How does the "CELL Consortium" operate? Can IBM & Toshiba overrule Sony?
- Thread starter Brimstone
- Start date
Interesting question. I'd always assumed that Sony (as the "customer") had driven the direction of Cell - the SPE set-up being a prime example. I don't really know where Toshiba fit into the whole scenario. PS2 legacy-ness perhaps?
It's probably a case that even though Sony are widely thought of as the "customer" for Cell all 3 companies have had an input in the design consultation.
Hmm. I'll check back on this when someone's given a better answer.
It's probably a case that even though Sony are widely thought of as the "customer" for Cell all 3 companies have had an input in the design consultation.
Hmm. I'll check back on this when someone's given a better answer.
Since IBM, Toshiba, and Sony are all publicly traded companies, I figure the framework for how the "CELL Consortium" works has to be known to analysts.
Say for example, IBM wants to sell CELL to Samsung (which would sort of makes sense since it's a large consumer electronics company), how would the approval process work. How would revenues be shared? Royalties split 3 ways?
Say for example, IBM wants to sell CELL to Samsung (which would sort of makes sense since it's a large consumer electronics company), how would the approval process work. How would revenues be shared? Royalties split 3 ways?
I don't think there's any voting or overruling as the intentions would have been laid out from the beginning. eg. If Nintendo come asking IBM for Cell, there's won't be a board-room vote as it'll already have been decided before going ahead with development that Cell will not appear in any but Sony's consoles for however long. The voting on design also appears to be non-existent, as deisgn was by consent. The features are those agreed upon by all three parties, with no 1 party being sidelined by the other two, it seems.
At least, this is what i understand from the information available so far, plus general business methods. The idea that Sony got Toshiba and IBM together to design a new processor without adequate safeguards of the finalized designed is nigh on impossible in this day and age of excessive litigation!
At least, this is what i understand from the information available so far, plus general business methods. The idea that Sony got Toshiba and IBM together to design a new processor without adequate safeguards of the finalized designed is nigh on impossible in this day and age of excessive litigation!
Toshiba's part is oft overlooked, but they were full players from the beginning. Cell inherits a lot of design from Toshiba's idea of a media processor rather than IBM's design (standard multicore, like XeCPU). We've yet to see announcements of up-coming Cell based CE goods from Toshiba though. So far their products have just been demo hardware at shows.
mckmas8808
Legend
Shifty Geezer said:
Well Toshiba did annouce that most if not all of their HDTVs will have some kind of CELL processor in them.
Though Toshiba have said that, they haven't announced any Cells in their upcoming 1080p TVs or HDDVD players AFAIK. At the moment the the only known Cell products are PS3 and IBMs servers, with nothing from Toshiba.
Shifty Geezer said:
Long ago I remember reading somewhere that Toshiba had a large part to play in the PS2 architecture. Something to do with the GS perhaps. Is there anywhere I can find info on the PS2 architecture - I just want to see if there's any carry over into Cell/PS3.
The closing comments on this article: http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/openps2.ars/2
are interesting to say the least.
Toshiba was indeed heavily involved in the GS architecture, and jointly operates the fab that initially fab'd it. That fab now makes the EE+GS chips. Toshiba was also heavily involved - in the urban legend sense - in the would-be Cell-derived GPU that was theorized to be going into PS3 before the NVidia deal was announced. No telling how far that actually ever got however, as there's evidence out there that NVidia and Sony's GPU relationship began as early as mid-2003. Still though, the 'Visualizer' patent at least shows a Cell-based GPU was on Sony's radar in one form or another when the PS3 project began.
PS - Even though the GS missed out on the T&L revoluton going on at the time of it's release, one still has to appreciate the insane fillrate power it brought when compared to it's contemporaries.
PS - Even though the GS missed out on the T&L revoluton going on at the time of it's release, one still has to appreciate the insane fillrate power it brought when compared to it's contemporaries.
Last edited by a moderator:
There has to be some type of infastructure to help define and guide the future of the "CELL" architecture.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/hardwa...wer_chip_program/0,2000061702,39196414,00.htm
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/hardwa...wer_chip_program/0,2000061702,39196414,00.htm
I think that the Cell project rests soley with STI; though it's a subset of Power, it's not IBM's alone to control, as really what a Cell processor is, is SPEs + Power. It's the SPE's that keep things from being totally in IBM's zone of control, and obviously with Kutaragi kind of being 'Grand Commander' throughout the development, I doubt he would have ceded too much in the way of Sony/Toshiba 'rights.' I think that the recent announcement on their part of continuing development down through 32nm indicates if nothing else that the three are still a 'team' on the architecture to some extent or another.
But I mean, I think we all agree that there's an agreement 'infrastructure' in place for dealing with future Cell roll-out and development.
I myself had a thread or two last year putting forward the hypothetical question: "Would IBM be able to supply Microsoft with Cell-derivatives for their next-gen console?"... or something to that effect.
There was no real answer to that then though, and there's probably none that we can be made aware of now. There's obviously a structure in place, it's just that we're not going to be privy to it.
But I mean, I think we all agree that there's an agreement 'infrastructure' in place for dealing with future Cell roll-out and development.
I myself had a thread or two last year putting forward the hypothetical question: "Would IBM be able to supply Microsoft with Cell-derivatives for their next-gen console?"... or something to that effect.
There was no real answer to that then though, and there's probably none that we can be made aware of now. There's obviously a structure in place, it's just that we're not going to be privy to it.
standing ovation
Regular
IBM is a lot like a fast food restaurant. Hungry customers walk in and place their order, personalizing meals with the addition or removal of certain condiments.
Cell "combos" are no different.
What Sony orders is not necessarily something that other buyers (like Mercury Computer Systems) may have a taste for. Because of IBM's erratic production history (something Apple and Nvidia should be familiar with), Sony not only bought chips but licensed its manufacturing process as well.
Cell "combos" are no different.
What Sony orders is not necessarily something that other buyers (like Mercury Computer Systems) may have a taste for. Because of IBM's erratic production history (something Apple and Nvidia should be familiar with), Sony not only bought chips but licensed its manufacturing process as well.
about using Cell in gaming systems: Sony actually addressed this early on. they said no gaming system outside of a Sony will use Cell.
as for the general practice of STI, I think each will go focus on their respective markets. IBM is pushing hard on Cell servers and super computers while Sony and Toshiba will implement Cell in consumer electronics.
as for the general practice of STI, I think each will go focus on their respective markets. IBM is pushing hard on Cell servers and super computers while Sony and Toshiba will implement Cell in consumer electronics.
Legend said:
I do not feel the STI group as a whole would be interested in having ruling rights over what each of its three members does with Cell licensing. Sony wouldn't be threatened either. Ultimately, it would not be in the interest of a console maker to aid its direct competitor by being dependent on the competitor's product. Edit: unless they have a choice
Last edited by a moderator:
