First Cell Benchmarks

Discussion in 'CellPerformance@B3D' started by Supernatural, Nov 25, 2006.

  1. Supernatural

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    1
    Lock if old:

    ・Dhrystone v2.1
    PS3 Cell 3.2GHz: 1879.630
    PowerPC G4 1.25GHz: 2202.600
    PentiumIII 866MHz: 1124.311
    Pentium4 2.0AGHz: 1694.717
    Pentium4 3.2GHz: 3258.068

    ・Linpack 100x100 Benchmark In C/C++ (Rolled Double Precision)
    PS3 Cell 3.2GHz: 315.71
    PentiumIII 866MHz: 313.05
    Pentium4 2.0AGHz: 683.91
    Pentium4 3.2GHz: 770.66
    Athlon64 X2 4400+ (2.2GHz): 781.58

    ・Linpack 100x100 Benchmark In C/C++ (Rolled Single Precision)
    PS3 Cell 3.2GHz: 312.64
    PentiumIII 866MHz: 198.7
    Pentium4 2.0AGHz: 82.57
    Pentium4 3.2GHz: 276.14
    Athlon64 X2 4400+ (2.2GHz): 538.05


    source: http://rian.s26.xrea.com/nicky.cgi?DT=20061121A#20061121A
     
  2. Darkon

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    3
    Are spe's being used or what ?
     
    #2 Darkon, Nov 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2006
  3. Mefisutoferesu

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    4
    PPE seems like it's pretty decent. Not sure how literal you can take those numbers in terms of optimizations between PPC and the PPE, but looks like the PPE is pretty good in it's own right.

    P.S. It's GCC at -o3 optimization only... I would have liked to see it with unrolled loops, but I don't think the benchmarks mean much of anything anyway...
     
    #3 Mefisutoferesu, Nov 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2006
  4. nonamer

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 25, 2002
    Messages:
    564
    Likes Received:
    7
    No.

    That said, it's mostly good news. It's pretty bad at integer and double precision stuff as expected, but single precision is pretty good for an in-order chip. Better than a P4 at least (although P4's do suck).
     
  5. Darkon

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    3
    not bad then , from all the negative comments i heard fafalad and other devs say expected ppe to be extremely bad.

    now I hope someone benchmarks them spe's
     
    #5 Darkon, Nov 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2006
  6. SPM

    SPM
    Regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    16
    No, this will be for the PPE only. The single and double precision performance will be an order of magnitude larger if the SPEs are used. Also it is likely not using an optimising compiler which will boost the performance for an in-order CPU like the PPE.

    The Dhrystone results again confirm again that for the PPE on it's own running general purpose integer, data processing and branching code without code optimisation (what the Cell is worst at), the PPE is roughly equivalent to a 2.5MHz P4. If the SPEs can be used to some of this integer code, even non-optimally, then the SPE will be a lot faster for this general purpose code than a 2.5GHz P4, although this can only be done on programs specially written for Cell.

    The FLOPS rating for a 3.2 GHz P4 extreme edition is about 3.3GFlops I believe, while the Cell including the SPEs is about 218GFlops, a factor of 66 times as fast, so for media acceleration, ray tracing etc. there is no contest.

    Cell isn't a bad processor for use in a general purpose desktop computer OS use - not the best at everything, but pretty decent nevertheless.
     
    #6 SPM, Nov 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2006
  7. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,734
    Likes Received:
    11,208
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    I dare say that it might actually be the best choice. It may be pretty 'average' on a lot of the simpler, more generic tasks, but those aren't demanding and 'average' suffices. And when it comes to the intensive media tasks, it'll shine. Given a choice between one CPU that eats through media processing and muddles along at an okay speed in typing docs and browsing webpages, and a CPU that's quick at typing docs and browsing webpages but much slower at media work, I'd choose the former. Most of the time I spend waiting for my computer to do things, it's in the media data processing departments. Heck, I would have stuck with my 800MHz PIII if it wasn't for the image processing and similar tasks I was doing! That's plenty fast enough for mundane tasks, and the performance increase in Word is negligable.

    I think Cell was a smart move to develop a processor better suited to the needs of the modern computer, balancing the performance asymmetrically as the workloads people want to handle are asymmetric in demands. Given these unoptimized values as rough comparitors, it seems Cell pretty much hit the mark.
     
  8. London-boy

    London-boy Shifty's daddy
    Legend Subscriber

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2002
    Messages:
    21,511
    Likes Received:
    5,156
    It's true that Cell is good enough for "Word" and a beast for multimedia tasks, but let's not forget that the whole group of tasts categorised under "General purpose" is not just Word.

    Personally, my "general purpose" usage would be internet browising, typing emails and reports using Word, Excel, Powerpoint and most other Office apps. Cell is more than fast enough at doing these kind of tasks, and the speed you get in the Media-related tasks is stunning. So for me, Cell would be very nice.

    I'm sure that other people have other needs though, seen how the "general purpose" group of tasks seems to include anything that doesn't deal with video and sound.
     
  9. PiNkY

    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Now after reading this I cannot help myself, but wonder whether any of you ever did some word processing on say a short but mildly complex (say even 10 pages, multiple fonts, embedded graphs, macros, etc.etc.) document on a 866mhz computer. Word processing certainly isn't as trivial as some make it out to be here.
     
  10. PiNkY

    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    4
    ...and regarding the benchmarks, I have a hard time believing that say a P4 clocked at 2GHz is nearly equal to a P4 at 3.2GHz at double precision math, but when you then move to SP, it first off all is 8 times slower than at dp and second of all nearly 4 times slower then if clocked 60% higher.
     
  11. Arwin

    Arwin Now Officially a Top 10 Poster
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Messages:
    17,682
    Likes Received:
    1,200
    Location:
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    I set up a dissertation of about 200 pages using tables, graphs, multiple fonts on less. No problem.
     
  12. LunchBox

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    California
    I'm quite impressed with what the PPE in cell could do.
    It's actually performing better than what I was given the impression to, when most people were saying how much of a lackluster the PPE performance was...

    Not trying to open anything up or trying to maliciously, derail the thread...
    just wanted to ask it here than make a new thread for it...

    Since I read here before that the PPE in cell is similarly designed, comparatively to the XCPU PPE cores (I think it was heavily discussed proficiently in B3D before the thread went to a steep downhill)...
    Would those number give a ballpark figure as to what the XCPU PPE could do as well?
    or will their difference in cache or VMX unit registers vary enough to show otherwise?
     
  13. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,734
    Likes Received:
    11,208
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    I've used a PC for pretty much everything a PC can do, including raytracing, music sequencing, programming, DTP and photo editing. The only area(s) I think that probably can't be optimized for SPEs and will be relatively slow on PPE t the point you'd want it to run faster, is compiling. Everything else should either get sped up a lot by SPEs, or run at a satisfactory speed on the PPE (going by these benchmarks, which of course are preliminary and subject to change without notice).

    Yep. I've done quite complex DTP on an 800 MHz PIII. It's not instantaneous, but it's certainly useable. And for a Cell optimized DTP package if one appears, the graphics+font rendering, which is a demanding aspect, should be very fast. eg. Most TT fonts will fit snuggly into a SPE's LS for very fast text creation.
     
  14. archie4oz

    archie4oz ea_spouse is H4WT!
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    1,608
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    53:4F:4E:59
    Actually until May, I was using an 867MHz G4 laptop as my most heavily used, day-2-day machine. Your problem isn't your machine, it's your software (namely "Word")... :) Granted my G4 was no barn-burner but it was quite workable. Like Shifty mentions, it's the multimedia apps that push the drive to beefier machines (The other being bloated apps that either run under slow run-times (Java, .NET), or apps with more features than sense).

    The benchmarks aren't really all that indicative of much really, other than how well existing processors run existing codebases with basic compilation effort. GCC doesn't do a particularly great job with G4s (or G3s) however they can get a way with a bit because of their relatively low missed branch penalties. As for the 2 P4s, I'm willing to venture that the 2GHz is a Northwood or Williamette and the 3.2 is a Prescott.
     
  15. Rolf N

    Rolf N Recurring Membmare
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,494
    Likes Received:
    55
    Location:
    yes
    I'm sure Intel would rate a P4 3.2GHz closer to 12.8Gflops/s. The 218Gflops/s number for CBE isn't a real-world figure either, so that'd actually be fair game.

    But on the whole the comparison to the P4 isn't that useful. The P4 is so dinky and broken in so many ways, OTOH so much effort has been put in compiler optimizations for the idiosyncrasies of this turd. As far as I'm concerned the numbers can be fun to look at but any inference about "general performance" in relation to saner architectures should be avoided.
    *ahem*

    I'd like to direct your attention more to the PIII and Athlon X2 numbers.
     
  16. Carl B

    Carl B Friends call me xbd
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    6,266
    Likes Received:
    63
    IIRC the first benchmarks were actually Dhrystone in an emulated x86 Windows environment and Geekbench for PPC Linux. But these just confirm what those have been saying; PPC - better than we thought! :)

    But hell, I've been running Fedora on this thing since launch day and I could've told you that.

    It's not like the lack of optimization (and memory bottleneck) doesn't show in the time it takes certain apps to open, but once opened everything runs quite smoothly and comfortably. I'd like to really see PS3 take off as a standardized platform for Linux, both useage and homebrew development-wise - I think we could see great things a couple of years out from now.

    Truly, if it had an internal burner and RSX was 'open,' there really wouldn't be any sort of barrier in my mind whatsoever. Even as it stands, those are very liveable limitations. For being an above-average first-gen Blu-ray player, a top-of-the-line games console, and a capable-if-quirky Linux PC all rolled into one... I mean... well I'll say I'm very pleased so far with my PS3 experience!
     
  17. Naboomagnoli

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    3
    A question, preceded by a lot of unnecessary beating-about-the-bush (aka context):

    Someone on PS3Forums (not as technical as B3D obviously, but you still get the odd developer/hobbyist/person with an iota of intelligence over there) said that making the RSX - and I would assume SPE's - available to Linux wouldn't happen because it'd mean that developers would be able to skirt around the issue of paying Sony royalties for games that are made, even if the maximum performance available to these developers is lessened to something along the lines of a PS3 "arcade" game.

    Would this be an accurate thing to say? Or would Sony be able to offer use of the RSX in Linux only to people who buy a License from Sony, therefore stopping Sony from losing money they rely on to claw some money back from hardware costs? Maybe Sony would expect this market to be a lot smaller than the market for orthodox PS3 games and just look the other way?

    Or "Other" (please describe ______________________________________________ ) :)
     
  18. Npl

    Npl
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    6
    Access to SPE is already possible AFAIK, and I wouldnt be surprised if an OpenGL-Driver will be released someday.
    So why should a gamedev still release "PS3-Games" and not "Linux"-Games that the PS3 can also play? Given the amount of money necessary to develop a next-gen title, Publishers will opt for the largest audience - that still being direct PS3 Games.
    Add to that that PS3 Games can have some level of copy-protection thats impossible on a open Linux plattform, the complication that could arise because of different distros/installations (Amount of free mem?) compared to a garantueed common Plattform with automatic Tieins to Sonys Online-Plattform and you see that it wont be a viable alternative to native PS3-Games.

    edit: Im talking about full scale titles, there could quite be a market for cheap/free/shareware games.
     
  19. Carl B

    Carl B Friends call me xbd
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    6,266
    Likes Received:
    63
    I don't expect that Sony has much incentive to open up the details of the RSX to the public; I personally am not expecting them to do so. But then again, not that I really care either. I can fully deal with the forced differentiation of PS3 general computing device, and PS3 games device. If Sony wants control of the latter, such is their right IMO. And if they do open up the RSX later... hey, bonus.

    (But yeah, like NPL said the SPEs are already open Naboomagnoli - they show up under 'devices' in the system overview display)
     
    #19 Carl B, Nov 26, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2006
  20. Npl

    Npl
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    6
    What do you mean with "open up details"? I mean they provide drivers for Linux for their GPUs, I dont think they care about that kind of "openess". Its not like we would need to poke with RSX registers directly to be happy ;) Atleast myself would be very content with an OpenGL/ES driver & accelerated desktop
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...