PS3 Open Platform - some big news

What connector is used to make use of those resolutions on a monitor? I thought HDMI was needed for highres output from PS3. Will an HDMI -> DVI connector work for Linux on a PC monitor? And will that not work for GameOS on the same monitor?

:???:
 
What connector is used to make use of those resolutions on a monitor? I thought HDMI was needed for highres output from PS3. Will an HDMI -> DVI connector work for Linux on a PC monitor? And will that not work for GameOS on the same monitor?

:???:
i think it does work, but only on HDCP compliant PC monitors.
 
As you might have expected if you were keeping up with the news, Yellow Dog Linux v5.0 officially launched yesterday. I signed up for a ydl.net enhanced account in order to download the ISO, but I haven't been able to create my account there yet, and currently the site appears to be down.

But at least one person did manage to get their hands on it, and has posted some videos of the install process, and in the last video, some apps running on the system. In the last video he opens up a bunch of firefox windows as well as an instant messenger and some other stuff..it all seems nice and responsive, which would compare well against some of the reported experiences with Fedora.

installation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZAUfA0eUH0

installation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vBplJsUhnY

installation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrq2hPUooNk

installation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsOWEi9G6-w

applications: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmruKxo9Pxc
 
Nice ... I watched the fourth and fifth, and preferred the fourth.
 
this is how it perform against a monocore Xeon at 3 GHz

Mac Pro with Xeon a 3 GHz - ps3

Benchmark Score Rate Result
Emulate 6502
single-threaded scalar 245.4 - 105.2



Emulate 6502
multi-threaded scalar 974.6 - 57.3

Blowfish
single-threaded scalar 231.2 - 118.7

Blowfish
multi-threaded scalar 920.4 - 165.6


bzip2 Compress
single-threaded scalar 314.1 - 89.8

bzip2 Compress
multi-threaded scalar 1194.4 - 124.1

bzip2 Decompress
single-threaded scalar 289.8 76.6


bzip2 Decompress
multi-threaded scalar 1353.3 - 99.5




Floating Point Performance
Benchmark Score Rate Result
Mandelbrot
single-threaded scalar 202.5 - 49.0

Mandelbrot
multi-threaded scalar 807.5 - 72.1


Dot Product
single-threaded scalar 362.9 120.0

Dot Product
multi-threaded scalar 1134.5 119

Dot Product
single-threaded vector 173.5 70

Dot Product
multi-threaded vector 516.7 119

JPEG Compress
single-threaded scalar 218.9 70

JPEG Compress
multi-threaded scalar 877.6 94.8

JPEG Decompress
single-threaded scalar 230.5 61.6

JPEG Decompress
multi-threaded scalar 788.9 72.9



Memory Performance
Benchmark Score Rate Result
Read Sequential
single-threaded scalar 368.7 51.9

Read Sequential
multi-threaded scalar 183.0 56.9

Write Sequential
single-threaded scalar 573.6 194


Write Sequential
multi-threaded scalar 281.3 191

Stdlib Allocate
single-threaded scalar 405.8 43.4

Stdlib Allocate
multi-threaded scalar 52.1 51

Stdlib Write
single-threaded scalar 121.5 331

Stdlib Write
multi-threaded scalar 204.4 365

Stdlib Copy
single-threaded scalar 243.3 64.5

Stdlib Copy
multi-threaded scalar 441.1 102



Stream Performance
Benchmark Score Rate Result
Stream Copy
single-threaded scalar 213.0 89.7

Stream Copy
multi-threaded scalar 359.7 109.9

Stream Copy
single-threaded vector 209.5 101.4

Stream Copy
multi-threaded vector 336.9 62.6

Stream Scale
single-threaded scalar 226.2 93.2

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/browse/2006/?view&id=10783
 
this is how it perform against a monocore Xeon at 3 GHz

Those scores don't look single core to me -- seems like a Quad core based on the "multi-threaded" results. And that's just a mean comparison.

PPE alone vs a (conroe based? Quad core?) Xeon? Meow!

Hell, PPE alone vs any recent x86 chip is going to be a sad fight. Not really unexpected scores though.
 
Same site, comparing Cell PPE to 1.6 MHz G5

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/11/playstation-3-performance/

Setup
  • Playstation 3
    • Cell Broadband Engine @ 3.2GHz
    • 256 MB RAM
    • Fedora Core 5
    • Geekbench 2006 (Build 243)
  • Power Mac G5
    • PowerPC G5 @ 1.6GHz
    • 1280 MB RAM
    • Fedora Core 4
    • Geekbench 2006 (Build 243)
I’m reporting the baseline score, rather than the raw score, for each test (where 100 is the score a PowerMac G5 1.6GHz running Mac OS X would receive on the same test). As always, higher scores are better.
Results

Overall Score


PlayStation 3
105.2

Power Mac G5
106.9

Edit : This of course was posted eariler in the thread, but I think it's worth reiterating in light of rather dubious looking Xeon scores from the same site.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those scores don't look single core to me -- seems like a Quad core based on the "multi-threaded" results. And that's just a mean comparison.
The listed CPU is Xeon 5160, which I think only goes up to Dual core, no? But going by some of the results, these are user-supplied figures without any validation of the setup, so it could be a quad-core setup reported incorrectly. It certainly seems unlikely that a mono core or dual core could get a 4x increase in performance from going multithreaded.
 
The listed CPU is Xeon 5160, which I think only goes up to Dual core, no? But going by some of the results, these are user-supplied figures without any validation of the setup, so it could be a quad-core setup reported incorrectly. It certainly seems unlikely that a mono core or dual core could get a 4x increase in performance from going multithreaded.

Apple only provide their Mac Pro's in Dual CPU forms, don't they? Besides the link shows that the setup was identified as having 4 processors (two on each Woodcrest CPU).

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/browse/2006/?view&id=10783
Physical Processor Count 4
 
So...why did you post it? After having the PPE compared to an equivalent single-core processor, you thought you'd compare it to a 4 core architecture, using four cores of the Xeon, but only one of Cell's 7 available...? I don't see the sense in that. Why's it important to know that a 4 Core 3 GHz Xeon is that much faster then PPE? :???:
 
So...why did you post it? After having the PPE compared to an equivalent single-core processor, you thought you'd compare it to a 4 core architecture, using four cores of the Xeon, but only one of Cell's 7 available...? I don't see the sense in that. Why's it important to know that a 4 Core 3 GHz Xeon is that much faster then PPE? :???:

I don't think we'll ever understand the thought processes which go on inside Blackie{BA}/RedBlackDevil/Griffith/MasterDisaster...
 
Great scott ! That benchmark came from the "Fastest Mac Ever" (as advertised by Apple) ^_^ :
Mac Pro (2 dual-core Xenon @ 3GHz, 8Gb RAM). Purchase price is USD 5,797.

I can run a HPC PS3 cluster for this money. ;-)
 
So...why did you post it? After having the PPE compared to an equivalent single-core processor, you thought you'd compare it to a 4 core architecture, using four cores of the Xeon, but only one of Cell's 7 available...? I don't see the sense in that. Why's it important to know that a 4 Core 3 GHz Xeon is that much faster then PPE? :???:
As stupid as that was, at least we can see the single threaded scores. A single core of a 3GHz woodcrest is about 3x the speed of the PPE (except the erratic memory tests which are sort of meaningless for real world perf). That's not bad considering these aren't hand-tuned binaries, but it does show how much was sacrificed in making the PPE so small.

Undoubtedly a hand tuned mandelbrot benchmark would be insanely fast on CELL, and would probably reach within a hair of the peak theoretical FLOPs.
 
The SPE's are in general significantly faster than the PPE for almost any workload that will fit in their limited local memory.
 
the xeon 5160 is dual core, it shows up as 4 processors cause of hyperthreading (at least in a few windows apps)...dont know if it was the logical or the physical processor portion that was a typo but looking at apple's site it seems they only have dual cpu
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top