• Acolyte of the Butterfly
    Acolyte of the Butterfly
    Posts: 104 from 2009/3/20

    With "scaled down", you mean the reported die-shrink from 90 to 45 nm? And the reported addition of 4 SPEs to the already existing ones? And the reported (slight) increase in clock frequency?

    That's all speculation of course. At first they started with a Cell 3 design (which by IBM's word it should have 32 cores) and now we're down to 10, if at all.


    Furthermore, PS4 is a computer system while the Cell is a CPU. We were talking about the Cell CPU itself. PS4 not using a better Cell than PS3 (or even no Cell at all) wouldn't have to mean anything regarding Cell R&D itself. There might be other purposes for a better Cell than a Sony's gaming device. The existing PowerXCell 8i is proof of that.

    How good is a CPU if you can't buy it in a system?


    Btw, how would PS4 most likely using Cell fit your previous statement that "PS3 will probably be the last PPC-powered Sony console"?

    Yes, I realized that after I wrote the post. It was obviously a mistake :)


    You say it yourself: Sony is out of the picture regarding Cell R&D (and production). So how exactly does Cell R&D depend on Sony and their PS4 when this task is up to only IBM and Toshiba now?

    Well, think about it. If your #1 customer (Sony) decides to drop your product and your partner (Toshiba) is in hard financial troubles, what would you (IBM) do with Cell? I never meant R&D on technologies used in Cell, I meant the Cell CPU itself. Would you spend hundreds of million dollars to continue research on a costly product? I don't think so.


    Yes, and I never expected you to. After all, "it's trivial to find the articles on google" for you to provide me with the sources I asked you for.

    Now you're asking me to do it for you. Hilarious.


    Pure nonsense. You claim something, I ask you to back up that claim. That's how discussion works and has alway been.

    Indeed someone is talking nonsense, but it's not me apparently. I almost never ask for sources when I have a casual discussion. If I was to prove something I would provide sources without your asking. In this case, I mentioned something that I can't prove. I merely concluded as much, from what I read and from discussions I had with people that know more, and I believed them without asking for "sources" like you do here. And yes, when people that know more say something I tend to believe it -at least if it's not outright ridiculous. Whethere I do my own research afterwards, that's another topic.

    In fact, we could do a much better conversation if instead of "source?" you said "hey, why do you say that?" or "what makes you say that?" or whatever.


    I think nobody is obliged to accept a factual statement about a third party just like that. After all, there must have been something that led you to your perception. Or do you really mean I've to take any statement from yours for real just because it's you stating it?
    Btw, in case you took it down the wrong pipe: I didn't expext you to provide sources right with your statement like you would be obliged to in academics. But you should be able to provide them after being asked for (just what I did) if you want to be taken seriously (by me, at least).

    I'm sorry, I will not do that work for you. If you don't believe me, be my guest, but it's your decision to go and search google. Btw, posting a huge number of URLs -which seems your habbit- might make you believable, but it still doesn't prove -in the end- what you claim.


    That's still no proof that "Cell R&D has stopped", rather a mild indication.

    "Mild"? :)


    That's (almost) funny. First you're trying to lecture me like it's obvious that your claim is fact, only to eventually step back and admit it's not.

    Well, you are right here. After all, "stopped" is too harsh, and unless I was IBM myself -which I'm not- how could I back this up? But I "can" read the signs here, so do many others. Cell is a money-hole, however good it is.


    So let's be blunt: Contrary to your previous claim which I asked for sources for, there's currently no proof that "Cell R&D has stopped". The sources you afterwards indirectly refered to rather indicate that the PS4's Cell will indeed be a result of further R&D.

    a scaled down Cell with two more cores, is hardly the expected result of 4 years R&D (when PS4 is released, 2012 est.). By that time, who knows what the competition will offer. Perhaps it's not a sign of a stop in R&D, but it definitely is not a sign of continuous R&D.


    Why should I? I didn't claim there was such thing.
    1. You and I were talking about Power Architecture CPUs, not systems.

    eh? What good is a plain CPU? Sure, I probably could order 1k 8610 CPUs myself right now, what good would these do without a system to put on? Btw "You and I" never discussed about anything, my comments were to VelcroSP, and all were focused on 5121/LimeBook vs ARM/Atom. Sorry, I wasn't talking about CPUs, I was talking about CPUs INSIDE Systems.


    2. You and I were talking about Power Architecture CPUs in general, not just desktop suiting ones.

    Again, no, read above. the discussion started from 5121, which was quite a specific model/market. I just merely pointed that while other platforms have a plethora of choices and furious development happening, PowerPC has stagnated to just 2 CPU lines (Power7 and QorIQ).


    3. You and I were talking about *coming* Power Architecture CPUs, not already available ones.
    Contrary to your claim, QorIQ and POWER7 are *not* the only Power Architecture CPUs supposed to come (see my link to my previous statement).

    Sorry, I'll believe Titan when it's actually released.


    Currently "out of stock" according to Fixstars's website.

    Indeed. In fact, I know that there is some kind of a clearance going on in FixStars, some Cell blades are being sold quite cheap (for Cell blades that is).

    > these lose greatly to pretty much every modern Intel/AMD cpu


    I see no sense in comparing whole systems to bare CPUs. But at least you finally got (almost) on topic again :-P

    I *meant* that these systems, lose greatly when compared to pretty much every modern Intel/AMD-based *system*. Better?
  • »10.04.09 - 10:23
    Profile Visit Website