OK, this may be my last posting on this topic. I've had a couple of weeks to review what information I could get on existing Cell applications. One thing really becomes apparent. This processor is HARD to implement. First, the use of XDR memory makes designing the memory circuits fairly difficult. If you review the PDF I've referenced before on the IBM/Mercury designed Cell based PCI-e board you'll note that when the memory circuits of that board were designed, Rambus was contracted to assist in the development. XDRs archetecture and the skew on the XDR memory bus increases the difficulty of implementing this type of memory. Its worth noting that while the Cell could potentially address 32 to 64 GB of memory, the largest current designs are limited to 1GB.
This of course does not take into account the PowerXCell 8i use of DDR2 memory, but that processor is far out of our reach economically.
Second, because of the complexity inherent in the design of Cell based boards, it does not seem possible to implement a Cell design with a simple four layer motherboard. Instead, most designs would likely be eight or more layers. This would greatly increase the complexity and cost of the design.
Further, as the Cell uses an expansion bus called FlexIO there are few options for interfacing peripheral circuits. Currently, the only southbridge available is a chip that Tosihiba and Sony refer to as the "Super Companion Chip". This chip is used on Toshiba's Cell Reference Set (and the Cell Reference Set 2) and on Sony's BCU-100 multimedia rack system. It may also be related to internal components in the PS3. Information related to this chip is simply not available.
When IBM, Mecury, and Fixstar have designed Cell related products they have designed their own glue circuitry to accompany the Cell. So, we have a processor that requires custom designed interface circuits (rather than the "off the shelf" components we've seen in the past).
None of this makes implementing a Cell design impossible, it just makes it much more difficult. It also may explain IBM reluctance to offer this product to the general public.
The last response I've received from IBM tends to reflect this. Ray Bryant is IBM's Director of Games and Power Solutions. Part of the message I received from him states these facts.

"a) There are no STI restrictions on IBM's right to sell BE chips for applications outside game consoles

b) IBM has not invested in the engineering work and documentation to support Cell BE as a standard, off-the-shelf component product that would be available for sale to anyone. That decision was based on the limited interest we saw in the market for high volume sales of this highly specialized multi-processor design.

c) IBM has supported usage of Cell BE chips in several custom board level applications for OEM clients, typically as part of a broader relationship between IBM and those clients beyond Cell chip sales

d) IBM continues to review specific client requests for access to Cell BE chips as loose components and makes case by case decisions based on the level of engineering support needed to assist the client in Cell based system design, the size of the business opportunity for IBM, and the strategic benefits to IBM of the project. We currently have several active client engagements where IBM has quoted sales of loose Cell BE chips for projects that met IBM's strategic business goals."

So, where does this leave us? IBM examines and qualifies each potential application for the Cell. While we could present a business case to IBM, they might reject the proposal if the application didn't have the potential for relatively high sales.
At his point, I don't think we can offer that opportunity to IBM so I am (at least for the time being) not going to pursue this further.
Jim

@ Jim

As you yourself pointed out, MorphOS 2.2 does not support multi-processing so the Cell processor is not very attractive to begin with.

I think the reason why a port to the PlayStation 3 has been discussed numerous times on MorphZone is that there are 20+ million owners out there who could potentially run MorphOS on hardware they already own. This would obviously not be true for custom Cell-based hardware.

> MorphOS 2.2 does not support multi-processing so the Cell processor
> is not very attractive to begin with.

Are you sure this is not only true for *symmetric* multi-processing, but also for *asymmetric* multi-processing (by using the SPEs)? Or do you refer to the 2-way SMT capable PPE rather than the SPEs?
The Friedens for example -- long before denying the reasonableness of OS4 port to PS3 -- once claimed that it would be technically possible to make use of the SPEs from within OS4 and OS4 programs and that they already thought out some rough technical concept on how that might be achievable. And AFAIK OS4 is actually exposed to the very same restrictions as MorphOS regarding multi-processing.

Actually the SPEs are not that similar to the PPE core. Their primary purpose is to process streams of calculations (greatly raising the processor computational abilities). I think its probably fairer to consider this to be a processor with eight tightly bound coprocessors on the same die (rather than a true multi-core processor). There really is nothing to prevent the SPEs from being used under Morphos while the PPE provides the bulk of the power to run the OS. As the PPE is the only true Power PC like element in this product (and there is only one on the Cell die), this would be where Morphos code would run anyway. The SPEs would just provide a great way to farm out concurrent calculations (they would make Morph a floating point beast).
Jim

> Actually the SPEs are not that similar to the PPE core .[...] its
> probably fairer to consider this to be a processor with eight
> tightly bound coprocessors on the same die (rather than a true
> multi-core processor).

Yes, I already know that obviously, that's why I considered the use of the SPEs to fall under ASMP, not SMP, in my answer to ASiegel.

> There really is nothing to prevent the SPEs from being used under Morphos

That's exactly what I implied by my questions and example to ASiegel.

Quote:

You'd be surprised.. Microsoft don't own as much of the XBox IP as you might think.

Now, getting that IP core and putting it in a chip capable of interfacing with the Cell.. that's a difficult prospect.



[ Edited by Neko on 2009/2/5 19:12 ]

Well, if you are going to discuss the possibilities of running on the Xenon or Cell/BE processor due to the install base of a gaming community... The Nintendo Wii has the largest base of users and the Broadway processor, while actually slower than a Pegasos II's G4, is also PPC based. I understand that the general "hope" in this thread is for a faster system, but the Wii's hardware is much closer to the specs used by a netbook (of sorts), which is likely going to pick up steam in the future as more of those devices are deployed throughout the world's business offices.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I find myself looking at the conceptual prospects more than the specifics of running on a given platform. In other words, I find it of interest to see how MorphOS would perform in an environment where there is a smaller processor, but all memory--including data storage--is no longer bound by various mechanical drives (hdd's, cd rom, etc). Basically, the next logical step beyond the EFIKA.

Regarding the CELL, it is to my understanding that the technology hasn't really matured to the level it needs to be for use outside of the IBM/Sony nest. Other than the PS3 world--the thing is more closely related to "Issac Asimov's Foundation" than it is to "National Geographic."

> You'd be surprised.. Microsoft don't own as much of the XBox IP as
> you might think.

He explicitely refered to XenoN CPU, not to XenoS GPU.

> Now, getting that IP core and putting it in a chip capable of
> interfacing with the Cell.. that's a difficult prospect.

...especially as long as you are not able to buy Cells from IBM or distributors.

> the Wii's hardware is much closer to the specs used by a netbook
> (of sorts), which is likely going to pick up steam in the future

Just 2 points:

- only 88 MiB RAM
- closed GPU documentation

> Regarding the CELL, [...] the technology hasn't really matured to
> the level it needs to be for use outside of the IBM/Sony nest.

Yes, or to say it with the words of Ray Bryant, IBM's Director of Games and Power Solutions, as kindly brought to us by Jim in this very thread:

"IBM has not invested in the engineering work and documentation to support Cell BE as a standard, off-the-shelf component product that would be available for sale to anyone."

Quote:

IBM own that, too. I was merely making a point that you can buy every IP in the Xbox360 from the people who designed it.

Nearly everything in the Xbox360 is subcontracted out. Microsoft are not a Power Architecture licensee so they cannot make Power Architecture processors. IBM own all the technology inside for the CPU. AMD own all the graphics IP. The southbridge (USB ports, DVD drive, etc.) is by SiS I think.

You cannot buy the exact chips, but several analogs are available on the market from each supplier, and certainly nearly every IP component inside is not directly owned by Microsoft - I doubt Microsoft bought an exclusive license to SiS's USB and SATA controller, for example, or had a brand new core designed.

What Microsoft do own is the case design and the OS on top, the weirdo wireless protocol they use for controllers (and maybe the chip that drives it since it's probably very similar to the ones the Keyboard & Mouse division use), and of course a whole department for media and game provisioning, development and publishing, which is what makes a successful console.

Designed by ATI, Microsoft controls the IP of the GPU; meaning, Microsoft can manufacture and do what it wishes with Xenos (although contract states they can't stick it on graphics cards and start selling it to the public).

Microsoft has their own license to use and manufacture the CPU used in the Xbox 360, and thus we see their logo on the chip itself.

While Microsoft may have purchased the IP for the Xenon CPU from IBM, from what I've heard the processors have been manufactured by IBM and Chartered Semiconductor. Knowing IBM's past practices, this purchase probably doesn't prevent IBM from creating similar designs. In fact, I think I've seen a statement from Microsoft alluding to the fact that IBM could implement the enhanced floating point capabilities (of the Xenon) on other Cell and Power based products.

You're right, I don't have any personal insight in this chip, I just say what a little bird told me- however...

Most "manufacturers" outsource the actual manufacturing process to other companies, so yes IBM still builds the chip under the Microsoft brand :)
But it doesn't mean Microsoft are forced to use IBM as the builder, if they find another plant they could move the construction there.

And yes IBM still owns the underlying PowerPC core, nothing stops them from reusing solutions used on this chip. They just can't offer this product to other parties as it is.

Just curious but what enchanted floating point capabilities? the only difference except for multiplecores are the extended vector instructionset (VMX-128) afaik.