Final-Fan said:
rocketpig said:
MikeB said:
@ RocketPig
That's just it: The Cell is not a good general purpose processor. It does some things amazingly well while it's not so great at others. For scientific research where pure number-crunching is the goal, it excels. The Cell is an excellent general purpose processor, at nearly any kind of code it can be an order of magnitude faster. It does require a different approach to coding than is usually applied to legacy coding tactics. Extensive testing and research already demonstrated this, the Cell is good at facilitatiing just about any type of code, usually multiple times faster. |
Code has to be specifically written for the Cell processor. That, in itself, makes it a poor general processor.
Good general processors take non-specific code and run it reasonably fast. All you have to do is look at a current AMD or Intel processor to see a machine that will run most any code and in some cases, run it faster than code specifically written for the Cell.
BTW, I would love to see an example of the Cell facilitating just about any type of code multiple times faster than a current AMD or Intel chip. |
You seem to have changed you definition of "general purpose" from "will do any sort of tasks" to "will run nonspecific code". Is that correct and, if so, why? |
A general purpose CPU not only does all tasks reasonably fast, but it also shouldn't require specific code to make things run well.
In any case, the Cell isn't a good general use processor in either definition. It is, after all, a server chip. Good at multi-tasking and raw data processing but not necessarily good for running Microsoft Office or other generic applications.
