zarx said:
| Wlakiz said:
... do you even know what you're talking about?
1. Cell uses RISC architecture, which was developed back in 1960, waaaay before your 'x86' instruction set. RISC is more efficient which is why its used for mobile devices and super computer. Flaws? You mean the inconvenience of having to write efficient code and have knowledge of memory management? Yeah, I know.. all the new grads come out knowing only Java, and have absolutely no idea what are pointers, stack or heap but news flash: Its not a flaw to design system that trade convenience for efficiency; hence all firmwares and hardware level code are written in C and not in Java or Python.
2. So what you're saying is that because someone built something for the next gen Civic, you should dump your Porsche for a Civic? Yes, I am comparing 'x86' to a civic because its 'common' and 'easy to use' whereas Cell is more like a Porsche, faster, more expensive and harder to use.
3. And why can't they 'piggy back off' that with new generation cell chips? The fact, they are already manufacturing Cell chips at 45nm and made commitment to reduce it to 32 nm back in 06. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_microprocessor_implementations:
"IBM could elect to partially redesign the chip to take advantage of additional silicon area in future revisions to make the size small. The Cell architecture already makes explicit provisions for the size of the local store to vary across implementations. A chip-level interface is available to the programmer to determine local store capacity, which is always an exact binary power. It would be feasible to double the local store to 512 KiB per SPU leaving the total die area devoted to the SPU processors roughly unchanged. In this scenario, the SPU area devoted to the local store would increase to 60% while other areas shrink by half. Going this route would reduce heat, and increase performance on memory intensive workloads, but without yielding IBM much if any reduction in cost of manufacture."
4. Where did this $500m come from? I didn't see it in their Q4 report that they spent that much on R&D on the new AMD chip. Again, they designed the Cell to be scalable in the first place. Jumping ship to R&D a conventional CPU, just waste the money and time used on Cell. They should maximize and push their technology to the limit before following the bandwagon of the new popular kid in town.
|
Do I know what I'm talking about? Probably about as much as you.
1. The problem with CELL is not RISC architecture it's SPEs with no hardware schedulers, in order execution etc. Dev time costs money writing code for the CELL takes longer than a traditional CPU, you can hand optomise every peice of code on an x86 CPU if you wanted too that is not an advantage of the CELL and the fact that you have too to get even decent performance is a flaw. Unless you have an unlimited budget easier is better than slightly faster execution, that is why game engines are written in high level languages like C++ instead of assembly even tho performance is worse. And most games have most of their high level logic written in a scripting language like Lua.
2. Your arguement was that engines are designed for CELL already, I pointed out that next gen engines are all designed on x86.
3. Because there is no next generation of CELL chips IBM stopped development... Next gen will likely start at 28nm not 32nm so that doesn't really help. PS3 is the only device still using the CELL.
4. AMD spend ~$1.5b on R&D every year, and they only release a new architecture every 4-5 years, even incremental upgrades like Piledriver cost a lot, that isn't counting the R&D that the Fab does for each new node. Tho I pulled $500m out of my ass. And all modern architectures are designed to be scalable but it still costs money to spin a new CPU even using the same architecture. Spinning a new CELL bassed CPU on a new manufacturing proccess would not be cheap to do.
The CELL was a dead end, GPGPU replaced the need for the kind of high parallelism with lots of floating point performance on a CPU. And for everything else a x86 CPU runs circles around it.
|
1. All computer architectures are RISC. All these "CISC" machines are just an emulated instruction set on top of a RISC set. This made CISC machines slower as they had to emulate enhanced instructions. You can put those extra instructions in hardware but it's very costly. The big thing that Cell brought to the table was parallel programming, which is where the issues lied. Though when you really look into the matter the PS2 is actually a far more difficult machine to program for than the PS3 ever was and those "Hard to develop for" excuses were just that, excuses (Poor ports actually came due to the different memory and shader architectures between Xenos and the RSX).
2. Next gen engines are designed on APIs, doesn't matter what you write them on you can always recompile them to other machines. Makes even less difference now that everything has become GPU dependant.
3. This is very unfortunate though. Cell is a very well designed chip, and is still one of the more powerfull single processors out there.
4. Cell is still powerfull and the second update that IBM made before scrapping the chip would still be more than sufficient for a CPU upgrade. But you're right, no one is manufacturing them.
5. Cell wasn't a dead end. All those render farms you see in fancy movies are done with software solutions, it just gives companies like PIxar very flexible output. But it comes at the cost of render time (An hour a frame I think they managed to get it down too). It's just that performance vs flexibility won out and GPUs are starting to make their way down to CPUs instead of CPUs up to GPUs. Going the GPU way down causes flexibility problems though.
