Slashdot Mirror
Cell Workstations in 2005
yerdaddie writes "The cell processor will be introduced in graphics workstations before release in the Playstation 3, according to press releases by IBM and Sony. As previously discussed, IBM will be releasing more details in February 2005. However, apparently prototype workstations have already been "powered-on" and will be available in 2005. Since Windows on PPC was scrapped back in 1997, this leads to speculation that perhaps Linux, AIX, or BSD will be the operating system for cell workstations."
This article provides some background.
It has been stated before that the PlayStation 3 is expected to be capable of distributed processing due to the capabilities of the Cell architecture. Whether or not that will indeed be the case remains to be seen, it is certainly a lofty goal for the current market penetration (not to mention speeds) of broadband in the home. Does Sony expect these PS3s to cooperate with their Cell-based television sets?
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
For all practical purposes, the PowerPC has been relegated to a Mac-only solution while high performance NT users have turned to Digital's Alpha....
This move puts Apple Computer in another awkward position: the company had been planning on using Windows NT in its Web servers.
And my favorite actual fact is that microsoft is going back to Power PC with the new Xbox . But Im sorry that Alpha has been erased from the map.
"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." -- Linus
The graphic
Nothing to see here
No. You are mistaken. Xbox will have a PowerPC derivative. Not a POWER derivative. Also, I should note that Cell, although part is derived from the POWER4, is not really anything like the POWER4 architecture.
ruby -le"32.times{|y|print' '*(31-y),(0..y).map{|x|~y&x>0?'
The most interesting part, however, is that MS may be putting up .NET as the development environment for the X-Box 2. It makes sense that MS would try to leverage their gaming platform to lure developers onto the .NET platform and commit their engines to that API.
On another note, could Linux and Mono play much of a role in this if the Cell does indeed provide a Linux environment for development? If Sony is able to provide a less expensive development environment, development costs may ultimately go down and the consumer would benefit.
This could be either by the increase of choice since the bar of entry would be lowered for smaller software houses, or by cost if the games are indeed cheaper as a result; Existing engines and software could be ported or would be compatible, or due to the the ease of coding on a familiar platform.
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
You'd boot into something like Grub and choose your processor. That way you could run a UltraSPARC workstation, MIPS, Itanium, or something as small as a PIC. It'd be great for cross-platform development especially for embedded users.
I'm sure processor hobbyists would spring up to fill every niche of emulator. Probably be a great proving ground for design theory.
Considering the low heat output you could have a dual/quad-processor box.
Maybe someone would figure out how to run multiple translators at the same time so you could run x86 and PPC and 68K at damn-near native speeds
To me that'd be the ultimate workstation.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
In all fairness, we really don't know from what processors the CPU in Xbox2 nor Cell will be derived from, but the most reliable information we have says that the Xbox2-CPU will we quite similar to PowerPC 970, but with three cores. As such it is indeed a PowerPC processor but it is also POWER4 derived. Cell on the other hand is stated to have a 64 bit Power core, and that's quite different from saying that it's POWER4 derived. IBM uses the term "Power" for both PowerPC- and POWER-processors, so it very well could be, and probably is, PowerPC-based and not POWER-based.
The core in Cell is probably an highly evolved PowerPC 440 based core since that is a quite proven, capable, lean and have a very modular design. I think it would be unwise to build Cell around a massively complex design like POWER4. It would suffer immensely from compelxity, power consumption and its monolithic design.
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
I'm still wondering about the real-time uses of this, i.e. PS3. Latency becomes a huge issue when you're trying to render a frame every 16ms.
It sees to me that each micro-kernel is going to need some RAM of its own, and to get the promised performance you would need many of these micro-kernels.
Keeping in mind that there are various distros which fit on a 1.44 MB floppy disk *with* userland utilities, I don't think the size of the kernel will prove to be the limiting factor on a modern workstation.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
All POWER-processors have been fully compliant (32 and 64 bit) PowerPCs since POWER3, and before that the RS64-procesosrs were too fully PowerPC compliant. So.. you are wrong in saying that most POWER-processors isn't PowerPCs since they have been since 1999, and they have been even more PowerPCs than "clean" PowerPCs since they until the 970 didn't have the full 64 bit ISA.
:)
The ISSCC papers state that Cell is Power based, not POWER based. There's a significant difference here since IBM in its marketing use the "Power" moniker to encompass both PowerPC and POWER processors. If you have seen different papers than I have, please provide me with an URL of PDF that proves me wrong. This is important stuff
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
The development kit for Xbox 2 is Windows NT4 for PPC with Xbox 2 extras.
Actually, CELL is based around the 970. Expect about 80-90% performance compared to an equivalently clocked 970. Where it goes nuts is that there's a number of vector units attached that are basically "VMX on steroids" to quote one of the main guys at IBM behind this. The vector units (or Data Plane Processors as they're calling them) can also communicate between each other as well as with the central core. The workstations are actually headless server blades, each of which will have 2 CELL's on them and they'll be running Linux.
This stuff isn't bullshit, it was all disclosed Thursday at the Australian Game Developers Conference. I didn't sign a NDA so it's all good. I also fondled a PSP =]
I'm still a bit worried that I've not heard much about the seemingly built-in DRM management of this new platform (that seem to be able to spread to all facets of technology, including toasters). According to a clause in the pressrelease by IBM and Sony from Nov. 29, the Cell processor will have:
- On-chip hardware in support of security system for intellectual property protection.
Is this the end of tampering-capable hardware (e.g. machines where you can modify the kernel, bypass DRM-systems etc) that some people have long foreseen? Anyone more in-the-meat of the technical details care to elaborate on this?
avocade.com
In a free and open internet, who needs Windows
- Make one that works for all (or, at least, most) cases but is hideously complicated, or
- Make one that focusses on one class of application (e.g. throughput-oriented, realtime, etc).
Most monolithic kernels choose 1. Several micro-kernels implement the scheduling algorithms in user-space, allowing them to be swapped easily. Having a large number of cores available to the system would allow this to be dynamically tweaked.This approach seems more in line with the exokernel project than any microkernel I've looked at. If you've got some spare time, exokernel is well worth a look.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's not the same. Hyper threading divides processor units (e.g. a multiplier or an adder) in order to keep most units of the single core busy. This happens because Intel processors have very long processing pipelines (thus the very high frequency compared to AMD), so stalling them can be quite costly. In order to avoid this, Intel simply keeps track of two "virtual" processor states, essentially 2 copies of all registers, and schedules instructions from any of these two execution threads in ways that keep most units busy. By chosing from 2 threads instead of one it has greater chances of finding an instruction that can be computed by an idle (at that time) unit.
Cell architecture, on the other hand, seems to rely on multiple simple cores, each of which is complete. A central Power processor core keeps them working together. I assume (but I do not know!) that the benefit of this architecture is : (a) adding multiple cores is easy and increases cost linearly (b) software that works for a 16-core chip will also work for a 2-core chip, but slower (therefore the same processor can be adapted to different needs, just like multi-unit videocards, without expensive redesign) (c) an inherent understanding of parallelism (on the chip) allows chaining them together in an easy fashion. Maybe we will start counting cores instead of MHz in a few years, when all cpus will have peaked at some--obscenely high--MHz limit. Details on the cell chip are very vague and ridden with marketing buzz-words, but it appears it will be able to execute many more parallel threads than an Intel HT processor (2 threads maximum in parallel).
What worries me most is the fact that Sony (which also sells music/movies etc) says it'll have on-chip capability to protect copyrighted works. I don't know what this will mean for the GNU/linux crowd.
Disclaimer: All the above is wild speculation. I am not an engineer.
P.