Microsoft's Xbox 360, Sony's PS3 - A Hardware Discussion
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on June 24, 2005 4:05 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
How Many Threads?
Earlier this year we saw the beginning of a transition from very fast, single core microprocessors to slower, multi-core designs on the PC desktop. The full transition won’t be complete for another couple of years, but just as it has begun on the desktop PC side, it also has begun in the next-generation of consoles.
Remember that consoles must have a lifespan of around 5 years, so even if the multithreaded transition isn’t going to happen with games for another 2 years, it is necessary for these consoles to be built around multi-core processors to support the ecosystem when that transition occurs.
The problem is that today, all games are single threaded, meaning that in the case of the Xbox 360, only one out of its three cores would be utilized when running present day game engines. The PlayStation 3 would fair no better, as the Cell CPU has a very similar general purpose execution core to one of the Xbox 360 cores. The reason this is a problem is because these general purpose cores that make up the Xbox 360’s Xenon CPU or the single general purpose PPE in Cell are extremely weak cores, far slower than a Pentium 4 or Athlon 64, even running at much lower clock speeds.
Looking at the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, we wondered if game developers would begin their transition to multithreaded engines with consoles and eventually port them to PCs. While the majority of the PC installed base today still runs on single-core processors, the install base for both the Xbox 360 and PS3 will be guaranteed to be multi-core, so what better platform to introduce a multithreaded game engine than the new consoles where you can guarantee that all of your users will be able to take advantage of the multithreading.
On the other hand, looking at all of the early demos we’ve seen of Xbox 360 and PS3 games, not a single one appears to offer better physics or AI than the best single threaded games on the PC today. At best, we’ve seen examples of ragdoll physics similar to that of Half Life 2, but nothing that is particularly amazing, earth shattering or shocking. Definitely nothing that appears to be leveraging the power of a multicore processor.
In fact, all of the demos we’ve seen look like nothing more than examples of what you can do on the latest generation of GPUs - not showcases of multi-core CPU power. So we asked Microsoft, expecting to get a fluffy answer about how all developers would be exploiting the 6 hardware threads supported by Xenon, instead we got a much more down to earth answer.
The majority of developers are doing things no differently than they have been on the PC. A single thread is used for all game code, physics and AI and in some cases, developers have split out physics into a separate thread, but for the most part you can expect all first generation and even some second generation titles to debut as basically single threaded games. The move to two hardware execution threads may in fact only be an attempt to bring performance up to par with what can be done on mid-range or high-end PCs today, since a single thread running on Xenon isn’t going to be very competitive performance wise, especially executing code that is particularly well suited to OoO desktop processors.
With Microsoft themselves telling us not to expect more than one or two threads of execution to be dedicated to game code, will the remaining two cores of the Xenon go unused for the first year or two of the Xbox 360’s existence? While the remaining cores won’t directly be used for game performance acceleration, they won’t remain idle - enter the Xbox 360’s helper threads.
The first time we discussed helper threads on AnandTech was in reference to additional threads, generated at runtime, that could use idle execution resources to go out and prefetch data that the CPU would eventually need.
The Xbox 360 will use a few different types of helper threads to not only make the most out of the CPU’s performance, but to also help balance the overall platform. Keep in mind that with the 360, Microsoft has not increased the size of the media that games will be stored on. The dual layer DVD-9 spec is still in effect, meaning that game developers shipping titles for the Xbox 360 in 2006 will have the same amount of storage space as they did back in 2001. Given that current Xbox titles generally use around 4.5GB of space, it’s not a big deal, but by 2010 9GB may feel a bit tight.
Thanks to idle execution power in the 3-core Xenon, developers can now perform real-time decompression of game data in order to maximize storage space. Given that a big hunk of disc space is used by audio and video, being able to use more sophisticated compression algorithms for both types of data will also help maximize that 9GB of storage. Or, if space isn’t as much of a concern, developers are now able to use more sophisticated encoding algorithms to encode audio/video to use the same amount of space as they are today, but achieve much higher quality audio and video. Microsoft has already stated that in game video will essentially use the WMV HD codec. The real time decompression of audio/video will be another use for the extra power of the system.
Another interesting use will be digital audio encoding; in the original Xbox Microsoft used a relatively expensive DSP featured in the nForce south bridge to perform real-time Dolby Digital Encoding. The feature allowed Microsoft to offer a single optical out on the Xbox’s HD AV pack, definitely reducing cable clutter and bringing 5.1 channel surround sound to the game console. This time around, DD encoding can be done as a separate thread on the Xenon CPU - in real time. It reduces the need for Microsoft to purchase a specialized DSP from another company, and greatly simplifies the South Bridge in the Xbox 360.
But for the most part, on day 1, you shouldn’t expect Xbox 360 games to be much more than the same type of single threaded titles we’ve had on the PC. In fact, the biggest draw to the new consoles will be the fact that for the first time, we will have the ability to run games rendered internally at 1280 x 720 on a game console. In other words, round one of the next generation of game consoles is going to be a GPU battle.
The importance of this fact is that Microsoft has been talking about the general purpose execution power of the Xbox 360 and how it is 3 times that of the PS3’s Cell processor. With only 1 - 2 threads of execution being dedicated for game code, the advantage is pretty much lost at the start of the console battle.
Sony doesn’t have the same constraints that Microsoft does, and thus there is less of a need to perform real time decompression of game content. Keep in mind that the PS3 will ship with a Blu-ray drive, with Sony’s minimum disc spec being a hefty 23.3GB of storage for a single layer Blu-ray disc. The PS3 will also make use of H.264 encoding for all video content, the decoding of which is perfectly suited for the Cell’s SPEs. Audio encoding will also be done on the SPEs, once again as there is little need to use any extra hardware to perform a task that is perfectly suited for the SPEs.
93 Comments
View All Comments
Darkon - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
#49WTF are you talking ?
The Cell does general-purpose processing although not as good as 360 cpu.
And Anand I suggest you do some more research on cell
Alx - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
Someone explain to me how Sony will support 1080p please. If developers make the games run at acceptable framerate at that resolution, most people running them at 720p and 480i will be wasting at least half of PS3's rendering power.On the other hand if XBOX360 game devs make their games run just fast enough at 720p, that'll give them far more resources to work with than those poor Sony game devs.
Shinei - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
That's not necessarily true, #48. The Cell processor doesn't do general-purpose processing, so it can't do decoding on its own--and as far as I know, even pressed DVDs have to be decoded by some kind of processor. (Of course, I know next to nothing about video equipment, so I could be wrong...)arturnow - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
Another difference between RSX and G70 is hardware video decoder - PureVideo, i'm sure RSX doesn't need that which saves transistors countfreebst - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
Actually, in response to 31 there is no 1080p 60 frame/sec signal. the only HD signals are 1080 30p, 24p, 60i, 720 60p, 30p, 24p.BenSkywalker - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
Why the support for lower resolutions? I'm a bit confused by this- I can't see why anyone who isn't a fanatic loyalist wouldn't want to see the highest resolution possible supported by the consoles. The XBox(current) supports 1080i and despite the extreme rarity in which it is used- it IS used. Supporting 1080p x2 may seem like overkill, but think of the possibilities in terms of turn based RPGs or strategy games(particularly turn based) where 60FPS is very far removed from required.The most disappointing thing about the new generation of consoles is MS flipping its customers off in terms of backwards compatability. Even Nintendo came around this gen and MS comes up with some half done emulation that works on some of 'the best selling' games. Also, with their dropping production of the original XB already it appears they still have an enormous amount to learn about the console market(check out sales of the original PS after the launch of the PS2 for an example).
Warder45 - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
errr #31 not 37Warder45 - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
#37 is right on the money. There is a good chance that there will be no HDTV that can accept a 1080p signal by the time the PS3 comes out.It seems less like Sony future proofing the PS3 and more like Sony saying we have bigger balls then MS. Not to say MS is exempt from doing the same.
IamTHEsnake - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
Excellent article Anand and crew.Thank you for the very informative read.
masher - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
> "Collision detection is a big part of what is commonly> referred to as “game physics.” ..."
Sorry, collision detection is computational geometry, not physics.
> "However it is possible to structure collision detection for
> execution on the SPEs, but it would require a different
> approach to the collision detection algorithms... "
Again, untrue. You walk the tree on the PPE, whereas you do the actual intersection tests on the SPs. The SPs are also ideally suited to calculating the positions of each object (read: real physics) and updating the tree accordingly.