2:09 Gundam 0083 first opening song........I have not heard that since the early 2000s when I would stay up until midnight to watch Gundam 0083 on Adult Swim. 5:08 one key thing that is not mentioned. The reason IBM even allowed MS to use the PowerPC processor is because Ken Kutagari changed the design of the chip midway and this pissed off so many people in IBM because all the sales calculations had been made and the change made them earn less money per chip. I think if I remember correctly this is from "The Race For A New Game Machine: Creating the Chips Inside the XBox and the Playstation 3" which I read years ago. amazing book. Also, the orignal plan that IBM had for the CELL was a standard four core general purpose CPU but Sony changed that real quick and changed the design to an Emotion Engine on steroids.
Nice catch on the 0083 opening. I stayed up late Saturday nights to catch it too! I wonder if what you say about Kutaragi was pre-STi formation. Would've been a likely catalyst to stipulate independent rights to each entity. Also I remember reading something about the PPE being rooted further back pre-Cell with IBM in a project called GITS with the aim to develop their first GHz capable processor.....almost Pentium 4 like. I've never been able to find the article again to my chagrin.....
It's shame that the jaguar CPUs held back gaming for nearly a decade The one and ps4 really let down gamers from new features AC unity for me was outstanding but we never saw croweds like that again
Games last gen (Xbone and PS4) really were not all that different conceptually from what we had on the 360 and PS3. The graphics technology is the big differentiator. It's pretty much the same going from last gen to current.
I'm surprised they went with 3 cores/6 threads when 2 core/4 thread processors did just fine for PCs at the end of the XB360's life in 2015/2016. It would've been cheaper, cooler, and likely would've minimized the RROD issue.
The PPE core in Xenon (and Cell) are not really analogous to the big x86 cores of their development timeframe and especially not to those at end of life. Ironically Intel’s Atom line would be a more appropriate comparison from an architectural standpoint: relatively “narrow” execution pathways and in-order processing but with BIG vector processing and clocks that Atom didn’t have for a few generations if not at all. Remember that 3x PPEs + 1 MB L2 cache was roughly the same die area as a single core Athlon 64 with same amount of L2, but over 3x the latent vector SIMD performance. MS through IBM knew what Cell was shaping up to be hence 3x PPE struck a good level of performance, cost, and longevity.
PS3's CELL processor was amazing, but sadly hamstrung it somewhat and too experimental (while the Xenon was more versatile and practical, the real standard set for years/decades to come).
nah my son. I graduated NC state with a bachelors in computer engineering and I did my last term paper on the CELL processor. It was an awful CPU to make games because you wasted so much time and money programming and using the SPEs and because of this only Sony first party studios actually used the CELL to its full potential. It was a terrific and probably one of the greatest CPUs for super computers and parallel work. Remember that Sony, Toshiba and IBMs plan for the CELL was to use it in TVs, supercomputers, computers and other devices and the PS3 was just a way to make tens of millions of the processor to lower the price. Sadly for the CELL all other uses besides the PS3 either never happened or failed big time.
@@tHeWasTeDYouTh Which is why CPUs for today's consoles, PCs, phones, and other smart devices are more closely modelled on Microsoft's Xenon (and less on Sony's CELL).
@@TedShatner10 I wouldn't say they are modelled after Xenon but just off the shelf computer CPUs. Remember Xenon was an in order CPU something that really isn't used anymore and modern console CPUs are out of order (vastly superior).
@@tHeWasTeDYouTh But they perhaps have more in common with Xenon (modular, standardised) than CELL (multi-core and experimental). The Nintendo Switch's Nvidia Tegra processor was what Sony, IBM, and Toshiba was trying to aim for with the ill fated, over ambitious CELL.
The Cell was another league entirely if we talk about power. It’s just not a fair fight, but the Cell was also a nightmare to program on since it was so unique and had so much potential. So the Xbox just had the simpler setup for devs who didn’t have the time to actually learn the Cell
Xenon had some extra resources Cell simply did not have (3x PPEs vs 1x on Cell). Cell is almost like trying to get a graphics processor to handle tasks more suited to a general purpose CPU. Not everything, even in games is vector or SIMD driven. There are certainly cases where Xenon would wipe the floor with Cell, and of course vice versa. Devs don't have endless resources ($$$$) or time to try and figure out a new paradigm that really had more detractions than advantages.
@@BlitzvogelMobiusas someone currently in college for electrical engineering that also studied the cell and the xenon, you’re just wrong. The cell when fully utilized to it’s potential wipes the floor with the Xbox xenon. The xenon had a piss poor IPC that’s why Microsoft clocked it so high AND give it two threads to try to make up for its high latency and low ipc. If the xenon had a cache miss, it was a nightmare. If you would like me to explain more I’d be more than happy to.
@@johnnyblaze9217 Troll comment? Cell PPE is dual threaded, in-order and at 3.2 GHz. It’s what Xenon’s PPEs were derived from. As for raw theoreticals, in GFLOPS yes Cell wipes the floor with Xenon if you can manage to wrestle it out of Cell and choose to do so at the cost of assisting the RSX. From a practicality standpoint Xenon was a better solution in hindsight.
@@BlitzvogelMobius @BlitzvogelMobius, ah yes, the cell's PPE is dual-threaded. I misunderstood your comment. Also, at the end of the console's life, the PS3 devs were struggling with harnessing the power of the cell. Initially, it had these problems because, prior to the 7th generation, developers were not accustomed to writing multi-threaded code. CPUs on the market remained single-core and single-threaded for a long time. They also had complaints about the xenon. Funny enough, the PS3's cell isn't much weaker than the PS4 CPU, but the PS4's GPU outperforms it significantly. Additionally, the xenon was considered a poor chip. It relied on absurdly high clock speeds to compensate for its numerous shortcomings. It lacked out-of-order execution and had 2-way SMT. Technically, if everything aligned perfectly, and cache access was efficient, it could fetch 2 instructions per cycle. The Xbox 360 had a sustainable IPC (instructions per cycle) of less than 1. Usually, it took around 2 cycles to complete tasks due to stalls and cache misses. Let's just say its IPC was 0.5. Microsoft clocked it so high with 2 threads because of this. The X360 CPUs lacked out-of-order execution, speculative execution, automatic prefetching, and had a 500-cycle latency for accessing main memory outside the cache. The hardware design was based on several factors: 1) It was the only way to achieve that clock rate at a reasonable cost, 2) Hyperthreading effectively reduced all latencies by half, and 3) It was a fixed platform, so the compiler should know exactly what to do. Number 3 was quite laughable. It was only technically possible if you had large linear code blocks without branching or dynamic addressing. I would like to remind you that the PS2 ran at 300MHz with a 50-cycle memory latency, while the xenon ran at 3GHz but had a 500-cycle latency. Therefore, if you're missing cache, your PS3 game will perform like it's on a PS2.
xenon was only possible due to the development of ibm power 4 and later the multi million project by sony toshiba and ibm called cell. Yes super cars are harder to drive...
Xbox 360 and PS3 cpus have lot of cores and 3.2 GHZ of clockspeed how can this happen? There is no Power PC and x86 in that time have that high core found and clockspeed like that. This cpu open Leap of graphics even they are more complicated than usual cpu. But i read in some Benchmark said 7th console cpu actually slower than core 2 duo and AMD athlon 64 in Benchmark on that time, if they use x86 maybe development were not difficult like in the past. Also it can easy to make ps4 and Xbox one to emulate last gen for backward compability.
Intel had versions of the Pentium 4 and the dual core Pentium D hitting well over 3 GHz in 2005. From the beginning the Pentium 4 family was targeting high clocks thanks to a long pipeline and Intel's then substantial lead in manufacturing process. Cell and Xenon were likewise designed with a long pipeline to allow for such high clocks which could help with sustained performance and shorten missed branch predicts that come with an in-order processing design. It needs to be emphasized that their processing cores are small and not as robust as those found in a mainstream processing core like the Athlon, Pentium 4, or PPC 970. Cell was designed around SIMD vector performance, of which a large number vector units (the SPEs) could fit within the space taken up by the larger more computer centric cores. The Cell's PPE main core has all the same basic functions as larger cores but features fewer execution units. For example, IIRC the PowerPC 970 core has two integer units were the PPE has one. The PPE's onboard VMX SIMD vector unit is the one thing where it's on theoretical equal terms, since that kind of performance is crucial to a machine that is spending alot of time crunching numbers for game processing. In the Xenon's case, it ditched the outboard independent vector units found on Cell for three total PPE cores instead of one. The three PPE cores when utilized fully in concert could easily beat the Core 2 Duo or Athlon x2 in scenarios that are SIMD vector performance heavy. But the lack of as robust branch prediction, integer processing, and other problems could create bottlenecks in certain processing scenarios. Plus the consoles were RAM and GPU limited to a great degree as PC GPUs kept advancing.
@@BlitzvogelMobius yes but this monster cpu for console is 3.2ghz on 3 cores and 8 cores, also consume 90 Watt tdp. and And Pentium 4 3ghz only one core and consume 90watt power. Plus this cpu can survive for 11 year and still can handle some modern games. X360 and cell cpu was Made by IBM, but no IBM cpu on Apple hit 3.2 GHz.
@@kusumayogi7956 Like I said, it comes down to size and capability of the cores. PC CPU cores emphasize good performance in alot of scenarios which makes them big and power hungry. The Cell and Xenon feature a more defined set of capabilities necessary for a console, but poor for a PC. Comparing CPUs and GPUs is a similar exercise in defining capabilities and silicon around specific tasks. CPUs now have wide SIMD capabilities made for very large and/or precise calculations up to 256 bits in a single cycle (depending on function) or can likewise split that 256 value into multiple 128/64/32 bit values to run all in parallel. The ability to run proper 256 bit precision requires a *poop* ton of transistors, alot more than GPU's that instead have multiple smaller SIMD units more attuned to running graphics in real-time.
@@BlitzvogelMobius i think your theory is right, i found interesting blog about Xbox 360 Xenon Processor vs core 2 duo Benchmark www.primatelabs.com/blog/2007/08/xbox-360-performance-august-2007/ This is the article. But man, if you said Cell and Xenon were good for consoles and bad for PC. But how Cell Processor can powering Linux PC and make super cluster supercomputer????
@@kusumayogi7956 The calculations being ran on those clusters were very SIMD vector performance centric, exactly Cell's strength while having access to oodles of memory. However, keeping the Cell processors under control and fully utilized in the big supercomputers required pairing them up with general CPUs to make up for what they lacked in terms of general CPU performance. These days, GPUs have taken over where Cell made some pioneering efforts. As for running Linux on PS3, like I said earlier, the Cell PPE core has technically everything needed to run an OS and desktop environment. However such an environment requires a certain dynamicism in data read and writing to memory (and lots of memory in general) that PC centric CPUs are better at. Cell required alot of hands on control of memory and data flow to keep the SPEs fed correctly and a game environment is fairly predictable in terms of a maximum scope and what pieces of data are going to be needed. Couple this with the PPE having to be used for SPE control (which are not useful for anything non-SIMD centric) and you have a memory data flow disaster that shits all over the PPE's basic load/store unit. A desktop environment requires alot of different capabilities to operate at once, like running multiple webpages with alot of interactivity and even data streams while perhaps running calc software and whatever else on the side while also making speculative executions as to what pieces of data might be needed next. The flip side is that Cell can do a bunch of SIMD vector type tasks at once, like handle multipe media decodes, but this capability really was best demonstrated in Cell derived products like SPURSengine that were just SPE arrays paired to x86 CPUs to feed and control them. Cell really needed two PPEs or a more robust PPE in general. But that would've undermined it's cost effectiveness at doing what it was originally intended for by making the chip bigger and more expensive to manufacture.
best video on xbox 360(vs ps3) processor ever, i've read so many articles but can't find accurate video..
Underrated video!
The God himself is here.
Hell yeah for the Gundam Stardust memories song playing at 2:00
2:09 Gundam 0083 first opening song........I have not heard that since the early 2000s when I would stay up until midnight to watch Gundam 0083 on Adult Swim. 5:08 one key thing that is not mentioned. The reason IBM even allowed MS to use the PowerPC processor is because Ken Kutagari changed the design of the chip midway and this pissed off so many people in IBM because all the sales calculations had been made and the change made them earn less money per chip. I think if I remember correctly this is from "The Race For A New Game Machine: Creating the Chips Inside the XBox and the Playstation 3" which I read years ago. amazing book. Also, the orignal plan that IBM had for the CELL was a standard four core general purpose CPU but Sony changed that real quick and changed the design to an Emotion Engine on steroids.
Nice catch on the 0083 opening. I stayed up late Saturday nights to catch it too!
I wonder if what you say about Kutaragi was pre-STi formation. Would've been a likely catalyst to stipulate independent rights to each entity. Also I remember reading something about the PPE being rooted further back pre-Cell with IBM in a project called GITS with the aim to develop their first GHz capable processor.....almost Pentium 4 like. I've never been able to find the article again to my chagrin.....
This video is very professional man!! Mini doco!
Love it
Love videos that break things down! I remembering reading Xbox mag and speculations on Xbox 360 hardware
The Cell is awesome! But the Xenon for 2005 standard was an ultimate beast of a CPU!
Good video comparing this 2 rare and powerful processors Xenon and Cell (Playstation 3)
Man this is awesome work :D instant sub
Cool video, hope you get to 1000 subs soon
Nice video, keep it up
I have an xbox 360
Awesome! I too have a xbox 360 * slim version. Still use it to this day.
FreelanceArt101 same it's still so fub
Wasn't expecting this in my sub box today. How's the new job going?
It's going really well. I just had to get used to being there at 5am. I've never been a morning person :P
oof, well good luck with that and nice vid!
It's shame that the jaguar CPUs held back gaming for nearly a decade
The one and ps4 really let down gamers from new features
AC unity for me was outstanding but we never saw croweds like that again
nice video, subscribed :)
Awesome video
Supreme Commander was the most impressive game to ever run on the Xbox 360.
great vid
That thing was a beast even after a decade. a 2005 Pc would never be able to run 2015 AAA titles like this...
ua-cam.com/video/6Nv4sBCx0_c/v-deo.html
Games last gen (Xbone and PS4) really were not all that different conceptually from what we had on the 360 and PS3. The graphics technology is the big differentiator. It's pretty much the same going from last gen to current.
I'm surprised they went with 3 cores/6 threads when 2 core/4 thread processors did just fine for PCs at the end of the XB360's life in 2015/2016. It would've been cheaper, cooler, and likely would've minimized the RROD issue.
The PPE core in Xenon (and Cell) are not really analogous to the big x86 cores of their development timeframe and especially not to those at end of life. Ironically Intel’s Atom line would be a more appropriate comparison from an architectural standpoint: relatively “narrow” execution pathways and in-order processing but with BIG vector processing and clocks that Atom didn’t have for a few generations if not at all.
Remember that 3x PPEs + 1 MB L2 cache was roughly the same die area as a single core Athlon 64 with same amount of L2, but over 3x the latent vector SIMD performance. MS through IBM knew what Cell was shaping up to be hence 3x PPE struck a good level of performance, cost, and longevity.
The kind of deep dive into hardware that's hard to find.
PS3's CELL processor was amazing, but sadly hamstrung it somewhat and too experimental (while the Xenon was more versatile and practical, the real standard set for years/decades to come).
nah my son. I graduated NC state with a bachelors in computer engineering and I did my last term paper on the CELL processor. It was an awful CPU to make games because you wasted so much time and money programming and using the SPEs and because of this only Sony first party studios actually used the CELL to its full potential. It was a terrific and probably one of the greatest CPUs for super computers and parallel work. Remember that Sony, Toshiba and IBMs plan for the CELL was to use it in TVs, supercomputers, computers and other devices and the PS3 was just a way to make tens of millions of the processor to lower the price. Sadly for the CELL all other uses besides the PS3 either never happened or failed big time.
@@tHeWasTeDYouTh Which is why CPUs for today's consoles, PCs, phones, and other smart devices are more closely modelled on Microsoft's Xenon (and less on Sony's CELL).
@@TedShatner10 I wouldn't say they are modelled after Xenon but just off the shelf computer CPUs. Remember Xenon was an in order CPU something that really isn't used anymore and modern console CPUs are out of order (vastly superior).
@@tHeWasTeDYouTh But they perhaps have more in common with Xenon (modular, standardised) than CELL (multi-core and experimental).
The Nintendo Switch's Nvidia Tegra processor was what Sony, IBM, and Toshiba was trying to aim for with the ill fated, over ambitious CELL.
Heyyyy his back
Thank you.
could you do a "Wii Broadway processor" type of video, please ?
The Cell was another league entirely if we talk about power. It’s just not a fair fight, but the Cell was also a nightmare to program on since it was so unique and had so much potential. So the Xbox just had the simpler setup for devs who didn’t have the time to actually learn the Cell
Xenon had some extra resources Cell simply did not have (3x PPEs vs 1x on Cell). Cell is almost like trying to get a graphics processor to handle tasks more suited to a general purpose CPU. Not everything, even in games is vector or SIMD driven. There are certainly cases where Xenon would wipe the floor with Cell, and of course vice versa. Devs don't have endless resources ($$$$) or time to try and figure out a new paradigm that really had more detractions than advantages.
@@BlitzvogelMobiusas someone currently in college for electrical engineering that also studied the cell and the xenon, you’re just wrong. The cell when fully utilized to it’s potential wipes the floor with the Xbox xenon. The xenon had a piss poor IPC that’s why Microsoft clocked it so high AND give it two threads to try to make up for its high latency and low ipc. If the xenon had a cache miss, it was a nightmare. If you would like me to explain more I’d be more than happy to.
@@johnnyblaze9217 Troll comment? Cell PPE is dual threaded, in-order and at 3.2 GHz. It’s what Xenon’s PPEs were derived from. As for raw theoreticals, in GFLOPS yes Cell wipes the floor with Xenon if you can manage to wrestle it out of Cell and choose to do so at the cost of assisting the RSX. From a practicality standpoint Xenon was a better solution in hindsight.
@@BlitzvogelMobius @BlitzvogelMobius, ah yes, the cell's PPE is dual-threaded. I misunderstood your comment. Also, at the end of the console's life, the PS3 devs were struggling with harnessing the power of the cell. Initially, it had these problems because, prior to the 7th generation, developers were not accustomed to writing multi-threaded code. CPUs on the market remained single-core and single-threaded for a long time. They also had complaints about the xenon. Funny enough, the PS3's cell isn't much weaker than the PS4 CPU, but the PS4's GPU outperforms it significantly. Additionally, the xenon was considered a poor chip. It relied on absurdly high clock speeds to compensate for its numerous shortcomings. It lacked out-of-order execution and had 2-way SMT. Technically, if everything aligned perfectly, and cache access was efficient, it could fetch 2 instructions per cycle.
The Xbox 360 had a sustainable IPC (instructions per cycle) of less than 1. Usually, it took around 2 cycles to complete tasks due to stalls and cache misses. Let's just say its IPC was 0.5. Microsoft clocked it so high with 2 threads because of this. The X360 CPUs lacked out-of-order execution, speculative execution, automatic prefetching, and had a 500-cycle latency for accessing main memory outside the cache.
The hardware design was based on several factors: 1) It was the only way to achieve that clock rate at a reasonable cost, 2) Hyperthreading effectively reduced all latencies by half, and 3) It was a fixed platform, so the compiler should know exactly what to do. Number 3 was quite laughable. It was only technically possible if you had large linear code blocks without branching or dynamic addressing.
I would like to remind you that the PS2 ran at 300MHz with a 50-cycle memory latency, while the xenon ran at 3GHz but had a 500-cycle latency. Therefore, if you're missing cache, your PS3 game will perform like it's on a PS2.
please do PS3
xenon was only possible due to the development of ibm power 4 and later the multi million project by sony toshiba and ibm called cell. Yes super cars are harder to drive...
Xbox 360 and PS3 cpus have lot of cores and 3.2 GHZ of clockspeed how can this happen? There is no Power PC and x86 in that time have that high core found and clockspeed like that. This cpu open Leap of graphics even they are more complicated than usual cpu.
But i read in some Benchmark said 7th console cpu actually slower than core 2 duo and AMD athlon 64 in Benchmark on that time, if they use x86 maybe development were not difficult like in the past. Also it can easy to make ps4 and Xbox one to emulate last gen for backward compability.
Intel had versions of the Pentium 4 and the dual core Pentium D hitting well over 3 GHz in 2005. From the beginning the Pentium 4 family was targeting high clocks thanks to a long pipeline and Intel's then substantial lead in manufacturing process.
Cell and Xenon were likewise designed with a long pipeline to allow for such high clocks which could help with sustained performance and shorten missed branch predicts that come with an in-order processing design. It needs to be emphasized that their processing cores are small and not as robust as those found in a mainstream processing core like the Athlon, Pentium 4, or PPC 970. Cell was designed around SIMD vector performance, of which a large number vector units (the SPEs) could fit within the space taken up by the larger more computer centric cores. The Cell's PPE main core has all the same basic functions as larger cores but features fewer execution units. For example, IIRC the PowerPC 970 core has two integer units were the PPE has one. The PPE's onboard VMX SIMD vector unit is the one thing where it's on theoretical equal terms, since that kind of performance is crucial to a machine that is spending alot of time crunching numbers for game processing. In the Xenon's case, it ditched the outboard independent vector units found on Cell for three total PPE cores instead of one. The three PPE cores when utilized fully in concert could easily beat the Core 2 Duo or Athlon x2 in scenarios that are SIMD vector performance heavy. But the lack of as robust branch prediction, integer processing, and other problems could create bottlenecks in certain processing scenarios. Plus the consoles were RAM and GPU limited to a great degree as PC GPUs kept advancing.
@@BlitzvogelMobius yes but this monster cpu for console is 3.2ghz on 3 cores and 8 cores, also consume 90 Watt tdp. and And Pentium 4 3ghz only one core and consume 90watt power. Plus this cpu can survive for 11 year and still can handle some modern games.
X360 and cell cpu was Made by IBM, but no IBM cpu on Apple hit 3.2 GHz.
@@kusumayogi7956 Like I said, it comes down to size and capability of the cores. PC CPU cores emphasize good performance in alot of scenarios which makes them big and power hungry. The Cell and Xenon feature a more defined set of capabilities necessary for a console, but poor for a PC.
Comparing CPUs and GPUs is a similar exercise in defining capabilities and silicon around specific tasks. CPUs now have wide SIMD capabilities made for very large and/or precise calculations up to 256 bits in a single cycle (depending on function) or can likewise split that 256 value into multiple 128/64/32 bit values to run all in parallel. The ability to run proper 256 bit precision requires a *poop* ton of transistors, alot more than GPU's that instead have multiple smaller SIMD units more attuned to running graphics in real-time.
@@BlitzvogelMobius i think your theory is right, i found interesting blog about Xbox 360 Xenon Processor vs core 2 duo Benchmark
www.primatelabs.com/blog/2007/08/xbox-360-performance-august-2007/
This is the article.
But man, if you said Cell and Xenon were good for consoles and bad for PC. But how Cell Processor can powering Linux PC and make super cluster supercomputer????
@@kusumayogi7956 The calculations being ran on those clusters were very SIMD vector performance centric, exactly Cell's strength while having access to oodles of memory. However, keeping the Cell processors under control and fully utilized in the big supercomputers required pairing them up with general CPUs to make up for what they lacked in terms of general CPU performance. These days, GPUs have taken over where Cell made some pioneering efforts. As for running Linux on PS3, like I said earlier, the Cell PPE core has technically everything needed to run an OS and desktop environment. However such an environment requires a certain dynamicism in data read and writing to memory (and lots of memory in general) that PC centric CPUs are better at. Cell required alot of hands on control of memory and data flow to keep the SPEs fed correctly and a game environment is fairly predictable in terms of a maximum scope and what pieces of data are going to be needed. Couple this with the PPE having to be used for SPE control (which are not useful for anything non-SIMD centric) and you have a memory data flow disaster that shits all over the PPE's basic load/store unit. A desktop environment requires alot of different capabilities to operate at once, like running multiple webpages with alot of interactivity and even data streams while perhaps running calc software and whatever else on the side while also making speculative executions as to what pieces of data might be needed next. The flip side is that Cell can do a bunch of SIMD vector type tasks at once, like handle multipe media decodes, but this capability really was best demonstrated in Cell derived products like SPURSengine that were just SPE arrays paired to x86 CPUs to feed and control them. Cell really needed two PPEs or a more robust PPE in general. But that would've undermined it's cost effectiveness at doing what it was originally intended for by making the chip bigger and more expensive to manufacture.