If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ultimate in over-the-top cell speculation. Intel manufactures Cell. Microsoft withers.
Greetings!
http://hardware.itmanagersjournal.co...5.shtml?tid=78 The article quotes at length one Jim Trounson, who is part of group that is developing a PCI-X card for Cell, or so they say. Best science fiction of 2005 already awarded? quote Cell Industries predicts that Intel will be building Cell with cooperation from IBM within a year. Cell, software, and Microsoft's demise For the anticipated finale, and the end of Microsoft dominance as we know it, Trounson forecast that IBM will not give Microsoft hardware to work with, and will cash in on its support for open source and Linux. snip Cell Industries forecasts that as Intel begins producing Cell chips, Microsoft will try to port its operating system to the new processor. However, Linux will have a significant head start and Microsoft will in turn "fall apart." "When hardware is commercially available, Windows will take two to three years to get the first version going," Trounson said. "IBM already has Linux running on the Cell [at that point]." Adding that Cell chips will be in short supply for years, Trounson acknowledged that the prediction represents the unprecedented. "The world has never seen a step change in technology like what is about to occur," Trounson said. /quote ....and then I woke up. RM |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Myers wrote:
Greetings! http://hardware.itmanagersjournal.co...5.shtml?tid=78 The article quotes at length one Jim Trounson, who is part of group that is developing a PCI-X card for Cell, or so they say. Crackpots can come from all industries. :-) Cell Industries predicts that Intel will be building Cell with cooperation from IBM within a year. He would've been more believable if he said AMD is going to start building Cell, since afterall AMD and IBM have been synchronizing their process technologies recently. So has Chartered. Cell Industries forecasts that as Intel begins producing Cell chips, Microsoft will try to port its operating system to the new processor. However, Linux will have a significant head start and Microsoft will in turn "fall apart." Sort of like how Microsoft fell apart after falling two years behind Linux in the x86-64 arena, I guess? Adding that Cell chips will be in short supply for years, Trounson acknowledged that the prediction represents the unprecedented. I see he's already got his fallback in case his predictions inevitably don't come true: Cell chips will be in short supply that's why it didn't take off. "The world has never seen a step change in technology like what is about to occur," Trounson said. Not since, ... oh Itanium, and then later Transmeta. Yousuf Khan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:28:46 -0500, Robert Myers
wrote: Greetings! http://hardware.itmanagersjournal.co...5.shtml?tid=78 The article quotes at length one Jim Trounson, who is part of group that is developing a PCI-X card for Cell, or so they say. Uhh, does he mean a PCI-E card? Why the hell would anybody be interested in a PCI-X card for a future system? It would be err, good to get that bit right before proceeding further. Best science fiction of 2005 already awarded? quote Cell Industries predicts that Intel will be building Cell with cooperation from IBM within a year. .... and pigs will fly! I gotta see this one. Cell, software, and Microsoft's demise For the anticipated finale, and the end of Microsoft dominance as we know it, Trounson forecast that IBM will not give Microsoft hardware to work with, and will cash in on its support for open source and Linux. B-b-b-but his *own* model is founded on open hardware specs. How could anybody stop M$ from getting their hands on it? Cell Industries forecasts that as Intel begins producing Cell chips, Microsoft will try to port its operating system to the new processor. However, Linux will have a significant head start and Microsoft will in turn "fall apart." "When hardware is commercially available, Windows will take two to three years to get the first version going," Trounson said. "IBM already has Linux running on the Cell [at that point]." Adding that Cell chips will be in short supply for years, Trounson acknowledged that the prediction represents the unprecedented. "The world has never seen a step change in technology like what is about to occur," Trounson said. /quote One "little" flaw I see - there is talk of: Quote:
not been good at giving anything away, even to developers and certainly not speculatively. That was the main reason for the failure of OS/2. I've also mentioned in the past that we, and others, coughed up $$ for Risc/6K and Alpha... all for nothing... money down the drain - we won't do that again. OTOH I have to confess I do not understand the open source business "model".shrug Off-hand, other things: 1) I don't see the XDR memory sub-system being amenable to memory "strips" and even with 1Gbit chips, 512MB of memory per CPU is kinda slim... without reworking the memory interface to get to 8GB per CPU; 2) 32-bit FPU is not going to fly as a general purpose computer. ...and then I woke up. I hope this guy has a spare grungy garage for his efforts - seems like that is part of the template for success he is aiming to emulate... C.F. Dell, Apple, et.al.:-) -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:00:55 -0500, George Macdonald
wrote: On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:28:46 -0500, Robert Myers wrote: Greetings! http://hardware.itmanagersjournal.co...5.shtml?tid=78 The article quotes at length one Jim Trounson, who is part of group that is developing a PCI-X card for Cell, or so they say. Uhh, does he mean a PCI-E card? Why the hell would anybody be interested in a PCI-X card for a future system? It would be err, good to get that bit right before proceeding further. Especially since such a card is almost certainly going to be I/O-bound. Best science fiction of 2005 already awarded? quote Cell Industries predicts that Intel will be building Cell with cooperation from IBM within a year. ... and pigs will fly! I gotta see this one. Cell, software, and Microsoft's demise For the anticipated finale, and the end of Microsoft dominance as we know it, Trounson forecast that IBM will not give Microsoft hardware to work with, and will cash in on its support for open source and Linux. B-b-b-but his *own* model is founded on open hardware specs. How could anybody stop M$ from getting their hands on it? I guess he's assuming that M$ can't go buy a PS3 for some reason. Cell Industries forecasts that as Intel begins producing Cell chips, Microsoft will try to port its operating system to the new processor. However, Linux will have a significant head start and Microsoft will in turn "fall apart." "When hardware is commercially available, Windows will take two to three years to get the first version going," Trounson said. "IBM already has Linux running on the Cell [at that point]." Adding that Cell chips will be in short supply for years, Trounson acknowledged that the prediction represents the unprecedented. "The world has never seen a step change in technology like what is about to occur," Trounson said. /quote One "little" flaw I see - there is talk of: Quote:
Who is going to pay for the hardware and software for development? IBM has not been good at giving anything away, even to developers and certainly not speculatively. That was the main reason for the failure of OS/2. I've also mentioned in the past that we, and others, coughed up $$ for Risc/6K and Alpha... all for nothing... money down the drain - we won't do that again. OTOH I have to confess I do not understand the open source business "model".shrug Umm, I guess you don't. :-). That's why SCO is taking aim at IBM. Without IBM pumping its own serious money into Linux, Linux would be nowhere near where it is now, and IBM _is_ giving stuff away. In return, it has a nice growing Linux server business (and a pesky lawsuit, to be sure). I don't see anything wrong with the idea of IBM funding relevant development, but I think it very unlikely that IBM will go after anything that would wind up in a PC...unless, of course, IBM had something _really_ devious in mind in selling off its PC business. Off-hand, other things: 1) I don't see the XDR memory sub-system being amenable to memory "strips" and even with 1Gbit chips, 512MB of memory per CPU is kinda slim... without reworking the memory interface to get to 8GB per CPU; Have you looked at the I/O bandwidth? http://research.scea.com/research/ht...lGDC05/07.html Four cell processors=2GB. Probably no more NUMA than Opteron. 2) 32-bit FPU is not going to fly as a general purpose computer. SPE's can do IEEE-compliant double precision. Just ten times more slowly. ...and then I woke up. I hope this guy has a spare grungy garage for his efforts - seems like that is part of the template for success he is aiming to emulate... C.F. Dell, Apple, et.al.:-) I don't think Trounson is _necessarily_ wrong about how important Cell might be, but that clunker about PCI-X is hard to get past, never mind the wild speculation about Intel. Maybe he just had too much coffee and too little sleep and never figured anyone would be so desperate as to write a web article off his email. RM |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:52:59 -0500, Robert Myers
wrote: On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:00:55 -0500, George Macdonald wrote: B-b-b-but his *own* model is founded on open hardware specs. How could anybody stop M$ from getting their hands on it? I guess he's assuming that M$ can't go buy a PS3 for some reason. You mean like they obviously couldn't go and buy Apple systems to practice on for XBox 2?:-) One "little" flaw I see - there is talk of: Quote:
Who is going to pay for the hardware and software for development? IBM has not been good at giving anything away, even to developers and certainly not speculatively. That was the main reason for the failure of OS/2. I've also mentioned in the past that we, and others, coughed up $$ for Risc/6K and Alpha... all for nothing... money down the drain - we won't do that again. OTOH I have to confess I do not understand the open source business "model".shrug Umm, I guess you don't. :-). No, I just I don't see how programmers are supposed to pay the rent, unless maybe they've been anointed by one of the self-appointed OS-gurus. That's why SCO is taking aim at IBM. Without IBM pumping its own serious money into Linux, Linux would be nowhere near where it is now, and IBM _is_ giving stuff away. In return, it has a nice growing Linux server business (and a pesky lawsuit, to be sure). I don't see anything wrong with the idea of IBM funding relevant development, but I think it very unlikely that IBM will go after anything that would wind up in a PC...unless, of course, IBM had something _really_ devious in mind in selling off its PC business. Giving stuff away and giving it to the right people are two different scenarios. If you've ever been on the good end of an IBM give-way, you'll know that it is not a comfortable position. As for the PC, it is not going away any time soon, so there'd better be some vision of how Cell fits into that slot... Apple's second chance??:-) Off-hand, other things: 1) I don't see the XDR memory sub-system being amenable to memory "strips" and even with 1Gbit chips, 512MB of memory per CPU is kinda slim... without reworking the memory interface to get to 8GB per CPU; Have you looked at the I/O bandwidth? http://research.scea.com/research/ht...lGDC05/07.html Four cell processors=2GB. Probably no more NUMA than Opteron. Well it would seem that the inter-CPU communications/coherency is less well defined for the moment and there's a *big* difference between the current 256MB/CPU of Cell and Opteron's 16GB/CPU. 2) 32-bit FPU is not going to fly as a general purpose computer. SPE's can do IEEE-compliant double precision. Just ten times more slowly. ...and then I woke up. I hope this guy has a spare grungy garage for his efforts - seems like that is part of the template for success he is aiming to emulate... C.F. Dell, Apple, et.al.:-) I don't think Trounson is _necessarily_ wrong about how important Cell might be, but that clunker about PCI-X is hard to get past, never mind the wild speculation about Intel. Maybe he just had too much coffee and too little sleep and never figured anyone would be so desperate as to write a web article off his email. It's hard to fathom what *might* be sitting in a lab right now or what NDAs might be in place, but as it stands, it appears that there's a lot fo work to do to bring it into use in a general purpose computer. -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 05:15:27 -0500, George Macdonald
wrote: On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:52:59 -0500, Robert Myers wrote: On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:00:55 -0500, George Macdonald wrote: snip One "little" flaw I see - there is talk of: Quote:
Who is going to pay for the hardware and software for development? IBM has not been good at giving anything away, even to developers and certainly not speculatively. That was the main reason for the failure of OS/2. I've also mentioned in the past that we, and others, coughed up $$ for Risc/6K and Alpha... all for nothing... money down the drain - we won't do that again. OTOH I have to confess I do not understand the open source business "model".shrug Umm, I guess you don't. :-). No, I just I don't see how programmers are supposed to pay the rent, unless maybe they've been anointed by one of the self-appointed OS-gurus. This is a big subject, and I won't insult you by taking a weak flyer at it. The google economics "open source" would be a good start. That's why SCO is taking aim at IBM. Without IBM pumping its own serious money into Linux, Linux would be nowhere near where it is now, and IBM _is_ giving stuff away. In return, it has a nice growing Linux server business (and a pesky lawsuit, to be sure). I don't see anything wrong with the idea of IBM funding relevant development, but I think it very unlikely that IBM will go after anything that would wind up in a PC...unless, of course, IBM had something _really_ devious in mind in selling off its PC business. Giving stuff away and giving it to the right people are two different scenarios. If you've ever been on the good end of an IBM give-way, you'll know that it is not a comfortable position. As for the PC, it is not going away any time soon, so there'd better be some vision of how Cell fits into that slot... Apple's second chance??:-) The more I look at Cell, the more I am convinced I don't understand how it will be used. Or rather, I can imagine ways in which it can be used, but I'm not sure those are those only ways. The more I look at the architecture, the more I like it, and I see lots of possibilities. It's easiest to imagine the SPE's processing a bunch of content or doing number crunching as a stream processor, but I can also imagine using all those SPE's to overcome the natural limitations of the in-order PPC: Spin off a task speculatively (or on less than perfect information), execute in local memory, and commit only when whatever predicate conditions are satisfied (or throw the result away). The SPE's can also be isolated (I think) from the world of everyday interrupts, and I think that might offer some serious advantages for the processor. But the question, of course, is not, are there interesting things one might try, but will any of those things actually be made to work and what do you get as a payoff. It seems reasonably certain you could make Cell function as a PC processor if you wanted to. The question is: why would you want to? David Wang is worried about the software model. That doesn't worry me so much. The fact that Sony is in such turmoil and has never been able to make the "profit is in the content" model really pay off for them (and, as far as I can tell, only Apple, in a field of many entrants, has succeeded at that game). A weakened and distracted Sony with a sagging stock price and turmoil at the top is going to turn aside one of the biggest tidal waves in the history of technology (x86)? Off-hand, other things: 1) I don't see the XDR memory sub-system being amenable to memory "strips" and even with 1Gbit chips, 512MB of memory per CPU is kinda slim... without reworking the memory interface to get to 8GB per CPU; Have you looked at the I/O bandwidth? http://research.scea.com/research/ht...lGDC05/07.html Four cell processors=2GB. Probably no more NUMA than Opteron. Well it would seem that the inter-CPU communications/coherency is less well defined for the moment and there's a *big* difference between the current 256MB/CPU of Cell and Opteron's 16GB/CPU. Maybe an issue if you want to use it for in-memory databases or a server, but not so much so for computationally-intensive work. 2) 32-bit FPU is not going to fly as a general purpose computer. SPE's can do IEEE-compliant double precision. Just ten times more slowly. ...and then I woke up. I hope this guy has a spare grungy garage for his efforts - seems like that is part of the template for success he is aiming to emulate... C.F. Dell, Apple, et.al.:-) And I think he's got the wrong product. If IBM isn't working on a Blue Gene style card already, I'll be amazed. I don't think Trounson is _necessarily_ wrong about how important Cell might be, but that clunker about PCI-X is hard to get past, never mind the wild speculation about Intel. Maybe he just had too much coffee and too little sleep and never figured anyone would be so desperate as to write a web article off his email. It's hard to fathom what *might* be sitting in a lab right now or what NDAs might be in place, but as it stands, it appears that there's a lot fo work to do to bring it into use in a general purpose computer. The "front-end" is a PowerPC. Multi-threaded and in-order, but a PowerPC, nevertheless. The compiler exists. I'll bet there is even significant experience getting it to work with DSP coprocessors. There is always the cautionary tale of itanium (which could wind up looking more than a little bit like Cell). Intel was much better positioned than Sony, it had much greater resources, and how far has it gotten? RM |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Myers" wrote in message
... Spin off a task speculatively (or on less than perfect information), execute in local memory, and commit only when whatever predicate conditions are satisfied (or throw the result away). Wow! Hand-tuned assembly language whose carefully crafted results get thrown out. That looks like a very efficient way to develop modern software! ;-) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:58:14 GMT, "Felger Carbon"
wrote: "Robert Myers" wrote in message .. . Spin off a task speculatively (or on less than perfect information), execute in local memory, and commit only when whatever predicate conditions are satisfied (or throw the result away). Wow! Hand-tuned assembly language whose carefully crafted results get thrown out. That looks like a very efficient way to develop modern software! ;-) I wasn't expecting it to be produced as hand-tuned assembly. You forget my involvement with Itanium. Everything will be possible with a compiler...one day. Itanium compilers are already a fair bit of the way down this road. You identify a task you can't be sure is safe because of data amiguity. You set a predicate condition, execute the task, and check the predicate. With multiple execution units sitting on a bus connected to the CPU, you don't have to wring your hands so much over the costs of spinning off an execution path without full information. It should be no harder than itanium predicated execution and maybe much easier. RM |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 07:29:33 -0500, Robert Myers
wrote: On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 05:15:27 -0500, George Macdonald wrote: On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:52:59 -0500, Robert Myers wrote: On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:00:55 -0500, George Macdonald wrote: snip One "little" flaw I see - there is talk of: Quote:
Who is going to pay for the hardware and software for development? IBM has not been good at giving anything away, even to developers and certainly not speculatively. That was the main reason for the failure of OS/2. I've also mentioned in the past that we, and others, coughed up $$ for Risc/6K and Alpha... all for nothing... money down the drain - we won't do that again. OTOH I have to confess I do not understand the open source business "model".shrug Umm, I guess you don't. :-). No, I just I don't see how programmers are supposed to pay the rent, unless maybe they've been anointed by one of the self-appointed OS-gurus. This is a big subject, and I won't insult you by taking a weak flyer at it. The google economics "open source" would be a good start. Oh I've already read a bit on it and it just doesn't make sense to me. One case in point: an often mentioned OS factoid has "geeks" playing in their "spare time" to create software; if, as usually presented, they are also professional programmers "during the day", they are very likely breaking their employment agreement. Add in the fact that many (most) professional programmers work *some* overtime for their employers and often at odd hours, under pressure, the whole concept of OS is a fantasy to me. That's why SCO is taking aim at IBM. Without IBM pumping its own serious money into Linux, Linux would be nowhere near where it is now, and IBM _is_ giving stuff away. In return, it has a nice growing Linux server business (and a pesky lawsuit, to be sure). I don't see anything wrong with the idea of IBM funding relevant development, but I think it very unlikely that IBM will go after anything that would wind up in a PC...unless, of course, IBM had something _really_ devious in mind in selling off its PC business. Giving stuff away and giving it to the right people are two different scenarios. If you've ever been on the good end of an IBM give-way, you'll know that it is not a comfortable position. As for the PC, it is not going away any time soon, so there'd better be some vision of how Cell fits into that slot... Apple's second chance??:-) The more I look at Cell, the more I am convinced I don't understand how it will be used. Or rather, I can imagine ways in which it can be used, but I'm not sure those are those only ways. The more I look at the architecture, the more I like it, and I see lots of possibilities. It's easiest to imagine the SPE's processing a bunch of content or doing number crunching as a stream processor, but I can also imagine using all those SPE's to overcome the natural limitations of the in-order PPC: Spin off a task speculatively (or on less than perfect information), execute in local memory, and commit only when whatever predicate conditions are satisfied (or throw the result away). The SPE's can also be isolated (I think) from the world of everyday interrupts, and I think that might offer some serious advantages for the processor. But the question, of course, is not, are there interesting things one might try, but will any of those things actually be made to work and what do you get as a payoff. It seems reasonably certain you could make Cell function as a PC processor if you wanted to. The question is: why would you want to? So my question is: what else (useful) will you do with it?... make ASPs out of it? I don't think so - even IT can't make its politics work there. If you can build game boxes and super computers with it, why not PCs? As Apple's next (or next/next) CPU it may not be that far fetched - obviously they already have the PPC part down. David Wang is worried about the software model. That doesn't worry me so much. The fact that Sony is in such turmoil and has never been able to make the "profit is in the content" model really pay off for them (and, as far as I can tell, only Apple, in a field of many entrants, has succeeded at that game). A weakened and distracted Sony with a sagging stock price and turmoil at the top is going to turn aside one of the biggest tidal waves in the history of technology (x86)? I agree with David - the software environment is necessarily horribly complex and AFAICT at this stage, needs programmers of a calibre which is not commonly found... near genius even. Mr. Trounson's runtime compiler is a *very* old idea, which has had no takers till now. Off-hand, other things: 1) I don't see the XDR memory sub-system being amenable to memory "strips" and even with 1Gbit chips, 512MB of memory per CPU is kinda slim... without reworking the memory interface to get to 8GB per CPU; Have you looked at the I/O bandwidth? http://research.scea.com/research/ht...lGDC05/07.html Four cell processors=2GB. Probably no more NUMA than Opteron. Well it would seem that the inter-CPU communications/coherency is less well defined for the moment and there's a *big* difference between the current 256MB/CPU of Cell and Opteron's 16GB/CPU. Maybe an issue if you want to use it for in-memory databases or a server, but not so much so for computationally-intensive work. They're not even in the same ballpark. We already hear talk of (PC) game developers raving about the 4GB address space of x86-64 and what they're going to do with it; I guess Sony is not anticipating doing similar things for PS3 players?? I don't think Trounson is _necessarily_ wrong about how important Cell might be, but that clunker about PCI-X is hard to get past, never mind the wild speculation about Intel. Maybe he just had too much coffee and too little sleep and never figured anyone would be so desperate as to write a web article off his email. It's hard to fathom what *might* be sitting in a lab right now or what NDAs might be in place, but as it stands, it appears that there's a lot fo work to do to bring it into use in a general purpose computer. The "front-end" is a PowerPC. Multi-threaded and in-order, but a PowerPC, nevertheless. The compiler exists. I'll bet there is even significant experience getting it to work with DSP coprocessors. It still looks like a steep slope to me... starting with the memory interface. Dave has outlined how to do it, to get to 4GB with 512Mb chips, but until it's actually done we don't really know. There is always the cautionary tale of itanium (which could wind up looking more than a little bit like Cell). Intel was much better positioned than Sony, it had much greater resources, and how far has it gotten? So you're not tempted to have a little flutter on RMBS? The pump 'n' dumpers seem to have gone cold on it with the Infineon deal - are they not paying attention?:-) -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:04:26 -0500, George Macdonald
wrote: On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 07:29:33 -0500, Robert Myers wrote: On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 05:15:27 -0500, George Macdonald wrote: On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:52:59 -0500, Robert Myers wrote: On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:00:55 -0500, George Macdonald wrote: snip One "little" flaw I see - there is talk of: Quote:
Who is going to pay for the hardware and software for development? IBM has not been good at giving anything away, even to developers and certainly not speculatively. That was the main reason for the failure of OS/2. I've also mentioned in the past that we, and others, coughed up $$ for Risc/6K and Alpha... all for nothing... money down the drain - we won't do that again. OTOH I have to confess I do not understand the open source business "model".shrug Umm, I guess you don't. :-). No, I just I don't see how programmers are supposed to pay the rent, unless maybe they've been anointed by one of the self-appointed OS-gurus. This is a big subject, and I won't insult you by taking a weak flyer at it. The google economics "open source" would be a good start. Oh I've already read a bit on it and it just doesn't make sense to me. One case in point: an often mentioned OS factoid has "geeks" playing in their "spare time" to create software; if, as usually presented, they are also professional programmers "during the day", they are very likely breaking their employment agreement. Add in the fact that many (most) professional programmers work *some* overtime for their employers and often at odd hours, under pressure, the whole concept of OS is a fantasy to me. You've obviously been reading the output of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute. I wonder how much code is really written that way. Open Source has been awfully professionalized. There are so many different business models: The money is in _______. (a) Hardware. (b) Software. (c) Services. (d) Content. Give away whatever isn't the source of revenue to tap into whatever is. Or, as in the case of open source sotware, use controversial dual licensing to give away software to establish it as a standard so you can sell it. snip Giving stuff away and giving it to the right people are two different scenarios. If you've ever been on the good end of an IBM give-way, you'll know that it is not a comfortable position. As for the PC, it is not going away any time soon, so there'd better be some vision of how Cell fits into that slot... Apple's second chance??:-) snip But the question, of course, is not, are there interesting things one might try, but will any of those things actually be made to work and what do you get as a payoff. It seems reasonably certain you could make Cell function as a PC processor if you wanted to. The question is: why would you want to? So my question is: what else (useful) will you do with it?... make ASPs out of it? I don't think so - even IT can't make its politics work there. If you can build game boxes and super computers with it, why not PCs? As Apple's next (or next/next) CPU it may not be that far fetched - obviously they already have the PPC part down. Well, but _why_? That's what we have yet to see. Only if it turns out that you can give the user a completely different experience, or if Apple and IBM can't come to terms on continuing the current relationship. The other model is that a digital home entertainment center displaces the PC. As far as the PC functions are concerned, it's probably more of a thin client than a PC. Apple and Sony could do that in partnership. I doubt either can do it alone. David Wang is worried about the software model. That doesn't worry me so much. The fact that Sony is in such turmoil and has never been able to make the "profit is in the content" model really pay off for them (and, as far as I can tell, only Apple, in a field of many entrants, has succeeded at that game). A weakened and distracted Sony with a sagging stock price and turmoil at the top is going to turn aside one of the biggest tidal waves in the history of technology (x86)? I agree with David - the software environment is necessarily horribly complex and AFAICT at this stage, needs programmers of a calibre which is not commonly found... near genius even. Mr. Trounson's runtime compiler is a *very* old idea, which has had no takers till now. "The software is going to be the problem" would have been a pretty safe bet through much of the history of computing. Sony claims the SPE's can be programmed with c, but the Open Source model implicitly assumes that gcc (or equivalent) is the universal translator, and it's hard to imagine gcc ever being up to the task of taking advantage of SPE's without explicit programmer intervention. I'm not sure that the real problem with Cell isn't that it is coming along at the wrong time. Too much is already in place, and too much would have to be reinvented to get out of Cell even a fraction of the potential that might be there. Suppose Cell were the central hardware for a Project MAC? Given a blank piece of paper, people can be awfully inventive. Off-hand, other things: 1) I don't see the XDR memory sub-system being amenable to memory "strips" and even with 1Gbit chips, 512MB of memory per CPU is kinda slim... without reworking the memory interface to get to 8GB per CPU; Have you looked at the I/O bandwidth? http://research.scea.com/research/ht...lGDC05/07.html Four cell processors=2GB. Probably no more NUMA than Opteron. Well it would seem that the inter-CPU communications/coherency is less well defined for the moment and there's a *big* difference between the current 256MB/CPU of Cell and Opteron's 16GB/CPU. Maybe an issue if you want to use it for in-memory databases or a server, but not so much so for computationally-intensive work. They're not even in the same ballpark. We already hear talk of (PC) game developers raving about the 4GB address space of x86-64 and what they're going to do with it; I guess Sony is not anticipating doing similar things for PS3 players?? I can easily believe that games will eventually entail very large amounts of state. If the memory interface has to be reworked, it has to be reworked. snip There is always the cautionary tale of itanium (which could wind up looking more than a little bit like Cell). Intel was much better positioned than Sony, it had much greater resources, and how far has it gotten? So you're not tempted to have a little flutter on RMBS? The pump 'n' dumpers seem to have gone cold on it with the Infineon deal - are they not paying attention?:-) I suspect the markets have already discounted RMBS benefitting from Playstation 3, which, after all, is just a followon to Playstation 2. RM |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel vs. AMD: Best bang for buck, at the moment | Dave C. | Homebuilt PC's | 40 | September 27th 04 07:19 AM |
Real World Comparisons: AMD 3200 -vs- Intel 3.2. Your thoughts, experiences.... | Ted Grevers | General | 33 | February 6th 04 02:34 PM |
About Intel Celeron, Intel Centrino, Intel Pentium Mobile and Intel Pentium | Chusqui22 | Intel | 4 | January 5th 04 11:34 PM |
Intel developers helping out with Linux AMD64 | Yousuf Khan | Intel | 0 | December 17th 03 08:41 PM |
Intel | Commander | Intel | 0 | October 30th 03 07:05 PM |