Toshiba, Sony close to 65nm sample production

cthellis42 said:
They could indeed have been working in the background--and I rather imagine Microsoft is "working in the background" with a whole host of companies for a giant stack of future possibilities all over the spectrum, but the same scale was certainly not there--and most likely not the focus or direction.

And this actually relates to the two points I’m making.

First an absence of information (hype) does not mean that either nothing is happening in the back ground or they are not gearing for success, all it does mean is that you haven’t heard much about it.

The second point is that people here are keen to assign the levels of R&D to success, and the amount of time, but the focus also needs to be taken into account. At the moment we believe that MS has a singular focus which is to produce an architecture purely for the task(s) they decide the XBox2 needs to meet – the development on the Cell concept is not purely focused on a single application as people are talking about this in a multiple of applications / usage scenarios hence inevitably the development that is going into Cell is not purely focused on a single implementation.

All I’m saying is that you still have a bunch of unknowns – you don’t know how much MS have put into XBox2 because you haven’t heard much and you also can’t really say how much of the R&D on Cell is PS3 implementation specific, it may be all currently or it may be that the investment is looking more towards the wider applications.
 
Vince said:
PS3 is the application for Cell though. Do you think Sony could move into such an alliance (which perhaps rivals only Intel) without PS3? The fact that the same guys who patented the Emotion Engine patented Cell?

Grrr.
I don't want to get into the argument per se, but I want to reiterate that I believe that everyone involved would benefit from being a bit more specific when it comes to nomenclature.

In no way, shape or form did "the same guys who patented the Emotion Engine patented Cell".
This is the complete abstract from the patent.

Patent Abstract said:
A computer architecture and programming model for high speed processing over broadband networks are provided. The architecture employs a consistent modular structure, a common computing module and uniform software cells. The common computing module includes a control processor, a plurality of processing units, a plurality of local memories from which the processing units process programs, a direct memory access controller and a shared main memory. A synchronized system and method for the coordinated reading and writing of data to and from the shared main memory by the processing units also are provided. A hardware sandbox structure is provided for security against the corruption of data among the programs being processed by the processing units. The uniform software cells contain both data and applications and are structured for processing by any of the processors of the network. Each software cell is uniquely identified on the network. A system and method for creating a dedicated pipeline for processing streaming data also are provided.

Note that the word "cell" is exclusively used in the context of "software cells" and never to describe any hardware construct in parts or as a whole.

I guess a certain myopia is understandable, this is after all a console forum. But the cell concept is vastly broader than the PS3 console. The Cell=PS3 processor definition is flat out wrong and has already caused tons of heated and utterly confused discussion here.
 
Entropy said:
Grrr.
I don't want to get into the argument per se, but I want to reiterate that I believe that everyone involved would benefit from being a bit more specific when it comes to nomenclature.

Grr yourself. Next time don't correct if you don't know what's up. For example:

Thanks for the lecture on Nomenclature,might want to stop by STI-Austin since they're more confused that I am. ;)

In no way, shape or form did "the same guys who patented the Emotion Engine patented Cell".

  • Broadband Engine: Inventors: Suzuoki, Masakazu; (Tokyo, JP) ; Yamazaki, Takeshi; (Tokyo, JP)

    Emotion Engine: Inventors: Suzuoki; Masakazu (Tokyo, JP)

Nope, different people.

I guess a certain myopia is understandable, this is after all a console forum. But the cell concept is vastly broader than the PS3 console. The Cell=PS3 processor definition is flat out wrong and has already caused tons of heated and utterly confused discussion here.

The confusion is on your hands Sir, I assure you.

  • I've already talked briefly about the difference between STI Cell and the Cellular Computing Ideology as previously envisioned Here, back in Novermber

    I've also talked about the difference between the Broadband Engine and STI Here, back in November too

With all due respect, you're preaching to the wrong guy if for no other reason then I beat you to the punch by over a month.
 
DaveBaumann said:
First an absence of information (hype) does not mean that either nothing is happening in the back ground or they are not gearing for success, all it does mean is that you haven’t heard much about it.

OK, Dave I love ya, but I call Bullshit!. Why should we assume that you can keep the lid 100% close on any Microsoft/IBM hardware development over the last 3 years - but STI can't keep their interns (IBM's Extreme Blue program which is involved in basically all cutting-edge R&D) to a code of secrecy and STFU ?

What your saying is protected from the fact that none of us can say it's impossible, but then again neither is the possibility that I'm going to spontaniously tunnel across the Atlantic and debate you in person. :rolleyes:

The second point is that people here are keen to assign the levels of R&D to success, and the amount of time, but the focus also needs to be taken into account. At the moment we believe that MS has a singular focus which is to produce an architecture purely for the task(s) they decide the XBox2 needs to meet – the development on the Cell concept is not purely focused on a single application as people are talking about this in a multiple of applications / usage scenarios hence inevitably the development that is going into Cell is not purely focused on a single implementation.

I'm sorry, you deserve another :rolleyes: untill you can indisputably show me what STI has produced that's not related to the Fig6 in Sukuoki's Patent. I figure if your going to argue based on what's potential and the lack of proof, then I might as well argue on fact and what I can prove. Show me proofif you're going to make this statement.

I've already posted IBM patents from members of IBM's STI contact team that correspond to the time period they were in Austin. Show me conflicting proof because this arguing on sheer potentialities with a low probobility of actually occuring is getting old fast.

All I’m saying is that you still have a bunch of unknowns – you don’t know how much MS have put into XBox2 because you haven’t heard much and you also can’t really say how much of the R&D on Cell is PS3 implementation specific, it may be all currently or it may be that the investment is looking more towards the wider applications.

Actually, we have a shit load of knowns on the STI hand and you're the one whose talking about what could have been dispite the utter lack of evidence.

So, we go from STIs patents, agreements, and public disclosure to the obscure MS world of shadow contracts and the secret dealings which don't even coincide with the only damn knowledge we have that's known: namely the 2003 date of agreements and the 2002 tenders being sent out.

Thus, excuse me while I question why we're debating this. ;)
 
Dave, one more thing. You are talking about design "Focus" - the heck else is a possible 1TeraFLOP of programmable vector processors stuffed on an IC?

Seriously, Office2005 accelerator?
 
Vince said:
DaveBaumann said:
First an absence of information (hype) does not mean that either nothing is happening in the back ground or they are not gearing for success, all it does mean is that you haven’t heard much about it.

OK, Dave I love ya, but I call Bullshit!. Why should we assume that you can keep the lid 100% close on any Microsoft/IBM hardware development over the last 3 years - but STI can't keep their interns (IBM's Extreme Blue program which is involved in basically all cutting-edge R&D) to a code of secrecy and STFU ?

Who’s talking about specifics in hardware development with particular partners or even timescales? Development can occur in many areas, be that research, internal funding, partners and other ears – just because you don’t hear about it doesn’t mean that things aren’t happening.

Do you know how much MS have spent internally on what they aspire for XBox2? Do you know when the project started?

I'm sorry, you deserve another :rolleyes: untill you can indisputably show me what STI has produced that's not related to the Fig6 in Sukuoki's Patent. I figure if your going to argue based on what's potential and the lack of proof, then I might as well argue on fact and what I can prove. Show me proofif you're going to make this statement.

So, the development of Cell has no other application in mind bar PS3, is that what you’re saying?

So, we go from STIs patents, agreements, and public disclosure to the obscure MS world of shadow contracts and the secret dealings which don't even coincide with the only damn knowledge we have that's known: namely the 2003 date of agreements and the 2002 tenders being sent out.

Again, I ask – Cell has no other application than PS3?
 
DaveBaumann said:
Vince said:
DaveBaumann said:
First an absence of information (hype) does not mean that either nothing is happening in the back ground or they are not gearing for success, all it does mean is that you haven’t heard much about it.

OK, Dave I love ya, but I call Bullshit!. Why should we assume that you can keep the lid 100% close on any Microsoft/IBM hardware development over the last 3 years - but STI can't keep their interns (IBM's Extreme Blue program which is involved in basically all cutting-edge R&D) to a code of secrecy and STFU ?

Who’s talking about specifics in hardware development with particular partners or even timescales? Development can occur in many areas, be that research, internal funding, partners and other ears – just because you don’t hear about it doesn’t mean that things aren’t happening.

Again, where's the proof? Show me something tangible already! We can safely assume that no true development on an architecture the scale of Cell has proceeded within IBM to this point by way of assumed equivalency with STI's leakage due to interns. As a metric it works damn well.

And truthfully, if IBM provided "ears" to MS and that's R&D for two years... that's damn pathetic.

So, right there as per the initial argument we can state that MS's level of investment is behind/smaller/lesser than STIs.

Do you know how much MS have spent internally on what they aspire for XBox2? Do you know when the project started?

Irrelvent as per the initial discussion of the level of investment which is both monetary and R&D. I know when STI sent out their 'tenders' (Kutaragi talked to IBM in 2000) and what they've announced and what's been leaked and I know roughly when MS sent out tenders and made their announcement. I see a lapse of 2 years in both cases.

I'm sorry, you deserve another :rolleyes: untill you can indisputably show me what STI has produced that's not related to the Fig6 in Sukuoki's Patent. I figure if your going to argue based on what's potential and the lack of proof, then I might as well argue on fact and what I can prove. Show me proofif you're going to make this statement.

So, the development of Cell has no other application in mind bar PS3, is that what you’re saying?

Is this that hard to understand? Show me what logic IBM, Sony or Toshiba designed in relation to the Cell project that doesn't scale up modularly to the known Broadband Engine. This is going to be damn good.. haha!

So, we go from STIs patents, agreements, and public disclosure to the obscure MS world of shadow contracts and the secret dealings which don't even coincide with the only damn knowledge we have that's known: namely the 2003 date of agreements and the 2002 tenders being sent out.

Again, I ask – Cell has no other application than PS3?

Ring around the Rosey, one day Dave's going to grasp modularity. I'm sure we can find some design tools or software which was intended for the Cell Architecture that won't be used in the BE manifestation - but we can find the same happening at ATI.

Again, explain to me what's in Cell the STI architecture that's not in the Broadband Engine? You'd think you would catch on to the concept of Cell and it's unified/equivalent logic structures. *shrug*

EDIT: BTW, did you ever read that whole patent thing? It's linked above in a responce to someone else, but it's a good glance over.

For example, if you'd read it you'd come across this in the "Summery of Invention":

That whole Patent thingie said:
In accordance with the present invention, all members of a computer network, i.e., all computers and computing devices of the network, are constructed from a common computing module.

EDIT2: My fault. I was incorrect. If you read it you would have come across this in the first three sentances:

Even earlier in that whole Patent thingie said:
The architecture employs a consistent modular structure, a common computing module and uniform software cells. The common computing module includes a control processor, a plurality of processing units, a plurality of local memories from which the processing units process programs, a direct memory access controller and a shared main memory

Also in answering your comment on Cell verse BE and others apps:

Also in that wholePatent thingie said:
Using this standardized, modular structure, numerous other variations of processors can be constructed easily and efficiently
 
Again, where's the proof? Show me something tangible already! We can safely assume that no true development on an architecture the scale of Cell has proceeded within IBM to this point by way of assumed equivalency with STI's leakage due to interns. As a metric it works damn well.

Show me proof that it hasn't. You can't, but I can't do that either.

The point is that you can't quote quantities of R&D time/cash as a sign of superirity when you have a vacuum of information in relation to the competition.

And truthfully, if IBM provided "ears" to MS and that's R&D for two years... that's damn pathetic.

So, right there as per the initial argument we can state that MS's level of investment is behind/smaller/lesser than STIs.

Again, why are you talking specifics? You do not know what work has been carried out by MS prior to any announcements and the level of funding that work has required.

Is this that hard to understand? Show me what logic IBM, Sony or Toshiba designed in relation to the Cell project that doesn't scale up modularly to the known Broadband Engine. This is going to be damn good.. haha!

This is the point I'm making Vince - the entire levels of R&D that you are suggesting will see the PS3 as being nothing but a sucess is not focused soley on the PS3. PS3 is but one application of CELL and the success or failure of CELL does not rest on the shoulders soley on PS3 - the R&D investment that has gone in so far is not necessarily specifically for the purposes of PS3 but for the wider applications of the CELL and the question of what levels of interest each of the companies involved has in PS3 specifically and the development of Cell as a concept and wider applications.

Ring around the Rosey, one day Dave's going to grasp modularity. I'm sure we can find some design tools or software which was intended for the Cell Architecture that won't be used in the BE manifestation - but we can find the same happening at ATI.

Again, explain to me what's in Cell the STI architecture that's not in the Broadband Engine? You'd think you would catch on to the concept of Cell and it's unified/equivalent logic structures. *shrug*

Vince, I have no issues with the the grasp of modularity. All I'm saying is that when you are designing modular system the level of funding that go into the root concept does not necessarily equate to the level of funding ascribed to one device that is going to be produced from that design.

Your quote from earlier in this thread:

Vince said:
Going to back to 1H2001, we've seen SCE, Toshiba and IBM invest $400M in building an independant research and design facility on IBM's Austin campus, hire or shift over 400 engineers to the architecture project aswell as a concurrent investment in process technology (SOI, Low-K, 90 -> 65nm roadmap). Later, around 2002 we've seen further investment in a Cell OS - which is being designed AFAIK as a collaberation between Austin, TJ Watson and the ST partners. In 2003 we've seen upwards of a combined $10Billion invested in ST's fabrication infastructure aswell as investment and a licensing deal with Rambus.

These investments do not relate soley to PS3, but they relate to CELL as a concept and a fundament construct that can be leveraged into other devices - I personally doubt that IBM are doing what they are dong purely for the purposes of PS3, but for a wider range of applications. Equally, they will get benefit from the investements they've made in the fab technology by producing parts other than the PS3 chips, so this is not something that can be solely ascribed to PS3 (and may even, ironically, be applied to the XBox2).
 
Entropy said:
Vince said:
PS3 is the application for Cell though. Do you think Sony could move into such an alliance (which perhaps rivals only Intel) without PS3? The fact that the same guys who patented the Emotion Engine patented Cell?

Grrr.
I don't want to get into the argument per se, but I want to reiterate that I believe that everyone involved would benefit from being a bit more specific when it comes to nomenclature.

In no way, shape or form did "the same guys who patented the Emotion Engine patented Cell".
This is the complete abstract from the patent.

Patent Abstract said:
A computer architecture and programming model for high speed processing over broadband networks are provided. The architecture employs a consistent modular structure, a common computing module and uniform software cells. The common computing module includes a control processor, a plurality of processing units, a plurality of local memories from which the processing units process programs, a direct memory access controller and a shared main memory. A synchronized system and method for the coordinated reading and writing of data to and from the shared main memory by the processing units also are provided. A hardware sandbox structure is provided for security against the corruption of data among the programs being processed by the processing units. The uniform software cells contain both data and applications and are structured for processing by any of the processors of the network. Each software cell is uniquely identified on the network. A system and method for creating a dedicated pipeline for processing streaming data also are provided.

Note that the word "cell" is exclusively used in the context of "software cells" and never to describe any hardware construct in parts or as a whole.

I guess a certain myopia is understandable, this is after all a console forum. But the cell concept is vastly broader than the PS3 console. The Cell=PS3 processor definition is flat out wrong and has already caused tons of heated and utterly confused discussion here.

CELL is an architecture of course, but that an implementation of the CELL architecture, namely what the RAMBUS+Sony+Toshiba deal specified as Broadband Engine, will be inside PlayStation 3 is not somethign very far fetched.

Also, if you bothered going to page 8 or so of this thread you can see the relevant IBM patents on CELL and how they link nicely with Suzuoki's patent.
 
Vince said:
Dave, one more thing. You are talking about design "Focus" - the heck else is a possible 1TeraFLOP of programmable vector processors stuffed on an IC?

Seriously, Office2005 accelerator?


This is from a Micron filing.

New product development may not be successful.
We are developing new products that complement our traditional memory products or leverage their underlying
design or process technology. We anticipate expending significant resources for new semiconductor product
development over the next several years. There can be no assurance that our product development efforts will be
successful, that we will be able to cost-effectively manufacture these new products or that we will be able to
successfully market these products.

From Page 20 on this Micron pdf

My guess is this is refrencing the Yukon processor.

Around the timeframe of the STI CELL annoucement, Micron began to refocus itself.

October 11, 2000 (5:27 p.m. ET)




SAN JOSE, Calif. — In yet another attempt to remake itself as something other than a commodity DRAM maker, Micron Technology Inc. plans to ply a new embedded DRAM technology and a MIPS processor license to build application-specific devices for use by customers inside and outside of Micron.

That strategy was partly spelled out here at the Microprocessor Forum, where vice president of integrated products Dean Klein described the company's 0.15-micron embedded DRAM technology that should be finalized for production by year's end.

And Wednesday (Oct. 11), the company announced it has licensed the 32-bit 4-Kc and 64-bit 5-Kc synthesizable cores from MIPS Technologies Inc. Micron plans to combine the MIPS cores with its homegrown embedded DRAM process technology for system-on-chip solutions targeting a number of applications such as graphics, set-top boxes, voice recognition systems, PC peripherals, communications, consumer devices and networking, Klein said. Other than a proprietary microprocessor design it had dabbled with more than 10 years ago, the MIPS license represents the first time Micron has had a processor as part of its product portfolio.

Yet Klein stressed that Micron has no intention to provide standalone processors. Rather, it will use them as a building block for integrated devices with various types of intellectual property (IP) developed internally or acquired from partners. In that sense, Micron will act as a foundry to companies it considers strategic partners, though it has no intention of playing in the same arena as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) or United Microelectronics Corp.

"We're focusing on parts that are less PC-centric," Klein said. "We intend to produce parts for people using our IP and their IP. We like to say it's a strategic foundry type of business."


Low-cost advantages


Micron expects the processor cores to serve as a vehicle to promulgate its embedded DRAM technology, either for outside customers or for internally developed products. Micron, one of the three largest DRAM suppliers in the world, prides itself on its low-cost manufacturing technology — among the lowest in the business, Micron claims — and now it wants to apply that expertise to a wider range of products by melding it with logic.

This is not Micron's first foray into embedded DRAM. Several years ago, it formed a partnership with LSI Logic Corp. to develop embedded DRAM, but that deal was eventually aborted in part because neither company was willing to share its process technology with the other. Later, in 1998, Micron bought graphics chip vendor Rendition with the intention of combining that company's graphics controller with on-board frame buffer memory to produce a high-performance graphics chip. Though Micron has built such a device, it has decided not to sell it as a standalone chip due to difficulty in keeping pace with the rapidly changing requirements of Microsoft's DirectX API, Klein said.

Despite these setbacks, Micron has never let go of the notion that embedded DRAM is a technology worth pursuing. There has been no shortage of customer requests for the technology, and many industry observers believe it is growing beyond its niche as an integrated frame buffer memory for graphics chips. And with the industry clamoring for new capacity to meet high demand, Micron is betting it will offer embedded DRAM at just the right time.

Keeping manufacturing cost to a minimum is one of the key attributes of Micron's embedded DRAM process, the company said. It is based on a 0.15-micron DRAM process technology, not a logic process that could increase logic performance but worsen DRAM cell density. The array is made up of 1-Mbyte blocks nearly identical to those used in Micron's discrete DRAMs. So alike are the structures that Micron did not even designate a separate design team for the embedded DRAM, Klein said.

The biggest difference between its pure DRAM process and the merged DRAM/logic process is the higher number of metallization layers needed to accommodate the logic circuits. Micron uses a relatively low number of mask steps for its DRAM process, Klein said, and should find it easy to add metal layers because it already uses chemical mechanical polishing to planarize (CMP) its wafers.

"It's like a bowling alley on that top layer," Klein said. "With other processes it's like driving off a cliff. CMP lends itself really well to adding more metal layers."

Difficult downside


The downside of using a DRAM-based process is that chip makers are often prevented from enhancing the transistor speed, which degrades logic performance. For example, the high-temperature process required for forming the capacitor structure of a DRAM makes it difficult to add a layer of silicide for all the transistor electrodes, which is commonly done in logic to reduce resistance.

Klein, however, said Micron did make some changes below the metal layers to enhance transistor performance, though he declined to elaborate. Compared to the processes of IBM and TSMC, "we're within striking distance," he said. "For most applications we're looking at, it's a moot point. It's a low percentage difference."

Customers are most concerned about getting high DRAM density with embedded DRAM, Klein said. For this reason, Micron will use 0.15-micron design rules for the DRAM portion of a chip and 0.18-micron design rules for the logic portion. At those linewidths, a 1-Mbit block of DRAM will take up 4.06 x 1.004 mm of die area. Micron said it has fabricated a graphics device called the V4400 with 12 Mbytes of embedded DRAM, with more than 125 million transistors on the die, he said. That device will not be sold as a standalone product, however, Klein said.

Each DRAM block has a 128-bit I/O bus and tag and control logic arranged in such a way that data can flow to each 1-Mbit block independently via a crossbar switch. Klein said the company's primary goal was to keep latency to a minimum, and adjustments were made favor a lower five-clock access latency versus seven clocks with a standard core. That lowered the bandwidth from 3.2 Gbytes/second to 2.4 Gbytes/s. But the banks run independently, so command, access, refresh and precharge times can overlap and a device can support a sustained rate of 9.6 Gbytes/s across all the banks, Klein said.

This scheme can boost the performance of a PC chip set's North Bridge by 15 percent, as Micron demonstrated on its Samurai chip set design. Micron floated the chip set several years ago, but never brought it to market because it never obtained a bus license from Intel Corp.

Micron is now in discussions with various companies interested in its embedded DRAM technology, Klein said. Possible interested parties may include designers of communications devices like Gigabit Ethernet controllers, which could take advantage of embedded DRAM for high-speed packet switching. "There's no shortage of opportunity," Klein said.

http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20001011S0026


Gee...I wonder who might have a boat load of IP for logic design that could transfered over to Micron to take advantage of Microns semiconductor knowledge? Microsoft could be put into a category of "good strategic partner". Replace the MIPS core something from IBM Power PC style. The Yukon processor has the same style as the IRAM project. IBM has produced IRAM prototypes for Berkeley.

Micron may not be in the Xbox 2, but I certainly think they have potential chance. Certainly Micron is a very powerful semiconductor company and Yukon has some intriguing possibilities if the right logic design is combined with it. Until it is revealed what Microsoft actually got from IBM, it's hard to know what is going to happen.
 
Panajev2001a said:
Also, if you bothered going to page 8 or so of this thread you can see the relevant IBM patents on CELL and how they link nicely with Suzuoki's patent.


Hun, there's only 7 pages to this thread :D
Anyway, i was waiting for PatentGuy (you) to show up, should clear some things up. Especially for my brain, which is kinda hurting after Dave and Vince's discussion.... ;)
 
Dave,

Each company is working on their own implementation of CELL in parallel to the work in Austin's STI center.

I will not comment on MS investment: the only thing I will say is that sure they have lots of money to spend, but they had to start at least a year after Sony started as Xbox was not out yet when Sony started working much more actively on PlayStation 3.

Still MS has more money to throw to R&D and they usually took less time to design their console previously.

Sony's investment on PlayStation 3 is big and you might say well CELL is not only for PS3, Blu-Ray is not only PS3, but you are forgetting that the PlayStation family IS their money maker and flag-ship product and as far as CELL and the manufacturing processes they have been working with Toshiba are concerned is really more of a case of technology that SCE under Ken Kutaragi pushed for that have trailed the rest of Sony corp. behind rather than Sony corp. investing money and then listening to the begging of SCE and give SCE some table-crums.

The rise of Ken Kutaragi to head of the consolidated Semiconductor R&D business of Sony corporation, BNC ( which worries about development and promotion of new technologies like Blu-Ray ), etc... are signs of the company finally admitting the reliance it had on their SCE division and its management.

PlayStation 3 was Sony's catalyst towards wide-spread use of CELL in the rest of the company products ( intenal "marketing" + forcing ) and the research on new and state of the art Semiconductor technologies and fabs.

Sure, the conditions for Sony corp. to push their cash into this venues came on the condition that the whole Sony could benefit, but we should see things in perspective.
 
london-boy said:
Panajev2001a said:
Also, if you bothered going to page 8 or so of this thread you can see the relevant IBM patents on CELL and how they link nicely with Suzuoki's patent.


Hun, there's only 7 pages to this thread :D
Anyway, i was waiting for PatentGuy (you) to show up, should clear some things up. Especially for my brain, which is kinda hurting after Dave and Vince's discussion.... ;)

Shit... I meant the other thread :LOL:

"Processor with Redundant Logic" ( James Kahle, chief architect of CELL in IBM )

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M1B322DC6


"Simmetric Multi Processor System" ( James Kahle, look at FIG.2 :) )

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B3D322DC6


"Processor Implementation having unified scalar and SIMD datapath" ( Michael Karl Gschwind, Harm Peter Hofstee, Martin Edward Hopkins... this is basically one of the nicest APU patents together with Kahle's one and what we find about the APUs in Suzuoki's CELL patent ).

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M1F352DC6


"Processing Module for Broadband Networks" ( this is Sony's own Masakazu Suzuoki's CELL patent )

http://makeashorterlink.com/?T1C363DC6
 
DaveBaumann said:
Again, where's the proof? Show me something tangible already! We can safely assume that no true development on an architecture the scale of Cell has proceeded within IBM to this point by way of assumed equivalency with STI's leakage due to interns. As a metric it works damn well.

Show me proof that it hasn't. You can't, but I can't do that either.

I have probability on my side. How hard is this to grasp? The chances of what your saying are so remarkable small, it's not worth our time. How many times must I state this? Shit, I already said that I technically can't prove you wrong knowing what we do, yet I also can't state with 100% certainty that you exist, the world exists, or that you're not a giant panda bear or Michael Jackson with the knowledge I have.

So, congradualtions, you have an argument that's futile!

Again, why are you talking specifics? You do not know what work has been carried out by MS prior to any announcements and the level of funding that work has required.

Blah, Blah! I already answered this many times before. Lets go through it one moretime and then I'm going to jump out of this window.

We don't know, yet we have a parallel with STI vis-a-vis IBM. STIs investment blows the living shit out of any known Microsoft venture. STIs basically shown that leaks happen when you deal with IBM and a project of said scale.

We've seen NO evidence that MS has had any cooperative R&D as extensive as STI. Instead he have known evidence which would see to show that MS didn't even approach IHVs with their desired architectures untill 2002. We also have known evidence that MS didn't sign development agreements with any parteners untill 2003 - 2 years after STI. This is known!

So, even though we know nothing in this world with 100% certainty - there is suffecient evidence to prove that you're wrong. It's these known events against your conjecture and possibilities... give me a break bud.

Is this that hard to understand? Show me what logic IBM, Sony or Toshiba designed in relation to the Cell project that doesn't scale up modularly to the known Broadband Engine. This is going to be damn good.. haha!

This is the point I'm making Vince - the entire levels of R&D that you are suggesting will see the PS3 as being nothing but a sucess is not focused soley on the PS3. PS3 is but one application of CELL and the success or failure of CELL does not rest on the shoulders soley on PS3 - the R&D investment that has gone in so far is not necessarily specifically for the purposes of PS3 but for the wider applications of the CELL and the question of what levels of interest each of the companies involved has in PS3 specifically and the development of Cell as a concept and wider applications.

Dave, stop this. Look at the design, you're a smart guy. Cell was an SCE idea, born of the fathers of PlayStation.

The damn thing is modular, what you design for Cell is used throught the entire product line - including the BE and PS3.

Again, your facing the Cell Patent by the technical father of PlayStation & PlayStation2 and facing a patented known with your conjecture and talk that's diametrically opposed to the ideology expressed in the patent (eg. trans-SKU continuity via modularity). Color me bored and unimpressed.

Vince, I have no concept of the grasp of modularity. All I'm saying is that when you are designing modular system the level of funding that go into the root concept does not necessarily equate to the level of funding ascribed to one device that is going to be produced from that design.

Obviously. I'll keep my mouth shut (or fingers from moving) and let my documented evidence answer it for me. As in the same stuff I've been posting and explaining for several posts.

Vince said:
Going to back to 1H2001, we've seen SCE, Toshiba and IBM invest $400M in building an independant research and design facility on IBM's Austin campus, hire or shift over 400 engineers to the architecture project aswell as a concurrent investment in process technology (SOI, Low-K, 90 -> 65nm roadmap). Later, around 2002 we've seen further investment in a Cell OS - which is being designed AFAIK as a collaberation between Austin, TJ Watson and the ST partners. In 2003 we've seen upwards of a combined $10Billion invested in ST's fabrication infastructure aswell as investment and a licensing deal with Rambus.

These investments do not relate soley to PS3, but they relate to CELL as a concept and a fundament construct that can be leveraged into other devices - I personally doubt that IBM are doing what they are dong purely for the purposes of PS3, but for a wider range of applications. Equally, they will get benefit from the investements they've made in the fab technology by producing parts other than the PS3 chips, so this is not something that can be solely ascribed to PS3.

What? Ohh brother! More conjecture and Dave's ideas = IBMs = fact.

PS. After rereading this. I've said all that needs to be said. I think this is flagrently clear at this point with what we know.

PPS. Read the patent before you argue on it. Your whole Cell != BE falls apart when you see what they explicitly state.
 
Panajev2001a said:
relevant IBM patents on CELL

Ever see This? Forgot about it actually, nothing big, just interesting.


I forgot about that one Symmetric multi-processing system Patent. Which, when you look at it and that it's basically 1:1 with SCE's patent -it becomes highly plausible what this is STIs Cell as a modular architcture.

And when you look at the patented Broadband Engine, which not only fulfills Kutaragi's comments about preformance, but is named in the Rambus agreement - it's really, really, really likely.

And the fact that Suzuoki patented the EE at a roughly equivalent relative time and it turned out to be the PS2 architecture exactly - it's like 90+% probability IMHO.
 
Vince said:
I have probability on my side. How hard is this to grasp? The chances of what your saying are so remarkable small, it's not worth our time. How many times must I state this?

You’re saying that its probable that MS haven’t worked on XBox2 before you heard out it? I think that highly improbable myself! ;)

There are many forms of investment and that doesn’t mean that MS has to have been investing externally to begin work on the XBox2. Even then, when you hear about them that hardly means they haven’t started a long time before them as I’ve pointed out with the ATI example.

As Panajev points out, they also have a lot more to spend on R&D.

We don't know, yet we have a parallel with STI vis-a-vis IBM. STIs investment blows the living shit out of any known Microsoft venture. STIs basically shown that leaks happen when you deal with IBM and a project of said scale.

We've seen NO evidence that MS has had any cooperative R&D as extensive as STI. Instead he have known evidence which would see to show that MS didn't even approach IHVs with their desired architectures untill 2002. We also have known evidence that MS didn't sign development agreements with any parteners untill 2003 - 2 years after STI. This is known!

So, even though we know nothing in this world with 100% certainty - there is suffecient evidence to prove that you're wrong. It's these known events against your conjecture and possibilities... give me a break bud.


A.) not all companies are IBM
B.) “STIs investment blows the living shit out of any known Microsoft venture†– Bingo!
C.) We are not just talking about time spent with external companies, internal development of some kind can be occurring
D.) We do not know the levels of internal funding or external funding as yet (how much have they promised ATI? IBM? SIS?)
E.) We know that MS approached 1 IHV in 2002, not all
F.) We know that development work was underway specifically for XBox2 related projects some time prior to the announcements of said deals.
G.) At least in the case of the graphics element of XBox2 its believed that it will be leveraged from a design that already will have had 1-2 years work and R&D (hence their own funding as well) put into it, much of which is likely to have relevance to the XBox requirements – unlike Sony, MS are not starting from scratch in this respect.

Dave, stop this. Look at the design, you're a smart guy. Cell was an SCE idea, born of the fathers of PlayStation.

The damn thing is modular, what you design for Cell is used throught the entire product line - including the BE and PS3.
Yes, its also a design that the company has said has to be applicable to other applications, in other words its R&D has had to take that into account.

What? Ohh brother! More conjecture and Dave's ideas = IBMs = fact.

So, you think that IBM are only interested in Cell for PS3 Vince? You also think that they are not going to use the investment in the 65nm process they have on anything else?
 
Dave, this isn't even fun anymore

DaveBaumann said:
Vince said:
I have probability on my side. How hard is this to grasp? The chances of what your saying are so remarkable small, it's not worth our time. How many times must I state this?

You’re saying that its probable that MS haven’t worked on XBox2 before you heard out it? I think that highly improbable myself! ;)

Ok, if this isn't a joke - then you've understood nothing I've said. And I refuse to go back and explain somethign I said within the hour - something about the origional argument and comparing the investments... Shit, who cares, this is a joke anyways.

There are many forms of investment and that doesn’t mean that MS has to have been investing externally to begin work on the XBox2. Even then, when you hear about them that hardly means they haven’t started a long time before them as I’ve pointed out with the ATI example.

Ahh yes! I forgot about how IBM is going to design a new CPU architectureon the scale of Cell in record time (Which would mean equivalent investment). Shit, it's Bill Gates! He's superman....

As Panajev points out, they also have a lot more to spend on R&D.

Oh, right. Money can buy a FTL vehicle which can let Billy go back and start development earlier so he can get an architecture and system on par with the Cell-based PS3. I forgot. My bad Dave.

We don't know, yet we have a parallel with STI vis-a-vis IBM. STIs investment blows the living shit out of any known Microsoft venture. STIs basically shown that leaks happen when you deal with IBM and a project of said scale.

We've seen NO evidence that MS has had any cooperative R&D as extensive as STI. Instead he have known evidence which would see to show that MS didn't even approach IHVs with their desired architectures untill 2002. We also have known evidence that MS didn't sign development agreements with any parteners untill 2003 - 2 years after STI. This is known!

So, even though we know nothing in this world with 100% certainty - there is suffecient evidence to prove that you're wrong. It's these known events against your conjecture and possibilities... give me a break bud.


A.) not all companies are IBM
B.) “STIs investment blows the living shit out of any known Microsoft venture†– Bingo!
C.) We are not just talking about time spent with external companies, internal development of some kind can be occurring
D.) We do not know the levels of internal funding or external funding as yet (how much have they promised ATI? IBM? SIS?)
E.) We know that MS approached 1 IHV in 2002, not all
F.) We know that development work was underway specifically for XBox2 related projects some time prior to the announcements of said deals.
G.) At least in the case of the graphics element of XBox2 its believed that it will be leveraged from a design that already will have had 1-2 years work and R&D put into it, much of which is likely to have relevance to the XBox requirements – unlike Sony, MS are not starting from scratch in this respect.

Oh God!

  • IBM, as a company, is IBM - IBM is working on both consoles MPUs. (Amazing comparason, I know.)
  • Yes, known as in probable, as in SEC mandated, as in legal, as in temporally possible.
  • Internal Dev? So, Microsoft can do front-end MPU design now? I can draw out an XBox Next macro-architecture with a crayon too. Only it won't take me two years.
  • Funding doesn't make up for time. Period. You still can't rectify the time issues. Ohh, right, FTL car....
  • 1 IHV, they unfairly approached the competition... very moral, very legal. Losers! To the Lawyers!
  • Again, show me some proof! I want proof that shows a Cell-sized development cycle before the tenders went out in 2002.
  • Ohh right, I forgot. PC users forget Sony has R&D divisions that are devoted to this. All bow to ATI!

(/sarcasm directed at ignorant comments based on NO proof!)

Dave, stop this. Look at the design, you're a smart guy. Cell was an SCE idea, born of the fathers of PlayStation.

The damn thing is modular, what you design for Cell is used throught the entire product line - including the BE and PS3.
Yes, its also a design that the company has said has to be applicable to other applications, in other words its R&D has had to take that into account.

This conversation has official ended. This is fucking retarded. You can't even read either Patent (IBM or Sony) and see what they're talking about when they describe the ideology behind Cell and it's manifested ICs - the BE is just one.

---

EDIT: BTW, did you ever read that whole patent thing? It's linked above in a responce to someone else, but it's a good glance over.

For example, if you'd read it you'd come across this in the "Summery of Invention":

That whole Patent thingie you've yet to read said:
In accordance with the present invention, all members of a computer network, i.e., all computers and computing devices of the network, are constructed from a common computing module.


EDIT2: My fault. I was incorrect. If you read it you would have come across this in the first three sentances:

Even earlier in that whole Patent thingie you have yet to read said:
The architecture employs a consistent modular structure, a common computing module and uniform software cells. The common computing module includes a control processor, a plurality of processing units, a plurality of local memories from which the processing units process programs, a direct memory access controller and a shared main memory


Also in answering your comment on Cell verse BE and others apps:

Also in that whole Patent thingie your too busy toread said:
Using this standardized, modular structure, numerous other variations of processors can be constructed easily and efficiently


PS. IBM also has concurrent 65nm R&D with AMD and other companies in addition to their STI effort and internal IBM work. Just for your information of course.
 
Dave,

Sony and Toshiba are going to implement CELL for several applications, but the flagship remains PlayStation 3.

The fact that CELL can scale to PDAs, TVs, etc... is reated to the modularity that was put in the architecture since its conception, that is how R&D is taking that into account.

While I know MS has money to spend, I also do know that Xbox 2 did not start before PlayStation 3 in the respective R&D centers: we have good bits of information that suggest late 1999-early 2000 the R&D for Playstation 3 was already in full force and at that time it is not really conceivable to assume the Xbox 2 was in a similar state.

Sony and Toshiba are big companies, but they cannot spend without regard like Microsoft does often ( if they paid a good chunk of those dividends and were not allowed so many years of monopoly things might be different... ) and so they have to put more brain to it.

A longer R&D cycle to control the spending better, but they also did spend quite a lot of money in CELL and CELL related investments and IMHO this is because I do not feel CELL will be thrown away for PlayStation 4, but that if they can get a good and scalable development environment they might leave enough mileage in the scalability of CELL ( with a couple of fixes and new ideas along the way ) to produce a next-next-generation Hardware, but I am looking too far in the future this way.

I believe the launch date theory: if Xbox 2 and PlayStation 3 come out close to each other, I expect them to have comparable perfomance over-all with each console having its advantages and flaws.

If PlayStation 3 comes out at a later date I expect its features and/or performance to be improoved over what the Xbox 2 will be offering.
 
Ahh yes! I forgot about how IBM is going to design a new CPU architectureon the scale of Cell in record time (Which would mean equivalent investment). Shit, it's Bill Gates! He's superman....

Again, why are you talking specifically about IBM – development of an entire system does not start and stop with a bloody CPU Vince, there is much more work than just this to be done. We are also not necessarily talking about something that needs to be the scale of the cell because they already have IP that is fundamentally dedicated to 3D graphics processing.

Oh, right. Money can buy a FTL vehicle which can let Billy go back and start development earlier so he can get an architecture and system on par with the Cell-based PS3. I forgot. My bad Dave.

You’ve never heard of a little business concept called “man hours�

IBM, as a company, is IBM - IBM is working on both consoles MPUs. (Amazing comparason, I know.)

Vince your statement was “STIs basically shown that leaks happen when you deal with IBM and a project of said scale.†– this doesn’t mean anything in relation to XBox because we don’t know what levels of dealings MS have had with IBM yet and they (at this point) may not be the primary technology partner. The point I’m making is that just because leaks have occurred with IBM doesn’t necessarily mean that would be the case with all companies.

Yes, known as in probable, as in SEC mandated, as in legal, as in temporally possible.

Again, where are the SEC declarations for the development funds MS have put in to the companies already known to be working on XBox2? I’ve not seen any yet.

Internal Dev? So, Microsoft can do front-end MPU design now? I can draw out an architecture with a crayon too. Only it won't take me two years.

Aren’t you doing some assumption here Vince? We know they have the web TV team in that unit and we don’t know what they have been working on. I'm not suggesting that they have been doing this, but we just don't know what types of internal desing they have done.

I also assume you think that development doesn’t start and stop with the hardware design there area OS’s, API’s and development SDK’s to work on as well, there’s also the research into hardware requirements generation etc.

Funding doesn't make up for time. Period. You still can't rectify the time issues. Ohh, right, FTL car....

Man hours.

1 IHV, they unfairly approached the competition... very moral, very legal. Losers! To the Lawyers!

Errr, Vince, I said it was known they went to one IHV in 2002 and that IHV wasn’t even the one that got it – we can assume that they went to the others at the same time periods, but that may not necessarily be the case.

Again, show me some proof! I want proff that shows a Cell-sized development cycle before the tenders went out in 2002.

We’ve already discussed several times the instance that highlights work was underway by development partners prior to the contract announcements going out, which is what I’m talking about.

However, why would you want a Cell sized development in one area? First, they are not designing something based on a Cell like structure, they are designing something (as far as we know) that is solely focused on console like activities – they are not designing something that is supposed to have applications in other areas (that’s not the case for the software though) . Second, the architecture we have heard they have chosen is known to be under development for some years now – MS’s even if MS hadn’t worked on this before, what they have purchased is likely to have had some years of R&D in it already, and MS know that.

Ohh right, I forgot. PC users forget Sony has R&D divisions that are devoted to this. All bow to ATI!

No, but as Panajev points out – with Cell they are building an architecture from scratch. This is not the case with the graphics on the XBox 2 as far as we know.

This conversation has official ended. This is fucking retarded. You can't even read either Patent (IBM or Sony) and see what they're talking about when they describe the ideology behind Cell and it's manifested ICs - the BE is just one.

Yes, and the ideology of the Cell and the associated funding has to take into account that its sole application is not PS3.

PS. IBM also has concurrent 65nm R&D with AMD and other companies in addition to their STI effort and internal IBM work. Just for your information of course.

In other words, they are using the development on 65nm processing on other applications not solely based on their venture with ST. Its also a potential that MS may get the benefit of that is it not?
 
Back
Top