Wednesday, April 11th 2012

Xbox Durango Packs 16-core PowerPC CPU

A report in the the latest issue of Xbox World print magazine suggests that developer kits (devkits) of Durango (next-generation Xbox console), were implementing a "state of the art" 16-core IBM PowerPC CPU, its companion graphics processor is AMD-made, spec'd equivalent to AMD Radeon HD 7000 series, as previously reported. The 16-core CPU is said to have been implemented with a far-sight on the platform's longevity. "It's a ridiculous amount of power for a games machine - too much power, even. But remember, Kinect 2 could chew up four whole cores tracking multiple players right down to their fingertips, so it'll need a lot of power," the Xbox World article commented.

Source: CVG
Add your own comment

93 Comments on Xbox Durango Packs 16-core PowerPC CPU

#1
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
[H]@RD5TUFF said:
And it will still be an underpowered lump of garbage.
It depends on how they implement the extra logical threads, we're not talking Bulldozer here. It's a completely different architecture running on a completely different processing paradigm.

I think everyone needs to stop comparing this to standard desktop CPUs unless you happen to be running a RISC processor on your tower, which I seriously doubt.

Basically it works like this.

Reasons for RISC:
• Small, heavily optimized instruction set executable in single short cycle
• All instructions same size
• No microcode = faster execution
• Extra speed more than offsets increased code size, reduced functionality
• Better compiler target

Reasons for CISC:
• Fewer instructions per task
• Shorter programs
• Hardware implementation of complex instructions faster than software
• Extra addressing modes help compiler

Source for lists since I'm lazy.
Posted on Reply
#2
Dent1
ZoneDymo said:
You know there is more then "gaming" right?
NC37 comment still stands, you are the one who has no point.
In what respect, consoles primary function is gaming.
Posted on Reply
#3
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
A quad-core RISC...that sounds disappointing. I don't know how well PowerPC's 4-way SMP works but that is a crapload of data being piped to a small engine. I hope Microsoft knows what they're getting into.
Posted on Reply
#4
faramir
Aquinus said:
It depends on how they implement the extra logical threads, we're not talking Bulldozer here. It's a completely different architecture running on a completely different processing paradigm.
Um, actually Bulldozer's implementation of multiple threads per full core is awesome - waaaaaaaaay better than that of Intel (it can actually execute two threads simultaneously on the same core; Intel's version ca only switch register banks and therefore execute one thread at a time). It's AMD's maerkting lingo that screwed up Bulldozer, calling those modules "two cores", which they aren't.
I think everyone needs to stop comparing this to standard desktop CPUs unless you happen to be running a RISC processor on your tower, which I seriously doubt.

Basically it works like this.

Reasons for RISC:
• Small, heavily optimized instruction set executable in single short cycle
• All instructions same size
• No microcode = faster execution
• Extra speed more than offsets increased code size, reduced functionality
• Better compiler target

Reasons for CISC:
• Fewer instructions per task
• Shorter programs
• Hardware implementation of complex instructions faster than software
• Extra addressing modes help compiler
.
LOL ?! Can you actually point out a single existing chip with performance in the range of the upcoming console that does everything squoted above ? No, you can't, because there isn't one. Some of your poionts are downright silly ("No microcode = faster execution" ... ROTFL ... do you have any idea how a modestly recent x86 CPU works ?!).
Posted on Reply
#5
douglatins
Hey don't have us pc elitists have a console beat us, we will never believe ans will doubt it to our graves!
I bet it does exist, but then creating multiple risc and cisc procs in a console would be kickass, say a risc for antialising, one for color, one for physics, etc and the ciscs for game normal code
Posted on Reply
#6
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
faramir said:
Um, actually Bulldozer's implementation of multiple threads per full core is awesome - waaaaaaaaay better than that of Intel (it can actually execute two threads simultaneously on the same core; Intel's version ca only switch register banks and therefore execute one thread at a time). It's AMD's maerkting lingo that screwed up Bulldozer, calling those modules "two cores", which they aren't.
Did I bash Bulldozer? All I said is that IBM's POWER architecture isn't Bulldozer and that implementation of multi-threading varies on implementation and that some are better than other with different goals in mind.

Bulldozer has extra resources for multi-threading.

Intel uses unused resources for multi-threading.

Neither of which is bad, because Intel doesn't have to add much of anything to add HyperThreading but AMD gains extra full powered threads at the cost of single-threaded performance (which can be improved,) and die space. (Poor IPC is due to the slower cache and poor branch prediction on a long pipeline in comparison to Intel's current offerings.)

faramir said:
LOL ?! Can you actually point out a single existing chip with performance in the range of the upcoming console that does everything squoted above ? No, you can't, because there isn't one. Some of your poionts are downright silly ("No microcode = faster execution" ... ROTFL ... do you have any idea how a modestly recent x86 CPU works ?!).
Sun Microsystems (now owned by Oracle,) has the SPARC CPU, which runs RISC and multiple threads. In fact the SPARC T4 has 8 cores, each of which can run 8 simultaneous threads per core and runs at 2.8ghz to 3ghz iirc. Now, this isn't a desktop chip, it is designed for servers and server workloads, but it shows that it is possible to run multiple cores and multiple threads per core. Now, unless you have any facts instead of criticizing what I have to say, I recommend that you stop trolling and only post if you actually have something useful to contribute.
Posted on Reply
#7
theoneandonlymrk
its not like it dosnt make some sense either as Ibm need the Ip revenue and are probably more then capable of putting a worthwile processor forth , could be BS might not be , the ps3's 5/6cell design seemed OT Back in the day
Posted on Reply
#8
Nihilus
Rowsol said:
So... high end cpu, crap gpu. Yep, sounds like the current systems.

I thought games benefited way more from a good gpu...
How?? The 7800GT and ATI 1800 were great GPUs at launch. What the hell are you talking about?
Posted on Reply
#10
Nihilus
PC Nerd Denial

Ferrum Master said:
Bullshit... it is a quad core with 4 threads on each core... I suspect a weak performer...

Slide
NinkobEi said:
Well the 16core cpu is likely not the quality of an intel one. If each core is as powerful as AMD's ol socket 939 cpus then that sounds about right
faramir said:
That's because it 99.99% is (too good to be true that is); it's mostlikely a 16 thread CPU, with 4 physical cores.
Yellow&Nerdy? said:
It is 16 cores, but not 16 conventional x86-x64 cores. I bet that the performance won't be that far away from "Orbis", which has a conventional quad-core.
ZoneDymo said:
Bull to the shit, that is all.
[H]@RD5TUFF said:
And it will still be an underpowered lump of garbage.
FordGT90Concept said:
A quad-core RISC...that sounds disappointing. I don't know how well PowerPC's 4-way SMP works but that is a crapload of data being piped to a small engine. I hope Microsoft knows what they're getting into.
Never saw so many elitist whiners in one site. :wtf: A quad core would not bottleneck a high-end GPU so stop talking so stupid. It says 16 cores. In 2005 triple core seemed exotic.
Seems alot of people here want to bash the new systems because they will not be dual octo-core Xeons running HD 8990 GPUs. No crap! Get over yourselves. Consoles will always be favored by the majority of casual AND hardcore gamers for so many reasons.
Posted on Reply
#11
alexsubri
With 16-cores you will need more power...will this be enough to run the new Xbox 720?
Posted on Reply
#12
Mussels
Moderprator
due to people not reading, i think we need an edit to the first post stating its 16 thread, not 16 core.
Posted on Reply
#14
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
camoxiong said:
WOW 16 cores, BEAST
Someone didn't even read the last post...
Posted on Reply
#15
camoxiong
Aquinus said:
Someone didn't even read the last post...
Oh, I just read it and it said 16 cores
Posted on Reply
#16
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Nihilus said:
Never saw so many elitist whiners in one site. :wtf: A quad core would not bottleneck a high-end GPU so stop talking so stupid. It says 16 cores. In 2005 triple core seemed exotic.
Some games can already give quad-cores a run for their money. In a few years, that processor is going to be a bottleneck.


Nihilus said:
...hardcore gamers for so many reasons.
Uh, what? "Hardcore gamers" know computers can do everything consoles can do and more, much more. Consoles are "favored" by the masses for one reason and one reason alone: it's cheaper.
Posted on Reply
#17
Super XP
Filiprino said:
Bulldozer also has 16 cores, with a high TDP :P

In Durango they also have to commit to a lower TDP, so things can be worse.

PlayStation 4 is rumored to have an AMD APU, probably Trinity based.
The PS4 should be based on Kaveri which is based on Steamroller Cores and Sea Islands based GPU (HD 8000 series).

As for this Durango rumour, sounds more like 2 x 8-Core CPU's working in tandem along with 2 x GPU's most likely based on the HD 7900 series.

The difference I believe is the ability for MS to release the new XBOX with an approximate 12 to 14 months head start over the PS4.

The benefits, the XBOX having processing power via the CPU's where as the PS4 having the newer GPU(s).
Of course, this is all speculation based on a number of rumors.

Mussels said:
due to people not reading, i think we need an edit to the first post stating its 16 thread, not 16 core.
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/26730-durango-to-pack-16-core-cpu

16 physical cores, but oh can build on, and outperform 16 threads. CPU's are Cheap now, 16 cores sound a lot more reasonable, especial. When trying to somewhat future proof a console.
Posted on Reply
#18
Nihilus
FordGT90Concept said:
Some games can already give quad-cores a run for their money. In a few years, that processor is going to be a bottleneck.



Uh, what? "Hardcore gamers" know computers can do everything consoles can do and more, much more. Consoles are "favored" by the masses for one reason and one reason alone: it's cheaper.
Show me real evidence of this, and I am not talking the difference between 200 FPS and 250 FPS. I'm not being a snob, I just wanted to see where a 6 core processor has a real advantage vs. a quad core running similiar speeds. Something 1080p related. Again, I'm not being bull headed and anticipate i am wrong, but I just want to see it.

(part 2) This is simply not true and you know it. I can easily afford a powerful rig, but after a hard days work, I like to sit back on my comfy couch, grab my controller and throw on my XBL headset. It takes just a minute to get in a match with friends and I can sit back with the controller. I know everybody here has a boner for keyboard and mouse, but it is simply not practical with that set up.
Posted on Reply
#19
Mussels
Moderprator
Nihilus said:
Show me real evidence of this, and I am not talking the difference between 200 FPS and 250 FPS. I'm not being a snob, I just wanted to see where a 6 core processor has a real advantage vs. a quad core running similiar speeds. Something 1080p related. Again, I'm not being bull headed and anticipate i am wrong, but I just want to see it.

(part 2) This is simply not true and you know it. I can easily afford a powerful rig, but after a hard days work, I like to sit back on my comfy couch, grab my controller and throw on my XBL headset. It takes just a minute to get in a match with friends and I can sit back with the controller. I know everybody here has a boner for keyboard and mouse, but it is simply not practical with that set up.
battlefield 3, or any other DX11 engine, the difference is pretty large.
Posted on Reply
#20
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Mussels said:
battlefield 3, or any other DX11 engine, the difference is pretty large.
Don't bother Mussels.
Posted on Reply
#21
Nihilus
TheMailMan78 said:
Don't bother Mussels.
Why? I trust he did his research. In any case I am confused on why one article says 4-6 core and the other says 16 core Durango. Even if they meant 16 thread, that is still 8 core, right?
Posted on Reply
#22
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Nihilus said:
Show me real evidence of this, and I am not talking the difference between 200 FPS and 250 FPS. I'm not being a snob, I just wanted to see where a 6 core processor has a real advantage vs. a quad core running similiar speeds. Something 1080p related. Again, I'm not being bull headed and anticipate i am wrong, but I just want to see it.
Run PhysX calculations on CPU instead of GPU (e.g. Crazy Machines II). Any game can be made to use 100% CPU and I do mean any. The thing is, that means no one can play it smoothly with a computer with lesser power. As such, games (especially on computers) are always designed to achieve the game designer's goals with as little hardware as possible.

Effectively, you're asking me to show you a game that is really unoptimized, like Saints Row 2.


Edit: It is easy to scale graphic features according to GPU but it is not easy to scale game logic according to CPU. The CPU handles tasks that are essential so to increase CPU load in a meaningful way often means changing how the game plays in some major way (like lots of AIs, scientific phsyics calculations instead of guesstimates, updating more objects in the game, etc.)




Nihilus said:
(part 2) This is simply not true and you know it. I can easily afford a powerful rig, but after a hard days work, I like to sit back on my comfy couch, grab my controller and throw on my XBL headset. It takes just a minute to get in a match with friends and I can sit back with the controller. I know everybody here has a boner for keyboard and mouse, but it is simply not practical with that set up.
I have a comfy $400 office chair. I have an Xbox 360 controller, mouse, and keyboard always plugged in to my computer--I pick which tool is best for the game and use it. I got my Razer Carcharias headset too. I can get into a match in a minute with any game installed as well (currently 55 titles). If I really wanted to, I could grab that controller (yes, it is wireless) and play virtually any game from my bed.

In truth, the controller collects dust 95% of the time. It only really beats keyboard/mouse in racing and platformer games and I do little of either.
Posted on Reply
#23
Nihilus
I'll submit. Cheers :toast:
Posted on Reply
#24
xBruce88x
i got a feeling one core will be for the OS and background tasks/apps along with processing Kinetic related stuff... leaving the rest for the games. this would leave 3 cores (12threads) for games. seems to make sense to me, the other 3 cores could be shut down when not gaming, leaving the one to handle the OS and basic tasks like browsing menus, netflix, always on DRM, etc. would be a good way to save on power. (and maybe less overheating problems?)
Posted on Reply
#25
Shihabyooo
xBruce88x said:
the other 3 cores could be shut down when not gaming, leaving the one to handle basic tasks like browsing menus, netflix, etc. would be a good way to save on power. (and maybe less overheating problems?)
*cough* always-on DRM*cough*
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment