• Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Posts: 12110 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > Pity you missed the point. Again.

    I think I got the point, which is: You're full of double standards.

    >> the PowerXCell 32 isn't supposed to have anything to do with PS4
    >> and never was. This alleged connection exists only within your
    >> twisted mind.

    > now you're talking BS.

    I don't think so. There has *never* been any statement neither by IBM nor Toshiba nor Sony that the PowerXCell 32 would be a candidate for the PS4. The only people assuming such connection were some rabid PS fans and random clueless analysts. You can convince me of your claim being true by presenting just *one single* official statement that goes along your view. Until then, you're the BS talker here.
    Btw, the PowerXCell 8i wasn't supposed to power the PS4 either, yet it got R&D'd. Care to explain?

    > A company like IBM won't spend *hundreds of millions* of USD on R&D
    > for a CPU if it only ends up in a couple of their supercomputers
    > and a few thousand boards sold here and there.

    Maybe they had plans for their Cells that never came to fruition, who knows. Fact is, you (and me) know nothing about IBM's internal plans for the coming PowerXCell 32. At least, there's not one single document out there proving that R&D of PowerXCell 32 has anything to do with PS4. So you're obviously talking out of your behind again.

    > They have never done that. Even the [...] 450 used in BlueGene
    > systems are widely sold as embedded CPUs (perhaps slightly modified).

    No, the 450 is not sold on the free market. It's only used within BlueGene systems. So, they indeed have done that before already in an even stricter way. The PowerXCell 8i is not only used in their RoadRunner but also on server blades and PCIe boards for the free market. Why shouldn't they do the same thing they already did with the PowerXCell 8i and (in an even stricter way) the 450 with the PowerXCell 32 as well?

    > the PowerXCell 32 *initial* purpose was to go in the PS4.

    Your claim is worth nothing without proof. Why has the PowerXCell 8i been R&D'd then?

    > Just as the PowerXCell 8i is a bigger/better version of the Cell BE
    > (which came *after* the Cell BE)

    Yes, of course. That's been my point the whole time.

    > so the 32-SPU Cell would find its way to the PS4.

    From the PowerXCell 8i being a better version of the Cell B.E. you conclude that the PowerXCell 32 was intented for the PS4? What's that kind of logic called?

    > At least that would make perfect sense

    Really? The PowerXCell 8i didn't end up in a Sony's gaming device, yet it got R&D'd and gets produced and is sold on the free market as part of certain IBM systems today. Care to explain?

    > Go and do some reading first

    URLs please. You're telling me over and over to do some reading, yet you keep failing to provide me with even *one single* URL to do so.

    > before you post tons of links, where you probably just skim the
    > title and post the URL, I'm tired of this.

    You're tired of me posting tons of links? Let me recommend you to get some sleep helping your tired and confused mind then. Else your delusions might reach a dangerous state.

    > unlike the QorIQ they're not powerful enough.

    You know the power of future 460s and future e500s other than QorIQ? Please tell.

    > I know that QorIQ was even considered by Genesi as basis of a
    > ppc-based system.

    Genesi's considerations remind me of the caprices of a menstruating woman ;-)
    Seriously: I expressed my feelings towards the QorIQ regarding desktop use (especially running MorphOS as this is MorphZone after all) already on page 2 of this very thread.

    > After all this discussion, you still miserably fail to see the
    > obvious. The PowerPC line is withering and limiting itself to just
    > a few models/markets, whereas the competition has a plethora of
    > choices for whatever need.

    How do you conclude that I'm failing to see this? I'm quite *with you* on this observation! It's just that I didn't address this in any way, as I told you already. You simply *cannot* conclude any position of mine regarding a certain issue from me *not* addressing that issue!
    Obviously, you're assuming too much. Please stick to the things I actually write, not to some strange fantasy assumptions in your head.

    > You try to justify your reasoning with comments like "hey, you
    > forgot the Titan and the IBM 472

    It's the 476.

    > and the A2 and all the -unrelated to the topic- embedded CPUs!"

    Indeed, I justify my reasoning that you forget these CPU lines with comments like this. Any objections?
    As for the unrelatedness of embedded CPUs: Why is the QorIQ related, but other future e500s and future 460s are not?

    > Considering the netbook target, the only *new* CPU fit for the job
    > would be the QorIQ actually (being multi-core and able to reach
    > high frequencies), which is why I mentioned it.

    And other future e500s and future 460s certainly won't fit netbooks?

    > I also mentioned Power7 because it's the most important line
    > currently

    Most important regarding which aspects exactly?

    > and the only one that is able to beat Intel/AMD offerings

    Regarding performance, yes. Yet it's offtopic in any discussion about desktop use for the reasons you're going to name:

    >> the POWER7 is not suited for desktop applications either

    > there you're wrong. [...] If only one could afford it; and the
    > electricity bill.

    Thanks for presenting the reasons for the POWER7 not being suited for desktop applications. So, thanks for proving my point.

    To sum it up: You claimed the QorIQ and POWER7 to be the only future Power Architecture CPUs and now justify your denial of the other lines with something like thread context, which is ridiculous especially regarding your mentioning of POWER7. You could as well have mentioned the e200 line instead for it's probably the most used Power Architecture CPU line of all. That would have been as much within this thread's context as POWER7. Your justification is composed of inconsistent reasons you now come up with to conceal your claim being false.

    Btw, you still keep failing to back up your claim that Sony "first [...] started with a Cell 3 design" for the PS4.
  • »11.04.09 - 18:38