Profcrab said:
ssj12 said:
Profcrab said:
SpartanFX said:
crumas2 said:
The Cell wasn't designed for PS3, so the subject line is misleading. That's like saying a supercomputer was built from components designed for the previous generation of Macs because it used PowerPC processors.
Then again, there has been at least one super computer built from hundreds of rack-mount Macs, so let us know when the same is done with a giant array of PS3s. |
it is done with 8 PS3s in a university ,,here is the PIC: 
http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=220 |
I've always said that IBM came out much better on the Cell deal than Sony did. IBM got a great server processor out of it and Sony got a great server processor out of it . . . that can, in a far less effective role, run games. One of these companies makes servers and the other one makes game systems. When you compare relative cost benefit between two types of products, servers and game consoles, it's pretty funny that the PS3 is a much more cost effective server than a game system. As a game system it is just competitive with the 360. As a server it can, seemingly, be very effective. I give this thread a 9.1. |
You do realize that server processors are better then desktop processors right? They can be way more effective for gaming then a normal processor. |
Not true, server applications are very different from most regular applications. Sometimes server and PC tech can overlap but some aspects are more benificial to servers than games. Multithreading is one of them. Gaming apps also don't usually require the bandwidth that server apps do. The Cell is an excellent server processor. I'm still waiting to see how the PS3's very expensive investment into the Cell translates to significantly better graphics than the 360. Right now I see a very small improvement. So, lets just go from the evidence we have. The PS3 Cell is performing about at the level of a more conventional processor (the Tri-core Xenon) for games but seems to do disproportionately better in server applications. So, who got what they wanted? Sony or IBM? I give that post a 9.0. |
I agree with what you are saying, but keep in mind that the way personal computing has trended in the past is that the server technology ('big iron' as some call it) tends to be a precursor for what is going to happen in personal computers.
Decades ago, there was the mainframe and dumb terminals. Then, the technology got small enough that everyone could have their own mini-mainframe. Thus, personal computers were born. Mainframes continued to get faster and more streamlined, making new advancements to speed up execution (hyperthreading, multiple processors, larger caches, branch prediction, etc). This eventually made its way into personal computers as the price went down.
Today we are already seeing the benefits of the move to multiple cores/processors. We are also at an interesting junction in the split of server technology. On the one hand, you have Intel moving with more and more general purpose cores. On the other hand, you have AMD buying ATI and including some of their tech into AMD's processors as a Specialized Processing Unit, IBM and Sony developing the Cell as another format of General CPU + multiple specialized processing Units.
It's an interesting time to be following processor tech, in that no-one is quite sure yet which will be the better solution, a small number of general cores with specialized cores that can be used as needed, or a larger number of general cores. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses, and each could easily be viewed as a 'waste' of die space by proponents of the other view (why have a separate core for XXX if task XXX will never be needed? Why have a whole 8 general cores when you will only ever need 4? etc)
To say that the cell is not useful for normal (read: games) programming is only true because it is still remarkably new tech. As compilers get better at SIMD-izing code, and new programming toolkits are made to make SIMD-izing easier (IBM has a really cool one under development (octopus if you are interested in looking it up), and I assume other companies do as well).
These kind of tools will only improve with time, whereas we are reaching the point of diminishing returns with standard CPU compilers; it has yet to be shown how far we can go with specialized processors. I agree that the Cell is not as good for use in games yet; Sony definitely jumped the gun on when it would be ready for mass acceptance. Next generation the compiler technology for the Cell and processors like it will likely be so much better that it could be used with very little extra work; now it is just too early in the Cell's lifecycle.
