I'm sure developers would be happier with a lower core count in exchange for higher performing cores, memory bandwidth, memory capacity, etc. Not to pre judge, but 16 cores sounds a lot like the PS3's "cores", where the 6 available SPEs really can't do anything with the PPE.
- Status
fil1p
Distinguished
- Nov 29, 2010
- 944
- 0
- 19,360
Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember the PS3 was not the most attractive console PRICE wise when it came out. Now a 16 core CPU in a new xbox, well that would end up in a similar situation as the PS3 did when it first came out. The point of consoles is that they are affordable, and 16 cores= a lot of $$$.
[citation][nom]fil1p[/nom]Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember the PS3 was not the most attractive console PRICE wise when it came out. Now a 16 core CPU in a new xbox, well that would end up in a similar situation as the PS3 did when it first came out. The point of consoles is that they are affordable, and 16 cores= a lot of $$$.[/citation]
Depends, 16 Cortex A15 cores would be cheaper than a AMD APU for instance...Depends on how high performance the cores are.
Depends, 16 Cortex A15 cores would be cheaper than a AMD APU for instance...Depends on how high performance the cores are.
sweatlaserxp
Distinguished
- Sep 7, 2003
- 965
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]molo9000[/nom]The PS3 technically had 8 cores, so 16 cores isn't that outlandish.[/citation]
Well... the PS3 has a single, dual-threaded, symmetrical core, and a bunch of asymmetrical SPE's. I could be wrong but I highly doubt that one SPE takes up anywhere near the die space of a conventional CPU.
Well... the PS3 has a single, dual-threaded, symmetrical core, and a bunch of asymmetrical SPE's. I could be wrong but I highly doubt that one SPE takes up anywhere near the die space of a conventional CPU.
The first commercial video of the console was leaked on YouTube on May 1, 2012.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqrDAPRAg0k&hd=1
bigdog44
Honorable
- Apr 6, 2012
- 167
- 0
- 10,680
[citation][nom]PCgamer81[/nom]It's GPU is going to be based off of the...wait for it...6670!!!!!There are mid-range notebooks with more oomph!AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!![/citation]
"based" on HD6670. That's only considering raw specs, and there's supposed to be 2 of these cores, so 960 spu's(480x2), but instead of 48 TU's(24x2), probably 64. ROP count is probably 24 instead of 16(8x2). It would also have 2x Geom/Tess Engines. More than enough for smooth 1080p 3D gaming.
"based" on HD6670. That's only considering raw specs, and there's supposed to be 2 of these cores, so 960 spu's(480x2), but instead of 48 TU's(24x2), probably 64. ROP count is probably 24 instead of 16(8x2). It would also have 2x Geom/Tess Engines. More than enough for smooth 1080p 3D gaming.
stusmygsgbrd
Honorable
- Apr 14, 2012
- 3
- 0
- 10,510
Hello again, read all the comments, couldn't see one that related to mine, but seems some of you were interested, so to ramble on again, went to market, saw 8Gb single stick 1.6Ghz RAM for $85. Quad black edition APU for $ 125, heard that the 32Gb flash micro SD I bought for $35 costs $2.54 for the chip wholesale, now the guy who says 40 nm, may I point out 28 nm is rolling off the production line right now so 22nm in 18 months is no stretch. The smaller the resolution, the lower the voltage you can get away with and thus, the lower the heating per core, per frequency. When 22nm comes out I'll be going 8 core, already I can go 8 core, but at 40nm, the power drain, heating is more than I want to risk, I'm going APU because of the inbuilt gpus, and at black ed, the cache is 6 times greater than on my amd AII X4, the advantage of inbuilt gpus is the vast reduction in fetch carry between CPU gpu, this coupled with the extra cache, means a better visual / computational outcome. At least at core, further out faster and more RAM, eg. ddr3 1.6Ghz, gddr5 2.4 to 4Ghz, will help, eventually I want to go to 16 Gb 1.6 Ghz RAM (ddr3,) 2Gb 2.4Ghz gddr5 RAM, 2,000 gpus. Actually I'm not even a gamer, just a network administrator, with most of dip elect comp tech, which is why I like large fast cache/RAM, SATA3, 64 bit, and flash speed boost on my consumer partition. Planning to run SQL 12, sys ctr 12, sharepoint server on my desktop, new hardware $330, software $15 (free evaluation edition on dvd burned at local computer shop.) Don't have a landline, but getting 9Gb p/m for $34 on mobile broadband, even the poor can load cloud servers at home, but soon we will reach the limits of physics on electronics and will have to move to optical systems. By 2018 there'll be 4 billion 3d ultra def tabs, already I have a high def 3d smartphone, they only cost $350, this kind of bandwidth/download demand is why my country is spending $35 billion on optic fibre to the home, remember it takes 128Gb for 1 UD3D movie, 2.5 blue ray dvds, one eighth of a green ray. Looking forward to $200 quad core asus Jelly Bean nexus tabs, in a couple of months, sorry if you don't like techno bable but some people apparently do.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]stusmygsgbrd[/nom]Hello again, read all the comments, couldn't see one that related to mine, but seems some of you were interested, so to ramble on again, went to market, saw 8Gb single stick 1.6Ghz RAM for $85. Quad black edition APU for $ 125, heard that the 32Gb flash micro SD I bought for $35 costs $2.54 for the chip wholesale, now the guy who says 40 nm, may I point out 28 nm is rolling off the production line right now so 22nm in 18 months is no stretch. The smaller the resolution, the lower the voltage you can get away with and thus, the lower the heating per core, per frequency. When 22nm comes out I'll be going 8 core, already I can go 8 core, but at 40nm, the power drain, heating is more than I want to risk, I'm going APU because of the inbuilt gpus, and at black ed, the cache is 6 times greater than on my amd AII X4, the advantage of inbuilt gpus is the vast reduction in fetch carry between CPU gpu, this coupled with the extra cache, means a better visual / computational outcome. At least at core, further out faster and more RAM, eg. ddr3 1.6Ghz, gddr5 2.4 to 4Ghz, will help, eventually I want to go to 16 Gb 1.6 Ghz RAM (ddr3,) 2Gb 2.4Ghz gddr5 RAM, 2,000 gpus. Actually I'm not even a gamer, just a network administrator, with most of dip elect comp tech, which is why I like large fast cache/RAM, SATA3, 64 bit, and flash speed boost on my consumer partition. Planning to run SQL 12, sys ctr 12, sharepoint server on my desktop, new hardware $330, software $15 (free evaluation edition on dvd burned at local computer shop.) Don't have a landline, but getting 9Gb p/m for $34 on mobile broadband, even the poor can load cloud servers at home, but soon we will reach the limits of physics on electronics and will have to move to optical systems. By 2018 there'll be 4 billion 3d ultra def tabs, already I have a high def 3d smartphone, they only cost $350, this kind of bandwidth/download demand is why my country is spending $35 billion on optic fibre to the home, remember it takes 128Gb for 1 UD3D movie, 2.5 blue ray dvds, one eighth of a green ray. Looking forward to $200 quad core asus Jelly Bean nexus tabs, in a couple of months, sorry if you don't like techno bable but some people apparently do.[/citation]
$60 graphics cards can fly past the fastest integrated graphics in visual and compute performance. The lower latency is trivial for most work. The APUs only have up to 4MB of L2 cache (1MB per core, not shared, in the top models) and the Athlon IIs have the same amount of cache per core as the Llano (some have 521KB of L2, some have 1MB of L2, they all have the same amount of L1. 1MB per core is the same as 1MB per core in the APUs), so there's no way that you have 6 times more cache in an APU than in an Athlon II, even if the Athlon II was a dual core and the APU was a quad core.
64bit code is actually a little slower than 32 bit code. We are still nowhere near the limits of non-optical electronics.
As of right now, Only Intel's Ivy Bridge CPUs are 22nm and only AMD's and Nvidia's newest graphics are 28nm (only Radeons with a GCN GPU and Geforces with a Kepler GPU). All of Intel's Sandy Bridge and AMD's Llano and FX CPUs/APUs are 32nm. Some of Intel's Nehalem CPUs (Westmere) are also 32nm. The other Nehalem CPUs, some of Intel's Core 2 CPUs, AMD's Phenom II and Athlon II CPUs are all 45nm. 40nm would include the majority of GPUs in the Radeon 5000 cards, Radeon 6000 cards, Geforce GT/GTS/GTX 500 cards, and Geforce GTX/GTS/GT 400 cards. There are also 40nm GPUs in some of the GTX/GTS/GT 200 cards, Geforce GTX/GTS/GT 300 cards, and Radeon 4000 cards.
We already have some of the Ivy Bridge CPUs in the market, so 22nm is already launched. We've had 28nm GPUs in Radeon cards since mid January of this year (Radeon 7970 and shortly after it, the 7950) and Nvidia finally released their first 28nm graphics cards last month in April. The GPU might be 28nm, but if it's based on the 6670 like everyone says that it is, then it will probably a 40nm GPU because the Turks GPU in the 6670 is 40nm. The CPU might be 22nm, but it probably won't be.
Also, there are no 8Gb RAM sticks at 1.6GHz and especially not at $85. There are 8GB (technically 8GiB) RAM sticks at 1.6GHz and probably at $85, but there is a huge difference between 8Gb and 8GB.
$60 graphics cards can fly past the fastest integrated graphics in visual and compute performance. The lower latency is trivial for most work. The APUs only have up to 4MB of L2 cache (1MB per core, not shared, in the top models) and the Athlon IIs have the same amount of cache per core as the Llano (some have 521KB of L2, some have 1MB of L2, they all have the same amount of L1. 1MB per core is the same as 1MB per core in the APUs), so there's no way that you have 6 times more cache in an APU than in an Athlon II, even if the Athlon II was a dual core and the APU was a quad core.
64bit code is actually a little slower than 32 bit code. We are still nowhere near the limits of non-optical electronics.
As of right now, Only Intel's Ivy Bridge CPUs are 22nm and only AMD's and Nvidia's newest graphics are 28nm (only Radeons with a GCN GPU and Geforces with a Kepler GPU). All of Intel's Sandy Bridge and AMD's Llano and FX CPUs/APUs are 32nm. Some of Intel's Nehalem CPUs (Westmere) are also 32nm. The other Nehalem CPUs, some of Intel's Core 2 CPUs, AMD's Phenom II and Athlon II CPUs are all 45nm. 40nm would include the majority of GPUs in the Radeon 5000 cards, Radeon 6000 cards, Geforce GT/GTS/GTX 500 cards, and Geforce GTX/GTS/GT 400 cards. There are also 40nm GPUs in some of the GTX/GTS/GT 200 cards, Geforce GTX/GTS/GT 300 cards, and Radeon 4000 cards.
We already have some of the Ivy Bridge CPUs in the market, so 22nm is already launched. We've had 28nm GPUs in Radeon cards since mid January of this year (Radeon 7970 and shortly after it, the 7950) and Nvidia finally released their first 28nm graphics cards last month in April. The GPU might be 28nm, but if it's based on the 6670 like everyone says that it is, then it will probably a 40nm GPU because the Turks GPU in the 6670 is 40nm. The CPU might be 22nm, but it probably won't be.
Also, there are no 8Gb RAM sticks at 1.6GHz and especially not at $85. There are 8GB (technically 8GiB) RAM sticks at 1.6GHz and probably at $85, but there is a huge difference between 8Gb and 8GB.
bigdog44
Honorable
- Apr 6, 2012
- 167
- 0
- 10,680
16 low-end independent OoE cores at a similar clk. to the current cores would take up a large amt. of real estate on the die and be inefficient due to BW starvation. Even taking out cores that handle processes that are inaccessible to the developers still leaves alot of excess.
8 dual threaded cores can take the die space saved to add some L3 cache to help keep the cores busy, but still has costly BW required to maintain efficiency.
4 quad threaded cores would have a much greater efficiency if properly utilized, and by themselves only weigh in at ~ 250-300 Million Transistors.
Once you factor in everything, I believe the next Xbox has a transistor budget of 3 billion transistors or less for both of the main chips.
8 dual threaded cores can take the die space saved to add some L3 cache to help keep the cores busy, but still has costly BW required to maintain efficiency.
4 quad threaded cores would have a much greater efficiency if properly utilized, and by themselves only weigh in at ~ 250-300 Million Transistors.
Once you factor in everything, I believe the next Xbox has a transistor budget of 3 billion transistors or less for both of the main chips.
asalikus
Honorable
- Apr 29, 2012
- 616
- 0
- 11,010
Gaming needs only 4 cores right now you know that right? in 7 years i would say it will barely use 6-8 cores. So 16 cores is just a waste of money and performance.
[citation][nom]stingstang[/nom]Just reading this article for a good lol.Mission accomplished.[/citation]
[citation][nom]stingstang[/nom]Just reading this article for a good lol.Mission accomplished.[/citation]
PCgamer81
Distinguished
- Oct 14, 2011
- 1,830
- 0
- 19,810
^+1
Especially considering that the Xbox 720 GPU (based on the 6670 architecture) will be far too weak to be of any real benefit to a multi-core CPU. As far as that goes, a rig with a dual core Pentium would easily allow for the 6670 to give everything it has to give and then some.
Not to mention the fact that a 16 core CPU tells us nothing. There are far more important factors to consider when it comes to a CPU, especially as it pertains to gaming - console gaming in particular.
Even then, it all becomes moot once one considers the "GPU". At worst it would be like a minor league pitcher pitching to a minor league batter, and at best it would be like Nolan Ryan pitching to a minor league bunter.
Especially considering that the Xbox 720 GPU (based on the 6670 architecture) will be far too weak to be of any real benefit to a multi-core CPU. As far as that goes, a rig with a dual core Pentium would easily allow for the 6670 to give everything it has to give and then some.
Not to mention the fact that a 16 core CPU tells us nothing. There are far more important factors to consider when it comes to a CPU, especially as it pertains to gaming - console gaming in particular.
Even then, it all becomes moot once one considers the "GPU". At worst it would be like a minor league pitcher pitching to a minor league batter, and at best it would be like Nolan Ryan pitching to a minor league bunter.
I keep hearing these comments about how the cost will prevent the systems from being more powerful than a top of the line pc. Every site I go to I see this, which proves the masses DO forget! When evaluating a statement put it to the test. Don't just see if it sounds reasonable, or like common sense. The world being flat sounded like common sense at one time. My point? Remember xbox 360's launch? Everyone was saying the EXACT SAME THINGS! Three CPU's? (which is what the 360 has) and at 3ghz! Which was high for 2005. Guess what it did launch with 3cpu's and above 3ghz! And the pc did not have pc's with two CPU's until 2008! THREE YEARS LATER! Most PC's even now seven years later, still just have two CPU's! So the logic is NOT in line with reality and is fact backwards.
I keep hearing these comments about how the cost will prevent the systems from being more
powerful than a top of the line pc. Every site I go to I see this, which proves the masses DO
forget! When evaluating a statement put it to the test. Don't just see if it sounds reasonable, or like common sense. The world being flat sounded like common sense at one time. My point? Remember xbox 360's launch? Everyone was saying the EXACT SAME THINGS! Three CPU's? (which is what the 360 has) and at 3ghz! Which was high for 2005. Guess what it did launch with 3cpu's and above 3ghz! And the pc did not have pc's with two CPU's until 2008! THREE YEARS LATER! Most PC's even now seven years later, still just have two CPU's! So the logic is NOT in line with reality and is fact ackwards.
powerful than a top of the line pc. Every site I go to I see this, which proves the masses DO
forget! When evaluating a statement put it to the test. Don't just see if it sounds reasonable, or like common sense. The world being flat sounded like common sense at one time. My point? Remember xbox 360's launch? Everyone was saying the EXACT SAME THINGS! Three CPU's? (which is what the 360 has) and at 3ghz! Which was high for 2005. Guess what it did launch with 3cpu's and above 3ghz! And the pc did not have pc's with two CPU's until 2008! THREE YEARS LATER! Most PC's even now seven years later, still just have two CPU's! So the logic is NOT in line with reality and is fact ackwards.
PS3 has one CPU and 8 SPU's A SPU is NOT A CPU not even a significant portion of a CPU! I'ts
like saying my neighbor had a house, and two shed's, and then hearing his son misleading
everyone into thinking that they had three houses! A Shed is not a house, it is a helper for
the property but it is not a house! And eight sheds are not a house either. This is why when
you compare apples to apples as far as games on both systems are concerned the 360 wins, with
usually twice the frame rate, higher textures and more AI instructions to boot! The PS3 did
have 8SPU's which is something the PC didnt have (and dont want but still that is its calling
card) stop tying to mislead people with cores!
like saying my neighbor had a house, and two shed's, and then hearing his son misleading
everyone into thinking that they had three houses! A Shed is not a house, it is a helper for
the property but it is not a house! And eight sheds are not a house either. This is why when
you compare apples to apples as far as games on both systems are concerned the 360 wins, with
usually twice the frame rate, higher textures and more AI instructions to boot! The PS3 did
have 8SPU's which is something the PC didnt have (and dont want but still that is its calling
card) stop tying to mislead people with cores!
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]indysurfn[/nom]I keep hearing these comments about how the cost will prevent the systems from being more powerful than a top of the line pc. Every site I go to I see this, which proves the masses DO forget! When evaluating a statement put it to the test. Don't just see if it sounds reasonable, or like common sense. The world being flat sounded like common sense at one time. My point? Remember xbox 360's launch? Everyone was saying the EXACT SAME THINGS! Three CPU's? (which is what the 360 has) and at 3ghz! Which was high for 2005. Guess what it did launch with 3cpu's and above 3ghz! And the pc did not have pc's with two CPU's until 2008! THREE YEARS LATER! Most PC's even now seven years later, still just have two CPU's! So the logic is NOT in line with reality and is fact backwards.[/citation]
That Xbox 360 also had a fairly powerful GPU for the time whereas this one seems limited to entry level graphics and there's a huge difference between 3 cores and 16 cores. With 16 cores, you're getting to the point where coding a game to use that many could be even more difficult than coding for the PS3 and that's hard/time-consuming enough as it is. Beyond that, unless this is some sort of multi-threaded processor or many of the cores aren't really modern integer cores, having 16 of them would be a very inefficient way of using die space and it would probably need to be a very large chip for a CPU even if it was made on the smallest available process nodes for this (that I'm aware of), a 22nm process node.
Making a CPU with a full set of 16 modern cores seems unreasonable, especially since most modern games usually can't utilize more than one or two threads optimally. We all know that even a dual core SB/IB i3 can handle even 1080p gaming exceptionally, yet you think a 16 core CPU is reasonable? I could understand a quad core and maybe a little more, but 16 full cores doesn't make sense to me, especially if it's true that the Xbox 720 won't have at least upper mid-ranged graphics. It should have a 7850 or at least a 7770.
Furthermore, there are conflicting reports about the CPU that the Xbox 720 will have, so of course people are skeptical.
That Xbox 360 also had a fairly powerful GPU for the time whereas this one seems limited to entry level graphics and there's a huge difference between 3 cores and 16 cores. With 16 cores, you're getting to the point where coding a game to use that many could be even more difficult than coding for the PS3 and that's hard/time-consuming enough as it is. Beyond that, unless this is some sort of multi-threaded processor or many of the cores aren't really modern integer cores, having 16 of them would be a very inefficient way of using die space and it would probably need to be a very large chip for a CPU even if it was made on the smallest available process nodes for this (that I'm aware of), a 22nm process node.
Making a CPU with a full set of 16 modern cores seems unreasonable, especially since most modern games usually can't utilize more than one or two threads optimally. We all know that even a dual core SB/IB i3 can handle even 1080p gaming exceptionally, yet you think a 16 core CPU is reasonable? I could understand a quad core and maybe a little more, but 16 full cores doesn't make sense to me, especially if it's true that the Xbox 720 won't have at least upper mid-ranged graphics. It should have a 7850 or at least a 7770.
Furthermore, there are conflicting reports about the CPU that the Xbox 720 will have, so of course people are skeptical.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]indyman77[/nom]PS3 has one CPU and 8 SPU's A SPU is NOT A CPU not even a significant portion of a CPU! I'ts like saying my neighbor had a house, and two shed's, and then hearing his son misleading everyone into thinking that they had three houses! A Shed is not a house, it is a helper for the property but it is not a house! And eight sheds are not a house either. This is why when you compare apples to apples as far as games on both systems are concerned the 360 wins, with usually twice the frame rate, higher textures and more AI instructions to boot! The PS3 did have 8SPU's which is something the PC didnt have (and dont want but still that is its calling card) stop tying to mislead people with cores![/citation]
No one said for sure that these would be full cores or SPUs, so it's not misleading unless this rumor is both confirmed and we find out if they're real cores or SPUs and it turns out that they're SPUs. Stop misleading people into thinking that a rumor is or isn't true without proof and then using an almost irrelevant example in an attempt to prove your point.
No one said for sure that these would be full cores or SPUs, so it's not misleading unless this rumor is both confirmed and we find out if they're real cores or SPUs and it turns out that they're SPUs. Stop misleading people into thinking that a rumor is or isn't true without proof and then using an almost irrelevant example in an attempt to prove your point.
sweatlaserxp
Distinguished
- Sep 7, 2003
- 965
- 0
- 18,980
The only reason why they would need 16 physical cores is if there is a lot of stuff going on in the background, with the OS, Kinect, etc., that can be executed IN PARALLEL while a game is running. I would imagine that game developers don't obsess over threaded code so much because either there's no point, or it makes development a headache, especially when there are multiple platforms to work with.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]sweatlaserxp[/nom]The only reason why they would need 16 physical cores is if there is a lot of stuff going on in the background, with the OS, Kinect, etc., that can be executed IN PARALLEL while a game is running. I would imagine that game developers don't obsess over threaded code so much because either there's no point, or it makes development a headache, especially when there are multiple platforms to work with.[/citation]
Point, but just how much background work can be going on? 16 cores is a lot of cores to work with. You'd need something like this:
Kinect would need one core per player in up to 4 players per console games
the OS needs two cores
game engines needs four cores
Online MP needs four cores
Audio, input/output, and such need two cores
So, having 16 cores might be reasonable (still assuming that they're full cores, each faster than the cores in the Xbox 360). However, even this might be exaggerating it. Does the OS really need more than one core? Does the audio, input/output, and such really need more than one core? Does the game engine really need more than two or three cores? The next Xbox would likely need much more powerful graphics than the Radeon 6670 to make use of even this much power. So, if it has such a CPU, then maybe it has much more powerful graphics too. However, the fact that this rumor, like so many others, clashes with some of the other rumors means that it can't really be trusted anyway.
Point, but just how much background work can be going on? 16 cores is a lot of cores to work with. You'd need something like this:
Kinect would need one core per player in up to 4 players per console games
the OS needs two cores
game engines needs four cores
Online MP needs four cores
Audio, input/output, and such need two cores
So, having 16 cores might be reasonable (still assuming that they're full cores, each faster than the cores in the Xbox 360). However, even this might be exaggerating it. Does the OS really need more than one core? Does the audio, input/output, and such really need more than one core? Does the game engine really need more than two or three cores? The next Xbox would likely need much more powerful graphics than the Radeon 6670 to make use of even this much power. So, if it has such a CPU, then maybe it has much more powerful graphics too. However, the fact that this rumor, like so many others, clashes with some of the other rumors means that it can't really be trusted anyway.
Thomas Creel
Honorable
- Oct 21, 2012
- 351
- 0
- 10,810
yeah.. 16 cores? amd 7000?
wtf? if they do that perople will find a way to jailbreak and install windows..
so... if it does have 16 cores, i'm buying it to play bf3, skyrim, and other great games with pc graphics
wtf? if they do that perople will find a way to jailbreak and install windows..
so... if it does have 16 cores, i'm buying it to play bf3, skyrim, and other great games with pc graphics
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]mihi[/nom]yeah.. 16 cores? amd 7000?wtf? if they do that perople will find a way to jailbreak and install windows.. so... if it does have 16 cores, i'm buying it to play bf3, skyrim, and other great games with pc graphics[/citation]
That makes no sense at all. Not even BF3 MP on PC can use 16 cores. No PC games can. There are only a few that can use more than four cores.
That makes no sense at all. Not even BF3 MP on PC can use 16 cores. No PC games can. There are only a few that can use more than four cores.
Most likely it wouldn't be a true 16-core processor, there will be 3 or 4 actual cores, followed by SPE's to compensate for the massive calculations, like floating points etc...
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question So I think my Motherboard [Moderator edit to remove profanity] the bed today......- Started by Xmasholiday9988
- Replies: 4
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram