why can't we use some console technologies in the computer industry??

[blurredvision]

I was just reading an article over at IGN.com, and this article compared the Playstation2 and Gamecube hardware capabilites, and effectively raised the question, which is better? A particular part of the article jumped out at me, and made me think. Here is the particular part:



<< &quot;Gamecube's Gekko is the most powerful general-purpose CPU ever in a console. The PowerPC alone is so much better and faster structurally that Gekko not only is much, much faster than the PS2's main CPU but every bit as fast as a 733 MHz Pentium,&quot; >>



If I'm understanding this correctly, the PowerPC processor within the Gamecube is rated at 405Mhz. Why can't Intel and AMD takes some looks at the structure of the PowerPC processor and implement it in their future processors??

 

[ATLien247]

They are... I think it's called Itanium, or IA-64. Anyhow, as long as we're stuck with the x86 architecture, CPUs just aren't going to perform as well as they should.

 

[beat mania]

Its the old CISC and RISC thing. Or now, its the semi CISC/RISC and RISC thing.

 

[vi edit]

If a computer only had to run MS Office, or only had to run a certain accounting package, or only had to run on operating system then Intel or AMD could build an efficient processor like this. But, they don't run only one thing. They have to be compatible with tons of software, hardware, and operating systems. A 1 gigahertz processor would be incredibly fast if it didn't have a bloated operating system, 10 device drivers, and another 10 TSR's running in the background bogging it down. A PC CPU has a far greater overhead than a console chip. The console is efficient because it doesn't have deal with all the things that a normal CPU processor does.

In the console market, the hardware is laid down before the games. Delvelopers know exactly what they have to work with and they can make a game tap as much performance as they can out of the console and its hardware. They don't have to take into consideration 5 different video card chipsets, a couple different sound card chipsets, and a whole slew of other variables. They just go off of the spec sheet that Sony/Nintendo gives them in the developers kit.

In the PC market, you see software and game developers pushing the envelop a little farther with each new game that comes out. The games drive the hardware. Not vice-versa.

You are comparing apples to well...a hotdog I guess. Two completely different methodologies.

 

[blurredvision]

You make a good point vi_edit, but you are missing my point just a little bit. I know comparing these two isn't entirely the same, but in the respect of the structures of both consoles and PC's, they both have a processor, and then have a seperate graphics engine.

When I read that the PowerPC 405Mhz processor is as powerful as a Pentium III 733Mhz, I'm assuming it is in pure theoretical power.



<< The games drive the hardware. Not vice-versa. >>



I agree with that to a certain point. But I beleive that to some extent the developers of the console have in mind what they want, then build around that idea, if that makes any sense.

The whole point of my reply is, is that I disagree with your explanation of the so called &quot;multitasking&quot; of a Pentium processor compared to that of a console processor. The statement of comparing the two processors is based on power, not what they can do.

 

[Pretender]

<< &quot;Gamecube's Gekko is the most powerful general-purpose CPU ever in a console >>

Read it carefully....it's the most powerful general-purpose CPU in a console, not the most powerful general-purpose CPU ever.

 

[blurredvision]

But I'm basing it on the comparison of the PowerPC 405 to the Pentium 3 733. Not on what kind of system the processor is being used.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Console CPUs are purpose build, PCs have general purpose CPUs. In consoles the same instructions are usually used over and over where as in PCs the instructions are all over the place

 

[blurredvision]

But when they say the PowerPC is as powerful as a Pentium 3 733, they are saying that if the Pentium 3 733 was in the Gamecube, the performance would be near equal when playing a game. It's pretty much saying, &quot;if you swap the two&quot;. Atleast, that's the way I see it.

 

[Pretender]

You can't really compare PC CPUs with console CPUs. Besides the fact that they are produced for two totally different purposes, all their measurements, calculations, and benchmarks are hard to compare because of the number of factors required, which differ greatly in consoles and general-purpose PCs.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

But when they say the PowerPC is as powerful as a Pentium 3 733, they are saying that if the Pentium 3 733 was in the Gamecube, the performance would be near equal when playing a game. It's pretty much saying, &quot;if you swap the two&quot;. Atleast, that's the way I see it.

But if you turned that around and put the Gekko in a PC, do you really think it would perform as well as a P3 733? Probably not. The P3 733 is still a better CPU in that it can apparently (minus the overhead) match the Gekko's performance for pure gaming, and beat it as a general purpose processor.

 

[ATLien247]

The way I see the comparison is that if a certain game were coded for the PC, and that same game were coded for the console, that a PIII/733 would run identical to the Gekko. So in reality, like others have mentioned, the MHz rating is not a fair comparison.

 

[Killbat]

Also keep in mind that the Gekko runs in the Gamecube and nothing else. Check out this board design: IMAGE. If you packed a PIII into that type of tight setup, it would probably do better with specific tasks. BUT, the fact remains that the PIII is still using the tired, old x86 architecture. The Gekko is based on the PowerPC (a nice enough chip as is), but is heavily modified for the Cube.

 

[blurredvision]

Well, I now see your guy's points. After looking at the pic Killbat put up, I now understand that the setup of the motherboard and layout of memory, video, and data paths would definitly help or hinder performance.

&quot;I've seen the light. I'm a changed man!!&quot;
- David Arquette, Ready 2 Rumble (modified from the pronoun 'he' to 'I' of course, for those who've seen the movie)