Kutaragi Ken:Want a teraflop? You have to buy a rack from us

Megadrive1988 said:
(which I tend to believe as he patented the EE in 1997)

supports the above theory.


Hardly. By this logic, Cell was suppose to be part of the Playstation4 (which would launch around the patent date of 2001), but instead this never materialized.

It's much easier to come to the realization that it just takes 2-3 years to design a completely new CPU architecture after the initial design is done, the backend synthesis and the inevitable respins to fix errors. Besides, my way over-quoted buddy William would agree.
 
I understand that Sony Cell and IBM Cell are not the same, but you still haven't gave me any comparisons on how they different.

A similar philosophy is taken by the IBM Blue Gene* machine currently under development. The Blue Gene machine is being designed with the requirements of the protein-folding problem in mind. This problem also appears to enjoy a relatively low memory requirement per computation thread. Each chip in the Blue Gene system (150-nm technology) is expected to have 8 MB of DRAM and aims to get a peak performance of 32 gigaflops using 32 floating-point engines. A system comprising 32 000 such chips can potentially provide 1 petaflops of computing power.

Just remember I didn't understand any of the technical mumbo-jumbo you just posted. I just want to be able to figure out what FLOPS, cores and APUs the Sony version will have

Sony wanted each APU to have 32 GFLOPS.

and how it relates to these slides.

That slides just showing the concept of cell. Kutaragi been using that slides for a while. I think he wanted the supercomputer association with Cell. The guy is a hype master.

Is it as DM says and that Sony won't release a 2 Tera FLOP capable part for PS3 or is it that Sony's PS3 is more capable than even IBM's Blue Gene? I'm totally confused.

Well the STI cell better be more capable than the chip in IBM's Blue Gene, if not its pointless for IBM to spend money on it.
 
Fafalada said:
Btw, all this aside, you already argued feverishly that Cell will not be in PS3 at all (unless I misread your arguments) so why bother downplaying the architecture still?

Consistency sold seperatly
 
Re: ...

glw said:
DeadmeatGA said:
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.

Up to 32 threads run at once, one executing thread per thread group,
the current spec can run 32 threads simulataneously. The number
of threads being processed is much larger, 256 in the reference
design.

Each thread group shares a 64 entry register file, a program counter,
ALU, instruction sequencer, an FPU and data cache (16 kB).
Instruction caches (32 kB) are shared by two thread groups.

There are 16 banks of 512 kB DRAM, with a bandwidth of 40 GB/s.
Alternate DRAM designs allow for up to 160 GB/s.

Any thread can issue on any cycle if execution resources allow,
if more than 1 thread tries then execution is scheduled in a
round-robin fashion.

The ISA is a 3-operand load-store architecture using 60 of the
most common PowerPC instructions with multi-threading extensions.

At 500 MHz a Cyclops chip peaks at 32 GFlop/s.

Cyclops is a precursor to the final architecture for the BlueGene/P
machine which Cell may be related too. It's not a big jump to
assume Cell will be well north of 32 GFlop/s.

Very good post, thanks for joining Beyond3D: you put in a very nice form what I tried to write down quickly few posts abpve and added more... you make me remember more and more of the times in which I was following BlueGene much more closely.

I have one issue though: I thought the GPRs and the PC, etc... were not shared by the Thread Units ( in the Thread Group ), but I have to admit that it makes perfect sense when you say 1 Thread executing per group and 32 per core ( 32 groups ).

This concept of BlueGene ( Cyclops ) still reminds me of CELL a lot: each PE can execute its own thread/process ( 1 Active Thread per PE out of 8 being processed per PE [8 APUs + co-ordinator PU] ), a PE can be said to be equal to a Thread Group.

You defined the Thread Group well and the current structure of the PE is not dissimilar if you take the Thread Unit and you place it as PU and you replace the other Thread Units with a bit more specialized processors capable of FP/FX Vector and Scalar processing to boost multi-media performance.

The way BlueGene partitioned the e-DRAM is interesting: each Thread Group had 512 KB reserved and CELL seems to implement a bit more flexible, but still powerful Hardware based sandboxes for APUs access to the common e-DRAM ( unless allowed by the trusted code [OS] an APU cannot access another APU's e-DRAM memory blocks: the OS can modify the APU's mask to allow more than one APU to use the same e-DRAM memory blocks.

I am beginning to appreciate more and more the reasons why IBM is pushing BlueGene Cyclops ( High-end scientifical workstations and super-computers ) and STI CELL ( Consumer Electronics and multi-media space [which does require a lot of processing power] ).
 
Chaphack wrote:
Common senses dictates that Sony shouldnt even have IQ
problems this gen

That's a very simplistic view, taken in hindsight.

When Sony were developing PS2 it was a Voodoo dominated world, where the big limiting factor was bandwidth and fill rate. Sony developed an architecture fundamentally capable of overcoming those limitations. Now whatever you can say about PS2, fillrate is not one of its problems.

Xbox and NGC were able to beat PS2 performance wise, particularly in IQ, by launching later, in effect using moores law to give them more capable silicon, so that they didn't need to rely on esoteric architecture. It is the fundamental architecture of PS2's GS, having its embedded 4MB DRAM, that causes most of the headaches associated with its IQ.

But look at the advantage Sony gained by launching 18 months earlier;and its unlikely that MS and Nintendo could have launched consoles simultaneously with PS2 and been able to match its specs.
 
gmoran said:
But look at the advantage Sony gained by launching 18 months earlier;and its unlikely that MS and Nintendo could have launched consoles simultaneously with PS2 and been able to match its specs.


yes i have always had the same opinion. and also we have to remember the amount of usable memory in these consoles. i REALLY do not know how a game for an Xbox with only 32Mb ram would look...
i always had the impression that much of the Xbox's advantage was the amount of memory. take that away and the distance (which is already not that big) would get even smaller
 
yes i have always had the same opinion. and also we have to remember the amount of usable memory in these consoles. i REALLY do not know how a game for an Xbox with only 32Mb ram would look...

probably alot like GC titles (assuming some sort of VQ/S3TC).

they probably would've include the HDD and ehternet adapter too, follwing their current business plan.
 
I find launch time strategy discussions kind of bizarre.

I'm not saying it isn't important or relevant to a platform's sales. But after having been at development companies now through at least a couple full console cycles, it really has little effect on the support a console has.

Before the PS2,Dolphin, and XBox were launched, the CEO at the major game company I was working at the time stood up in front of a company meeting and made it clear that the PS2 was 'It', the primary focus for the company. He knew and I knew that the PS2 was going to absolutely dominate the upcomming console cycle. It made no difference when it was released, or when anything else was released.

Sony demonstrated with the first Playstation to every console development house CEO that they should have absolute confidence in their ability to execute. That if their company was going to invest millions of dollars ramping up and developing games for a platform, that Sony is the unquestionable choice.

Sony is in an even stronger position now than they were after the original Playstation.
 
yeah, in 2005 a big closet ful of mini mini CELLS will be 10PFLOPS instead of the 1PFLOP of NOW .
so that means we have to TIMES 10 the values we saw on KK's presentation because they show old specs of few years old.

i believe they do it on purpose to show inacurate data , so when they are going to launch with their (CRAZY NUMBER )GFLOPS , it will cause a BANG and will take the MS and Nint by surprise

. or whatever... damn work sucks, i want to go hoommmmmmme
 
Tuttle said:
I find launch time strategy discussions kind of bizarre.

I'm not saying it isn't important or relevant to a platform's sales. But after having been at development companies now through at least a couple full console cycles, it really has little effect on the support a console has.

Before the PS2,Dolphin, and XBox were launched, the CEO at the major game company I was working at the time stood up in front of a company meeting and made it clear that the PS2 was 'It', the primary focus for the company. He knew and I knew that the PS2 was going to absolutely dominate the upcomming console cycle. It made no difference when it was released, or when anything else was released.

Sony demonstrated with the first Playstation to every console development house CEO that they should have absolute confidence in their ability to execute. That if their company was going to invest millions of dollars ramping up and developing games for a platform, that Sony is the unquestionable choice.

Sony is in an even stronger position now than they were after the original Playstation.



interesting...

amazes me how some people can still criticise the way Sony does business....

by the way, i just found out that Atari has offices in my building!
Are Atari and Infogrames the same thing now? i'm asking because i saw in one list Infogrames listed in my building, and in another list it went by the name Atari. anyone? they're on the 7th floor i think..... :D
 
that explains it!!!!!!! now all i have to do is get to know someone from the 7th (and 8th) floor.... for lunch or something.... and get info!! i can be very convincing :LOL:
 
london-boy said:
that explains it!!!!!!! now all i have to do is get to know someone from the 7th (and 8th) floor.... for lunch or something.... and get info!! i can be very convincing :LOL:
Oh! I'm sure there's someone (you know who? ;) ) that could help you on 'how to get in touch with someone from a game publishing company'... be it Atari, Vivendi or some other...
 
rabidrabbit said:
london-boy said:
that explains it!!!!!!! now all i have to do is get to know someone from the 7th (and 8th) floor.... for lunch or something.... and get info!! i can be very convincing :LOL:
Oh! I'm sure there's someone (you know who? ;) ) that could help you on 'how to get in touch with someone from a game publishing company'... be it Atari, Vivendi or some other...



hahahaha yeah shame that someone is in Canada..... (we're talking about the same someone right :LOL: )
 
london-boy said:
by the way, i just found out that Atari has offices in my building!
Are Atari and Infogrames the same thing now? i'm asking because i saw in one list Infogrames listed in my building, and in another list it went by the name Atari. anyone? they're on the 7th floor i think..... :D

I hate to be a pain in the a$$. But actually, Atari is owned by Infogrames. Infogrames chooses just to publish under the name of Atari since it has a better reputation with gamers...
 
yep, same someone.
...on further thinking, maybe you'd be better off with your own, as that someone wasn't too succesful in pumping his information channel :)
 
Back
Top