doing things In-Order. You can of course use them as a multi-core CPU to a point, as setups like this have been around for awhile. It's mostly the L1/L2 cache and the In-Order execution that makes them weaker then a standard PC CPU.

 

What is your point?

 

A Core 2 can run circles around both the 360 and PS3's CPU's when it comes to general-purpose single-thread processing.

As always, it depends on what you use it for though. For movie decoding, for example, I think everyone knows the Cell can outrun pretty much anything. For heavily multithreaded (and floating-point intensive) code, the 360's CPU will also become quite powerful, and leave the Core 2 in the dust.

But if you were to try running regular software, from MS Word, to Firefox or probably even SuperPi or similar benchmarking software, then yes, a Core 2 would slaughter these console CPU's.

That's also the case for most current games.

 

My point or the OPs? I believe he just wanted to know if/why the 360s processor(s) are stronger or weaker then the Core2Duos/Quads.

Which I attempted to explain as best as I could.

 

The OP.....

 

just curious...i am trying to see how my vostro 1500 stacks up, c2d 2.0ghz,2gb ram and a 8600m gt, and from what i see the cpu is better in games, and the 8600m gt is quite a bit weaker than xenos

 

I believe there was a similar thread to this around here somewhere. Depending on what's going on, you would probably be about the same in most cases. Of course eventually PCs will overtake what the console can do, but the developers well get more efficent with the console.

Err so yeah, about even. Both have pros and cons.

 

Huh? Unless your PC is running a s754 proc, I'd say the PC has long overtaken what the console can do.

I don't see many consoles with an 8800 gtx in them.

 

as current trends go, game consoles are looking more and more like computers

 

The reason they used those CPUs on consoles is because they're specialized.

Think of having a secretary and an on-site network adminstrator. You can have them process some paperwork, your secretary will do the job faster because she's specialized for that job. The network admin can do the same job, but slower, and he expects a higher pay. The secretary, however, cannot perform the activities that the network admin are performing because she's not trained to do those things.

@ Scavar

PCs HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AHEAD of consoles in terms of processing power. A GF 8800 GTX or HD 2900 XT coupled with the latest CPUs WILL thrash the Xbox 360 and PS3. It's always funny when you think that the PS3 is "expensive". Heck, my cellphone's even more expensive than the PS3. A single GF 8800 Ultra is more expensive than a PS3. Oh, that's the GPU only. Count how much everything else costs.

 

Also console games are highly optimized since they know exactly the hardware they will be running on. When was the last time you updated your video driver on a console? Games for PC's need to cover a lot more ground and tend to be less hardware specific optimized, but obviously they sometimes sign deals to do drivers for Nvidia or ATI. Also the PC will give you a lot more options than a console. The beauty of the console was price to just play games, but with $600 PS3 and XBOX360, it does make you start to wonder. Also explains why the Nintendo Wii did so well.

 

Let me see if I can follow this argument...
So because PC's are, and always have been, more powerful than the PS3, the fact high-end PC's cost more than a PS3 means that the PS3 is a bargain?

I'm sorry, I really don't see the logic of this.
The problem is that a PC can do a lot more than a PS3. And of course, you don't have to buy a 8800 Ultra, do you?
And of course, last but not least, if I can get a console with similar performance for $200 less, how can the PS3 not be overpriced?
It's almost as expensive as a high-end PC, which, as you said, will thrash it.
That sounds overpriced to me.

 

I never said the PS3 was a bargain. Stop putting words in my mouth. And I was comparing a high-end PC with a PS3.

Even a $1000 PC can thrash the latest consoles, and it does much more than what these consoles can do. ATI Radeon X1950 Pro/XT / Geforce 7900/7950 GT FTW!!!

 

the only reason i game on a PC is because of first person shooters. i love using a keyboard and mouse. controllers and FPS give me nightmares. if u would use a keyboard and mouse on all console first person shooters, i would never build a high end PC again. well i might. no, i still would.