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

[London Geezer]

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

errrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm.......... i'm sure he tried hard enough

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...

that explains it then....

 

[DeadmeatGA]

...

Faf

DM,
that slide is more then 2 years old(closer to 4 if I'm not mistaken), and it's a BlueGene presentation.

And Mr Kutaragi keeps reusing it over and over at every major conventions and presentations, I think I have seen it like a dozen times already.

The Sony pdf simply reused the same picture.

You gotta ask yourself why?

So unless Cell is 100% identical(and you already admitted it's not) to BlueGene, I fail to see how you can use those numbers to proove anything.

The fact that the described architecture is strikingly similar to BlueGene L

I don't think so. APUs are described as general purpose - including integer throughput equivalent to the FPU one. Maybe console variation will be different but that takes away from your line of reasoning about the patent again.

Blue Gene L's compute core is a full-blown PPC processor, it is only natural that APU is expected to be as "general" as possible.

 

[DeadmeatGA]

Re: ...

Faf

DM,
that slide is more then 2 years old(closer to 4 if I'm not mistaken), and it's a BlueGene presentation.

And Mr Kutaragi keeps reusing it over and over at every major conventions and presentations, I think I have seen it like a dozen times already.

The Sony pdf simply reused the same picture.

You gotta ask yourself why?

So unless Cell is 100% identical(and you already admitted it's not) to BlueGene, I fail to see how you can use those numbers to proove anything.

The fact that the described architecture is strikingly similar to BlueGene L in terms of data flow and division of work...

I don't think so. APUs are described as general purpose - including integer throughput equivalent to the FPU one. Maybe console variation will be different but that takes away from your line of reasoning about the patent again.

Blue Gene L's compute core is a full-blown PPC processor, it is only natural that APU is expected to be as "general" as possible.

 

[cybamerc]

Paul:

> So please Deadmeat, get a grip. A four core chip is going to attain
> 4GFLOPS when a Emotion Engine done in 98 can attain 6? Get real.

Deadmeat might be a troll but the chart is real and you can't blame him for that.

 

[London Geezer]

Deadmeat might be a troll but the chart is real and you can't blame him for that.

Yep. KK should get a grip and stop using 2 year old pictures
Seen what effect this had on some people

However when you think about it, it would be VERY VERY clever if he did that purposedly just to "make people talk"... pre-launch talk, although bad, is still pre-launch talk and hype

Believe me, you'd be surprised how marketing works sometimes...

 

[cybamerc]

Fafalada:

> The Sony pdf simply reused the same picture.

Um no... it's not quite that simple. The layout is different, the graphic elements are different, the text is different. It's not merely a chart from IBM that is being reused. Someone altered it and someone approved it. Sony is using it now so there has to be some logic behind it.

 

[Gubbi]

CELL has the same overall architectural structure as Blue Gene has. It just uses more, faster SIMD processors (APUs) than Blue Gene did.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Paul]

There is logic behind it.

It's "Cellular computing" Cellular computing is not a chip, it's an example. The blue gene diagram is simply showing what cellular computing is using blue gene as an example.

Those that think this is SCEI's implementation of Cell, that this is what they spent billions on and will mass produce on the 65 nm node for use in PS3 are just plain stupid.

So tell me, why would Sony spend all this money on Cell if they could just pay IBM to use blue gene?

 

[cybamerc]

Paul:

> The blue gene diagram is simply showing what cellular computing is
> using blue gene as an example.

That may be but why is the chart using Sony terminology then? Why not use the original chart?

 

[London Geezer]

There is logic behind it.

It's "Cellular computing" Cellular computing is not a chip, it's an example. The blue gene diagram is simply showing what cellular computing is using blue gene as an example.

Those that think this is SCEI's implementation of Cell, that this is what they spent billions on and will mass produce on the 65 nm node for use in PS3 are just plain stupid.

So tell me, why would Sony spend all this money on Cell if they could just pay IBM to use blue gene?

of course they wouldn't, i don't think even Deadmeat would believe that, in his all-empowering hate for everything ever created in Japan...

 

[Tuttle]

I've only recently started reading up on IBMs grid computing.

But I think it is pretty clear that Sony and IBM have very different goals for the technology.

Sony is interested in Cell providing them a pervasive solution for the home. Every electronic device able to talk to every other electronic device with small packets of code not caring where they are executed on.

IBM is interested in being able to sell computing power as a commodity item. Companies would buy X number of units worth of computing power with the possibility of being able to go back and seamlessly add more units in the future and not have to worry about rewriting code to take advantage of the hardware change.

 

[Paul]

That may be but why is the chart using Sony terminology then? Why not use the original chart?

Because the Blue Gene chart does not belong to Sony first off, it would be awkward to just show IBM slides.

Sony is developing Cell, they are showing what Cellular computing is, after all Cell is not even a chip. Cellular computing is putting multiple processor cores on a chip to achieve higher performance.

SCEI Cell isn't Blue Gene is what it comes down to, if you want to see SCEI's Cell just go read the patent.

 

[cybamerc]

Paul:

> Because the Blue Gene chart does not belong to Sony first off, it would
> be awkward to just show IBM slides.



I'd say ripping off another company's chart and making it look as if it is presenting your vision and your products is a hell of a lot more awkward.

 

[Paul]

Cellular computing and "Cell" are two different things altogether.

Much like "Driving" and a "Ford explorer".

This is all I have to say. Have a good day Cyba ; )

 

[cthellis42]

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...

They bought all rights to the Atari license in 2000, but Inforgrames, Inc. decided to fully change its name to Atari, Inc back in May, so pretty much it IS Atari now. Didn't change their corporate structure or get rolled into anything else, but that's certainly the name they want to go by now. (Makes sense--more brand recognition and less "silly" than Infogrames. ) NASDAQ symbol change and all.

 

[London Geezer]

cool... then all i have to do is go upstairs to Atari (will be downstairs from april when i move to the 9th floor), chat someone up, give them what they need and off i go with insider info!!!!

 

[Panajev2001a]

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.

Very interesting, thanks for the post.

 

[StefanS]

cool... then all i have to do is go upstairs to Atari (will be downstairs from april when i move to the 9th floor), chat someone up, give them what they need and off i go with insider info!!!!

Rig their phones! Seduce them so! Do sg. Mission Impossible style!

 

[StefanS]

They bought all rights to the Atari license in 2000, but Inforgrames, Inc. decided to fully change its name to Atari, Inc back in May, so pretty much it IS Atari now. Didn't change their corporate structure or get rolled into anything else, but that's certainly the name they want to go by now. (Makes sense--more brand recognition and less "silly" than Infogrames. ) NASDAQ symbol change and all.

I was wrong, I concede. They seemed to have changed their mind without me noticing. Because they wanted to have Atari as their special brand at first...

 

[AzBat]

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm still a little confused because I don't understand the technology, but I think I get the jist that Sony cell is not the same as IBM cell and that the slide itself was used to show off Cell computing in general. Guess I'll keep quiet until Sony themselves make official announcements on PS3.

Tommy McClain