Deadmeat's past CELL = BlueGene/L posts revisited.

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=148188

Date : Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:32 am

In 1979, a sleek talking business entrepreneur named Steve Jobs was visiting Xerox PARC for sight seeing. There, Steve saw a new user interface technology so revolutionary he was blown away at sight. Steve immediately felt this new user interface technology was the future of personal computing and decided to be the first to commercialize. Thus Macintosh was born 5 years later.

In 1999, a sleek talking business executive named Kutaragi Ken was visiting IBM for reasons I don't know. There, Kutaragi saw a new kind of computer architecture intended for protein folding calculation so revolutionary he was blown away at sight. Kutaragi immediately felt this new computer architecture was the future of videogaming and decided to be the first to commercialize. CELL was announced 2 years later.

See an analogy here??? Kutaragi did not invent CELLULAR COMPUTING, but he is the first one to commericalize it. When Steve Jobs supervised the Macintosh project, he did not try to recreate the Xerox PARC GUI machine exactly, but customized it to suit his "vision". Likewise, Kutaragi is supervising CELL to have the Blue Gene/L technology customized to suit his vision.

So IBM is the creator of CELL. Kutaragi is the customizer and commercializer of CELL, but not a good one.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=157242

Date : Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:27 am

Q1 : What is CELL?
A1 : CELL is the first consumer electronics implementation of IBM's CELLULAR COMPUTING architecture, best known for Blue Gene supercomputer series. The goal of CELLULAR COMPUTING is to popularize the message-passing based massively parallel computing by offering a standardized software plaform on which developers could build their applications. SCEI's goal with CELL is to provde a consumer electronics plaform in which various types of devices would interact with each other.

Q2 : How does CELL work?
A2 : To understand how CELL works, you must first investigate Blue Gene/L, the second version of BlueGene computer. Unlike the much-hyped Petaflop Blue Gene/P, Blue Gene/L is built around 65,000 standard PowerPC nodes and has a claimed peak performance of 130 Teraflops.

Each Blue Gene/L node has two dual-core PPC ASICs(Two-way SMP), one designated as I/O engine and the other designated as compute engine. The I/O engine runs a Linux derivative and serves compute engine by providing all the I/O and message passing services expected of Linux. The compute engine runs a very simple microkernel(Not Linux) designed for the sole purpose of executing single application process.

Like BlueGene/L node which inspired CELL core, each CELL core is built around single PPC core serving as the I/O engine, while 8 VUs handles the computational tasks dispatched from the Linux kernel. It is the separation of kernel and application process that sums up the CELLULAR COMPUTING design philosophy.

Q3 : What OS does CELL run?
A3 : CELL runs Linux. The development environment is a mix of old and new, in that all the OS services and interfaces expected from Linux is present, but developers are expected to master the massage passing programming as well as VU assembly coding. The primary difference from standard Linux being

1. Separation of Kernel from user processes.
2. An MPI-like message passing API.

Q4 : What kind of parallelization support does CELL environment provide?
A4 : None. Developers are expected to manually parallelize their code using message passing. It is pretty much a "Just do it or go to Microsoft if you don't like us" kind of deal.

Q5 : Will CELL really be a quantum leap in graphics quality?
A5 : Hard to say. One of the most accurate indicator of performance is the memory capacity. The PSX2 saw a 16 time jump over the machine it replaced, but PSX3 will see a memory capacity jump of only 8 times over PSX2. You be the judge.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=188517

Date : Thu Nov 06, 2003 1:31 am

There are three identified IBM Cellular architectures.

1. Blue Gene Cyclopse

This one uses a radical SMT processor design to scale. It keeps 32 active threads on core but runs only 1 thead at a time. The first contender of Blue Gene design competition.

2. Blue Gene L

This is the second entry to IBM's internal Blue Gene design competition. It uses twin PPC core per node design, one running the OS and the other dedicated to computing.

3. STI Cell(aka Sony Cell)

This architecture appears to be a modification of Blue Gene L, in which the compute engine is replaced with custom vector units(aka APU) to boost floating point performance. The way thing works is pretty much identical to Blue Gene L, but the number of APUs can be varied to meet particular performance goal.
 
IBL



If it turns out that each APU gets 1 GFLOP, or even worse, each PE gets 1 GFLOP, as those slides from the recent Sony conference seem to indicate then its going to be upto GPU's hardwired features to make up the difference. it wouldnt be a bad thing, if PS3 were more GPU-centric
 
So whats up with "Cyclops"? Could Microsoft want "Cyclops" instead of "Blue Gene L" (aka CELL)?

I really can't see switching from x86 to PPC unless they're getting something really bleeding edge that they can put into a console at a reasonable cost.
 
...

Could Microsoft want "Cyclops" instead of "Blue Gene L" (aka CELL)?
Nope, MS is not jumping into CELL game. It is going with Power5 server-grade processor instead.

SCEI : Let's use lots of cheap processors to boost performance.
MS : Let's use a cut-down server processor to boost performance.
 
Re: ...

DeadmeatGA said:
Could Microsoft want "Cyclops" instead of "Blue Gene L" (aka CELL)?
Nope, MS is not jumping into CELL game. It is going with Power5 server-grade processor instead.

SCEI : Let's use lots of cheap processors to boost performance.
MS : Let's use a cut-down server processor to boost performance.

I'm not so sure about that. How in the 2005/2006 timeframe will a cut down IBM server processor be much faster and cheaper than an X86 part from either Intel or AMD?

I don't see how going with an IBM style server chip would even come close to the performance level of a low cost x86 chip from Intel or AMD and a Micron Yukon processor for the real heavy duty work on A.I. and physics calulations. To me the "Cyclops" concept is similar to the Yukon. Could it be Microsoft got IBM IP for the Logic design of Cyclops and could apply that to Microns Yukon? Just rampant speculation.

Micron doesn't have the know how of IBM when it comes to Logic design but they certainly have the semiconductor fabbing skills.





The proprietary instruction set architecture (ISA) consists of about 60 instruction types, and follows a 3-operand, load/store RISC design. The decision of using a new simplified ISA bears on the goal of a simpler de-sign. For designing the Cyclops ISA we selected the most widely used instructions in the PowerPC architecture. In-structions were added to enable multithreaded functionality, such as atomic memory operations and synchronizationinstructions.

We evaluate a design with the following characteristics:128 thread units, each unit containing a register file (64 32- bit single precision registers, that can be paired for dou-ble precision operations), a program counter, a fixed point ALU, and a sequencer. The thread units are very simplecomputing processors that execute instructions in program order (completion may be out-of-order). Most instructionsexecute in one cycle. Each thread can issue an instruction at every cycle, if resources are available and there are nodependences with previous instructions. If two threads try to issue instructions using the same shared resource, onethread is selected as winner in a round-robin scheme to prevent starvation. If an instruction cannot be issued, thethread unit stalls until all resources become available, either through the completion of previously issued instructions, orthrough the release of resources held by other threads.

Groups of four thread units form a quad. The threads ina quad share a floating-point unit (FPU) and a data cache. Only the threads within a quad can use that quad's FPU,while any thread can access data stored in any of the data caches. The memory hierarchy has non-uniform access la-tencies. Thus, threads have faster access to their local data cache than to a remote cache. The floating-point unit con-sists of three functional units: an adder, a multiplier, and a divide and square root unit. Threads can dispatch a floatingpoint addition and a floating point multiplication at every cycle. The FPU can complete a floating point multiply-add (FMA) every cycle. With a clock cycle of 500 MHz, in :18_m CMOS technology, it achieves a peak perfor-mance of 1 GFlops per FPU, for a total chip performance of 32 GFlops.

Link
 
...

Let's make it simple.

Xbox series runs the NT kernel.

The NT kernel will run on Power5 fine when ported.
The NT kernel will not run on anything like Cyclops or CELL.
 
Re: ...

DeadmeatGA said:
Let's make it simple.

Xbox series runs the NT kernel.

The NT kernel will run on Power5 fine when ported.
The NT kernel will not run on anything like Cyclops or CELL.


IBM taking a hacksaw to a power5 to remove some transistors so it has better thermal performance and lower cost is fine, but why go to all that trouble for a console? Whatever tweaking IBM would do to a Power5 for a console, would it be any better than a standard AMD off the shelf desktop CPU?

Until more information comes out pointing out what Microsoft got, my opinion remains they got some IP for CPU logic design and they will hand that off to someone. IBM kind of did something similar with Sony already, so why not sell some IP to someone else?
 
...

but why go to all that trouble for a console?
The same reason IBM is going through all the trouble to modify BlueGene/L to suit SCEI's need; the money.

Whatever tweaking IBM would do to a Power5 for a console, would it be any better than a standard AMD off the shelf desktop CPU?
That's what we will have to wait and find out. After all, it was MS's decision to jump ship from X86 to PPC.
 
The same reason IBM is going through all the trouble to modify BlueGene/L to suit SCEI's need; the money.

How many times must it be said for it to go through your dense head. Cell is a totally different project than BlueGene.

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (SCEI), IBM Corporation (IBM) and Toshiba Corporation (Toshiba) announced today plans to research and develop an advanced chip architecture for a new wave of devices in the emerging broadband era.

400 million dollar initial investement, in which they all shared the costs. So you were saying how Sony begged IBM to modify BlueGene again?

The concept is the same, multiple CPU's make a stronger overall system. But they are just different things. Especially SCEI+Toshiba's Cell. Totally different.
 
Re: ...

DeadmeatGA said:
but why go to all that trouble for a console?
The same reason IBM is going through all the trouble to modify BlueGene/L to suit SCEI's need; the money.

Of course IBM would for the money...buy why would Microsoft want to spend the money when they could get the same results from an X86 CPU?
 
...

Cell is a totally different project than BlueGene.

So you discredit IBM's vice president of technology.

IBM vice president of technology and strategy Irving Wladawsky-Berger said that the supercomputer used 1,000 microprocessors that are based on PowerPC microchip technology. The PowerPC chip is currently used in Apple Computer Inc. (Nasdaq:AAPL - news) computers.

It is also the technology that will be the foundation of the next generation of gaming consoles from Nintendo (news - web sites) Co. (7974.OS) and Sony Corp (news - web sites). (6758.T), which IBM is working on, he said.

400 million dollar initial investement, in which they all shared the costs. So you were saying how Sony begged IBM to modify BlueGene again?
Let me ask you this question. Which company paid for the R&D of XGPU? nVIDIA. Which company is paying for the R&D of XGPU2? ATI. Obvioulsy, seller has to put its own money to complete the product before he could sell it to the buyer.

But they are just different things. Especially SCEI+Toshiba's Cell. Totally different.
Since IBM's vice president has discredited you, I don't need to repeat this anymore.

buy why would Microsoft want to spend the money when they could get the same results from an X86 CPU?
Maybe they can't. Again, it was Microsoft that has made its decision, and I am sure they knew what they were doing. I suspect that MS was particularly attracted by Power5's ability to sustain 8 FLOPS per cycle with regular C++ code(IBM hates vector processors and never uses them in its internal designs)
 
...

The PowerPC 970 is an internal design.
Not for internal consumption. It was built specifically for Apple. IBM never uses vector processors in any of its internally designed machines; Power series, Deep Blue, Blue Gene, etc.
 
So you discredit IBM's vice president of technology.

BlueGene and Cell are different projects with their own R&D money, different performance numbers.

Oh and learn to read dummy.

1,000 microprocessors that are based on PowerPC microchip technology.

PowerPC chip technology.

It is also the technology that will be the foundation of the next generation of gaming consoles from Nintendo (news - web sites) Co. (7974.OS) and Sony Corp (news - web sites). (6758.T), which IBM is working on, he said.

He is talking about PowerPC, I'm not the only one who has pointed this out to you. But of course, you read everything backwards; because it's nto what YOU want to happen.

Oh and read this;

The result will be consumer devices that are more powerful than IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer, operate at low power and access the broadband Internet at ultra high speeds. Cell will be designed to deliver "teraflops" of processing power.

Like I said, BLuegene and Cell are two different projects

Let me ask you this question. Which company paid for the R&D of XGPU? nVIDIA. Which company is paying for the R&D of XGPU2? ATI. Obvioulsy, seller has to put its own money to complete the product before he could sell it to the buyer.

Under the agreement, SCEI, IBM and Toshiba will each manufacture the product for a variety of consumer applications.

Since IBM's vice president has discredited you, I don't need to repeat this anymore.

Your wrong. Oh and learn how to read the PR sometime kid.
 
Re: ...

Brimstone said:
DeadmeatGA said:
but why go to all that trouble for a console?
The same reason IBM is going through all the trouble to modify BlueGene/L to suit SCEI's need; the money.

Of course IBM would for the money...buy why would Microsoft want to spend the money when they could get the same results from an X86 CPU?

I speculate the decision was made due to better price/performance ratio.
 
Just a quick observation. The man states that the foundation that the technology behind N5 and PS3 will be based upon CELL/PowerPC/what he stated. Simply stated, that's the foundation which can be built upon. It's possible to further develop the technology and add on to it and make it a better CPU.
 
Sonic said:
Just a quick observation. The man states that the foundation that the technology behind N5 and PS3 will be based upon CELL/PowerPC/what he stated. Simply stated, that's the foundation which can be built upon. It's possible to further develop the technology and add on to it and make it a better CPU.

Exactly. I believe the article is referring to PPC when it states Cell and Nintendo's MPU.

What people keep fogetting is that STI Cell is an architecture. The actual design for PS3, as I stated many months ago before that Design Chain article, which is now known as the Broadband Engine, is being designed by Sony and Toshiba.
 
There's a huge difference between micro-architecure
and instruction set architecture. The statements about
Sony's game console using IBM PowerPC technology
are quite ambiguous.

Both the lowly PPC 601 and the might Power 5 are
PowerPC processors.

If I said I was going to use PowerPC technology what
would that mean? Just going on current products
and projects from IBM I could be referring to 4xx,
7xx, 9xx, Power 4/5/6, Blue Gene/L, Blue Gene/P,
and a whole bunch of other bits and pieces including
licensing IP from IBM or asking them to build
something new from-scratch using the PowerPC ISA
or a subset of it.

Pretty vague no?

Besides which the ISA is irrelevant to the end user
of a games console, what we/they care about is
what the console can do; which is related to the
micro-architecture, design, system, programming,
fabrication and packaging. You can build chips
that run exactly the same code, at widely divergent
performance levels using radically different
micro-architecture. For example you can run the
same x86 code on everything from 25 MHz 386,
33 MHz 486, 60 MHz Pentium, 200 MHz Pentium Pro
and 3.2 GHz Pentium 4. They are all x86, but there
is at least two orders of magnitude performance
difference and 5 substantial generations of the
micro-architecure.

If I said a future product was to be based upon
x86, that would clearly be too broad a definition
to judge the performance of the product, the
same goes for PowerPC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top