Well, i shouldn' t say better....
But more effective.

The differences between VF3 and VF4 aren' t subtle, they' re pretty obvious!

Yep, it baffles me who would think different tbh.

The pentium 4 is a much better CPU all around, better then both the xbox 360, and cell combines, OOO processors are always better then risc.

You obviously haven' t got a clue about hardware ...

Actually the best processor is the G5(made by Intel for Apple), which, if Im not mistaken, is what the 360' s processor is based on.

ORIGINAL: immortaldanmx

Actually the best processor is the G5(made by Intel for Apple), which, if Im not mistaken, is what the 360' s processor is based on.

Intel don' t make G5s for Apple or for anyone else...

I believe it is true to say that the P4 and A64 do more work clock for clock than the cpu in the 360 and PS3.

Scratch that, IBM, not Intel.

G5 is not the best today (it has it' s years) , but you' re right - it simply outclasses P4.

Cell is the new big thing in CPU' s (it' s inside PS3 by the way) and right behind it - 360 CPU ..then there' s nothing .........still nothing ...........nothing again ....and right there that little dot far far away - that' s where P4 is.

AMEN!

Only a true pro would say that.

Lol, I' m not close to EVER being a pro but I do love the series, Especially part 1 and part 3.. Part 2 I like a lot BUT my most favorite part of the game is the final battle against Dural underwater - that right there remains the greatest final boss battle I' ve ever experienced in a fighting game, EVAR!!!

I LOVE part 3 for various reasons, one of which is mainly because of the Dodge button. To me dodging was implemented incredibly well in Virtua Fighter 3, better than any other fighter I' ve ever played... For example, if I start running towards an opponent they' ll often times try to smack me when I' m within range. While racing towards them, when close enough I can hit dodge to sidestep their attacks and wind up to the side or behind them as their moves hit nothing but dead air.

I HATE dodging with joysticks - I LOVED having that button..

While I do like Virtua Fighter 4, I never really warmed up to it as best I could because AM2 had giveth a dodge button in Virtua Fighter 3 and then they tooketh away in Virtua Fighter 4! I still harbor a tiny grudge and won' t let go until they giveth back!

You obviously haven' t got a clue about hardware ...

I' ll help you out to understand,
this following url will help you better understand the key differances in cisc VS risc, and why hardware wise, cisc is better.
It' s in english, and while i understand you' re english is very good, some parts might be very technical, so please post some phrases and i will use an online translator to turn them to polish for you.
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.aspx

I believe it is true to say that the P4 and A64 do more work clock for clock than the cpu in the 360 and PS3.

Very right, however the differance is not so profound anymore, power pc cores have been adopting much the same ideaology and methods as it' s CISC counterpart.

But what' s most important to note, is that the cell & the xbox 360 don' t have much of the same functions of both power pc and x86 procs.

Most important is out of order processing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-order_execution

I don' t have the time at the moment - I' ll check it back later , but tell me one thing - If P4 is better why would MS or Sony bother so much?

I think it' s as simple as that.

on a sidenote G5 CPU' s in every test on the net outperformes P4 (even with much with higher clock speed)

Pentium 4s are very expensive compared to the powerpc based alternatives, well not too expensive for a $20,000 arcade unit, if arcade owners start to realize this, they might start building their own arcade machines and sega could just sell the program.

Many people hoped for an pentium 4 based xbox2, but microsoft was more then burned when it came to the price intel wanted to charge, MS continued to pay full price while watching sony lower production prices because they owned every bit of silicon in the playstation.
For the record, microsoft did go to intel again for the xbox2, but intel refused to produce custom chips of microsoft' s design.
So they asked IBM if it was possible, after all, they did gekko for nintendo.
And they agreed, it was very profitable for them.

As for the cell in ps3, well toshiba-sony-IBM, it was their lovechild, and on paper it looks good, you know a cluster of inexpensive cores to work out complex processes.
But in practice, producing this thing is turning out expensive as it is, and tacking on more functions would make the price even higher.
And the cell might not be all it' s cracked up to be, you need the cleanest code in the world to work on this thing, but that also the same for the xbox 360 aswell.

As for power pc, the code it runs alone has to be very lean to get to the same results as an x86 proc, as to say, you would be hard pressed to run programs written for CISC to run as quickly, like how well virtual pc runs on the mac platform, not only does the virtualization take up allot of raw power, but getting mildly sloppy code to work well is nothing short of a miracle, say if you have one of those nice g5s, and you run virtual pc, then try to run something code intensive, it crawls.

But if you turn it around, and run reduced instruction on a CISC, it screams!
Like when that tester' s version of tiger had shown up on bittorrent sites, people started to notice even slow intel/amd based laptops were running os x very quickly.
But that was also before rosetta came along, and pretty much slowed it all down, and they might have changed quite a bit, who knows really.

But, i should get back to the point.
Even though the powerpc for the mac was RISC it still had all those great little add on' s, but none of those add ons are available in either next gen chip (well some are, but not the ones that count)
They should Dis-allow the powerpc " based" tag because even if it' s true, the stock power pc is just better.

So as far as the lindbergh goes, it' s much more powerful all around.

ORIGINAL: ]GaNgStA[

I don' t have the time at the moment - I' ll check it back later , but tell me one thing - If P4 is better why would MS or Sony bother so much?

Price, in a word.

By the way, on topic, I am not especially impressed with the VF5 videos - they don' t look much better than last gen to me :shrug:

I have to admit you seem to have a lot of technical knowledge about CPU' s after all.

Still there' s no way that MS or Sony made CPU' s that are worse than some old PC CPU.

It' s nonsense.

360 has 3 cores running at 3,2 Ghz for fucks sake :)

Now I' m talking about Console usage not some calculations and shit.

There' s no way P4 is that expensive - it' s yesterdays technology.

...

What the hell is going on in here?!

Cell and Xenon walk ALL OVER any of the Pentium family, ...all over anything else right now.

Is this actually about Pentium vs PowerPC, or P4 and A64 vs Xenon and CELL?! Because if it' s the latter then there are some incredibly stupid people here.

The pentium 4 is a much better CPU all around, better then both the xbox 360, and cell combines

Don' t get me wrong, the cell and the xenos are no slouch, but a stock pentium 4, or even pre hyperthreading, has more beef to it.

Dude, i don' t know what you do (jobwise), but unless you work in a technical capacity then you need to sit down and stop repeating stuff you overheard some console hating PC nut say. I would LOVE to know what you' re basing you' re view on...

I would LOVE to know who has been running benchmarks on Xenon & Cell and P4 and A64 and has been able to compare them. Please, enlighten me...

Firstly, you say " stock Pentium 4" ... but which one?! Exactly which of Intels 6 Pentium 4 processor cores are you talking about?! All of them?!

Are you talking just an absolute stock single cored Pentium 4, or are you referring to a Celeron or Xeon derirative?! Or are we talking dual cored processors?!



I' m not going to go into a long rant about CELL and Xenon because i' ve already been there and done that. I' m not even going to bother comparing them to your " stock Pentium 4" .

If you knew what you were talking about then you wouldn' t be referring to Xenon as Xenon, because you' re talking about the processor as a stand alone die, and over at IBM it isn' t called Xenon. It' s called Waternoose.

Now (Waternoose) and CELL aren' t just G5' s y' know. Xenon has 3 symmetrical general purpose cores, each clocked at 3.2 GHz and CELL has a single core clocked at 3.2GHz but also has seven SPEs with an eigth kept for redundancy and all 8 are clocked at 3.2 GHz.

Comparing Waternoose or CELL to a Pentium 4 or an A64 is stupid, childish and useless. And what the hell does it matter to you anyway?! Xenon and CELL (although less so with CELL) have been custom built for running games on.

That' s their only purpose!

Finally something that makes sense.

Dude, i don' t know what you do (jobwise), but unless you work in a technical capacity then you need to sit down and stop repeating stuff you overheard some console hating PC nut say. I would LOVE to know what you' re basing you' re view on...

I work for the united states navy in bremerton washington, at naval sub base bangor.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/bangor.htm
I manage the xeon based servers whom calibrate and maintain passive sonar units.
Sony has at one point come to the navy and other branches of the military to contract out it' s cell technology.
The navy reviewed and decided against using cell, or any other power pc based RISC MPs.
Partly because we have been using windows based systems, but mostly because they have proven to be problematic.
I will agree that the xeon walks over a stock (northwood, revision C class pentium 4) p4, but cell is not even in the same class as the xenon.

Are you talking just an absolute stock single cored Pentium 4, or are you referring to a Celeron or Xeon derirative?! Or are we talking dual cored processors?!

Well, i would venture to say, a single cored pentium 4 800 mhz bus in most cases out performs the cell by a sizable margin, based on the paperwork released to the company that employs me.
Although i can not say i have ever seen a cell, but the whitepapers seem to place it in scope.

Comparing Waternoose or CELL to a Pentium 4 or an A64 is stupid, childish and useless. And what the hell does it matter to you anyway?! Xenon and CELL (although less so with CELL) have been custom built for running games on.

You might want to revise some of that information, the cell has been shopped around to many places looking to sell it as a flat out supercomputer.

We have an IBM representative right here working on base, who has stated all kinks in cell will be worked out, and plans on getting the navy to review it again.
But as far as i know, there has been no windows server editions written for cell.
And we don' t plan on using any *nix alternatives.

Now (Waternoose) and CELL aren' t just G5' s y' know. Xenon has 3 symmetrical general purpose cores, each clocked at 3.2 GHz and CELL has a single core clocked at 3.2GHz but also has seven SPEs with an eigth kept for redundancy and all 8 are clocked at 3.2 GHz.

*looks over past posts* no, i am sure i never made the connection between the cell and a G5, othen then they are both risc, in fact in my last post, i said they should be dis-associated because a " stock" G5 also whoops the cell and xbox 360' s cpus ass.
Yes, Symmetric multiprocessing is nothing new, however the distiction ends there, in the classic sense that all cores are of equal talents, with the cell, there is one General processor, that dictates 7 very specialized processors, none of any have the ability to self correct, and are unable to make ques of information because the cell is cache-less, so if there is 1 minor flawed call made for any of the cell SPEs, the whole cluster has to shut down for self correction.
The same could be said for the CPU in both the g5 and the xbox 360 core, only both contain cache.

I hope i' ve made myself clearer on my stance on both cpus and the logic of RISC easier to understand in one reply.

Thanks for reading.

I will agree that the xeon walks over a stock (northwood, revision C class pentium 4) p4, but cell is not even in the same class as the xenon.

Strange since most technical sites (like arstechnica) and many experts believe that Cell is the biggest advantage of PS3 Vs 360 (CPU wise).


And we' re not talking about how easy it is to program for but how fast it can go.

Navy refused to use Cell? OK but what that has to do with anything? You can' t judge performance like that.

Because they needed something with massive parallel capabilities, and as it turned out, many people were flat out misled about what cell was capable of.

The navy is not the only one who felt the cell was over rated, steve jobs flat out told ken kutaragi he would never consider using cell.

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/8504/Steve-Jobs-Not-Impressed-with-the-Cell-Processor/

Granted, this is from an xbox page, but it' s true none the less.

" Mr. Kutaragi tried to interest Mr. Jobs in adopting the Cell chip, which is being developed by I.B.M. for use in the coming PlayStation 3, in exchange for access to certain Sony technologies. Mr. Jobs rejected the idea, telling Mr. Kutaragi that he was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC."

As for the navy, the tests indicated problems with memory and bandwidth.
And over all performance issues.

The Cell might do well, but only in the playstation.
That is, unless it' s changed.

I will agree, the idea of cell is really great, but for the most part, Multi processors just work better.

One day, maybe after a more practical use is found the cell will be great.
But as it stands, intel can make better, more sophisticated chips faster.

I might edit this later tonight.

Steve Jobs didn' t want Power PC and Cell because of heat issues.

And it doesn' t matter how many people didn' t want to use cell - on paper it looks very impressive (and P4 is something that no respected site would even compare it to) - it' s not out yet in any device so our little chat is based on speculation - but things you said about P4 and those CPU' s (360 and PS3) are just silly.

Apple switched to intel because of performance/heat ratio.

While true, you are missing the point about performance issues related to the cell.
Although the cell is rare, those who have used it are not giving it sparkling reviews.

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=13532
" Some have called Cell an Intel killer, which is completely ridiculous," said Kevin Krewell, In-Stat analyst. " The only place where the Cell processor can be considered competition for Intel will be where the Sony Next Generation Game Console competes with the Media Center PC."
What kevin is saying, and what i' ve been saying all along, is cell is nowhere near as fully featured as an intel chip, any intel chip.
And while it might not be fair for me to make this comparison, clock per clock intel (or AMD) chips smoke the cell.
Because it' s all those little goodies included in a desktop processor that make them robust and fast.
And while the cell will fill the needs sony has for it' s game system, it' s just no match for intel' s offerings.

The negative press goes on and on.
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2005Jun/bch20050613030896.htm

Now before i say something you will just parrot back to me in a quizzical tone, we have to come to an understanding.

What i am telling you is, intel MPs are battle hardened, they have had years of R&D to come up with something to meet the needs of the consumer, if those needs were not met, consumers would stop using x86 architecture.

Now, on the other hand there are some people who want just that- To see the new age of reduced instruction being the mainstay.
Because it' s cheaper and easier to produce something with 1/4 die, and none of the cache, or built in struction sets, because that would open up the market to other manufacturers, including sony and toshiba.

I am also telling you that x86 chips are beefier, and able to do more calulations per cycle, because those chips are built for complex instructions, and are more hardware intensive.

But on the other hand, Reduced instruction cores are weaker in the hardware aspect, this is because those cpus don' t have to make sense out of all the code it deals with, it' s all streamlined, prepackaged for the core.

You might ask, " Well, that sounds great, doing the same on a comparativly less complex core, why isnt everyone doing this?"

The answer is, intel manages to crank out fantasic chips at good prices.
And while these chips get more and more complex each cycle, intel still manages to make them, and the prices still fall.
And unless you can buy a cell cluster for a fraction of the price (the opposite might be true) intel will continue to dominate the market.
And these chips not only are able to run complex code, but are able to run less complex code much faster, a jack of all trades.

Apple finally broke down, they say it' s because of heat issues, but like all of what i' ve been saying, it' s getting harder and harder to resist intel.
The constraints of having to watch your code carefully was getting expensive for apple.
I mean, why not use what everyone else is using?
It' s obvious your production cycles will be split in half, you will get greater performance.
So they broke down.
Nomatter how well the ipod is going for apple, the onset of inexpensive vendors was cutting into apple.
The company was, and still is recovering from a huge financial debt.
And going intel saves them loads of money.

Then, there is the microsoft factor.
The reason apple users stay with apple is because they,
1)look pretty
2)are not windows based.
Now windows has been a running joke to the apple elite, but the word on apple campus is that windows might be maturing, getting better.
And if vista turns out really great, people will want to use it.
And will forsake apple because it sticks to non standard hardware, there is no way microsoft would rewrite vista for power pc.
That too influanced apple.



Also, i am glad you found this amusing.
It' s not every day i get to talk about the complexity of microprocessors to a complete stranger, and i hope you' ve learned something about what i' ve said.
Because you' ve taught me allot about how people think.