Xenon(Xbox2) Hardware Overview

[Nearby-Stalker]

i think its time to hit the ignore button for you being a moron. You do know that you can scroll down pages right?

 

[Sicloan]

AMD's model number has no corelation to its actually speed. A ~2800 amd runs at about 2 ghz. So no this doesnt mean its the fastest processor.

And yes IBM's chip in this thing will be insane if its true. The 3 processor architecture will mean some extraordinary speeds as well as some very realistic games. And i bet it will be pushing the 300-400 mark for price range.

 

[sKaD]

i think its time to hit the ignore button for you being a moron. You do know that you can scroll down pages right?

I think you've had too much buttsecks

 

[Nearby-Stalker]

Accually the model number does have a corolation with its speed. The gigaherts of it does not have to do with the speed. It is hard to explain, but the amd 4000+ runs at 2.4 ghz, but it is the equilavent to a 4.0 ghz intel processor. ill try to find the article that explained it better.



::EDIT::
i got this from www.overclockersclub.com

What's up with the AMD XP names?
AMD processors are not named according to the speed at which the processor runs, instead they are name according to how that particular processor matches against an Intel P4 processor. For example, the AMD XP 1800+ runs at 1.53Ghz, but its performance is equivalent to a Intel P4 1.8Ghz.

Here's a few quotes from AMD:

- "Over the past 20 years end users have come to view higher performance … as being synonymous with higher frequency. AMD believes that what people really care about, however, is not the frequency of their processor, but the performance it delivers from their applications. While processor frequency contributes to overall CPU performance, it is not the only factor."
- "To the end-user, the ultimate benefit of processor performance is how fast their applications run. Performance to them, simply put, is the amount of time it takes to perform a given task. With that in mind, the processor that performs a given task in the least amount of time has the highest performance. Increased performance implies reduced execution time. Historically, this has been measured through a variety of benchmarks. When comparing the performance of processors that execute the same instruction set, such as the x86 instruction set in PCs, performance is defined as: The work done by the processor in each clock cycle (represented as instructions per clock - IPC) times the number of clock cycles (represented by frequency)…"
- "PC buyers usually rely on the clock speed (megahertz) of a PC's microprocessor to determine their purchasing decision. Because the industry lacks a simple, universally accepted way to judge performance, users have become conditioned to substituting clock speed to gauge how fast their applications will run."

 

[sKaD]

Accually the model number does have a corolation with its speed. The gigaherts of it does not have to do with the speed. It is hard to explain, but the amd 4000+ runs at 2.4 ghz, but it is the equilavent to a 4.0 ghz intel processor. ill try to find the article that explained it better.



::EDIT::
i got this from www.overclockersclub.com

You need to read what you just posted a couple of times then realize what your trying to argue over.

Just because the IBM CPU is 3.5GHz doesn't mean it's going to be slower than the AMD 4000+

3 core, bigger bus speed, more L1 & L2 cache, probably a lot better chipset, etc..

:fwink

 

[Miss]

Wow Xbox 2 = ownage. The next pc lol.

 

[Nearby-Stalker]

You need to read what you just posted a couple of times then realize what your trying to argue over.

Just because the IBM CPU is 3.5GHz doesn't mean it's going to be slower than the AMD 4000+

3 core, bigger bus speed, more L1 & L2 cache, probably a lot better chipset, etc..

:fwink

i think you need to read what i was posting. I was posting simply that the ghz or mhz of a processor doesnt make it faster.

 

[Codemonky]

Athlon vs Power

Trying to compare IBM Power speeds to a high performance Athlon is ludicrous. The Athlon cannot even hold a flame to the Power5. Perhaps a bit of research was in order. Just for pure computational power on a single core single cpu setup, IBM's Power5 FAR outclasses the AMD chip (funny how you see no comparison to IBM chips in AMD's website).

See for yourself at www.SPEC.org:
Results from the SPEC benchmarks which are pretty much the de-facto standard for measuring raw computational power:

AMD Athlon FX-55 @ 2.6GHz (latest and greatest from AMD)
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q4/cpu2000-20040920-03392.html
SPECfp2000 - 1782/1741

IBM's Power5 @ 1.9GHz (latest and greatest from IBM)
Floating Point:
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q3/cpu2000-20040712-03239.html
SPECfp2000 - 2702/2576