| Author |
Message |
Ketil Malde
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:56 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel has no answer to the 'Cell' processor; will Apple |
|
|
Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> writes:
I'm not sure it's fair to call it "cache" -- the term used in the
press releases were, IIRC, "local memory", which I suspect implies
that they must be managed directly (probably) by the main core.
(I guess this was the real origin of all this nonsense about
distributing packets of instructions and data all over the internet
for computation. Or whatever the hype was made to sound like)
| Quote: | Sure, they could, but they wouldn't be anywhere near as fast as any
current processors unless you can make use of the vector engine.
And doing that means changing ALL of the software, and that is
*EXPENSIVE*.
|
Only Photoshop -- this is Apple, you know :-) (Photoshop filters could
probably be made to scream on Cell.)
| Quote: | We will definitely NOT see the Cell processor (or it's descendants)
showing up in any meaningful way (ie not just a couple special-purpose
workstations from IBM) as the main processor in desktop computers for
AT LEAST 5 years, probably more like 10+ years if ever. And yes, you
can quote me on that.
|
While I'd like to have virtualization on my PC, I'm not convinced of
its uses in PS3. Was it simply too difficult to remove from the POWER
core, or what? :-)
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
David Wang
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:52 pm Post subject:
Re: The CELL Microprocessor Further In-Depth |
|
|
In comp.arch NEXT BOX <nextbox@xbox2.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Back to Basics
The fundamental task of a processor is to manage the flow of data through
its computational units. However in the past two decades, each successive
generation of processors for personal computers has added more transistors
|
[The rest of my article snipped]
Dear "NEXT BOX",
You managed to copy everything except the following copyright
statement. You are expressly forbidden to do what you did. Please
cease and desist. I will be contacting your ISP shortly.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright ? 2005 David T. Wang. All rights reserved. No portion of this
article, in part or whole, may be reproduced, copied, transmitted, stored,
downloaded, in any manner in anyway for any purpose whatsoever without the
express written consent from the author.
--
davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:42 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel has no answer to the 'Cell' processor; will Apple |
|
|
Alex Colvin wrote:
| Quote: | Intel has no answer to the 'Cell' processor; will Apple use it in
Macs?
the cell is a G5 processor with *ADDTIONALLY* cpus on the same chip
Cell's master CPU is not a G5 processor. it's much more streamlined than a
G5.
Actually, intel also has a streamlined processor with *16* additional
processors on the same chip. and a RDRAM interface. and honking I/O
bandwidth.
http://www.intel.com/design/network/products/npfamily/docs/ixp2800_docs.htm#Datasheets
|
Similar concept. Very different purpose. The ixp2800 uses an ARM core
with no FPU where-as the Cell uses a POWER core with the full
instruction set and all the necessary execution units. The ixp2800
microengines are specialized units for data transfer, they move things
around, while the Cell coprocessors are specialized unis for FP vector
processing, the calculate things. The ideas behind the two chips are
very similar, but they are not at all competitors...totally different
specializations.
Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Todd
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Feb 11, 2005 7:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Cell Processor Uses Rambus High Speed Interface Solution |
|
|
Tony Hill wrote:
....
| Quote: | Even in SPEC CFP2000, kind of the ideal benchmark for this
super-bandwidth setup, the EV7 is still being beaten by current x86
processors. When looking at other tests it's even less impressive.
|
Yeah - really pathetic performance from a 1998 core two full process
generations out of date.
- bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linønut
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:12 pm Post subject:
Re: First Picture of a Cell Processor - Smaller Than a Pushp |
|
|
Tony Hill poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
| Quote: | Riiiiigghtttt.... And just WHO is going to write the software for my
networked toilet? Please tell me it's not Microsoft, because that's
one place I do NOT want a blue-screen! :
|
You mean a blue-bowl, don't you? According to the teevee, many American
housewives have orgasms over the sight of a blue toilet bowl.
--
I'm going Siegfried for awhile |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Douglas Siebert
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:23 pm Post subject:
Re: Cell Processor Uses Rambus High Speed Interface Solution |
|
|
Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:
| Quote: | Tony Hill wrote:
...
Even in SPEC CFP2000, kind of the ideal benchmark for this
super-bandwidth setup, the EV7 is still being beaten by current x86
processors. When looking at other tests it's even less impressive.
Yeah - really pathetic performance from a 1998 core two full process
generations out of date.
|
Uh, released in 2003, not 1998. If you want to talk about when the core
design was started, I could make a case that the Pentium-M is a 1992 core :)
--
Douglas Siebert dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Boswell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel has no answer to the 'Cell' processor; will Apple |
|
|
NEXT BOX wrote:
| Quote: | "Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote in
message news:MsKdne8ZpdibxZbfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
Daniel Johnson wrote:
On 2005-02-10 01:07:53 -0500, "NEXT BOX" <nextbox@xbox2.net> said:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/4967/
Intel has no answer to the 'Cell' processor; will Apple use
it in Macs?
Not too likely. The cell is not a general purpose CPU; Most programs
have a working set larger than the 256k memory the Cell supports,
and changing them to work in 256k increments would rather hard.
The Cell seems to be intended for use as a sort of co-processor, and
maybe they could be used to build a sort of GPU. But the benefits
will be in any event pretty limited.
not -
the cell is a G5 processor with *ADDTIONALLY* cpus on the same chip
also if you had bothered to read -
the cell's G5 carries a 32K level cache, and a 512K level 2 cache
while the 'satellite' cpus carry the 256K cache
excepting die size (giant at 221 mm) there is no practical reason
that these could not be put into Macs, or any other general use PC
(including in a dual [Mac tower] or quad [IBM Server] processor
configuration).
Cell's master CPU is not a G5 processor. it's much more streamlined
than a G5.
|
To be fair, if Apple were to use it, they'd probably call it a G5
it's NOT a 970 series chip though, it's a 64bit PPC+VMX core, with 2-way
multithreading.. but it bears little resembalance to recent Power cores..
looks more like an IBM research project from a few years ago called Rivina
if anything... short pipeline + high clock.
-JB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The little lost angel
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:41 am Post subject:
Re: First Picture of a Cell Processor - Smaller Than a Pushp |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:31:05 -0500, Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | Just think of how much $$$ we're talking about here if everything runs
on Cell so I'm sure they will figure out a way to use Cell in TV,
toilet flush and trash bin too :pPpPP
Riiiiigghtttt.... And just WHO is going to write the software for my
networked toilet? Please tell me it's not Microsoft, because that's
one place I do NOT want a blue-screen! :
|
I'm working on this top secret OS. I'm stuck choosing between the
names Cancer or Prison for this Cell OS. And don't worry, I'll be
using pink instead of blue :ppPPPp
--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith R. Williams
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:49 am Post subject:
Re: First Picture of a Cell Processor - Smaller Than a Pushp |
|
|
In article <420d09ef.101221984@news.singnet.com.sg>, a?n?g?e?
l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com says...
| Quote: | On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:31:05 -0500, Tony Hill
hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Just think of how much $$$ we're talking about here if everything runs
on Cell so I'm sure they will figure out a way to use Cell in TV,
toilet flush and trash bin too :pPpPP
Riiiiigghtttt.... And just WHO is going to write the software for my
networked toilet? Please tell me it's not Microsoft, because that's
one place I do NOT want a blue-screen! :
I'm working on this top secret OS. I'm stuck choosing between the
names Cancer or Prison for this Cell OS. And don't worry, I'll be
using pink instead of blue :ppPPPp
|
Pink? ..fOr a Cell? It *must* be blue. The pink company went pork and
was bought out by the 'Q', which...
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deKay
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:00 am Post subject:
Re: The CELL Microprocessor Further In-Depth |
|
|
Soni tempori elseu romani yeof helsforo nisson ol sefini ill des Fri, 11 Feb
2005 16:52:21 +0000 (UTC), sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do
uk.games.video.playstation, yawatina tan reek esk David Wang <foo@bar.invalid>
fornis do marikano es bono tan el:
| Quote: | [The rest of my article snipped]
Dear "NEXT BOX",
You managed to copy everything except the following copyright
statement. You are expressly forbidden to do what you did. Please
cease and desist. I will be contacting your ISP shortly.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
|
You will have a small army of supporters, Mr Wang. May I suggest you take it
further than just contacting his ISP? You'd be doing the whole of Usenet a
great service if you got him banged up for this :)
deKay
--
+ Lofi Gaming - www.lofi-gaming.org.uk [Gamertag: deKay 01]
|- Gaming Diary - www.lofi-gaming.org.uk/diary/
|- My computer runs at 3.5MHz and I'm proud of that
|- Hurry up and go touch it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith R. Williams
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:02 am Post subject:
Re: Cell Processor Uses Rambus High Speed Interface Solution |
|
|
In article <cuj482$eem$1@narsil.avalon.net>,
dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net says...
| Quote: | Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:
Tony Hill wrote:
...
Even in SPEC CFP2000, kind of the ideal benchmark for this
super-bandwidth setup, the EV7 is still being beaten by current x86
processors. When looking at other tests it's even less impressive.
Yeah - really pathetic performance from a 1998 core two full process
generations out of date.
Uh, released in 2003, not 1998. If you want to talk about when the core
design was started, I could make a case that the Pentium-M is a 1992 core :)
|
Or Itanic a '94 core. ;-)
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Todd
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:25 am Post subject:
Re: Cell Processor Uses Rambus High Speed Interface Solution |
|
|
Douglas Siebert wrote:
| Quote: | Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:
Tony Hill wrote:
...
Even in SPEC CFP2000, kind of the ideal benchmark for this
super-bandwidth setup, the EV7 is still being beaten by current x86
processors. When looking at other tests it's even less impressive.
Yeah - really pathetic performance from a 1998 core two full process
generations out of date.
Uh, released in 2003, not 1998.
|
There were no substantial changes in the core (IIRC they got to enlarge
the victim buffer, and that was about it). They weren't even allowed to
tweak things to make use of faster on-chip L2 cache.
EV7 essentially uses a core implementation, not just design, that
shipped in 1998.
e a case that the Pentium-M is a 1992 core :)
'Fraid not.
- bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
myren, lord
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:29 am Post subject:
Re: CELL INFO: Less than 10 hours away? |
|
|
NEXT BOX wrote:
| Quote: | I don't want to hype today *too* much, for fear of disappointment. but in
less than 10 hours, there is *supposed* to be quiet a bit of information
released on the Cell Processor Element, Cell APU and Cell PU. the basic
building blocks of Cell Processors and Cell Systems. As well as information
on the software side, if i'm not mistaken.
|
I havent found much new information on Cell since the Sony regalia.
Most of it was available months ago from the net, and often with more in
depth analysis and less fanfare. The coverage has been flat out spotty,
hell, The Register went straight off the deep end; I think we should at
least wait for the video game system to come out to let us get some idea
what Cell can do before we decide its going to singlehandedly jump start
the ubiquotous grid, gain sentience and take over the world.
They'd better have one badass API to program this thing.
Oh, and this cross posting shit is getting excessive.
Regards,
Myren |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daytripper
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:40 am Post subject:
Re: Rambus for GPUs? (was: Cell Processor Uses Rambus ...) |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:31:06 -0500, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:56:07 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
(Anton Ertl) wrote:
Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> writes:
With the way that the PS2 processor and this new Cell processor work,
combined with the nature of the machine (ie to play games), bandwidth
is likely to be quite important while latency will be somewhat less
so. Remember that these processors are going to be doing a lot of
work traditionally associated with GPUs in a PC. Rambus' solutions,
both XDR now and RDRAM back when the PS2 was new, do offer VERY high
per-pin bandwidth and that's just the sort of thing that these
consoles need. The processors also have integrated memory controllers
which helps avoid some of the potential issues with Rambus in PCs. To
top it off, the memory chips are getting soldered right onto the
system board rather than hanging off multidrop sockets on the system
board.
Given all of that, Rambus would also make sense for graphics cards
(where all of the same things hold). Yet both Nvidia and ATI go with
DDR-SDRAM. Why? Is the savings by reducing pins less than the
premium for Rambus RAM? If so, wouldn't it also make sense for PS3 to
use DDR(2)-SDRAM?
I've wondered the very same thing myself. To me, from the outside at
least, it seems like it would make sense. Rambus memory has been used
in video cards before, but only in some very rare situations. I don't
even think there would be much of a cost difference for the memory
chips even, given that video cards use very high-end/high speed GDDR3
memory, quite a bit more expensive than the DDR memory used in desktop
PCs.
However nVidia has commented before that they have evaluated Rambus
memory on more than one occasion and found it to be unsuitable for
their application. It's always made me wonder if maybe they know
something that the rest of us don't? Or maybe their decision was only
partly based on technical reasons and partly on more political/legal
related ones? Or maybe it has to do with Rambus licensing fees for
the memory controller rather than for the memory itself?
In short, I really don't know what the answer is here.
In essensce, what's so different between the PS3 and graphics cards
that one goes with Rambus whereas the others go with DDR(2)?
Not much from where I'm standing.
|
Some times you get beau coup pins for "free". Like when you need a humongous
die and package to fit all the functional bells, whistles and go-fasters on
the chip...
/daytripper |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:52 am Post subject:
Re: CELL INFO: Less than 10 hours away? |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:29:23 -0500, myren, lord wrote:
| Quote: | NEXT BOX wrote:
I don't want to hype today *too* much, for fear of disappointment. but in
less than 10 hours, there is *supposed* to be quiet a bit of information
released on the Cell Processor Element, Cell APU and Cell PU. the basic
building blocks of Cell Processors and Cell Systems. As well as information
on the software side, if i'm not mistaken.
I havent found much new information on Cell since the Sony regalia.
|
Did you really expect to? This is ISSCC, not an architecture forum.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in