Slashdot Mirror
IBM Plans to Open the Cell Processor
morcheeba writes "According to an EETimes article, IBM is planning on releasing the full specifications and software libraries for the powerful processor that will be in the Playstation 3. The goal is to stimulate open-source development for other applications of the chip. The article doesn't mention if there will be some affordable development systems for all these programmers -- I'm hoping for a ps3 devkit." From the article: "IBM is eager to find other opportunities for Cell, but it's going to take a lot of software work...Going to the open-source community makes sense, because they could attract a lot of pretty smart programmers who could spin out software and applications for Cell."
From TFA:
So it sounds like IBM is working on porting Linux to it.
This will blow 3rd party development wide open for the next gen Playstation.
Just like 3rd party development is wide open for the xbox, just because the cpu is publicly documented. Keep dreaming.
Sony must have given its approval for releasing this information. It could not happen without them.
If Sony did not know, and IBM made this move without their approval, I could see Sony NEVER buying from IBM again. That is too big a risk for IBM. Heck, most companies would think twice.
Will it be easier to make a mod chip if people know how the processor works? Or did Sony add their DRM elsewhere? Who knows. IBM is not releasing the blueprints for the Playstation 3, just the processor.
Sony is a big company that hires smart people. Maybe they figured out hiding the electronics will not prevent reverse engineering. Maybe the new PS3 has some technology that makes it difficult to mod.
Maybe this is like Microsofts WMV, it is unhackable, nobody can get it to play a stream if DRM v9 is enabled. Not one person on the planet. And it has been over a year now.
For the PS3, they don't need for their game machine to be unhackable forever, just until the PS4 comes out. :)
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
nope, they already have cell processor HDTVs on the market
There's already code:
a y/004027.html
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc64-dev/2005-M
When you say "both next-gen consoles," don't you mean "all three?" The Nintendo Revolution will have an IBM CPU too!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Yeah, you can simulate it in Verilog (on a high-end Linux server, no less), and get other companies to do your fab for you, but it still costs a minimum of about $100,000 for each chip spin to get actual hardware -- hardly within reach of your average hobbyist. Add to that tens of thousands to license the cores used. I think only a handful of large companies will be designing and building chips for the forseeable future. In fact, if you can't amortize your development costs over about a million chips, it isn't really economically feasible to roll your own.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
You're absolutely right.
IBM has been doing this for a very, very long time. Ever wonder how the IBM-Compatible PC became so popular, and the Apples didn't? It's simple, IBM kept the AT backplane and CPU architecture open, and Apple didn't. Maintainers of the machines don't have to worry about interoperability, and have a huge list of vendors they can get software and add-on hardware from.
Open hardware is just as important as the software that runs on it.
This sig rocks the casbah.
... not every processor is documented. In fact, the documentation for a lot of high volume processors isn't available. I'd like PSP docs, or docs on the processor in the ipod, or even the processor in the disposable digital cameras or the VMU game system -- but none of these docs are publicly available. The hardware manual for the G5 PowerPC was finally published last November, over a year after apple started selling the hardware.
So, no, the documentation doesn't always get released.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Already done! Linux supports Cell processor since May 13.
:wq
It's called a "compiler," smartguy.
Comment of the year
Nice to see someone as important as IBM realising the importnace of open HARDWARE. I've found that until recently the concept has been overlooked or even derided.
Not really that new. Every commercial used CPU out there has really good docs, because they realize that their CPUs are only useful if people have code they can run on them. Hell, I have (or at least had, I may have given them away when I moved) a 3 volume set of printed bound documentation for AMD64, plus a CD with PDFs of same, which AMD sent to me for free just for filling out a form on their website. And I have dozens of PDF and PostScript files for coding for PowerPC, SPARC, Alpha, and several x86 variants. I had been wondering when IBM was going to get around to getting this stuff out there for Cell, since if they want people to use it in workstations, first thing they'll need is a GCC port (I can't see a Windows port to Cell anytime soon, and AIX with XLC just wouldn't be any fun).
The graphics card manufactuers are the exception, not the rule.
Mods find it "Interesting" that the parent didn't read the article. ;) (Maybe trying to be the first to reply ;))
The article clearly states that Sony is part of this decision.
As of 2 years ago, the Nintendo GameCube was the biggest use of PowerPC chips. They told nearly 10x as many GameCubes and Macintoshs.
I've got my own project on there, in a bid to develop a totally parallel OO-based processor, but not had much time to work on that recently.
Those interested in Open Hardware should visit this and similar sites, to see what is happening out there, whether or not they believe the idea could work in practice. Why? Because it is an excellent source of ideas, and ideas are what keep all the IT markets moving.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
That's what Sony thought - but they found it's just not as good as a regular video card is. That's why the PS3 has an nvidia chip instead of a second Cell, as they originally planned.
Part of the advantage of FP is that it can be automatically parallelized much easier than imperative code, and is easier and less error-prone to write than multithreaded imperative code.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
What else is out there anyway? The main contenders are PPC and Intel. Both Intel and AMD produce x86/64 chips only. Sure everyone also produces arm/strongarm chips, but theyre still weak, the fastest strongarm from Intel is used on higher end PDAs.
Whats left is MIPS, Ultrasparc, PA-RISC, Alpha and special purpose FPGA chips.
MIPS is dead. SGI was producing servers on Itanium which also died.
Ultrasparc is dying in favor of x64. Sun guards its IP jealously. Low throughput but high floating and thread performance.
PA-RISC gives the best bang for the MHz. Good float, everything else runs too hot for now. Old old architecture.
Alpha was killed by HP. They'll try to sell you Itanium or PARISC before they sell you an Alpha. Development on it has completely stopped since 21264c. And I mean COMPLETELY.
FPGA chips are less efficient, and better use an ARM than an fpga chip.
So the two champions are PPC (and its derivative, Cell) and x86/x64.
Architecturally, PPC, and a 64-bit-only x64 are efficient. But IBM has been trying to push PPC in the market, working hard on a grand plan to take the market dominance away from x86. Look at all their offerings for Linux on PPC. They're prepping up this combination against wintel... and any usage of PPC means profits for them and Motorola, mostly to IBM in the higher end.
The choice is rather easy. If you will not use an IBM chip for a higher-end game console, what will you choose?
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
The Cell, OTOH, seems quite novel, and does some very interesting things, even if it does share the Power core. The published benchmarks are very impressive, though admittedly in a narrower domain than what you might be useing your PC for.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis