The CELL project at IBM Research
- Thread starter nAo
- Start date
From the very beginning I felt Cell was to offer a hardware for all things - Prgram execution, graphics rendering, physics, maths processing, DSP work, etc. This is so it can be a one-chip solution to certain applications. eg. In a TV you don't a graphics processor as well as a CPU etc.
That Cell is good at T&L, doesn't necessarily means that's its function. The switch to nVidia might represent a rethink from Sony where they decided not to have the one chip structure. Maybe they anticipated a dual Cell system and realizing they couldn't pull that offer, conscripted an nVidia GPU to provided graphics support for a single Cell system?
It's still all random guesswork and vague speculation
That Cell is good at T&L, doesn't necessarily means that's its function. The switch to nVidia might represent a rethink from Sony where they decided not to have the one chip structure. Maybe they anticipated a dual Cell system and realizing they couldn't pull that offer, conscripted an nVidia GPU to provided graphics support for a single Cell system?
It's still all random guesswork and vague speculation
I'm going to write this for the last time (I swear ):
CELL is not good at pixel shading. CELL designers are not so dumb to don't know this
Sony was aware they needed a GPU from the very start.
Toshiba was developing a GPU for the PS3, that GPU was canned and Sony switched to a more advanced and powerful GPU designed by NVIDIA.
AMEN.
):CELL is not good at pixel shading. CELL designers are not so dumb to don't know this
Sony was aware they needed a GPU from the very start.
Toshiba was developing a GPU for the PS3, that GPU was canned and Sony switched to a more advanced and powerful GPU designed by NVIDIA.
AMEN.
Shifty Geezer said:From the very beginning I felt Cell was to offer a hardware for all things - Prgram execution, graphics rendering, physics, maths processing, DSP work, etc. This is so it can be a one-chip solution to certain applications. eg. In a TV you don't a graphics processor as well as a CPU etc.
That Cell is good at T&L, doesn't necessarily means that's its function. The switch to nVidia might represent a rethink from Sony where they decided not to have the one chip structure. Maybe they anticipated a dual Cell system and realizing they couldn't pull that offer, conscripted an nVidia GPU to provided graphics support for a single Cell system?
It's still all random guesswork and vague speculation
Yes, except TnL is not "graphics". It's one part of the equation. Usually associated with the vertex half
So calling in a second chip for pixel shading would not necessarily go against the initial idea of Cell.nAo said:I'm going to write this for the last time (I swear
CELL is not good at pixel shading. CELL designers are not so dumb to don't know this
Sony was aware they needed a GPU from the very start.
Toshiba was developing a GPU for the PS3, that GPU was canned and Sony switched to a more advanced and powerful GPU designed by NVIDIA.
AMEN.
You see, some people just feel better believing in the "OMG Cell is not as powahfull as Sony thought so they had to get NVIDIA at the last minute to make PS3 more powerful!!1!eleven!!" stories.
london-boy said:
Actually, I think his comment was a response the the reverse: "OMG CELL is so powerful it was going to do the graphics rendering... but they could not fit 2 in so they went with a traditional GPU for that".
Remember 6 months ago when all the talk was, "Is the CELL better than a GPU"? Then when it came out about the nVidia deal in December the discussion switched to, "Maybe nVidia's GPU was not better than Toshibas, just cheaper" and then "The CELL suxxors! It cannot beat a 500MHz GPU at pixel shading! nVidia pwned CELL!!11"
For Cell doing graphics, I don't know what Sony's expectations were. Maybe they wanted Pixel shader capabilities but found it wouldn't happen? But also, Cell was targetted from the very beginning for things like digital TV and mobiles and goodness knows what else, where advanced shaders aren't really an issue. I dunno. Maybe there was a mini-Cell pixel shader unit? Maybe the Toshiba effort was more Cell orientated, as part of the overall Cell empire structure. Has anyone got notes from Sony and friends listed their initial requirements, before any design got underway?
Point is, whatever the capabilities of Cell as a processor, doesn't mean all those capabilities were targetted solely for PS3.
Point is, whatever the capabilities of Cell as a processor, doesn't mean all those capabilities were targetted solely for PS3.
If Sony would have wanted CELL to be good at pixel shading STI would have designed it to be good ad it!Shifty Geezer said:
As this is not the case it's crystal clear Sony wasn'e expecting to use CELL as GPU.
I really can't understand why people can't accept this.
What's wrong with current GPUs? they're blazing fast, damn!
No it wasn't.
Since PS3 should be able to do almost everything I'd expect CELL to be good at very wide range of applications.
Once you targeted PS3 and scalability too you're done in many cases.
Because you don't want a GPU in your mobile phone and TV! That's overkill. I'm wondering if Sony wanted graphics capability on Cell, Toshiba too, but when the considered how much maths grunt they wanted, how much die space they could use, etc., they found they just couldn't include it in the design.nAo said:If Sony would have wanted CELL to be good at pixel shading STI would have designed it to be good ad it!Shifty Geezer said:
As this is not the case it's crystal clear Sony wasn'e expecting to use CELL as GPU.
I really can't understand why people can't accept this.
What's wrong with current GPUs? they're blazing fast, damn!
Just saying a processor good at T&L isn't necessarily going to be doing that in a console with a GPU, that T&L functionality maybe not being there solely for PS3's sake.
Personally I'm nethier for nor against GPUs. I don't care what's in PS3 so long as the games look good!
Yeah..do you want a full PPE + some SPEs in your cell phone and 3 kg batteries pack?Shifty Geezer said:
Please tell me why it's so hard for you to understand that they simply was not targeting a GPU!?
It's so damn simple!
have you ever heard about Occam's razor?
Who cares? the main target is PS3 and PS3 will have to do a lot more than T&L.
Hell..we aren't even sure it will do T&L at all..
No , but Cell is deisnged to be scalable and portable. I'd expect a 1:1 or 1:2 maybe in a Cell handheld running at much lower clock speedsnAo said:Yeah..do you want a full PPE + some SPEs in your cell phone and 3 kg batteries pack?
It's not hard to understand. Dunno why you seem to be getting irate! Someone speculated that T&L on Cell = No T&L on GPU. I'm saying that's not much indication as maybe T&L functionality was there for other reasons.
I KNOW!!! I said that!!! I'm NOT saying Cell will be doing graphics!!! (T&L capability on Cell) != (Cell doing T&L in PS3).
And why does everyone equate Cell with PS3 almost exclusively? You say Cell is mainly targetted at PS3, I say not. There'll be more non PlayStation Cell devices in the world than PS3s if everything goes to plan. IBM's news on Cell which heads this thread is talking about Cell's capabilities. Those capabilities will find their way into number-crunching monster computers and TVs and everything else STI can squeeze them into. Therefore, I repeat myself, the functions of Cell as listed will not necesserily mean they were put there for the sole benefit of PS3, in which AFAICS you actually agree with me on
As I wasn't in the boardroom when plans were discussed and wasn't around during the development phase to see how ideas for Cell changed during it's development, I don't know what was and was not planned for Cell. All I offered were theorectical reasons why a feature might exist in Cell, without ever saying they were the case. What's wrong with that?
When you say GPU, what do you mean? I'm not up on this. Presumably it doesn't have 3D capabilities but is mostly a DSP for digital pics, plus some rendering for text etc.
Similar threads
