Intel Core 2 Quadro Announced Internally

The Extreme Edition 2.66GHz chip, dubbed Core 2 Extreme QX6700, is poised to launch this year in November. Like other "Extreme" chips from Intel, the estimated price tag is $999 for the new processor. The CPU is compatible with all second-generation Conroe-compatible Intel 975X motherboards, but not all "965" series motherboards.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
NextGen24Gamer5852d ago (Edited 5852d ago )

Is it more powerful than the 1 core cell processor with 7 spe's? And if the cell is more powerful, why aren't high tech computers using its tech with the cost being obvously much cheaper than the quad core cpu's. I'm just curious. I know the 360's tri core cpu structure has 3 times the general purpose power of the Cell. So does that mean the quad processor is 4 times as powerful as the cell? And why is he quad core clocked at a lower rate than the tri core cpu stucture of the 360? Anyone who knows please explain. Links supporting your claims would be lovely. Thanks in advance. is a quote from the article about apples 8 processors. Much different than Sony's Cell 1 processor with 7 spe's. You see a Processor has 2 long threads. The cell's spe has 1 short thread that connects to the processor then bottle necks through the two long threads on the 3.2 processor. The 360 has 3 with 2 long threads per core. Much different than 7 spe's with one short thread connected to the one core which in turn has 2 long threads like "ONE" of the 360 cores. Here is a link about the 8 core processor thats was rumored for apple.

Apple's Mac Pro has an undocumented feature: it runs eight "physical" processors without breaking a sweat

DJ5852d ago

Sorry, but none of that makes any sense. The SPEs are independent processors. I've been telling you this for months, but you don't seem to be listening. They don't need the PPE to run. As for thread length, that just doesn't fly. I'm amazed how much you try to promote the Xenon when no other company in the world wants to even touch it, and try to make Cell look bad by preying off of people's ignorance. Or maybe it's just your ignorance; who knows.

This will teach you everything you need to know about how Cell works, and why companies in need of the highest-performance CPUS are choosing Cell over everything else.

DJ5852d ago (Edited 5852d ago )

Quadcore chips. =] I saw that Apple's already getting dual-chip (a.k.a. 8-core) setups on its computers. Now all that's needed is the nVidia 8000 series and we'll be in upgrade heaven.

If you want to know why TopGamer, it's architecture isn't X86 based (like intel or AMD), and only 1/9th of its cores is PowerPC based. Cell isn't being used in consumer PCs because of this compatibility issue. IBM, Toshiba, and Sony took a big risk by starting everything from scratch and getting rid of the problems and performance bottlenecks of old PC architecture.

Cell is VERY power efficient, and runs relatively cool (especially for the number of cores). It also only relies on one transistor type, which simplifies overall complexity and thus assists in chip yields (x86 processors have something like 8 different transistor types).

Cell is a complete paradigm shift in computer programming, though not an impossible one. And it's performance superiority is unmatched by anything in the consumer market. It is being used by the military, in the medical field, and even for scientific research.

Microsoft's Xenon processor cannot boast any of this because it was simply an incremental upgrade of current PowerPC technology (with a few downgrades as well, such as the 1/2 speed L2 cache and a complete lack of branch prediction and branch hints due to its in-order architecture).

Luckily, Cell supports branch hints and has an insane amount of internal bandwidth (nearly 300GB/s). And the fact that it runs off of the fastest CPU ram on the market to ensure that its processors aren't starving for data all the time.

Cell is also being used in HDTVs and high-end servers. While it most likely won't be used in personal computers due to the fact that current operating systems aren't designed for it, that could soon change. IBM, Sony, and Toshiba are already working on a successor to Cell, and that successor will probably be aimed at the consumer market. They'll need the support of Microsoft or Apple, but it probably will happen.

Cell's built for very intensive number crunching (SIMD floating point) which games require an increasing amount of. In fact, a good 80~85% of CPU time is spent on SIMD, not general purpose code in games. And the gap just keeps widening. Luckily, this might fit in with Microsoft's plans of requiring high-performance architecture for its power hungry operating systems (i.e. Vista). And the adoption of Cell-based CPUs might end up benefiting Microsoft, as well as computer manufacturers. What will become of Intel and AMD if they stick with the old ways is yet to be seen.

NextGen24Gamer5852d ago

You have so many lies mixed in there its actually hilarious. People will read for themselves and arm themselves against people like you with knowledge. Pretty much everything you said in your post is the same arguement sony made with the emotion engine. Saying it was 10 times more powerful than a super computer. Remember that one buddy? Some of us fell for it and were angry after we saw it wasn't even 1 time as good as a low level computer. So here we go again. Same ole same ole. The main difference this time is Most of us aren't falling for it. We saw GDC and E3 2006. We have internet access and with Google and Wikipedia we can stay informed. No more lies and tricks buddy. Just because you fell for it again. Please stop spreading the lies and mis information. I give links for people to read and get informed. Thats the best way to get consumers "EYES" open. So when they go buy something, they know all they need to know and don't feel tricked.

People....If you believe that the ps3 is more powerful than the 360 or a cutting edge are in for a big let down.

ps3 has 1 PPU

256 ram for GPU

256 ram for system

It has the nvidia 6800 equivelant graphics card

So if you look at the should use your common sense. Yes it will be a nice gaming machine. But its not a revelutionary leap over anything. It barely keeps up with the 360 as far as gaming goes. What serperates the 360 is it was actually built from ground up GPU and CPU for extreme gaming. The Ps3 was built for blu ray movie playback and video streaming due to the massive floating point processing it can do with its little spe's. Understand the tech that you buy. Reading is fundamental. Enjoy being a gamer. Just don't fall for the tricks that DJ throws out there. Read Read Read....

DJ5852d ago (Edited 5852d ago )

Massive floating-point calculations are required for graphics, physics, particle fx, AI, and video processing, things that videogames require more and more with each successive generation. If that angers you, well too bad.

And guess what, Xbox 360 has 1 Teraflop of floating point calculation power. Playstation 3 has 2.18 Teraflops of floating point calculation power. And as the information on Cell states, it's good for general purpose, but spectacular for specialized SIMD code.

It has the best of both worlds.

PS3 has 256 Mb of 3.2Ghz XDR Ram for the CPU, and 256 Mb of 700 Mhz GPU ram. The GPU has direct access to the XDR Ram as well, due to the 15GB/s upstream connection to Cell. This secondary RAM option in PS3 is still faster than the 360's 10GB/s upstream connection (shared between the CPU and GPU together) towards the GDDR3 RAM.

Xbox 360 has 512 Mb of GPU ram, which is used for the CPU as well. This limits the CPU since it is high-latency and catered towards the needs of GPUs, not CPUs.

Sony gave the CPU and GPU in PS3 their own 22 GB/s and 25.6 GB/s connections to independent memory pools so that they wouldn't be fighting over bandwidth and resources. That totals 47.6 GB/s to system RAM. More than twice the bandwidth of the 360's 20Gb/s connection to its system ram (shared between the CPU and GPU, which equals 10 for each. And that's counting both upstream and downstream.)

The Specs of the RSX were run through over a year ago, and by itself can do 1.8 Tflops, almost twice the power of the entire 360 console. It's very powerful, and the games are proving that.

The 360 has many bottlenecks and system flaws, and it's hurting developers. It has a great GPU, but the low system bandwidth and weak CPU leaves it starved for information to work on, and most likely limits its true potential. Low system bandwidth is why the ED-ram was tacked on in the first place, but unfortunately it can't handle 720p frames without chopping them and pasting them back together in system RAM. Too bad.

With unreleased PS3 launch titles already showing a graphical and technological edge over 2nd-gen 360 titles, it will be interesting to see how obvious the difference between titles on the two platforms will be one or two years down the road when developers really start to get a handle on the Cell processor.

NextGen24Gamer5852d ago (Edited 5852d ago )

Everyone can read for themselves and educate themselves...thats the beauty of the internet. The cell has one PPU and the SPE's run off of the PPU. The 360 has 3 PPU's optimized for Game coding. And the cell's PPU has 2 long threads and the cell's Spe's have 1 short thread each going to the PPU. Thus causing bottle necking.

Here are some links informing you on how this works and comparissons.

The Xbox 360 processor was designed to give game developers the power that they actually need, in an easy to use form. The Cell processor has impressive streaming floating-point power that is of limited use for games.

The majority of game code is a mixture of integer, floating-point, and vector math, with lots of branches and random memory accesses. This code is best handled by a general purpose CPU with a cache, branch predictor, and vector unit.

The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming.

Xbox 360 has three general purpose CPU cores. The Cell processor has only one.

On the above link look at the diagram of the Ps3's architechture. You will notice that the Spe's all connect to the PPE. Then compare to the 360's architechture on the same link but previous page. Its all there folks.

I don't think the Cell is as well designed for game development as Sony would have you believe. Some aspects of the SPEs, such as the lack of branch prediction, make them particularly unsuited to running most game code, which contains a lot of branches. They appear to be designed more for serialized streaming math code, more common in video codecs and audio processing, the traditional domain of digital signal processing chips. The memory architecture of the SPEs, specifically their lack of automatic cache coherency in favor of DMA transactions, seems like a lot of overhead is needed to feed work units to the SPEs and copy the results back to system memory.

The cell has "ONE" PPE. The 360 has 3 PPE's. The Cell has 7 SPE's connected to the 1 PPE. Its not really that complicated. Read the links folks and you will have a much better picture of the truth. Don't let anyone tell you that SPE and PPE is the same thing. THEY ARE NOT. Look it up in the wikipedia. Lots of Laughs. Why DJ continues to lie, I have no clue.

DJ5852d ago

But you never specify about what it is that I supposedly lie about. SPEs and PPEs must be different. They have different names, so it's pretty obvious. =P

Why do you keep referring to Microsoft's obviously skewed article? Even IGN says that it's skewed and full of bias. Trusting Matt Lee is even more foolhardy. First off, he's a microsoft employee. Worse yet, he never worked an any critically or financially acclaimed titles.

The diagram shown there is very simplified, so simplified that it actually leaves out some very important information. The SPEs (as everyone knows) aren't under command of the PPE. All 9 processors are linked by the Element Interconnect Bus, which allows for 297 GB/s of data to be communicated either to each other or out through the Flex I/O.

That's the true version of what Cell is.
And here's a diagram of an SPE.

"There has been a lot of debate about how the Cell will perform on general purpose code with many saying it will not do well as it is a “specialised processor”. This is not correct, the Cell was designed as a general purpose processor, but optimised for high compute tasks. The PPE is a conventional processor and will act like one. The big difference will be in the SPEs as they were designed to accelerate specific types of code and will be notably better in some areas than others, however even the SPEs are general purpose. The Cell has in essence traded running everything at moderate speed for the ability to run certain types of code at high speed.

The PPE is a normal general purpose core and should have no problems on most code. That said PPE has a simplified architecture compared to other desktop processors and this seems to be taken in some quarters as a reason for not just low performance but very low performance on general purpose code. Few care to explain why this is or even what this “general purpose” code is. "

360lagman5852d ago


Show all comments (11)