• Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Posts: 12113 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > That's all speculation of course.

    That's the prospect of the sources you refered to, isn't it? You were (mis)taking them for fact that "Cell R&D" has stopped", and when I tell you what these sources *really* were prospecting, it's suddenly "all speculation". Smells like double standard...

    > At first they started with a Cell 3 design


    > which by IBM's word it should have 32 cores

    Yes, 2 PPEs plus 32 SPEs for the PowerXCell 32ii and 4 PPEs plus 32 SPEs for the PowerXCell 32iv.

    > and now we're down to 10, if at all.

    8 plus 4 sums up to 12 in my book.

    >> 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?

    No future Cell in a PS4 equals to no future Cell in any system? Your logic is twisted. Look at the mentioned PowerXCell 8i. It's not in a Sony's gaming device and probably never will be, but it's existing nonetheless and there are PowerXCell 8i systems out there which you can buy, e.g. from the vendor of the PowerStation you refered to.

    > 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?

    As we very well know, Sony is *not* going to drop the Cell for PS4. So tell me, what do you think IBM is going to do with Cell then? And what about Sony's ZEGO? Is it cancelled?
    Furthermore, the PowerXCell 8i got R&D'd (and produced) without any connection to any prospected Sony product, and so will be the PowerXCell 32ii and the PowerXCell 32iv according to IBM's roadmap.

    >> "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.

    I really tried hard but couldn't come up with any search results backing up your original claim that "Cell R&D has stopped". So what else could I do than asking you to provide me with the source(s)?

    >> 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.

    You are, trust me.

    > I almost never ask for sources when I have a casual discussion.

    So you naively believe everything that is thrown at you? Even if it initially creates a cognitive dissonance for you (which your statement did for me)? Then you're definitely a bad exemption, fortunately.
    (That's really nothing to do with casual or not, rather than the inner workings of a human's mind.)

    > If I was to prove something I would provide sources without your asking.

    Your twisted logic again. How could you know you are to prove something *before* someone contests or challenges your claim by asking? If you decide to *not* provide sources right along your claim, then nobody is allowed to ask you for them for not having to rely on your words alone?

    > In this case, I mentioned something that I can't prove.

    Then don't put it as fact. Simple as that. How could one conclude that "Cell R&D has stopped" is only your *personal* perception rather than a fact you read somewhere or concluded (as in "not just guessed") from other facts?

    > I merely concluded as much, from what I read and from discussions I
    > had with people that know more

    And these knowing people told you the PowerXCell 32ii and PowerXCell 32iv were cancelled? Or how did you "conclude" this?

    > I believed them without asking for "sources" like you do here.

    There's a difference: These people might be affiliated with IBM or Toshiba (if not, you could as well believe anybody, but even then it would be just you), and I know you are not. That's why I called your claim a "factual statement about a third party".

    > when people that know more say something I tend to believe it -at
    > least if it's not outright ridiculous.

    From my own perspective you don't count as someone who knows more, that's why I asked you for source(s), e.g. from people who (from my perspective) might know more.
    Or should I really have believed you for no reason? Then I would have taken your non-factual claim for fact, as we now know. "Cell R&D has stopped" very much sounds "outright ridiculous" to me btw.

    > 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.

    So it's really about semantics? You're being a sissy now.

    >> I didn't expext you to provide sources right with your statement
    >> [...] 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.

    Yes, and we even know the reason by now: There simply are no sources backing up you claim that "Cell R&D has stopped".

    > If you don't believe me, be my guest,

    I didn't. And it has been the right decision, as proven by the outcome of our discussion.

    > but it's your decision to go and search google.

    As I already told you, I did.

    > 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.

    At least it would prove that I didn't just pull my claim out of thin air. And if I claimed "according to [or concluding from] X, Cell R&D has stopped", then an URL to (the statement from) X would indeed prove - in the end - what I claim (presumed my conclusion is not just wild guessing, that is).

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

    > "Mild"? :)

    Yes, very mild. Do you really think that Sequoia not having Cell processors to be a strong indication that PowerXCell 32ii and PowerXCell 32iv have been cancelled?

    > unless I was IBM myself -which I'm not- how could I back this up?

    By referencing appropriate statements from IBM or Toshiba (affiliates), for instance. To do so, such statements have to exist in the first place, of course. If they don't, you cannot state your claim as fact.

    > But I "can" read the signs here

    ..signs you (mis)read as "Cell R&D has stopped" originally. Fine that you put your glasses on after I questioned your way of reading :-P

    > a scaled down Cell with two more cores

    It's supposed to be 4 more, not 2.

    > is hardly the expected result of 4 years R&D (when PS4 is released,
    > 2012 est.).

    But a 3.8 GHz PowerXCell 32iv with 4 PPEs and 32 SPEs would be, wouldn't it? That wouldn't have anything to do with PS4, as I already outlined, but that's surely no requirement for a CPU to be a Cell processor.
    And still, in regard to PS4's Cell, even very slow R&D is R&D, whereas a stopped R&D would mean no further R&D at all.

    >> You and I were talking about Power Architecture CPUs, not systems.

    > eh? What good is a plain CPU?

    Ask that to yourself. After all, you were the one claiming the (Power Architecture) future will bring "only QorIQ and Power7", which are plain CPUs, not systems. So it was obviously your intention to talk about CPUs.

    > I probably could order 1k 8610 CPUs myself right now, what good
    > would these do without a system to put on?

    Don't ask me. I merely answered your statements about some of the CPUs you mentioned.

    > Btw "You and I" never discussed about anything

    You talked about CPUs and I answered you, talking about CPUs as well. That very well classifies as "you and I were talking about" CPUs in my book.

    > my comments were to VelcroSP

    This is a public board. Private discussions do not exist in the public board area by definition. For such purpose there's a PM function implemented. No matter to whom you answer in a public board, everybody is authorized to answer your posting.

    > all were focused on 5121/LimeBook vs ARM/Atom.

    Your memory seems broken:

    "AltiVec is pretty much dead, the e600 is also dead, there is no e700 coming, [...] Cell R&D has stopped (and PS3 will probably be the last PPC-powered Sony console, dunno about Xbox yet), only QorIQ and Power7"

    ...is definitely not about "5121/LimeBook vs ARM/Atom", but rather about e600, e700, Cell, QorIQ and POWER7.

    > I wasn't talking about CPUs

    Now you're being funny (again?).

    > I was talking about CPUs INSIDE Systems.

    As was I. After all, all (future) Power Architecture CPUs I mentioned in my posting I pointed you to are supposed to be built into systems, of course.

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

    > Again, no

    Let's see: You mentioned QorIQ and POWER7. QorIQ is (according to Freescale) supposed to be a communications processor, POWER7 is supposed to be a server processor.
    Do you really stand by the claim that you were not talking about Power Architecture CPUs in general, but only desktop suiting ones?

    > the discussion started from 5121, which was quite a specific
    > model/market.

    I don't care wherefrom the discussion may have started when my intention is solely to hint you to a correction of a false factual statement of yours.

    > I just merely pointed that [...] PowerPC has stagnated to just
    > 2 CPU lines (Power7 and QorIQ).

    It's true that you claimed this. But that doesn't render your claim true. I already pointed you to my posting where you can read up that your claim is false.

    >> Contrary to your claim, QorIQ and POWER7 are *not* the only Power
    >> Architecture CPUs supposed to come (see my link to my previous
    >> statement).

    > I'll believe Titan when it's actually released.

    That would make exactly one less. What about the other ones I mentioned? Will you continue to deny that these CPUs and CPU lines are to be further developed?

    > I *meant* that these systems, lose greatly when compared to pretty
    > much every modern Intel/AMD-based *system*. Better?

    Quite much :-)
  • »10.04.09 - 17:19