nVidia building the PS3 GPU in its "entirety"

[one]

Is cell 4.6+ ghz ? I dunno i don't have a ps3 in my hands to you ? The NEC SX-8 supercomputer has vector processors running at 2.0 Ghz.

Clock speed doesn't matter in super computers much. Fast interconnect does.
NEC is behind in the process shrink race and has no strength to mass-produce those smaller processed chips because of the economic recovery from the failure of GameCube which couldn't reach the expected shipment target.

Sony behind 3D labs? Judging from patent applications, Sony has been looking very hard at antialiasing technology and Sony does understand pixel shading (PSP), so it isn't so rediculous to assume that with enough money and work (they have that research department remember) that the PS3 implementation would have been acceptable. Then there is the SALCS/SALPS theory that would have been interesting in this regard too.

IMO Sony thought it's enough to beat competitors in the handheld space with the Sony in-house PSP GPU. Plus cost-wise handheld is tighter.

In the console space, they had to secure sure win over competitors with capable graphics technology nVIDIA and ATi demonstrated in this gen, especially when in so-called 'this generation' (though with unfair 2 years interval) PS2 is behind in hardware power. Consumer may wink it away once, but won't twice.

Sony might choose nVIDIA programmable shader only to lure developers into the PS3, as a bridge to more avant-garde things avaliable in the PS3. If silicon space permits, they can even cram different graphics paradigms in 1 die. To save silicon space, Sony need optimized implementation of 3D algorithms nVIDIA put into their GPU. Though they already gambled big money into the Cell R&D as they are confident in winning, at the same time they have to be realistic without complacence to continue to be the market leader.

I'm very curious how Xbox2 turns out in the next month more than PS3, as so many PS3 info are disclosed in this timing. Can those Xbox executives and Nintendo executives sleep well these days or sh*tting in their pants? If I'm Steve Ballmer I'll put back Xbox 2 release to 2006 like Xbox 1 release was delayed several times to complete its spec than taking headstart with only a half year window advantage.

 

[PC-Engine]

the Playstation3 and CELL were envisioned to finally smash the PC architecture and deem it irrelivant or dead. with a massive upping of transistors. totally fresh architecture. totally surpassing Intel (and AMD). at least publically that is what Sony was talking about in the early days of 1999 and 2000 with Playstation3 before Cell was announced in 2001. back then it was all about the Emotion Engine 3 and Graphics Synthesizer 3 with drastiically changed architectures Sony would break Moore's Law with a processor that had 500 million transistors. far more than what Intel would likely have for consumers in 2005-2006. at that time (1999-2000) the Pentium III was the highend in PC computing, the Athlon (K7) was getting into gear and the Pentium 4 was on the near-term horizon. PC graphics chips were advancing steadily, but still very much constrained by the worst aspects of the PC architecture (AGP, etc). the Graphics Synthesizer 3 would have a massively parallel design, like the highly parallel design of GS1 in PS2. Much like Intel (and AMD) would not be able to compete with EE3, I think Sony hoped that Nvidia, 3Dfx, ArtX (and others) would not be able to compete with GS3. the EE3+GS3 combined with a decent set of tools, a good API and competent OS would be able to obliterate Wintel in both the living room and on Wintels own turf which was always the desktop and more recently the workstation & server markets. as well as supercomputing. all kinds of CE and computing devices could be built using the new EE3 and GS3 architectures. much like the Cell architecture that came to light in 2001. (I personally believe that the drastically changed architectures of EE3 and GS3 where in fact the Cell based Broadband Engine CPU and Cell based Visualizer).

Intel sells their cpus for profit. SONY sells their consoles including the cpu and gpu in them at a loss. Intel could EASILY design a cpu to destroy all cpus, but the market for that type of cpu is very small unless it's put into a console that loses hundreds of dollars at launch. Why would Intel want to lose money on cpus? If someone like MS paid Intel hundreds of millions to design a SUPER CPU from the ground up then yeah Intel might do it.

 

[Lazy8s]

The design of the PS2 was finished only shortly before launch, like most systems -- even though Sony had originally planned to launch in 1999, some of the chips hadn't been ready and had required a layout to a new process size.

Designing a system is more than locking down the specs; there's also the whole fabrication side that determines what's possible. There's nothing hard about drawing up a system that can't be effectively produced until many years later, and that's really a sign of bad R&D scheduling -- not forward thinking -- since the goal is to have readiness from the target fabrication process and from the feature design of the chip to coincide as closely as possible so that neither part is left waiting around for the other and becoming outdated.

 

[aaronspink]

So why didn't x86 die to Itanium?
Because Intel misguessed the future... They guessed that x86 would run out of steam, they guessed wrong. I personally beleive that KK is complelety wrong when he says PC architecture has run out of steam...

Old joke: Never invest in a venture based on the theory that the sun won't rise. If you win, you lose.

Pretty much that same with any company betting against x86. There is simply too much money involved. Sony hopes that they'll sell 100 million units over a 5 year span. AMD and Intel sell more than that in a single year.

The field is littered with challengers from AIM PowerPC (which is very very similar to Cell, lots of pr, no results), Transmeta, Alpha, MIPS, 68K.

In the end it all comes down to this: Anything you can do, they can afford to do good enough. They may not end up faster, but they will end up fast enough to bankrupt you.


Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[aaronspink]

A PC today is a CPU + GPU. The FLOPs come from the GPU on a PC not the CPU.

How much does it cost?

Cost? Or Price? There is a fairly sizable difference. Mostly because PC compenents are actually valuable.

As far as cost goes, consoles are generally don't have a cheaper BOM than PCs.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[aaronspink]

GPUs in PCs are today. The CPUs on the PC side are pretty stagnate. they're not growing in performance. even less growth the last few years than they used to in the 1990s. at least until we get dual-core CPUs from Intel and AMD on the desktop. but even then, dual-core CPUs will not rival highend implementations of CELL like that which will be used in PS3 and other highend computing platforms. not counting the lower-end performance of CELL based DVD players, televisions, PDAs etc.

Two things. For the majority of applications for which money is made, the current PC processors will exceed the performance of CELL/PS3.

Two, people are living in a dream world if they think that Sony has any influence over the direction of DVD players, PDAs, and televisions. CELL will be found in PS3 for about 99.9999% of its volume.


Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[one]

enture based on the theory that the sun won't rise. If you win, you lose.

Pretty much that same with any company betting against x86. There is simply too much money involved. Sony hopes that they'll sell 100 million units over a 5 year span. AMD and Intel sell more than that in a single year.

You forget Cell is deployed not only in the PS3.

The field is littered with challengers from AIM PowerPC (which is very very similar to Cell, lots of pr, no results), Transmeta, Alpha, MIPS, 68K.

Why is Transmeta included there and AMD not?

 

[one]

A PC today is a CPU + GPU. The FLOPs come from the GPU on a PC not the CPU.

How much does it cost?

Cost? Or Price? There is a fairly sizable difference. Mostly because PC compenents are actually valuable.

Valuable? Or wasted in terms of gaming?

 

[aaronspink]

You forget Cell is deployed not only in the PS3

That remains to be seen. Sony can't afford to lose that much money and Cell has no value proposition outside of PS3. Sure, you'll see small lot and one off "workstation" systems, but that will be about it.

Why is Transmeta included there and AMD not?

Because AMD didn't think they had a better mouse trap than x86. Because AMD has actually made money from the x86 market, whereas Transmeta hasn't, ever.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[pahcman]

Bit lost...

I thought the dis/agreeing was about how cutting edge SCE technologies are, how Cell will create new worlds impossible without it, leaving competitors in dust? That why Nvidia involvment have cause feathers ruffled.

If its about PC vs set top box vs console, i think really a stretch. I understand cpu power will mature, that a standard box will be enough for years of digital entertainment, without need for messy pc upgrades.

But this is console forum, PS3 will be just another game console. Its no way to challenge PC or set top box. Sony already say there will multiple versions of PS3. Cost will stop them.

Set top box may or not win in the end. PC we know today may lose to boxes, but who to say PC wouldnt become such standard box? Longhorn is coming down with stricter config and if Xenon PC(succesful XPC cannibalises sales? how about MS license Xenon blueprint, like they always wanted to Dell/HP etc) is true, i think PC guys will be in good stead to fight traditional CE groups.

But PS3 Xenon and Revolution, where bulk of sales will be for respective companies, are going be just simpe game consoles imho.

So i ask the Cell lobbyists, do you think eg Cell PS3, because of revolutionary design, will absolutely destroy competition time for time, price for price, until next big Cell hardware? If no, i got no disagreement.

 

[one]

You forget Cell is deployed not only in the PS3

That remains to be seen. Sony can't afford to lose that much money and Cell has no value proposition outside of PS3. Sure, you'll see small lot and one off "workstation" systems, but that will be about it.

Sony doesn't lose money. They only change who they pay for in-house semiconductor needs.

Sony will sell HDTV with Cell, Blu-ray HD recorder with Cell, PDA with Cell, HD digicam with Cell, robot with Cell, and on and on. Toshiba too. This connection with CE demand was previously not there for the companies in your non-Intel&AMD list. Today Intel challenges CE with XScale and a new IA-32 chip. Sony & Toshiba challenges it with Cell, ditching MIPS and ARM. Apart from those CE products and creative workstations, Cell is suitable also for internet edge servers that process massive numbers of I/O requests, with its low power consumption and higher parallelism like Sun Niagara, which nicely fits in IBM product lines.

 

[Tuttle]

Cell has no value proposition outside of PS3. Sure, you'll see small lot and one off "workstation" systems, but that will be about it.

Wow.

Perhaps it's time for you to actually do some research on Sony, IBM, and Toshiba's plans for the Cell architecture.

 

[Vince]

AIM PowerPC (which is very very similar to Cell, lots of pr, no results)

Hey Aaron, plan on getting really quiet in a few months?

 

[SiBoy]

Cell has no value proposition outside of PS3. Sure, you'll see small lot and one off "workstation" systems, but that will be about it.

Wow.

Perhaps it's time for you to actually do some research on Sony, IBM, and Toshiba's plans for the Cell architecture.

Lots of companies have plans for lots of things. Microsoft "plans" to put Windows into mobile phones, this doesn't mean the vast majority of people would agree there is any value proposition there.

Likewise for putting a Cell CPU in a DVD player to replace a $3 DVD decoder chip.

By Vince's same argument that a closed system (PS3) will always outperform an open one (PC) due to more opportunities for optimization, a Cell will always be too big, burn too much power, and have too little performance per sq. mm. in the vast majority of CE devices (TV's, DVD players, etc.). The ISSCC results support this.

 

[one]

Cell has no value proposition outside of PS3. Sure, you'll see small lot and one off "workstation" systems, but that will be about it.

Wow.

Perhaps it's time for you to actually do some research on Sony, IBM, and Toshiba's plans for the Cell architecture.

Lots of companies have plans for lots of things. Microsoft "plans" to put Windows into mobile phones, this doesn't mean the vast majority of people would agree there is any value proposition there.

Likewise for putting a Cell CPU in a DVD player to replace a $3 DVD decoder chip.

By Vince's same argument that a closed system (PS3) will always outperform an open one (PC) due to more opportunities for optimization, a Cell will always be too big, burn too much power, and have too little performance per sq. mm. in the vast majority of CE devices (TV's, DVD players, etc.). The ISSCC results support this.

You should note that it's easier and cheaper to maintain Cell and software that run on it than maintaining several thousands of different chips. Also, note that you can adjust the number of cores and clockspeed freely in Cell.

 

[Brimstone]

Cell has no value proposition outside of PS3. Sure, you'll see small lot and one off "workstation" systems, but that will be about it.

Wow.

Perhaps it's time for you to actually do some research on Sony, IBM, and Toshiba's plans for the Cell architecture.

Lots of companies have plans for lots of things. Microsoft "plans" to put Windows into mobile phones, this doesn't mean the vast majority of people would agree there is any value proposition there.

Likewise for putting a Cell CPU in a DVD player to replace a $3 DVD decoder chip.

By Vince's same argument that a closed system (PS3) will always outperform an open one (PC) due to more opportunities for optimization, a Cell will always be too big, burn too much power, and have too little performance per sq. mm. in the vast majority of CE devices (TV's, DVD players, etc.). The ISSCC results support this.

I don't think a Power PC CPU (970) and the SPU's (Power PC 450)combination will be in CE devices like phones, DVD players and PDA's. CE devices will just have SPU's.

 

[Megadrive1988]

thinking a bit more about Nvidia doing the GPU or at least a very significant portion of it..... today I am not feeling disappointed too much. I think Nvidia handling the rasterizer(s) is ultimately a good thing. while Sony could've done it themselves as they did with PS2's GS, Nvidia can do it better. I still want the Nvidia-Sony GPU to take full advantage of all of the strong aspects of the Graphics Synthesizer / Visualizer concept. massive internal bandwidth. massive parallalism--moreso than what Nvidia would do by itself for an NV50 GPU for PCs. of course PS3 has the opertinuity to be, visually-graphically, the best Playstation yet. I don't just mean the best, as oviously PS3 is going to be better than PS2 no matter what. I mean, the best Playstation for its time. better than PS1 was in 1994-1995 and better than PS2 was in 2000.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I would postulate that open systems breed more and better technology, but closed systems produce better implementations of said technology. Sony is admitting this by taking PC tech from IBM and NVidia and adopting it for optimal use in PS3, just like MS is doing with Xenon using IBM, SiS, and ATI tech. There isn't much difference really, other than that Cell is a new CPU from Sony/IBM/Toshiba joint venture. It's not going to change the world IMO. It'll just be a kick ass console.

 

[darkblu]

I would postulate that open systems breed more and better technology, but closed systems produce better implementations of said technology.

although i would generally agree with you, i think we need to distinguish what qualifies as an "open" platform and what doesn't. would the PC qualify as an "open platform"? why?

in this line of thought, consider the following case study:

year is 1997, we've got two competing graphic technologies at hand: the pvr2 and the voodoo1/2 - both serve the same ends but utilise largely different means. now, the "closed platform" DC endeavor by sega shows the first competitor to be basically wiping the floor with the second, cost- and performance-wise. and yet, the "open platform" pc is effectively dominated by the second up until 1999-2000. why? how did the "open platform" promote the technologically and cost-effective better competitor (as we can safely assume the pvr2 was one)? was it because an open platform would not necessarily promote the better technology or was it because the pc was not exactly an "open" platform? or maybe because the IHV behind the better competitor happened to be jinxed?

 

[akira888]

PowerVR's failure to penetrate the PC industry is to no small measure due to the fact they allowed Voodoo2, Rage 128 and TNT 12-18 months of free reign until they could release Neon 250, and then they shipped it with immature drivers.

PVR certainly had significant hardware advantages over the antiquated 3dfx tech, but that mattered little if you couldn't play the games you wanted or if you couldn't even buy one. The market, I hate to say, made the right choice.

In any event ATI and Nvidia's superior technology eventually won anyway.