Xbox 360 CPU

[2wenty6ix]

The original Xbox was powered by an Intel chip, and i was wondering why the Xbox 360 would not also be powered by an intel chip, it is powered by a PowerPC one. Call me old fashioned but i associate PowerPC with old macbooks, is there any advantage to choosing PowerPC over Intel?

 

[Flour]

What I remember is that those old macs were quite powerful and ran the few ported games better than the windows versions. If the 5 seconds spent on wikipedia are to be believed, the current processors are still quite powerful.

Other than that, it's most likely cost reduction.

 

[Captain_Caveman]

It's powered by a derivation of a PPC chip. it actually has a lot of the same tech as cell; just more robust cores.

via: "The Race for a New Game Machine" (book)

"In 2003, IBM's Adam Bennett showed Microsoft specs for the still-in-development Cell core. Microsoft was interested and contracted with IBM for their own chip, to be built around the core that IBM was still building with Sony.

All three of the original partners had agreed that IBM would eventually sell the Cell to other clients. But it does not seem to have occurred to Sony that IBM would sell key parts of the Cell before it was complete and to Sony's primary videogame-console competitor. The result was that Sony's R&D money was spent creating a component for Microsoft to use against it.

Mr. Shippy says that he felt "contaminated" as he sat down with the Microsoft engineers, helping them to sketch out their architectural requirements with lessons learned from his earlier work on PlayStation.

According to the report, Sony, Toshiba and IBM forked out more than $400 million over five years to design the Cell. And all the while, IBM staff were hiding their work testing the 360 chip from Sony."

corroboration
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16137

"When the companies entered into their partnership in 2001, Sony, Toshiba and IBM committed themselves to spending $400 million over five years to design the Cell, not counting the millions of dollars it would take to build two production facilities for making the chip itself. IBM provided the bulk of the manpower, with the design team headquartered at its Austin, Texas, offices. Sony and Toshiba sent teams of engineers to Austin to live and work with their partners in an effort to have the Cell ready for the Playstation 3's target launch, Christmas 2005.

But a funny thing happened along the way: A new "partner" entered the picture. In late 2002, Microsoft approached IBM about making the chip for Microsoft's rival game console, the (as yet unnamed) Xbox 360. In 2003, IBM's Adam Bennett showed Microsoft specs for the still-in-development Cell core. Microsoft was interested and contracted with IBM for their own chip, to be built around the core that IBM was still building with Sony."

 

[Arachon]

Apparently, the F-35's on-board management computer runs a dual PPC CPU D:

 

[Weaver]

in order processors still suck.

 

[QUINTIX]

It's quite simply, really.
It's cheaper to license. At one point in time a powerful dual core was more expensive than an entire Xbox 360 system. Today you can still spend much more money on a PC cpu than on a console. With a few sacrifices (low performing branch/jump heavy code; no out-of-order; etc...), the PPC makes it possible to get roughly the same raw floating point performance at a much lower cost.

Just think about it. The game console you have in your home is just about the only thing PPC powered in your home, especially since apple through them under the bus. Also, the PS3 and Wii run on PPC cores, so it should also make games easier to port.

Things may change in the future though.
Intel's ATOM is invading spaces normally reserved for ARM (PPC is ARM based btw). AMD has a fairly powerful NEO processor competing with ATOM. AMD also has a 6 core server processor that runs at just 40 watts. So the next generation will probably have x86 cpus. But it looks like this generation will last a long time. In the mean time, its not worth fussing over.

 

[Weaver]

It's quite simply, really.
It's cheaper to license. At one point in time a powerful dual core was more expensive than an entire Xbox 360 system. Today you can still spend much more money on a PC cpu than on a console. With a few sacrifices (low performing branch/jump heavy code; no out-of-order; etc...), the PPC makes it possible to get roughly the same raw floating point performance at a much lower cost.

Just think about it. The game console you have in your home is just about the only thing PPC powered in your home, especially since apple through them under the bus. Also, the PS3 and Wii run on PPC cores, so it should also make games easier to port.

Things may change in the future though.
Intel's ATOM is invading spaces normally reserved for ARM (PPC is ARM based btw). AMD has a fairly powerful NEO processor competing with ATOM. AMD also has a 6 core server processor that runs at just 40 watts. So the next generation will probably have x86 cpus. But it looks like this generation will last a long time. In the mean time, its not worth fussing over.

There's a professor at my university who is CONVINCED that ARM is going to make a comeback for some reason. In reality I think he just likes the efficient pipeline. Speaking of which, do you know how long the PPC pipeline is? I've never looked at it, just curious.

 

[megapenguinx]

I thought it was because Sony had a deal with Intel or something to that effect..?
If not, then it was most likely a cost thing. PowerPC chips may be old, but they pack quite a punch still.