Zig&Zag: Now Sony management change, layoffs

Yes we did cover this, and my response was that theres nothing about the cell that dedicated audio/video processing chips cant, or wont be able to, accomplish.

"On your 1:2 Cell TV you can interact with it at 15 fps. Connect up your Cell PS3 or Audio Decoder and the frame rate improves. Your Cell 1:4 HDR digital camcorder can encode a 720p+depth film at a rate of 1 minute processing for each five minutes of footage. "

Again, what about this example says that you couldnt replace any instance of "Cell" with another dedicated processor?

EDIT: yes i do remember the point on SOny being able to re-use code for codecs across all devices and that is a benefit to them but im looking more for how the cell architecture improves the customer experience.

J

 

He did imply savegames right, not just copying music and photos around to each other or from an online media service?

J

 

First of all, it was implicit in his statement that it was concerning Sony's investment with IBM which resulted in their work on 65nm and, later, 45nm, process technologies at the SRDC. It's clear that all process technologies aren't the same; this is such a case. Sony was the first to liecense IBM's highend xS SOI process. AFAIK, Chartered and Infineon both don't have access to the xS series of process technologies. AMD is the likely exception to this; when you look at IBM's recent advancements like their strained-silicon technology accounced at IEEE2004, the credit was given to the SDRC team from IBM, Sony, Toshiba and AMD.

Second, not a single one of the fab companies you listed is even close to being on the same level as STI, AMD or Intel when it comes to process technologies, integration and TTM.

Thirdly, don't attempt to brush aside your blatent attempts at downplaying an action of Sony due to the necessity of counter-balancing me. Not only is this ridiculous in the absolute, but by your own admission I haven't been posting often. So, please....

 

Because it's infeasible, as shown by the inability of any company (or sets of companies) to do the same up to this point. Microsoft's attempts at an OS-lvl solution are all failures, Sun's Java is a great solution which is infeasible to implement in reality.

Cell provides a singular and efficient solution based around a contemporary and efficient ISA that sits somewhere between the extremities of an inefficient catch-all, do-all x86 and the absolute static nature of a DSP. It provides a targeted solution for a specific problem set at the semiconductor level, the hardware and - as we shall see - the software level.

 

Well I have my hip waders on, but I am still going to back away from that pile.

 

Yeah i get it, its a new, flexible chip that solves Sony's problem of product differentiation and having to pay other vendors for task-specific chips. However, this still doesnt answer my question. Thanks for the in-thread infomercial though.

J

 

Not that I think sharing processor power is at all realistic, but as I said before ... 11 FO4 pipeline stages. As long as the problem fits Cell decently then why develop another processor? This isn't your average ASIC design, and other companies dont have a console to amortize the development costs.

 

I'm not saying there isnt a benefit to Sony for developing a universal chip or portable software that works across devices, that just plain makes sense and lots of companies do it.

My question is, aside from possibly cheaper products (Sony, of course, would pass their economies-of-scale savings on to customers), how will the cell processor used across Sony CE products benefit the consumer in ways that dedicated, task-specific chips wouldnt.

J

 

This is like "proving a negative". In some situations, it will. In other situations, it won't. Either way hardly constitutes a justification for it to not be utilized. Why have any new processor design since the late 80's? It's an utterly pointless question. You really think demanding forum goers here to define an entire product family ahead of Sony themselves, just to give you a warm-fuzzy feeling for Cell, really accomplishes something???

You ask, but is there any answer whatsoever that you would deem "relevant"? Of course not. You've already decided your stance on the matter. Hence, your "asking" is merely an overture to make us believe only what you believe. So that brings us to the very obvious realization that bothering to answer your question is pointless.

...and don't take that as a flame or me shouting at you. This is posted to you in a completely calm and logic manner, in realization of the true nature of the discussion which is not inquisitive in nature, at all.

 

I don't think he was ever suggesting it wouldn't be utilized, only that there was nothing new or exciting about the prospect. I don't really see any ways in which consumer electronics will benefit on the consumer end. Is there is a big demand for more 'intelligent' consumer electronics? Certainly not in my house. I expect my fridge to keep my stuff cold, I don't want it to order milk for me. I doubt there is a situation where they are saying 'OMG now we have cell we can do all that stuff with TV's we couldn't do before'.

 

The technological future or the performance demands in a future device is very difficult to predict. That is why a lot of new product debuts are simply testing the waters to see if something "clicks" in the consumer and it takes off like hotcakes, or the consumer drops it like a cold potato because they just didn't get it.

Probably, people in the not so distant past never realized that someone could "need" a 10 GFLOP CPU for a desktop computer, either. Such would seem like ridiculous overkill and a waste of resources, given what they knew as standard in their era.

 

Cell is a processor architecture that Sony hope to use throughout their product line. Sony hope the design is flexible enough for it to use it as their sole solution for processing, thus minimizing the costs involved with designing dedicated processing components in future.

What it is not is a new form of distributed computing. That is in the realm of software layers, such as web services and the like which allow greater flexibility when it comes to client hardware components. Everything published on this matter by Sony is pure marketing speak and makes little practical sense.

Apologies for going so OT.

 

Well you asked why other processors couldnt share processing power in the same way as Cell (which as I said is not something I expect to see happen). To do it the processor needs to be general purpose programmable, and few such processors are as sophisticated as Cell.

 

I'm not demanding anything of anyone. All ive ever asked is how this technology benefits me, the consumer, by using it across their CE product line (aside from MAYBE cheaper stuff).

Relevnat has ntohing to do with it, at this point i'll settle for anything thats PLAUSIBLE, much less relevant.

Its only pointless to you becuase you have no answer. This isnt some subversive commentary to secretly make a point. Its a legitmate question that no one has been able to answer, sorry it bothers you so much.

J

 

That really has nothing specifically to do with Cell.

There is always segments of the PC market that need more power. Saying some people are short sighted doesn't suddenly create some niche for Cell. Thats not to say that Cell won't be used to good use in CE(perhaps because of cost/scalability/power requirements), I just don't think its creating a new frontier for CE.

 

Its not the power of the cell that i'm questioning, its the claims that somehow theres a benefit to me that if i have multiple products that use the cell, that somehow the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Not only that, but using a cell processor is the ONLY way to achieve that.

Ok so lets say my cell-equipped DVD player talks to my cell-equipped microwave and starts popcorn when i put in a movie, great. Value add right there.

Only a cell processor being in each device could make that happen?


J

 

Of course it's not specific. It does apply to myraid processors, including Cell.

The same goes for CE. Do you think the processor that powered the first mobile phone is in any way adequate to power the decently featured cellphone of today? Things change, needs change. It is just as relevant a strategy to simply be out there to fall into a niche as needs and trends dictate, by chance, than to "predict" or identify a niche and design something to fill it. There is no "wrong" or illegitimate way to this.

 

It certainly provides a common development base that is "friendly" to make that happen. Sometimes commonality and universality are the spark factor that actually makes something worthwhile to do.

 

So?

Are you going to put Cell in a brick phone? I don't really see that as benefitting the consumer.

You're basically saying that there is no way I can predict what future advancement or technology Sony might bring using Cell. You're right. That doesn't mean it won't be copied by someone else, not using Cell.

 

Right, yet its being marketed that these things, which have yet to be named, can only NOW be realized becuase we (STI) invented the Cell processor.

J