Does anybody else here think sony and M$ would have been better off with a fast single core cpu? for instance both cell and the 360 cpu have horrible single core (without spes and extra cores helping) performance.

one of the quake developers said the 360 cpu has the performance per core of a 1.5ghz Pentium 4 (which is horrible) and cell gets off even worse by being the same thing with only less cache.

If I were to make a game console I would have just asked AMD to make an Athlon 64 6000+ for the machine and get much better performance while being less of a headache for developers.

Developers say programming for more than one core is a pain anyway and provides very small performance increases.

anyone else feel the way I do?

I think MS made the right choice going with multiple cores. Multiple cores allow the game to add more to the enviroment without fear of a core overload and having to switch back and forth between two or more sets of data streams and when that happens performance suffers. At least with a dual core processor each core handles incoming data streams simultaneously to improve efficiency.

The more lines of code added to a game the thicker and thicker the data stream will be.

Single cores would still be around today if they could go past the 4ghz barrier and beyond without overheating and stability issues, but they can't. So, multiple cores are needed to handle the ever so increasing data streams from modern games to make them more indepth and realistic then ever before.

Here is the real problem, the quake developers just don't want to create a new 3d engine to accomendate more multi-cores, because they feel like it's a pain to keep having to create a new 3d engine every couple of years to accomendate more and more multiple-cores that get put out on the market. If they feel that way, then they either need to create a 16 core 3d engine and not have to worry about creating another multiple-core 3D engine for the next 10+ years. Or, somehow create a single core processor that can go way beyond 4ghz while at the same time be cool and stable, good luck with that. Rather the quake developers like it or not this is how it's going to be from now on so they better get used to it or get left behind.

You give very valid points, how about a better performing dual core cpu?

I read an article saying a Pentium D would have been a better choice than the 360 cpu surly a Athlon X2 would give great single core performance for the developers who don't like multicores and for data that isn't parallelism friendly while at the same time offering a second core with the same great performance rather than do something like the 360 does (lets give it lots of extremely weak cpus lawl!) or the ps3 (lets give it some SPEs that are near useless for gaming!)

Here is the thing. The xbox 360's tri-core Xenon processor is a pretty solid processor, because it has 3 cores making up for 1.6ghz per core, and a total of 4.8ghz when 3 cores are being used, but here is your problem. Not all of these cores are being utlized by the game developer, yet. Take for example the Quake developers. If they are only making games for the xbox 360 that are single core then of course one core is going to give you weak performance. Almost any processor clocked that low using a single core will when processing highly detailed and indepth programs. Utilize 2 cores and the xbox 360's performance goes to weak to good. Utilize all 3 cores and the xbox 360's performance goes to good to great.

The Xbox 360 hasn't even begain to reach its full potential. 95% of gaming developers haven't made games that ulilize 3 or more cores yet. I mean, it took gaming developers 2 1/2 years after dual cores debuted to put a dent in the dual core gaming sector.

The Pentuim D based on the Pentuim 4 was a weak dual core. First of all they had to be ran at high speeds just to get moderate performance. Second of all, the xbox 360 already runs hot enough even with cores running at 1.4ghz let alone 3ghz. If you threw one of those Pentuim D chips in an xbox 360, MS would of had to put a fire warning sticker on the xbox 360.

The Athlon 64 X2 is a dual core processor. Now it would have been a good choice, it runs cool and performs well at low speeds, but considering the cheapest Athlon 64 X2 at the time back in 2005 was 350 bucks, The Xbox 360 would have had to sell for 700 dollars at least and that's so that Microsoft would only lose 100 dollars per console, let alone make any sort of profit.

Single cores simple will not work in this day and age with consoles. Not unless you want to be limited to lack of indepth and realistic content. The more and more consumors push for more indepth and realistic content, the more powerful the hardware has to be to meet those standards.

The xbox 360 Xenon has 3 cores each operating at 3.2GHz and has a long pipeline similar to the Pentium 4. developers are complaining it's only giving performance of a 1.5ghz p4 per core because of it's low amounts of cache and bad branch prediction and lack of out of order execution (even the original pentium back in 1995 had that).

While the Athlon X2 did cost a pretty penny back in 2005 Microsoft would have probably got a discount by buying them in huge quantities.

but I'm sure developers will learn to use the 3 cores a little better than they are now like you pointed out Epic used all 3 with Gears of War and that game has amazing graphics but after revisiting them they certainly don't look as good as UT3 does on the pc.

anyone else want to join this discussion? I really thought more people would have got in it.

The Xenon only runs at 1.6ghz per core not 3.2ghz. 3.2ghz is multi-threaded when 2 cores kick in.

Well what does anyone expect the xbox 360 was designed back in 2004. So of course it's going to use similair technolgies back then to the pentuim 4. The pentuim 4 was intels highend cpu back in 2004. If people are trying to compare the xbox 360 to recent pc gaming hard ware, then that's unfair, considering the xbox 360's hardware was designed 4 years ago.

I don't want to get into an argument over the cpu however wikipedia and every other source i've ever read says the cpu has 3 cores each capable of two threads each (like hyperthreading) and running at 3.2GHz each.

from wikipedia "Three symmetrical cores, each two way SMT-capable and clocked at 3.2 GHz[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_...

"Each core of the CPU is simultaneous multithreading capable and clocked at 3.2 gigahertz"

Right from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_3...

All multi-core processors are like this when two cores are needed. AMD Athlon 64 is a prime example of that. The 4800+ means when both cores work at 2.4ghz they combine to equal that of 4.8ghz but both cores are still running at 2.4ghz. This is the same with the Xenon. these cores don't run at 3.2ghz they are still run at 1.6ghz but when both are active they combine to equal that of 3.2ghz.

I'm not trying to argue with you just trying to clearify it.

I wish somebody else would put there cpu input in this thread.

There is one problem with your post and that is that the 360 cpu has 3 cores not 2. with 3 cores 1.6+1.6+1.6 does not equal 3.2

and also my Pentium D 3GHz is running at 3GHz per core not 1.5ghz. Athlons are more or less stating numbers they aren't really are to be able to compare to the Pentium 4s and Ds that ran at much higher clock speeds.

ok ok ok...... lets get this straight.... frankly, proto is correct. each core is not going to share 1/3 or whatever of any core. so if i have a 4ghz dual core cpu which i don't =(... each core will have 4ghz...not 2ghz each...

Mess with the best, we'll put a bullet in your chest.
-USMC Sniper 1st Btn.

No i think you're getting this confused. I never said the xbx 360 only had two cores i was giving you an example of the multipile cores processes.

Godfather I was making an example of a 4800+ using 2.4ghz each that would equal to the single core performance of 4.8ghz in a multi-threaded enviroment at least that's how AMD rates them. I wasn't implying that a 4ghz dual core runs at 2ghz each. if it was a 4ghz dual core processor then yes it would have 4ghz per core, but then again it's all how they are market. Intel does true ghz readings while AMD still does ratings.