Slashdot Mirror


The Mystery of Cell Processors

LucidBeast writes "Consumer appliances requiring more computing power Sony, IBM and Toshiba started 2001 developing "Cell"-processor that comprises of multiple processor cores and should give performance ten times of conventional processors. Now the CNN Money reports that details of the processor will be released Feb. 6-10 at the International Solid State Circuits Conference in San Francisco. Also reported by EE Times. Rumors also tell that Sonys PS3 development platform has already been shipped to some developers equipped with the cell processor."

67 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Article text by mrhandstand · · Score: 4, Informative

    Chip power, times 10
    Sony, IBM, Toshiba disclose details of new processor that will run next-generation electronics.
    November 29, 2004: 6:13 AM EST

    TOKYO (Reuters) - IBM, Sony Corp. and Toshiba Corp. on Monday unveiled some key details on the powerful new "Cell" processor the three are jointly producing to run next-generation computers, game consoles and TVs.

    Cloaked in secrecy and the object of much speculation since the three conglomerates announced the project in 2001, Cell will be 10 times more powerful than conventional chips and able to shepherd large chunks of data over broadband networks.

    In a joint release, the three firms gave a glimpse of their respective plans for Cell-powered products, but were mum on technical details, which will be revealed Feb. 6-10 at the International Solid State Circuits Conference in San Francisco.

    IBM (Research), Sony (Research) and Toshiba are investing billions of dollars to develop and prepare for mass production of Cell, which is a multicore semiconductor composed of several processors that work together to handle multiple tasks at the same time.

    "In the future, all forms of digital content will be converged and fused onto the broadband network," Ken Kutaragi, executive deputy president and COO of Sony, said in the release. "Current PC architecture is nearing its limits."

    IBM said it would start pilot production of the microprocessor at its plant in East Fishkill, N.Y., in the first half of 2005. It will use advanced 300 millimeter silicon wafers, which yield more chips per wafer than the 200 mm kind.

    It also announced plans to first use the chip in a workstation it is developing with Sony, targeting the digital content and entertainment industries.

    Sony said it would launch home servers and high-definition televisions powered by Cell in 2006, and reiterated plans to use the microchip to power the next-generation PlayStation game console, a working version of which will be unveiled in May.

    Toshiba said it planned to launch a high-definition TV using Cell in 2006. Top of page

    --
    Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me
    1. Re:Article text by choas · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow, Thanks!

      To think we almost slashdotted CNN!

      --
      I will work to elevate you, just enough to bring you down
    2. Re:Article text by mrhandstand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey...you never know. Seriously, I post article text when appropriate because most readers/posters can't be bothered to actually read the damn thing unless it's in front of them.

      --
      Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me
    3. Re:Article text by worst_name_ever · · Score: 4, Funny
      "In the future, all forms of digital content will be converged and fused onto the broadband network"

      And all restaurants will be Taco Bell...

      --

      In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
    4. Re:Article text by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In addition to the obvious obsurdity of saying "all", the naive optimism of the broadband convergence prophets puts them into denial about the fact that many people often don't want gaming to be on-line. I've seen some of the sneaky things companies do to glean marketing data off of their paying customers, and it is rather annoying. I don't want my PC phoning home every time it boots (my ISP trys this), nor do I opt to plug a DirecTV unit into the phone jack, for example. Already, people report their life and soul to the tax agencies, their employers, etc., and, at least, people should be able to find entertainment with a respectable amount of freedom. The market will very likely show that people will choose not to have an always-networked gaming machine. Networking is certainly a good choice, but it shouldn't be the only choice in order for companies like Sony and Microsoft to capture as many customers as possible.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
  2. Please Help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Consumer appliances requiring more computing power Sony, IBM and Toshiba started 2001 developing "Cell"-processor that comprises of multiple processor cores and should give performance ten times of conventional processors."

    What in the hell does that sentence mean? I can handle a couple of spelling or grammatical problems, but seriously! What the fuck does that mean? Are 3 companies working together to create this Cell processor, or are there three different Cell processors...

    1. Re:Please Help! by WombatDeath · · Score: 2, Funny

      Someone's created a Cell processor which has become sentient and submitted a rather garbled story about itself to slashdot.

    2. Re:Please Help! by oexeo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's been granted moderation powers as well, so be careful what you say

    3. Re:Please Help! by CarbonJackson · · Score: 3, Funny

      It means LSD is alive and well. It means retards have "hacked" their way into the submission que. It Means Cmdr. Taco is submitting stories under psuedonyms. It means you didn't recognize the plot of the Jennifer Lopez blockbuster, "The Cell". It means...I don't know what it means.

      --

      MikeAtIF*ckStuffedAnimalsDotCom
    4. Re:Please Help! by BenjyD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I always find it odd that so many "Nerds", people who spend their time programming in languages that demand incredibly exact syntax, can't get basic "natural language" syntax right.

    5. Re:Please Help! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've seen a quote saying that once we get a natural language compiler, we'll find that geeks can't write.

    6. Re:Please Help! by uradu · · Score: 2, Funny

      The only meaningful way I could parse it is that three consumer appliances named Sony, IBM and Toshiba that are in need of more computing power got together and started developing this "Cell" processor. If they're sentient enough to do that, what more do they need?!

    7. Re:Please Help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trust me, most of those people don't make much sense in programming languages, either, even if it is syntactically correct...

    8. Re:Please Help! by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I always find it odd that so many "Nerds", people who spend their time programming in languages that demand incredibly exact syntax, can't get basic "natural language" syntax right.

      We can. The problem arises in that other people cannot (or rather, do not, since most adults can form grammatically correct sentences if you force them to).

      Another, humorous, response to the parent post nicely illustrates the problem... The only way to parse it such that it remains (almost) grammatically correct runs along the lines of "three consumer appliances named Sony, IBM and Toshiba that are inneed of more computing power".

      Now, you can say that any human reader would get the correct meaning. And in this situation, I'll grant that as most likely true. But if people use sloppy grammar in "obvious" sentences, they most likely will carry that into more subtle sentences as well.

      So when a geek chides someone for misuse of a natural language, insisting on an exactness bordering on formal logic - They/We do so because it improves comprehension.

      A non-geek might feel comfortable trying to divine a sloppy author's intended meaning. But we realize the consequences... Do that in a programming language, and at best you'll get buggy code. Do that in real life, and you get ambiguities such as (no political commentary intended) whether or not Bush said/implied a link exists between Saddam and Osama.

    9. Re:Please Help! by wheany · · Score: 2, Funny

      Slashdot has "editors", not editors.

  3. Well.. by oexeo · · Score: 5, Funny
    multiple processor cores and should give performance ten times of conventional processors.

    About 10 processor cores, right?

    They should have enough power to divide by zero by now, right? or is that still to "difficult"

  4. DBZ by Stephen+Williams · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... should give performance ten times of conventional processors.

    Twenty times, after absorbing an android or two.

    -Stephen

  5. Re:Apulets? by emj · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually Apu and Manjula are the proud parents of eight well behaved children.

  6. What they didn't mention by nick-less · · Score: 4, Interesting

    details of the processor will be released Feb. 6-10

    it gives a 10 times performance gain over a normal processor, from the year 2001 of course, which will be something like a 1.3 GHz P4 or a 800 MHz Celeron, both introduced in january 2001 ;-)

    1. Re:What they didn't mention by the_consumer · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, it'd run at 10.3 GHz is what you're saying, or perform at an equivalent thereof? That's a fairly significant jump over the 4.7GHz Pentiums aavailable now.

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
  7. And this article tells us WHAT?!! by mrhandstand · · Score: 2, Insightful
    OK...so according to some marketdroid "Current PC architecture is nearing it's limits". I bet he owns stock in the company that it trying to sell you the new stuff! Last I checked AMD and a few other BILLION dollar companies were still in business.

    Now it is true that multiple core chips seem to be where everyone is headed. Even so, I'm not sure how these magical chips will "converge and fuse" digital content. Remeber that this article is A) light on details, and B) put together by a person who is vying for your dollar/pound/yen etc.

    --
    Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me
    1. Re:And this article tells us WHAT?!! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The article on El Reg has a bit more information content. The chip is POWER-based, and supports multiple cores, each of which can run a separate OS. This is the first POWER chip to be produced in volume (I'm not counting workstation / server chips as volume). This, combined with the PowerPC-based XBox2 may mean that the unit cost of POWER/PowerPC chips drops enough to make beige-box POWER/PowerPC systems cheap enough to be a viable alternative to x86.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:And this article tells us WHAT?!! by mbbac · · Score: 2

      Ken Kutaragi isn't a marketdroid. He was an engineer on the original PS and now heads the PS business unit.

      --

      mbbac

    3. Re:And this article tells us WHAT?!! by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Gekko in the Gamecube is not produced in volume? Millions of G4s and G5s have been sold in Macs, but I guess that's not volume either. And I don't see how high volume on Cell will make regular PowerPCs cheaper.

    4. Re:And this article tells us WHAT?!! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative
      POWER is not the same as PowerPC. While the PowerPC 970 inherits a lot from the POWER4+ architecture, they are different chips with different (although overlapping) instruction sets. POWER chips traditionally belong in high end workstations, servers and (I think) mainframes. PowerPCs are used in embedded devices (e.g. a large number of mobile 'phones) and a few computers (e.g. Macs, PegasOS sytstems, BriQs and the GameCube).

      Until recently the POWER instruction set was a superset of the PowerPC instruction set, allowing PowerPC code to be run unmodified on POWER systems (assuming ABI compatibility). Motorola's 74xx series and IBM's 970 series added AltiVec/VMS/Velocity Engine, which may or may not appear in future POWER chips.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  8. End Result May Disappoint by ehack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When PS2 was launched, incredible specs were also touted; on delivery it ended up cheaper but not more powerful than a high-spec PC with a good video card one year later. I am afraid we might end up with another mediocre product at a reasonable price point. Sony should concentrate on portable systems integration which is where its real expertise lies.

    --
    This is not a signature.
    1. Re:End Result May Disappoint by jmcmunn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think Sony also has some expertise in the console market, afterall they do have two of the best selling consoles ever. And of course they are the current king of the console market, so I would think that should stand for somthing as far as "expertise" goes.

      But yes, we will likely be underimpressed with the PS3 when it comes out. But all of the "non geeks" out there who never heard the five versions of the inflated specs that we were promised will still love the machine for what it is, a good game console.

      So it won't ever have the most teraflops on the worlds' supercomputer list...who cares?

    2. Re:End Result May Disappoint by Octagon+Most · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "When PS2 was launched, incredible specs were also touted; on delivery it ended up cheaper but not more powerful than a high-spec PC with a good video card one year later. I am afraid we might end up with another mediocre product at a reasonable price point."

      Frankly I like the idea of delivering power comparable to a high-end PC in a less expensive console. Those that want the most possible power will pay the price for the PC anyway so they can keep it updated. The console buyer wants simplicity and low price. As a reformed geek myself I never want to touch the guts of a computer again. My two favorite electronic devices are my iMac and iPod. When I buy another game console I will be much more concerned with the quality of the games and the ease of use than the raw specs. I'd certainly like to see what all this power could deliver, but I'd rather it be US$199 than "incredible."

    3. Re:End Result May Disappoint by d3kk · · Score: 4, Funny
      As a reformed geek myself I never want to touch the guts of a computer again.

      You're in the wrong place.

    4. Re:End Result May Disappoint by killjoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The cell processor is not ONLY for PS3. It's actually a very flexible system where the cores can assume different functionality depending on what is needed at that milisecond. For the PS3 most of the cells would be working on graphics most of the time. IBM is also planning on using the chips for workstations where presumably most of the cells would be working on MPU functionality most of the time.

      I would not be surprised to see Apple use the chips if they get the OS ported to it.

      So yes PS3 probably won't be all that powerful but variations of the chip will end up in IBM workstations and they will be very powerful.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    5. Re:End Result May Disappoint by eclectro · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're in the wrong place.

      Yeah, he's fallen off the wagon. He probably has his screwdrivers out right now and is caressing the RAM upgrade he is about to put into his computer.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  9. What language do they use? by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These multi core and multi processor systems can be a bugger to program for because handling concurrrency in a way that doesnt cause deadlocking is a major pain in the ass.

    One of the better ways is to model out the program in CSP (or a variant thereof) and then write in a specially designed language like Occam (developed for the original transputer, but ported now to x86). These give you code that cannot deadlock or livelock or suffer from resource starvation without needing any of the complex and buggy hacks you see in things like the Linux kernel. And the Linux kernel only has to deal with a few processors... scalling to a few thousand processors in C would require a programmer of insane genius or the implimentation of effectivly a new language on top of C to handle the problems caused.

    So, what language do developers use to target this? Is it something elegant designed for the problem at hand?

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:What language do they use? by rblum · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bwahaaha!

      Either you've neither seen a Sony API, or you're the most brilliant cynic I've ever seen. I almost fell of my chair laughing. "I'm sure the API will be beautiful" - yeah, right.

    2. Re:What language do they use? by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Linux Insider is running a couple of editorials speculating about running Linux on the 'Cell' processor. The bold prediction? 'the Linux developer community will, virtually en masse, abandon the x86 in favor of the new machine.'

    3. Re:What language do they use? by HidingMyName · · Score: 2, Informative
      First a fwe points both regarding this post and the grand parent.
      1. Multicell processors don't require processes/threads to cooperate/communicate via shared memory. What they do is permit a cheap version of SMP by packaging multiple processor cores in a single chip. Given the complexities of dynamic scheduling (I think an exponential number of gates may be required per stalled instruction that is tolerated without stalling the instruction stream). They can allow these cores to stall and cores that are not stalled can use the pins on the chip to signal the rest of the system. Much like on an SMP machine, not all jobs have to be parallelized, if you keep enough jobs running they can be farmed out over the processor/cores and the system will put them to use. Thus, I don't think multi-core/cell approaches will need more sophisticated languages/compiler/code generation techniques that are employed in VLIW, Simultaneous Multithreading/Hyperthreading environments.
      2. The cores will contend for access to the system bus, since the pinout will not scale with the number of cores used. This could be tricky and form a bottleneck. The run time O/S scheduler may need to be smartened up to handle this (or maybe I was wrong above and some smart compile time techniques can help, but I'm not sure how that would work).
      3. I don't think X86 is dead yest (at least not for the 64 bit variants). They fix some of the serious security issues (e.g. separate execute and write permissions bits for pages), and have a combination of a large amount of market share (hence big economy of scale) and a large amount of working deployed software. People aren't likely to walk away from that (yet). This may mean that early approaches could require X86 emulation to be adopted, which probabably means that speedups by a factor of 10 or more are going to be needed if software emulation approaches are used. It will be tough to get that.
  10. Playstation3 vs. XBox2 by grungeman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds like Playstation3 vs. XBox2 will look like a battle between a Terminator T1000 and Clippy.

    --

    Signature deleted by lameness filter.
    1. Re:Playstation3 vs. XBox2 by slushbat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Clippy wins hands down. You only need to crush a T1000 in a hydraulic press to disable it.

      --

      Don't put off until tomorrow what you can leave until the day after.

    2. Re:Playstation3 vs. XBox2 by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      XBox2: PowerPC-based CPU made by IBM.

      PS3: POWER-based CPU made by IBM.

      Looks like a good time to own IBM stock...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Playstation3 vs. XBox2 by !the!bad!fish! · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you'll find that the T1000 would still win.

      --
      Kids today are tyrants. They contradict their parent, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers. - Socrates 400 BC
    4. Re:Playstation3 vs. XBox2 by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Question though: can program code written for the POWER CPU's be used on the new Cell CPU? Is there even the remote chance that MacOS X could be ported to run on the Cell CPU architecture in a pretty straightforward fashion?

      The latter could be of great interest to Apple Computer because it means the potential for substantial increases in the performance of future Macintosh models.

  11. A bit more on PS3 by Sai+Babu · · Score: 5, Informative

    But UNC's Zimmons has his doubts. "I believe that while theoretically having a large number of transistors enables teraflops-class performance, the PS3 [Playstation 3] will not be able to deliver this kind of power to the consumer," quoted from /. referenced article.

    Zimmons talks the details.

  12. Will be interesting... by TommyBear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I currently work at a game studio here in Melbourne Australia and we're looking at next gen stuff (currently we develop xbox, ps2, PC games). Anyway, today at a meeting, one of the senior developers told our group that 4 had been selected to go to a little show and tell by IBM/Sony in Melbourne, where some of the secrets of the "Cell" processor would be demonstrated/explained to the group. Apparently we were only able to get 4 spots at this event.

    So I'm exicited looks like the tech in just around the corner and so are the multi-core platforms (like XBOX2 and PS3).... yay!

  13. Basicly, it is marketspeak... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...the current computer architecture is nearing its limits yes, but it has no relationship to the content. A modern processor is very well capable of decoding HDTV content, probably encode too if you can accept less than super compression.

    Of course, I see where it is going, I assume these Cell chips will be used to control hardware encoders/decoders with hard real-time limits (i.e. no frame skips and such crap). Taking the best of "dumb" hardware players of today, combined with the multitasking and flexibility of general computers.

    But it is still a computer in drag. If anything, this seems more like a "retro" trend of the past, when you had active NICs/HDD controllers/whatnot with processors of their own. Now it is back with Cells instead. Just like terminals, we're coming full circle.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  14. Re:Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You mean, like a MOS 6502 processor? I've never checked it, but I've been told that's what the code that was shown in the "terminator view" in Terminator 1 was: 6502 assembly. Did they update it in any of the later movies? Say, to a 6510 or a 68510 ?

  15. Cell in TV ? by andymar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article mentions that the Cell CPU will be included in a HDTV from the year 2006. Anyone know what such a powerful CPU is doing in a TV ?

    1. Re:Cell in TV ? by ocelotbob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most likely, it'll be a scaled down version and/or the TV will have built in extras, like a PVR or ability to download web content without a computer.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    2. Re:Cell in TV ? by MrBandersnatch · · Score: 2, Funny

      DRM

    3. Re:Cell in TV ? by bhima · · Score: 3, Informative

      IBM is planning to market many different types of Cell CPU's for handys, TV's, Workstations, and and Super Computers.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    4. Re:Cell in TV ? by hattig · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, if Sony is making 10 to 50 million of these processors a year, the cost will be lower. Especially if the PS3 does have four of them, as has been previously rumoured. By putting the processor (or multiples thereof) into other devices, the cost of the processor goes down even more, as more are made (assuming that enough of the things can be made!). At some point it is probably cheaper to use a Cell processor for all decode/encode operations (TV with built-in PVR?) than whatever else is on the market.

    5. Re:Cell in TV ? by spleck · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Anyone know what such a powerful CPU is doing in a TV ?


      Decoding a 19 Mbps MPEG-2 program stream with multiple SDTV subchannels, surround sound, etc. ???

      Maybe the channels will change faster too.
  16. past. by leuk_he · · Score: 3, Informative

    or take a look at the 2002 patent application:

    http://theinquirer.net/?article=19941

    1. Re:past. by WillWare · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's an article mentioning the patent application. The application itself (not including diagrams) is here.

      --
      WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
  17. "Cell Processor Unveiled" form physOrg by S3D · · Score: 3, Informative

    Cell Processor-Based Workstation Prototype
    The companies expect that a one rack Cell processor-based workstation will reach a performance of 16 teraflops or trillions of floating point calculations per second.
    Cell Processor Unveiled
    IBM, Sony Corporation, and Toshiba Corporation today unveiled for the first time some of the key concepts of the highly-anticipated advanced microprocessor, code-named Cell, they are jointly developing for next-generation computing applications, as well as digital consumer electronics.
    Specifically, the companies confirmed that Cell is a multicore chip comprising a 64-bit Power processor core and multiple synergistic processor cores capable of massive floating point processing. Cell is optimized for compute-intensive workloads and broadband rich media applications, including computer entertainment, movies and other forms of digital content.
    Other highlights of the Cell processor design include: -- Multi-thread, multicore architecture. -- Supports multiple operating systems at the same time. -- Substantial bus bandwidth to/from main memory, as well as companion chips. -- Flexible on-chip I/O (input/output) interface. -- Real-time resource management system for real-time applications. -- On-chip hardware in support of security system for intellectual property protection. -- Implemented in 90 nanometer (nm) silicon-on-insulator (SOI) technology. Additionally, Cell uses custom circuit design to increase overall performance, while supporting precise processor clock control to enable power savings.
    IBM, Sony Group and Toshiba will disclose more details about Cell in four technical papers scheduled for presentation at the International Solid State Circuits Conference. "Less than four years ago, we embarked on an ambitious collaborative effort with Sony Group and Toshiba to create a highly-integrated microprocessor designed to overcome imminent transistor scaling, power and performance limitations in conventional technologies," said Dr. John E. Kelly III, senior vice president, IBM. "Today, we're revealing just a sampling of what we believe makes the innovative Cell processor a premiere open platform for next-generation computing and entertainment products." "Massive and rich content, like multi-channel HD broadcasting programs as well as mega-pixel digital still/movie images captured by high-resolution CCD/CMOS imagers, require huge amount of media processing in real-time. In the future, all forms of digital content will be converged and fused onto the broadband network, and will start to explode," said Ken Kutaragi, executive deputy president and COO, Sony Corporation, and president and Group CEO, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. "To access and/or browse sea of content freely in real-time, more sophisticated GUI within the 3D world will become the 'key' in the future. Current PC architecture is nearing its limits, in both processing power and bus bandwidth, for handling such rich applications." "The progressive breakdown of barriers between personal computers and digital consumer electronics requires dramatic enhancements in the capabilities and performance of consumer electronics. The Cell processor meets these requirements with a multi-processor architecture/design and a structure able to support high-level media processing. Development of this unsurpassed, high-performance processor is well under way, carried forward by dedicated teamwork and state-of-the-art expertise from Toshiba, Sony Group and IBM," said Mr. Masashi Muromachi, Corporate Vice President of Toshiba Corporation and President & CEO of Toshiba's Semiconductor Company. "Today's announcement shows the substantial progress that has been made in this joint program. Cell will substantially enhance the performance of broadband-empowered consumer applications, raise the user-friendliness of services realized through these applications, and facilitate the use of information-rich media and comm

  18. Why does a game console need such a monster CPU? by master_p · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't think that a game console needs such a so sophisticated and so powerful CPU, for important reasons:

    -Real-time 3d graphics of cinematic quality will always be too slow for general purpose CPUs.

    -developing a game with AI that needs ten times the power of todays CPUs will take many man years and may not be that welcomed by the console audience.

    -It's very difficult to do multithreaded apps, and the difficulty rises exponentially with the number of threads.

    So what exactly would the be role of the CELL processor in PS3?

    It would make much more sense if:

    -Sony developed a platform that can move insanely great amount of graphics around, with the ability to do real-time raytracing, rather than providing so much general-purpose processing power.

    -Sony developed a graphics architecture that could really be parallelised, so instead of bringing out a totally new console, they could just up the graphics spec by adding more chips. They could save millions of dollars from developing and advertising the new console.

  19. Re:Folding@home? by harrkev · · Score: 2, Interesting
    on how quickly Operating Systems like Linux and Microsoft can adapt to this new processor.

    Funny. Windows adapt to a new processor! ROTFLMAO.

    Linux could adapt VERY quickly to any new processor, as long as the number of "cell" is kept reasonable. However, is you are talking of a massively parallel system with dozens of processors sharing the same memory space, I do not know how well it will work.

    I would not hold my breath for a Windows version. The Athlon 64s have only been out for over a year now, and Windows is not even going to support this evolutionary step for a several more months. They have a glacial speed when it comes to upgrading processor support. And Microsoft has been 100% x86 architecure (with few exceptions) for their entire history. They made CE (and PocketPC) which runs on PDA processors, and they make NT for the Alpha. Did they ever make Windows for the Itanic?

    ***

    Now, on to a separate question. I read the EE Times article, and I cannot tell any conceptual difference between this "cell" architecure and the new multi-core processors from AMD and Intel (when they arrive). Can anybody clue me in? There was some mention of how software can handle things, but is there any reason that this could not be done in x86? I am afraid that, from a hardware standpoint, I still don't get what the big deal is.

    OK. I admit it. I am a hardware geek. Hardware is the light side, and software is the dark side. That's my standpoint. Get used to it. I design digital hardware for a living. It could very well be completely revolutionary software going on here (but I doubt it).
    --
    "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
  20. Believe the hype!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Cell processor is going to rule!

    After all, look how accurate Sony's hype about the PS2 was:

    The PS2 will be able to render 75 million lit, shaded polygons per second!

    The PS2 will be able to run games at HDTV resolution (1280x960) out of the box with no performance loss!

    We will build professional workstations out of 32 Emotion Engine chips which will be able to render movies in realtime and take over the professional graphics industry!

    Since all the hype turned out to be completely 100% accurate, I'm sure we can expect the same for the PS3 / Cell Processor.

    I suppose it's also possible that it will be another massively over-hyped disappointment with builtin Sony patented lameness that sucks even harder than ATRAC. But you'd have to be a real fucking cynic to believe that!

    1. Re:Believe the hype!!! by getch(); · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not sure why this comment got modded down. Fact is, Sony hyped the "Emotion Engine" until it was blue in the face. That undeniably helped kill the Dreamcast, despite the PS2 having a far poorer library of games (and inferior) graphics for at least the first year of its existence.

      I think it's reasonable to assume that there's some serious hype going on with Cell too. Short of some revolutionary SDK, I don't see how all these processing elements will be able to work together efficiently for gaming.

  21. IT makes me wonder.. by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If this part reaches the promised performance, will CPUs then overtake GPUs for SIMD-type operations? Will a software implementation of OpenGL running on a Cell system top the performance of whatever NVidia and ATI are selling by then?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  22. Small problem by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's only one small problem with your contention - Linux /does/ scale out to at least 512 processors - hardly 'a few' - and is heading up to multiple thousands with SGI's current work.

    Of course, one could argue that the Linux folks have more than one insane genius among them...

  23. Re:Why does a game console need such a monster CPU by tuffy · · Score: 3, Informative
    After playing games on a PC with a mouse, playing on a console is frustrating, not fun. And, I can not imagine playing a game that puts console based players up against PC players (unless you handicap the PC's hardware). The console players would be out of luck.

    Playing first-person shooters on a console is frustrating, since the control is designed for a keyboard and mouse. Similarly, playing a typical console 3D platformer like Wind Waker on a PC will be equally frustrating since the control is designed for console pads.

    It's the nature of the beast. And until someone sorts out the control differences, PC vs. console play will always fall short for one of the two.

    --

    Ita erat quando hic adveni.

  24. Intel Prescott vs. Motorola 68k by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This does not surprise me in the least. A Prescott processor has 125 million transistors, a Motorola 68000 had 68000 transistors. Yet the Prescott is not 1838 times more productive on a per clock-cycle basis. Admittedly, some of those Prescott transistors go to cache, superscalar magic, creating long fast pipes to achieve the GHz and implementing nifty MMX features. Even so, fabbing a 68k in 90 nm would create a tight little processor that is not 1800 times slower than the Prescott.

    Thus, one can imagine creating a tighter core processor design with a budget of a million transistors each (15 times the original 68k budget) with a few million for L1 cache and another million for glue and then place 20 of them on a single die. Add optical interconnects and that new optical-to-silicon technology invented recently (for multiple channels of GHz I/O to feed all those cores) and you have yourself a powerful little processor.

    The point is that with a budget of 125 million transistors, designers can do more than create a bloated single-core CISC processor.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  25. DRM For the Masses by rsmith-mac · · Score: 4, Interesting
    After reading that press release, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure what's really "new" about the Cell other than On-chip hardware in support of security system for intellectual property protection. There are other Power designs already that do multicore, do high performance, and do vector ops(Altivect), so the only thing that I haven't heard about a design for is their security system.

    Considering the companies involved, and the devices that they want to put the chip in, I'm really tempted to say that the Cell is nothing more than the biggest effort we've ever seen to get a DRM (trusted computing) CPU and associated parts on to the market. Obviously, this scares the bejesus out of me, since it would mean that these Cell devices would effectively be mod-proof; systems like Xbox Live already keep cheaters away, so this seems to be an attempt to stop modding alltogether. So, I have to ask: how is this going to benefit me, the consumer? If Live already gets rid of possible cheaters, how does stopping me from modding my box altogether help me?

    If these assumptions are right, I don't like where this is going.

  26. Divide by zero by servognome · · Score: 3, Funny

    or is that still to "difficult"
    TOO/0 = TO

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  27. Re:Why does a game console need such a monster CPU by n3k5 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yes indeed, a console doesn't need a powerful CPU any more than a bathtub needs a good amount of warm water. But people who use it will want it anyway.
    Real-time 3d graphics of cinematic quality will always be too slow for general purpose CPUs.
    This statement is so silly, it's not even wrong.
    developing a game with AI that needs ten times the power of todays CPUs will take many man years and may not be that welcomed by the console audience.
    A typical PS3 game takes many person-years to develop, regardless of wheter it uses any AI. For many games, it's a matter of days to develop an AI that needs ten times the power of today's CPUs. Making it so it uses only a fraction of the power of a current CPU is the difficult and time-intensive task. Console-gamers play much more single player games than PC users, so it is particularly them who welcome a sophisticaed AI.
    It's very difficult to do multithreaded apps, and the difficulty rises exponentially with the number of threads.
    It's very easy to make multimedia-processing apps multi-threaded and rendering scales particularly well over multiple CPUs. If the engine uses an API like OpenGL or D3D, it doesn't even have to know how many threads are used to render the visuals, the programmer doesn't have to do anything. Many AI algorithms also scale pretty well over multiple threads and/or closely coupled CPUs.
    [Sony should concentrate on graphics chips instead of general purpose CPUs.] They could save millions of dollars from developing and advertising the new console. [Instead of re-using the old one, just with more GFC chips.]
    These CPUs aren't 'general purpose' in the sense like a 486 is general purpose. They are specifically optimised for parallel operations, floating point calculations, vector math ... So they can save even more money the way they're ding it, because they can re-use the same architecture in lots and ltos of media processign devices, not just gaming consoles, and they can not just scale pure graphics performance, but also audio performance, video performance, whatever is suited to the Cell architecture.
    --
    but what do i know, i'm just a model.
  28. Believe the truth by Ideaphile · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sony originally promised the PS2 could render 75M simple polygons per second, but also said the geometry engine's limit was 36M polygons per second. This figure is accurate, but like all such numbers in the graphics industry, it is achievable only in a single-function demo app. Such figures are useful only for comparing the raw performance of different designs.

    Sony never claimed the PS2 could support HDTV resolution. The company was very clear about the limited frame-buffer memory on the Graphics Synthesizer chip.

    Sony did, in fact, make a multiprocessor PS2-based workstation, the GSCube, which combined 16 complete PS2-compatible subsystems. The "Graphics Synthesizer I-32" chip used in this system had a 32MB HDTV-sized frame buffer, leading me to speculate at the time (August 2000) that Sony would soon introduce an HD-capable PS2. They could have, but they never did. I can't get 'em all right, I guess. They demonstrated to me (personally) this system rendering scenes from the Final Fantasy movie in real time, so that wasn't hype either.

    Here are the Microprocessor Report articles I wrote at the time (subscribers only):

    http://www.mdronline.com/mpr/h/19990419/130501.htm l

    http://www.mdronline.com/mpr/h/2000/0821/143402.ht ml

    . png

  29. Re:Future by hunterx11 · · Score: 2, Funny

    6502? So he'll kill you and beat you at Nintendo!

    --
    English is easier said than done.