• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cell CPU in desktop

M

modoheo

Member
The Cell CPU developed by Sony/IBM for the PS3 has pretty remarkable capabilities reportedly. For instance, 4-8 PS3's liked together using Linux software have nearly the processing capability of small supercomputers. Some academic researchers are using such clusters as a substitute for buying time on a true supercomputer.

So why no home PC based on a Cell CPU? I can't find anything pointing to such a development with a google search. I have to imagine the Cell would be ideal for a home gaming PC, no? Can anyone enlighten me?
 
Yinan got it. The Cell CPU is a multicore processor having one Power Processing Element (which is like the single core of the average CPU, this one particularly loosely based on the IBM POWER architecture used in Mac computers until the switch to Intel) and eight co-processors or SPEs, which are just really simple cores designed to run a particular type of code extremely rapidly. Thus the Cell only truly shines when the programmer programs specifically programs for the Cell. A Cell processor also does not run x86 code, so it is not compatible with any x86 only OS (Certain Linux Distros such as YellowDog have distributions coded specifically for Cell so people can run Linux on the PS3).

The Cell was designed to bridge the gap between the out of order execution general purpose CPU (Intel / AMD CPUs) and the highly paralleled nature of the GPU (nVidia and AMD/ATI GPUs) by designing a general purpose CPU (the PPE) with 8 highly parallel co-processors called Synergistic Processing Elements, or SPEs.

That's not to say it isn't used in computing. The Cell blades are sold as co-processing elements that can connect to PCI-X, PCI-e x16 or Infiniband connections and run software programmed for them far faster than the standard Opteron or Xeon processors already in use in the server. Cell servers can also be bought under the Cell development partner, IBM.

Technically you *could* game, but the OS must be designed for Cell as well as the game. At that point you'd have a PS3 😛 But the new PowerXCell 8i is being used in IBMs certain blade servers now, which is the improved Cell chip based on the 65nm architecture (it is NOT the Cell used in the PS3 at this time).
 
Originally posted by: uncleezno
Is that the reason why developers complain about writing software for PS3, and say that the 360 is easier to code for?
Click to expand...

Correct, the CPU in the 360 is a general purpose CPU designed by IBM based on the PowerPC processor and having 3 cores. The main difference is that it's restricted to in-order execution. Still, being this way, it programs very similarly to PC programs, and shares much of its architecture with older Macs. It also enables it to be easily (though sometimes crappily) ported to the PC (Games are almost directly ported using the SDK, Gears of War being a good example, the downside being that game developers start to become lazy in development. Games are designed more around a gamepad than a keyboard and mouse. Computer requirements skyrocket due to the inefficiency of the code).

Designing a game for the XBOX 360 and the PS3 requires two nearly entirely different design teams.
 
I'm just guessin' here but I would say that Cell blades will continue to be used as 'application accelerators' (ala AMD Torenza) in enterprise/workstation environments. Not much chance against x86/x64 on the desktop ...

It will be interesting to see a Cell perform in application-specific tasks with HT3 thruput.
 
Cell architecture is not multi core it's a single chip that can run parallel processes. Cell is a a more task specific chip than the x86. And as someone said, cell not compatible with X86 architecture.

What is happening is that AMD and Intel are starting to cram more cpu cores on their chips to enable multiple parallel process, but software vendors still need to optimize there products to take advantage of this.
 
It's of limited usefulness. Sony used the Cell because of theoretical benchmark speed for marketing purposes, not because it was a good CPU for their console. I guess it worked, they seemed to have fooled a lot of people into believing it's some kind of amazing break through.

If you want to know how big a POS it is read this:
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/...rdware-slow-and-broken

Anandtech had also written an article explaining how bad the the consoles CPU's were. The article was so damning that they had to pull the article out of fear of MS and Sony.
 
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
It's of limited usefulness. Sony used the Cell because of theoretical benchmark speed for marketing purposes, not because it was a good CPU for their console. I guess it worked, they seemed to have fooled a lot of people into believing it's some kind of amazing break through.

If you want to know how big a POS it is read this:
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/...rdware-slow-and-broken

Anandtech had also written an article explaining how bad the the consoles CPU's were. The article was so damning that they had to pull the article out of fear of MS and Sony.
Click to expand...

Coming from sony, this is not surprising at all... king of gimmicks they are. but isn't the article in the link is somewhat questionable coming from inq and all, can it be trusted? I already know Xenos >>>>> RSX so it is quite well established which would be the better performer of the two consoles. It is just that inq is a bit too opinionated to be taken seriously even whent hey might have some legitimate points 🙁 Is that a "good" one?

Man, I wish I would have saved that AT article so I could shove that to ps3 fanboys around me 😛
 
the cell is very fast in limited area of computation. and those claims were made a while ago.. cpus have progressed since. and well using such marketing nonsense gpu's are super computers much faster than any cpu😉 in a way this is true, and false.

the fact is it hasn't delivered. look at the games in the ps3, nothings a quantum leap ahead of the 360, its lucky if its basically neck and neck if not the same😛
 
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
It's of limited usefulness. Sony used the Cell because of theoretical benchmark speed for marketing purposes, not because it was a good CPU for their console. I guess it worked, they seemed to have fooled a lot of people into believing it's some kind of amazing break through.

If you want to know how big a POS it is read this:
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/...rdware-slow-and-broken

Anandtech had also written an article explaining how bad the the consoles CPU's were. The article was so damning that they had to pull the article out of fear of MS and Sony.
Click to expand...

I remember that one, it shed a bad light on the CPUs. Glad I got to read it before they pulled the article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top