Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer - SGI

This is a discussion on Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer - SGI ; On 11 Feb 2004 13:22:11 +0100, Per Ekman wrote: >"MS" writes: > >> > Good joke! What was the GFLOPS/s rate of game consoles like PS2, Xbox and >> > Xbox2? >> >> Well, you should learn how to read: ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 55 of 55

Thread: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

  1. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    On 11 Feb 2004 13:22:11 +0100, Per Ekman wrote:
    >"MS" writes:
    >
    >> > Good joke! What was the GFLOPS/s rate of game consoles like PS2, Xbox and
    >> > Xbox2?

    >>
    >> Well, you should learn how to read:
    >>
    >> "The Xbox has 80 Gigaflops of computing power. That's equivalent to the
    >> power found in a Cray C94 supercomputer."

    >
    >It's bull****, the C94 had a peak of 4GFLOPS (double precision, which
    >the Xbox certainly can't match).


    The XBox has a peak of 733MFlops double precision, or just shy of
    3Gflops single precision in the CPU (SSE boost single precision
    performance a lot, but the chip doesn't support SSE2, so no double
    precision).

    The 80 gigaflops number is, as you mentioned, complete bull****. It's
    all from the GPU, which can't be used for general purpose programming.
    It also can't do double precision, and it definitely does not even
    have 80GFlops peak even if it could do all of those things.

    The GPU of the XBox runs at 233MHz and has 4 pipelines. Therefore, to
    get the 80GFlop number, nVidia is saying that each pipeline can do 85
    floating point instructions at a time. I have absolutely no idea how
    they managed to get such a ridiculous number, but it has absolutely no
    bearing on reality.

    At an absolute maximum you're looking at 233MHz x 4 pipelines, each
    capable of handling 4 chunks of single precision data at a time
    (128-bit wide vector) and maybe being able to do two flops at once (eg
    a multiply-add). That would give you some sort of theoretical maximum
    of 7.4 GFlops. Of course, the real number is actually zero flops
    since it's not programmable. Also there is no possibility of doing
    any double precision on this, so it gets a fat 0 GFLops there.

    In any case, end result is that the total processing umph of the XBox
    CPU+GPU is a theoretical 10 GFlops of single precision, or 0.73 GFlops
    double precision. The PS2 gets 6.4GFLops single percision and almost
    nothing double precision.

    > The C94 does 35GB/s on STREAM TRIAD,
    >I'd be surprised if the Xbox can do 3GB/s.


    XBox has 400MT/s memory (200MHz DDR) with a 128-bit interface. Max
    theoretical bandwidth is 6.4GB/s. But most of that bandwidth goes to
    the graphics processor (makes sense, that's where the bandwidth is
    needed). Max theoretical bandwidth to the CPU is 133MT/s and 64-bit,
    or 1.06GB/s. If you could run some sort of STREAM TRIAD on the GPU,
    it could probably get well over 3GB/s, but on the CPU you aren't even
    going to hit 1GB/s.

    > And the C94 is from 1991...


    Err, wasn't it from 1994? Hence the 'C94' name? Still hardly a
    current product.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla 20 yahoo ca

  2. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    Mikael Sillman wrote:
    > -So you think that nVidia has just been lying on it's PUBLIC WEB-PAGE for
    > nearly 3 years without anyone but you noticing and figuring that they're
    > lying?


    So you think that whatever the marketing department says, is the truth?


    > Right...


    Right again .

    greetings,
    Michiel



  3. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    "Mikael Sillman" writes:

    > > > "The Xbox has 80 Gigaflops of computing power. That's equivalent to the
    > > > power found in a Cray C94 supercomputer."

    > >
    > > It's bull****, the C94 had a peak of 4GFLOPS (double precision, which
    > > the Xbox certainly can't match). The C94 does 35GB/s on STREAM TRIAD,
    > > I'd be surprised if the Xbox can do 3GB/s. And the C94 is from
    > > 1991...

    >
    > -So you think that nVidia has just been lying on it's PUBLIC WEB-PAGE for
    > nearly 3 years without anyone but you noticing and figuring that they're
    > lying?


    I _know_ that the statement is misleading and I know that I'm not the
    only one who knows it. I also know that marketing and reality seldom
    connect so this is hardly something particular to nVidia.

    > Right...


    Do your research and prove me wrong then.

    *p


  4. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    "mosys" wrote in message news:...

    > my take on this is:
    >
    > In terms of floating point performance and graphics muscle, the Xbox 2
    > should outdo a 16-pipe SGI InfiniteReality2 or IR3 machine from the late
    > 1990s.
    >
    > Even Silicon Graphics themselves have turned to ATI for the highend
    > Onyx4 UltimateVision systems, which will employ upto -32- ATI R3XX VPU
    > cores.
    >
    > I am guessing Xbox 2 should have at least 5-10 times the graphics muscle
    > of a R300 / Radeon 9700. or perhaps 3-4 times that of the upcoming R420.



    reality is that any machine which run the linux is already
    supercomputer. linux makes supercomputers for everyone.

    also fact that linux on playstation with BEOWULF outperform every sun,
    sgi, and hp machine shows proof this.

    so with linux on xbox this is very true about supercomputer.

  5. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    On 11 Feb 2004 08:51:10 -0800, sgi_tux@yahoo.com (Linux on SGI User)
    wrote:

    >reality is that any machine which run the linux is already
    >supercomputer. linux makes supercomputers for everyone.


    So a POS Pentium 60 PC is a supercomputer if it has Linux installed on
    it? Mmmmkay.

    >also fact that linux on playstation with BEOWULF outperform every sun,
    >sgi, and hp machine shows proof this.


    You mean a cluster of machines outperforms one single machine?

    >so with linux on xbox this is very true about supercomputer.


    ROFL, please tell me you are trolling and you really aren't that
    stupid.
    --
    Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

  6. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    Tony Hill writes:

    > > And the C94 is from 1991...

    >
    > Err, wasn't it from 1994? Hence the 'C94' name? Still hardly a
    > current product.


    The models in the T90, C90 and J90 series are named according to the
    number of CPUs in the system, so a C94 is a 4-CPU C90, a J916 is a
    16-CPU J90 and so on.

    *p


  7. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    Per Ekman wrote:

    > The PS2 does 6.2GFLOPS (single precision)


    Yes, single precision, and AFAIR it's just an theoretical value as the GLOPS
    number comes mostly from the gfx hardware which isn't freely programmable
    like a CPU..

    And the double performance numbers are even under 1GFLOPS/s, with the same
    limitations.

    > which was quite impressive
    > at the time (and still is if you ask me). And IIRC the export
    > restrictions specified systems with more than 1GFLOPS as a
    > supercomputer.


    Wasn't the 1GFLOPS/s limitation not a double precision number?

    Besides this, I can't see how US export restrictions should apply to
    asian-made game consoles.

    Benjamin


  8. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    MS wrote:

    > Well, you should learn how to read:
    >
    > "The Xbox has 80 Gigaflops of computing power. That's equivalent to
    > the power found in a Cray C94 supercomputer."
    >
    > http://www.nvidia.com/page/console.html


    Maybe You should start to think first?

    Lets forget the fact that Nvidia even didn't specify if it's single or
    double precision, it should be quite obvious that the 733MHz Extended
    Celeron used in the XBox in no way can do 80GFLOPS/s. This number certainly
    comes from the gfx hardware which certainly even can't do this (like almost
    all gfx chips on current gfx cards which are even faster than the XBox)
    (saying the XBox does 80GFLOPS/s has the same quality like the "120W PMPO"
    stickers on little PC speakers that use a weak 5V/150mA Power Supply). Also
    one little problem here is that the use for this "computing power" is
    somewhat limited as the gpus aren't as flexible programmable as CPUs. This
    btw is one of the reason that the scientific institutions all over the world
    didn't run to get a bunch of PS2s or XBoxes when they came out but still
    settle on Supercomputers or Clusters made of real computers. Of course GPUs
    can be used for computing tasks but they are very very limited.

    It's typical for Nvidia just publishing a plain number on the webiste
    without explaining the relations. Saying the XBox does 80GFLOPS/s so it must
    be a supercomputer is like saying a 2GHz CPU is faster than a 1GHz CPU -
    both expressions shows a lack of background knowledge.

    Benjamin


  9. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    "Benjamin Gawert" writes:

    > Per Ekman wrote:
    >
    > > The PS2 does 6.2GFLOPS (single precision)

    >
    > Yes, single precision, and AFAIR it's just an theoretical value as the GLOPS
    > number comes mostly from the gfx hardware which isn't freely programmable
    > like a CPU..


    No, it's programmable alright. The Emotion Engine in the PS2 has two
    vector co-processors that does 9 FMACs and 3 FDIVs per cycle in
    addition to the 1 FMAC and 1 FDIV of the regular FPU for a total of 24
    FLOP/cycle@294MHz (which comes out as 7.35GFLOPS so there's presumably
    some issue restrictions somewhere).

    *p

  10. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    "Rolf" wrote in message news:<%i8Wb.2992$cb7.21915@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
    > But Like I asked...
    >
    > Can it make you a cup of coffee on those long nights when playing
    > Midtown Madness 3 Live against the best and the worst.
    >
    > I don't think so
    >
    > Jud


    You haven't heard of the Microsoft Coffee Mate? I hear most
    businesses have them these days.

  11. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:21:28 GMT, "Mikael Sillman"
    wrote:
    >> It's bull****, the C94 had a peak of 4GFLOPS (double precision, which
    >> the Xbox certainly can't match). The C94 does 35GB/s on STREAM TRIAD,
    >> I'd be surprised if the Xbox can do 3GB/s. And the C94 is from
    >> 1991...

    >
    >-So you think that nVidia has just been lying on it's PUBLIC WEB-PAGE for
    >nearly 3 years without anyone but you noticing and figuring that they're
    >lying?


    No, plenty of people have noticed that they are lying. Most people
    just don't care because they know that all companies lie about this
    sort of stuff. Per is right though, the number is total bull****.


  12. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    > >so with linux on xbox this is very true about supercomputer.

    Potentially.

    > ROFL, please tell me you are trolling and you really aren't that
    > stupid.


    Actually it was more perceptive and open-minded than your attitude, but also
    naive, 100 Mbit ethernet is high-latency / low-bandwith 'interconnection' so
    the kind of applications that this "cluster" is most able to run are
    distributed-computing kind of packetized workload, which reduces the ability
    for such system to work with efficient random access to a large dataset
    which may reduce the number of applications such system is capable of
    performing.

    It would make a good SETI@HOME 'supercomputer' fer' instance. But I don't
    think the OP was stupid, but you definitely are arrogant mofo.



  13. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:59:50 +0200, "joe smith"
    wrote:

    >Actually it was more perceptive and open-minded than your attitude, but also
    >naive, 100 Mbit ethernet is high-latency / low-bandwith 'interconnection' so
    >the kind of applications that this "cluster" is most able to run are
    >distributed-computing kind of packetized workload, which reduces the ability
    >for such system to work with efficient random access to a large dataset
    >which may reduce the number of applications such system is capable of
    >performing.


    I am not saying that a cluster of consoles couldn't potentially be
    powerful and useful. What is BS is saying that a single console is
    equivalent to a supercomputer.
    --
    Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

  14. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:35:32 +0000, hg wrote:

    > Actually, every performance enhancing feature of modern processors have
    > evolved from supercomputer CPU design in one way or another. That's why I
    > laughed at that Inquirer story when I read it early this morning.
    > Besides, if I were seller of the future Xbox 2 i would be more worried about
    > the rumour that it has no backwards compatibility with the first Xbox. I
    > suppose microsoft think there aren't enough good games so why bother?


    Well, I think you'll find that the ****box2 is going to be PPC so unless
    they stick in an x86 as well, there will be no backwards compatibility
    unless they can provide some sort of software emulation which will enable
    the games to run at the same speed - not going to happen, because you're
    also running windaz.

    Luke.


  15. Re: Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

    On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:39:00 +0100, Tommy Stenberg wrote:

    > So, we are supposed to believe Microsofts hype, but not Sonys? We heard it
    > all before. We won't fall for it again. I couldn't care less how powerful a
    > console is. Okay, I DO care, but only to a certain extent. What good is


    From a hardware perspective the PS2 is more powerful than the ****box; the
    ****box is just a peecee, whereas the PS2 is a nicely integrated set of
    custom chips that work together nicely. Once programmed properly, you'll
    have a nice cohesive whole, unlike any peecee app.

    Luke.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3