any notebook with graphics on par with PS3?

Wow, I take that back. That is very nice, but I doubt you could install windows on it.

 

You could run it in VMWare, though it'd run like rubbish and have no chance of 3D acceleration. MS only release their OS for one architecture, whereas Linux is a lot more flexible. I can;t wait until March!

 

I'll be happy when a distro is designed to run on the Cell processor. Keep in mind that the video that I linked to only uses the one central processor core, not all 7. And it was **** peppy. Loaded faster than my M90.

 

Being able to run an OS on my console is not really a factor for me so, it seems I will be getting the 360 although I prefer the ps3 controller =P. Who knows maybe i'll get a ps3 later down the road like in a year or 2.

 

Why the heck would you want to install a different OS on a gaming machine? The whole point of a game console is TO PLAY GAMES. Is this what sony has been wasting their time on for the past year?

 

The reason is...

Its gotten to the point that consoles have enough power and headroom to be considered as PCs and Media Centers. If you can get your own OS in it, you have a much better chance on doing more with it, such as installing MAME emulators, using your own web browser, setting up custom menus, .... like you would on a typical computer.

You can get much more potential out of a system.... it wouldnt just have the primary purpose of playing games anymore.

X-Box had softmods to change its OS so that you can hook up your own HDD to make it into a decent MAME system and media center (watching DivX and such)
PS2 was a bit more difficult to do, but when Linux was put onto it, it got more potential when it was used for emulators and game backups (images on the HDD)

 

Some crazy japanese already hack Windows into the PS3. Saw it at engadget. Anyway, i agree that the gpu of the ps3 could lose to the toplined nowadays. But what it is strong in is in crunching numbers, which i translate into PHYSICS! Yes, everyone would agree that the graphic looks da same and blah blah blah, but that is because the game is not programmed to utilize physics, and it takes time for the programmers to learn to program it.

I say when physics arrive, only system with physics card within will be able to match the Xbox360 and the PS3.

 

No. The SPEs on the Cell lack branch prediction, running physics on those would be very difficult. The PPE could do it , albeit pretty poorly.

 

Yeah,^ and physics could be done on any modern pc with a Core 2 Duo, with relative ease. For example, in Fear, I run the game at medium, but because of my processor, I run the Physics at maximum with no hitch. PC'S have gotten the lead now already, especially with the upcoming Quad-Core, and DX10 GPU'S.

 

Nah, as sionyboy said, physics require a lot more than number crunching. (At least, realtime physics do. I expect it would be pretty powerful at computing *real* physics, but that's completely useless for games where the emphasis is on getting something that's fast enough to stick in a game. And that means less number crunching, and more branches and, well, unpredictability (which is the SPE's greatest weakness. They kick ass at streaming data, that is, data that is completely predictable, where they just have to do the same operations over and over on new data being streamed in).

 

Cool... hehe... guess i better wait for the next next gen.. anyway din find anything exceptional bout the ps3 except for the cell.

 

Are physics really that cpu intensive? Half Life 2 has the best physics yet and I could run it on my old Gateway w/ Pentium 4 m 1.6ghz (700some RAM, ati 7500 mobility) and the game ran just fine, although it only ran in DX7. I had the model detail and texture quality on medium everything else on low, and 1280x1024 resolution and it ran great (The fps stuttered every now and then, usually whenever a scripted scene with smoke happened but it ran AMAZINGLY smooth otherwise). Of course, the draw the distance on the physprops was really short, so that may have had something to do with it.

 

Physics are very CPU intensive, if you want to see by how much.

Go to AGEIA's website, and download the:

AGEIA Reality Mark

And you'll see why the PS3 having the built-in PPU (Physics Processing Unit) from AGEIA, which will show why the PS3 will outperform the XBOX360 when the next-gen game engines (such as UT2007) comes out.

 

There is no PPU in the PS3, Sony licensed the PhysX SDK. Its no different than the X360 having the Havok SDK.

 

You are correct, I was in haste in typing that last reply.

However, the PhysX SDK may be middle-ware, but its optimized to use one of the 7 cores within the PS3's CELL processor.

Only time will tell when the Unreal Engine 3 will show a difference between the different platforms.

 

Gears of War rips apart the PS3 on every level, and if you ask me THAT is a next-gen game. And it is using the Unreal Engine 3. It looks to me the Next Gen war is pointing towards the 360.

 

I hate to say it, but after doing some research, this does seem to be the general consensus. The Xbox's 3 general purpose CPU arrangement seems to be more efficient than the PS3's CELL, which only has one general CPU and 7 SPE's that can only calculate. And one of the SPE's is designed solely for OS security. The Xbox's unified memory approach delivers more balanced power where it is needed (akin to Vista's/DX10 approach), and the GPU also has the unified shaders. Plus, as some have pointed out, the HD-DVD not being built in seems to be a good thing in disguise, since movie viewing severely lowers the life of the optical drive, and of course, replacing a USB add-on is much cheaper than replacing the whole system. And believe me, I really hate to say this, because I'm not happy with M$ at all right now, nor do I want to support them any more than I have to. Even developers seem to favor the X360.

 

Yeah, it might be nice with it's tech and all, and goes a long way to showing off the 360's prowess, but did anyone else find that game simply boring? I mean, I know the whole Alien Invasion plot has been done to death, but did they even TRY and bring any innovation to the table?

I know I'm just one of those gamers that prefers gameplay over graphics. Hell, my favourite game's (FF7, oh no! Fanboy alert! ) characters didn't even have mouths for 80% of the game for crying out loud, and I still haven't found a game to match the excitement I got from working through that game. Not to mention crying at a certain point near the end of the first disc.

 

If only MGS would be released on the 360. I am in the market now for a gaming console since I got my new laptop. Played Gears of War on my friends 360 with a 32" LCD......unbelievable is all I can say. I doubt you'll see the PS3 in any kind of quantity on retail shelves until the Spring/Summer. I'll be picking up my 360 in the next week or two.

 

Yeah, it might be nice with it's tech and all, and goes a long way to showing off the 360's prowess, but did anyone else find that game simply boring? I mean, I know the whole Alien Invasion plot has been done to death, but did they even TRY and bring any innovation to the table?

I know I'm just one of those gamers that prefers gameplay over graphics.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you even play the game? Judging by your post I would assume you just read a review or saw someone playing it.

It's the cover oriented gameplay, not the graphics (okay well the graphics are also some of the best around), that set Gears apart from all that have come before it. I honestly didn't like the game that much when I first played through it on my brother's 360, but once you get the controls down (don't try to learn them when you're under the influence) it's the best friggin game around. The lead developer also said that Gears only uses about 40% of the 360's true power so I will hope to see more physics oriented gameplay in the sequel.

Also the locust arent aliens, they're mole people.


Hell, my favourite game's (FF7, oh no! Fanboy alert! ) characters didn't even have mouths for 80% of the game for crying out loud, and I still haven't found a game to match the excitement I got from working through that game. Not to mention crying at a certain point near the end of the first disc.


I will agree, I loved FF7 (more for story then gameplay) and hate all of the sequels (games with pretty graphics and stories that try so hard to top FF7 that they fail miserably while leeching off the Final Fantasy name)

 

To me, Gears if Extremely fun. Played it at a friends house, and I was blown away by the graphics, sound, and sheer intensity of the battles. Your heart starts pounding when you hear all the locust, you squeeze your controller, and you get ready to dish out some justice. Not to mention the blood looks awsome, and the MP is insane. I played Resistance Fall of Man as well, and while I think it is good, it no way matches Gears quality wise. The graphics are a step down, in my opinion, and after playing Gears, it just feels generic and boring. Plus, Gears of War's active reload system is ingenius. Now instead of waiting for your weapon to reload, you a part of the expierence. LOL, you can never say "Caught Reloading" again, because it would be your fault you didn't reload fast enough. And Sylvain, I hear you man, FF7 was a great game, had so much fun playing it. Kind of ashamed to admit it, but I got pretty emotional during that game especially when *spoilers*









Sephiroth killed Yufie (I think that's her name)






*End Spoilers*

I know I didn't have to put the spoiler alert because every one has played FF7, but you never know...

 

FF7 is going to be back on the PS3.

Thats going to be the time when i'll get a PS3.

 

MGS4 and GT5 make me lean toward the PS3 still. There are just no must-have games for the X360 as far as I'm concerned, even if it is technically stronger.

 

Really? Mind linking me to that info, because I'd love to drool over it. I know they're bringing out Crisis Core for the PSP, I'm sure I'll love that, Zack was cool.

And yes, I have played Gears of War. The cover based combat doesnt exactly stand out, unless you normally play your FPS's in a run and gun Doom 1 style. I've been playing tac shooters for a long time, and in my mind, GoW is one of the weaker in the genre. I just think that the devs went too far with graphics and physics and whatnot and didn't include any innovation in the game. Sure, it may be a fun for a while, but it's not a standout title, not like Ghost Recon, or OFP.

 

Sony loses money making and selling PS3's as noted above, they get their money for the games produced for the PS3.

And yes, a relatively good computer, say core 2 duo 2.2ghz with a 7800gtx should easily be able to run PS3 and xbox 360 games. Will it ever happen?... Probably not. The process in which they render information and graphics are almost completely different. This is why emulators are so painstakingly complicated and why there is no perfect PS2 emulator out there even though the console is years old already.

Technically GPU's are more powerful then CPU's at the moment, however like an above poster, they are designed specifically to just render graphics and nothing more, nothing less. They don't have to process the insane amount the CPU's do.

That, however, may change in the distant future (about 10-15 years). The 2 major CPU makes, Intel and AMD, are eventually going to release CPU's that will do the part of the GPU's. Intel has specifically said in an interview that they are prepared to take on the graphics card industry by having their CPUs do their job AND the GPU's job. I'm guessing this is why AMD bought out ATI couple months back. Heck, buying just one thing instead of a CPU and graphics card? I'll take it. My tower could use the room for better ventilation where my massive x1800XT is...

 

Wrong character. It might've made the game less annoying though (Don't steal my Materia, you crazy dame!!).

 

Yea, thats the death everyone WISHES would have happened!

 

If you are going to talk about spoilers WHITEN OUT THE TEXT! At least that way there is no way people will accidentally read it when scrolling down the page.

 

I concur.

 

Oh yeah, sorry.

 

I just think that the devs went too far with graphics and physics and whatnot and didn't include any innovation in the game.
-----------------------------------------------------------

There are some shooter games where you must depend on cover, BUT NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN IMPLEMENTED LIKE THE COVER SYSTEM IN GOW. You're baseless accusations (didn't include any innovation) and the fact that you would actually get excited about any game coming to the PSP (please don't tell me you actually paid 200$ for a handheld with nothing except badly ported PS1 games) leads me to conclude that you are a sony fanboy who is too biased to know what you're missing out on.

The 2 major CPU makes, Intel and AMD, are eventually going to release CPU's that will do the part of the GPU's
--------------------------------------------------
That would be great. The idea of not having to worry about a GPU brings me back to the good ol days of my dad's 66mhz Pentium system. You didn't need a GPU to run X-com UFO Defense and it's still the best game ever made.

 

Yeah, cause this post doesn't make you sound like an Xbox fanboy at all... or a Sony hater.

 

Oh, bugger, I'm no longer a virgin, I just got called fanboy for the first time.

I own a Xbox1, and a PS1, and a GBA, and a PSP (and an old SNES ), thank you very much. I'm not biased towards any one company, I judge individual systems. And, have you played GRAW? It's like they took the cover system from that and threw in a Halo 2 storyline. Heck, it's got a similar cover system to Killzone: Liberation LOL.

And, I am not excited about one game coming to the PSP, I'm excited about a few. MGS: Portable Ops, MoH: Heroes, CoD, FF7: Crisis Core. Not to mention I can't wait until I can play FF7 and other PS1 games on my PSP.

If I had my way, I would own a 360. It's cool. Just not as cool (IMHO) as the PS3 will be. Especially seeing as it runs my operating system of choice. I can't afford both systems, so I'm saving my money for the system I believe will give me the greater amount of enjoyment.

So, your post leads me to conclude that you are a generic fanboy who is too biased to know other people are entitled to their opinions.

Oh, and I paid $390 for my PSP.

 

I'm not really an xbox fanboy. I was excited to see how Resistance turned out (I love FPS games, so I do tend to lean more toward xbox, but my laptop is my true gameing love), but I can't help but to feel that Sony doesn't what the heck they're doing with the PS3. From what I'm hearing the hardware just isn't as developer friendly as the 360, and it doesn't have the kind of performance advantage that the original xbox had over PS2.

Also, I apologize for my last post, I didn't mean to be such an assertive a$$hole.

 

I'm no language scholar, but is it even possible to be "generically biased"?

 

I don't think he meant it in that sense. More like 'just another plain old fanboy' type generic. Think how ipods are so ubiquitous and you should get the idea

 

I just meant your stereotypical fanboy, sorry for any ambiguity.

 

I agree. If you want to get truly technical, the PS3 is less powerful than the 360. Reasons:

CPU: The X360 has 3 cores, each dual-threaded (for near dual-core performance), that are all general use processors. This allows basically 6 threads at a time doing whatever needs to be done at that particular point in the game. The PS3 has the Cell, which has a central dual-core PPE and 6 other SPE's (actually 8, but one is locked on the PS3 and the other is used for OS security only, not games) that can only calculate info. The PPE is the only true general use processor, and it allocates the workload to the other SPE's and it calculates... meaning it's doing two jobs. Also, I've seen mixed ideas on whether or not the SPE's actually support vertex calculations or not.

GPU: The PS3's GPU is old-school. It's designed with the old way of thinking, where you have a set number of vertex shaders and a set number of pixel shaders. The X360 on the other hand, features 48 programmable unified shaders, which means that power can be allocated by the game-maker as needed. In addition, the X360 has 10MB of embedded eDRAM frame buffer in order to process HD resolutions and things like AA/AF more efficiently. A further issue is memory, which I'll discuss below.

Memory: Both units feature 512MB of memory. The difference is that the PS3 is split and the X360 is unified. On the PS3, the GPU gets 256MB of memory, and the CPU gets 256. On the 360, the memory is shared as needed. For instance, say you're playing a game like Splinter Cell. Typically, there aren't that many people walking around on screen at a time, and physics aren't used very intensely all the time. However, shadows and lighting effects are very heavy. In this case, the CPU doesn't need as much power as the GPU. The X360 is able to allocate this memory accordingly; the PS3 isn't. So the PS3 is limited to the 256MB of vRAM that it has (whereas the X360 can use much more), even if the CPU doesn't need all of it's 256. On the other hand, if you play a game like an RTS, you may need a lot of CPU power/memory to draw lots of on-screen characters, but the GPU isn't really having to process a lot of intense shadows or textures since the camera is panned so wide. The X360 allows the developer to develop the way they want without being so limited to what their GPU/CPU can do.

Developer approach: The X360 uses M$'s popular scripting and programming languages such as Visual Basic an so forth that game developers are familiar with. The PS3 on the other hand features Sony's own proprietary dev kits, which are going to take some time to learn and get used to. This means two things: first, that developers are going to have a hard time in the beginning, but also that later games should look fantastic as developers get more used to it.

Optical: Okay, here's where Sony technically wins. The Blu-ray drive allows for up to ~50GB of storage which can be used for high res textures, music, maps, and all that jazz. The X360 is limited to the ~9GB of dual-layer DVD-ROMs. That's pretty low, and definitely last gen. I expect this will become increasingly more important as time goes on, and developers get used to having all that storage space of the PS3.

Hard Drive: Well, this is a little less important, but I read something interesting online. The fact that the PS3 has a hard drive shipped with every unit means that developers can take advantage of that. They can potentially use the hard drive for caching, which can make more resources available to the system. However, I don't see that becoming that useful considering (as most PC owners are aware), hard drive caching is much slower than actual RAM and can actually slow things down if the system tries to use it rather than the onboard memory.

So yeah, I wouldn't necessarily say that the PS3 is more powerful. That's a pretty big generalization. Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's more powerful. In fact, a lot of the tech is actually old, as the PS3 was originally to be released last year, and not much has changed (besides the fact that they only use one Cell now instead of the two they originally wanted).

 

It's a shame that Microsoft are restricting what sort of software can run on their machines, it has the capabilities to be so much more than it is!

 

a huge advantage for the ps3 is it comes with a standard laptop hd, user upgradeable.

Throw in a 200 gb one if you want

xbox 360 has a unique interface and they charge you 100$ for a 20 gb hd.

 

I have seen that many people ruthlessly and without any background start comparing XBOX and PC and PS3.
The biggest advantage of PS3 is the Cell Processor,
I have read many many articles about it, a project which has taken 5-6 years to complete and which is called "Super-computer on a chip".It has 8 vector processors (one's which act on several registers on one instruction (e.g. can calculate the average of 4 numbers with a single instruction) ) with a very interesting interconnect bus (FlexIO) )
Now the Cell Processor is being used in making radars (correct me if i'm wrong)
It's hardware architecture is completely different with a PC, the Cell Processor simply dies under everyday work(it has a very weak general-purpose CPU)
So comparing the components (without a clue is too wrong).

Now the GPU's with the widest bus have 512-bit wide bus (the 7950) (the 8800GTX has a 384-bit wide memory bus) but a 5-years-old PS2 has a 2,560-bit wide memory bus (according to sjbaker).

Also the memory is faster than any usual PC memory,the fastest PC memory is now (i take it) is DDRII-1200,it means the clock is 600MHZ but for double data rate it gets multiplied by 2(twice on each clock -one on the rising edge one on the falling edge - opposed to one on the now old SDRAM) the XDR-Ram has a 800MHZ clock and has the Quad-Data-Rate capability, meaning that if you use the numbering scheme for DDR you call should call it XDR-3200.

So how you can compare these two?
(Also, Cell Processor consumes 60-80 watts (it's still 90nm though) so making "real" laptops from it is impossible)

 

How can you not compare them? We're not talking about how powerful the machines overall are per se (though we have gotten into that a bit), we're comparing gaming performance. In which case, talking about the specs of the machine is not only relevant; it's necessary.

That being said, I have not doubts as to the power of the Cell. But not for gaming. It's a great processor for supercomputers, engineering number-crunchers, and so forth, but falls miserably short when compared to the X360 CPU in terms of gaming. My feelings are that Sony just tried too hard to create a machine that could "do everything well" rather than an excellent gaming machine, and in the end all they did was make a computer with high-end GPU and CPU, but not enough RAM and charge $600 for it... a price that is hard for people to stomach for what is still perceived as a "gaming machine."

 

As said above, of course we can compare them. You're right, the Cell is a small supercomputer for certain tasks, and in those cases, it would leave both PC's and the 360 in the dust.

The problem is, when discussing *games* performance (which we're doing), the Cell if anything starts falling behind. But we certainly can compare them. As long as we make it clear what exactly we're comparing. You're right though, and it's a good point. Unless we know exactly what it is we're comparing, it's meaningless. It doesn't make sense to say the PS3 is a better gaming machine because it has a "super computer on a chip". That super computer is next to useless at games which makes the comparison invalid.
But if we ignore what the Cell can do other than gaming, and compare their gaming potential alone, it's certainly possible to compare them. Just like it's possible to compare them if we focus only on their "supercomputer-potential".

Biggest advantage, and biggest weakness.

PC's can do that too. And the 360. Although they don't have 7 (the 8th is disabled in the PS3) processors for it, and are far less efficient at it. But they still have such vector instructions.

 

Jalf, you are completely right. The Sony PS3 may be good at counting functions and such but in the scope of gaming it falls short to the newest PC's and possibly even the Xbox 360. The second statement may seem a bit daring but I've come across many research materials and even thesis's which clearly show that Microsoft really created the better console as in gaming machine. I see I've fell a bit off topic but I think I made my point.

 

I am not denying the FULL comparing of the specs.But if you try comparing them by only taking some of the specs in view it'll be wrong.(like what we had in winsupersite.com)

You are getting it wrong.The best PC's don't have that much vector processors.
At most (i think 2).
Compare these two cases :
To calculate the average of 4 numbers without a vector processor you will need four MOV instructions and 4 adds and then a division.In vector processors case,you will just dump them into the processors and do the thing with a single instruction.

The PowerPC CPU inside the XBOX 360,has 3 - double-threaded cores.(they are not real dual-core one's like 3 core duo's or athlon x2)
and they are general purpose,it's means to manage a database server a Cell Processor is very weak, but for the floating points the Cell Processor is 10 times more powerful that Core 2 Extreme and 2.17 times more powerful than XBOX 360's CPU.And you should remeber many of the game's functionalities like AI require float processing more than anything,not just a single dumb loop with a comparision.
There is no doubt that the MIPS for the mighty Core 2 Extreme is 10 times more than the Cell, but if you look at what game programming needs, you will notice that it requires strong float processor.
For example to do a sin() function you will need to do it as fast as possible.When I was writing an OpenGL engine as a hobby, I did rewrite the sin() function that used lookup tables.The result was that by storing less that 100 numbers the fsin() (fast sin()) was 40% faster.
And FPU is something that will be almost useless for web surfing and stuff so putting a strong FPU inside every general purpose CPU is something that both Intel and AMD avoid.
The best would be real life benchmarks rather than this stuff because even the Kernel and OS running on each of these machines is different.
Also remember Windows spends time doing many things that are useless for gaming consoles (like the indexing service)
Also the machine architecture is not similiar too.

To be continued...

 

I see a lot of heated debate, but what's the consensus?

 

Buy what you like and be happy with it.

 

That's what I meant.
I was simply saying that the PC could do vector operations as well. It doesn't have 7 processors for it like the Cell does, but it can still do vector ops.
Sorry if it was a bit unclear.

AI isn't fp-heavy, it relies on branches more than anything. A CPU that just processes streaming floatingpoint data (like the SPE's do) is next to useless for AI. Of course it's not a single "dumb loop". But it's still characterized by branches everywhere. If this condition applies, jump to that function, otherwise test for these 17 other conditions and jump to one of another 48 functions. Messy messy code that relies on a good branch predictor and serious out-of-order execution for efficiency. (Both areas where the PS3 has been stripped to the bone)

Actually, no. It certainly requires a decent fpu, yes, at least for the graphics part. But there's still tons and tons of general purpose (primarily integer) code for AI, scripting and all the game logic.

On today's CPU's the sin function is a hell of a lot faster than it used to be. Lookup tables are rarely worth the bother today.

In any case, sin() is not the main bottleneck in game code. There's a lot more going on you need to worry about. Typically, the graphics code isn't even the main problem (because so much of it has been offloaded to the gpu by now). Which means that the real CPU bottleneck is back at all the game logic. Branch-heavy, cache-unfriendly code that's a pain to execute efficiently.

Well, the indexing service doesn't do much while you're playing a game. It only has work to do when files are created/deleted and such.
Of course you're right, a lot is going on under the hood, but most system services are pretty much idle.

It's extremely different, yeah. The Cell is a pretty unusual beast.
But hey, that's what makes it fun to discuss.

Yeah, what Sylvain said. Buy what you like, and be happy. Buy the system that has the games you want to play.
If you mean the consensus about which is more powerful (for games)?
It's a close run between PS3 and 360, but I'd put the 360 slightly ahead. (Which I guess means it isn't a consensus really )
The PC? Today, a fast PC might be able to edge ahead of both consoles, but only barely. In a year or two? The PC will be undisputed winner.

 

PS3 and Xbox360 may still be considered as a newborn and the programming language for them might not be perfected yet. Let's just wait and we ll see how it will go.

 

Yeah, but I like debating with knowledgeable people on computer hardware... .Anyway It's supposed to be my major.(Here in many universities including mine (Sharif university of technology) you choose these 3 majors from the beginning (hardware,software,IT) )

Course it does

I am aware of this one, yes , but I made the engine for an Athlon XP(not so recent)...

I know that,just an example of an extremely nasty floating point function.

The graphics,the physics,and some parts related to AI (path-finding).
I'm sure the Cell Processor Does encounter problems with branch prediction

I'm not sure but I think Cell Processor might be able to interfere with the GPU memory (it's on the same RAM module-the shared memory).

I think the cache unfriendly problem is to waver with the Architecture.
The Cell is designed to have same data rate as the RAM.(I think it was called cache coherency technologies in which IBM seems to have spend so much time to research)
And the XDR-RAM seems to be pretty low-latency too.

I don't think that many games require this sophisticated AI though,I mean in the racing games for example.

Perhaps in that case the games genres on which XBOX and PS3 beat each other might be split between them.

I don't think so ,because it's been a while since IBM&SONY released the complete toolchain for PS3.And it's been a year since XBOX360 was released.
And while PS3 is quite young,the XBOX is a much more classic console.Considering the youngness of the platform and the untrained developer there might be failed attempts at optimizing code for the Ps3.

But the XBOX360's CPU does not seem so much smart either.Just as I said they are no actual three dual cores but three dual-threaded cores.
I think Core 2 Extreme exceeds the Xenon greatly(the XBOX360 CPU - correct me if I am wrong) In preformance (SpecMark anyone? )