The Consoles and their CPUs

The CPUs at the heart of these two consoles are very different in architecture approach, despite sharing some common parts.  The Xbox 360’s CPU, codenamed Xenon, takes a general purpose approach to microprocessor design and implements three general purpose PowerPC cores, meaning they can execute any type of code and will do it relatively well.

The PlayStation 3’s CPU, the Cell processor, pairs a general purpose PowerPC Processing Element (PPE, very similar to one core from Xenon) with 7 working Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs) that are more specialized hardware designed to execute certain types of code. 

So the comparison between Xenon and Cell really boils down to a comparison between a general purpose microprocessor, and a hybrid of general purpose and specialized hardware. 

Despite what many have said, there is support for Sony’s approach with Cell.  We have discussed, in great detail, the architecture of the Cell processor already but there is industry support for a general purpose + specialized hardware CPU design.  Take note of the following slide from Intel’s Platform 2015 vision for their CPUs by the year 2015:

 

The use of one or two large general purpose cores combined with specialized hardware and multiple other smaller cores is in Intel’s roadmap for the future, despite their harsh criticism of the Cell processor.  The difference is that Cell appears to be far too early for its time.  By 2015 CPUs may be manufactured on as small as a 32nm process, significantly smaller than today’s 90nm process, meaning that a lot more hardware can be packed into the same amount of space.  In going with a very forward-looking design, the Cell processor architects inevitably had to make sacrifices to deal with the fact that the chip they wanted to design is years ahead of its time for use in general computation.

Index Introducing the Xbox 360’s Xenon CPU
POST A COMMENT

91 Comments

View All Comments

  • PS3 Masterbater 5 - Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - link

    I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT IF PS3 HAD A HOLE IN IT I WOULD INSERT MY PENIS IN AND MAKE SWEET LOVE TO IT BECAUSE IT IS THE GREATEST THING EVER. NINTENDO WII CAN SUCK MY HUGE COCK BECAUSE ITS A LITTLE BITCH AND IT IS THE POOR MANS PS3. IF NINTENDO WII WAS A MAN IT WOULD HAVE A VERY SMALL PENIS AND STILL BE A VIRGIN YOU GUYS ARE SO JEALOUS THAT I HAD THE FIRST PS3 EVER AND I WILL DOMINATE ANYONE IN "RESISTANCE : FALL OF MAN"
    Reply
  • Wizzdo - Friday, January 14, 2011 - link

    Definitely a bigger head below than above! Reply
  • steveyoung123456789 - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    your a virgin pussy and if i ever find out where you live i will kick your ass!!!!!!!!!!!! Reply
  • steveyoung123456789 - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Btw your a psycho for wanting to fuck a gaming cousel... smh.... queef!! Reply
  • SilverTrine - Friday, November 17, 2006 - link

    The GPU in the Ps3 is more than enough for what its intended for. Theres no magic in GPUs they're just specialized processors.

    In the Xbox360 the GPU carries more of the processing load. Remember the unified ram that the GPU uses in the Xbox360 is 700mhz fast.

    The GPU in the Ps3 also has 700mhz ram. However the Cell processor has access to XDR ram running at a whopping 3.2ghz! In the Ps3 system the Cell with the superfast XDR ram will do more of the grunt work and rely less on the GPU.

    Saying the GPU in the Xbox360 somehow gives the system is a mistake. What would you rather have doing processing work a GPU running relatively slow with 700mhz ram or a extremely fast Cell processor with 3.2ghz XDR ram?

    However utilizing this on the Ps3 will require more specialized programming, the Xbox360 because its fairly conventional will be able to tap more of its power sooner than the Ps3.
    Reply
  • tipoo - Wednesday, August 06, 2014 - link

    Uhh, "mhz fast" doesn't matter an iota. The bandwidth of that XDR RAM was still 25GB/s to the Cell, it just works in a different way than GDDR, needs a higher clock speed for similar bandwidth. The clock speed was no advantage. And the RSX could only get data back at 15GB/s from the Cell going to the XDR. Reply
  • theteamaqua - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link

    http://theconsolewars.blogspot.com/2005/05/xbox-36...
    i just wan people to know that how bias this site is, i mean this guy has no idea what he is talking about
    Reply
  • jwix - Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - link

    #77 I wouldn't say Anand's article was "full of shit." I would say it was a bit sensationlist, as stated in the Arstechnica article. What surprised me more than anything was that Anand would post such an article, then remove it so quickly. That's not his style.
    Bottom line though - these consoles will offer nothing new or innovative in the way of gameplay. I think I'll stick with my PC and Nintendo DS for now.
    Reply
  • steveyoung123456789 - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    get a life Reply
  • calimero - Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - link

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050629-5054...

    btw Anand article was "full of shit" (sorry but that is the right phrase) and it's not odd that Anand pull it. It's quite embarassing for Anand; someone already told: one thing is to write test of CPU speed and speed of graphics card in games... and another to analyse CPU architecture.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now