the high cost is only in the initial stages as the learning curve is high, so programmers need to figure out things, and of course time = money...but once developers have come to gripes on how it works and how best to program it then the cost are low, especially if they've already built an engine....most of the cost actually comes from art assets....this is the most time consuming and were a majority of staff are employed in. It takes some work to create a 3D world from scratch.

WOULD NOT HAVE EXPECTED ANYTHING LESS FROM YOU...

the PDF is very clear in what the Cell Processor is classed as. It is indeed a C/GPU Hybrid Multi-Core processor.

that was what it is. Look I respect you and all , an as you can see English was not my strongest subject. 

The very fact that this is just one PDF in quite a number of Documents that I have about this HPC processor.

There have been many speaking engagement's from many chip designer's in the field of HPC that i have had the privilege of listening to and to that end ,I do not have an Agenda at all .I am just pointing out misconception's about the Cell.

Just like the Misconception of the Wii just being 2 Game Cube's stuck together. or that The Xbox360 is far weaker than the PS3 which is not true at all. just like that the xbox360 has a more powerful Graphics capability than the ps3 which is not true at all. All thress systems Each have their strengths and weakness. 

For the most part all the systems this generation spec's aside are even anyway because they all play Game's. That's what it's about is it not?

The Game's is what its about, Now for Me i like talking about the Game's and the Spec's of each of the machine's . which is why i posted what i did.There have been many on this forum that have stated that The SPE's in the Cell processor are not Core's.The truth of the matter is they are Core's other's may not agree with it but, that is their Opinion on the CELL processor an while I respect their Opinion.

I also respect that their Opinion is wrong, From the people who designed the Cell Processor in the first place. the fact that I have had to post such fact's twice on the forum, and the very same people refuse to Agree with the Chief Cell processor team's Claims is troubling in my Opinion.

because it seem's to me ,The same people have the Opinion of the Cell and no matter what the fact's are they refuse to learn something Instead they just do not care to learn about it because they do not want to learn about it .But on the same token want to give their opinion on it , and be dismissive toward anyone who has Fact's that are not just conjecture, but Fact's just the same and say no matter what their Opinion is more credible than the main people who happen to have created in this case the Cell Processor.

Like i said I respect that they have an Opinion on the Matter . But to me it just seem's they on one hand demand proof, and when its shown no matter what it's just dismissed as the person has an Agenda or a fanboy because he just so happens to have fact's about in this case the PS3 that is contrary to popular Opinion of people who have agreed that their Opinion is right an that it is this way instead of how it actually is.

just sayin.

@Procrastinato

Technically, your description of the Cell's 8 functional "cores" is correct. They are indeed processor cores. But traditionally, a multi-core chip means a mult-general-purpose-core chip, such as those used in PCs, etc. I think it's misleading for someone to claim the Cell is an "8-core processor" because many will think of it in comparison with dual-core, quad-core, etc. processors, which is really comparing apples to oranges considering the very different architecture of the Cell.

Yes, the Cell rocks. But it would be nice if we stayed away from comparisons that are misleading.

that is exactly what i was pointing out.

@crumas2 

Once again thank you for the great response, but the SPE's are multi-general- purpose already.

what is :

multi-general-purpose-core mean as in lieu of how you program it? 

Yes other processor's are more pratical but that does not mean the core could not be used for such function even if it is some what slower at such function than other processor's.that's what running those type of algorithm test's are for

that's one of the big problem's in looking at it from just a standpoint of what you may already know with what experience you may already have. with some other processor's but have near to very little practical experience with the Cell because mainly the Cell is still maturing as processor's go. the Api's are just getting mature for some of the Cell processor's capabilities.Developer's like Gearbox are learning alot more just by working with the processor and running many thing's that at first they did not think the Cell's SPE's would have been good at. and after which they find out it run's just fine.

misleading is one thing, but when processor's are benchmarked there are many test's that are ran. 

and the Cell processor has been put against other Multi-core processor's. a processor is a processor is a processor. that's the point

just because you cannot put the Cell processor as your main processor that's in your PC, does not mean that the Cell processor could not do function's that the other multi-core processor could do. It may mean it would do them slower but still could do them.

example :

i ran AIDA32 on the acer netbook and the n270 processor may not be as robust as some of the other processor's Intel puts out but its plenty fast to run the thing's i need for it to run. is it as robust as the Quad-Core processor's that Intel put's out now..no but can it run the same programs if the program does need higher resources than the net book has. That's with anything though.

Example:

the basic paint or gimp program in windows linux  runs just fine on a net book as it does in a quad-core PC

Does it mean that Quad-Core could not run programs that would stomp the n270 into the ground. no

That it does mean that the n270 COULD NOT RUN the program ever. It just means as the program is written it could not right now, if its rewritten it could. would it be the same program. No but could it have the same functions it may it may not no way to know unless its done.

here is an interview with DR. hofstee back in 2005

www.tomshardware.com

7:08 PM - August 30, 2005 by Scott M. Fulton

Hopewell Junction (NY) - In his first in-depth interview since releasing the version 1.0 specification for IBM's Cell microprocessor last week, the principal developer of the CPU's innovative new synergistic processor elements (SPE) tells Tom's Hardware Guide he sees Sony's PlayStation 3 - the first major platform to utilize Cell - as the driver for a new general-purpose programming environment, using Linux but bypassing the PC.

Responding to our story last Thursday on the release by IBM that morning of the 1.0 specs, Cell's chief architect, Dr. H. Peter Hofstee, advised us not to characterize the SPEs as specialized co-processors, dedicated to occasional tasks such as graphics or arithmetic. In that story, we compared SPEs to the co-processors of old, and characterized them as subordinate to the principal processing element of the Cell system, the Power Processing Element (PPE), based on the existing PowerPC architecture. But in doing so, Dr. Hofstee warned, we tended toward a trap into which others have fallen, in which the role of the SPEs appears to be reduced in importance. More than just co-processors, Dr. Hofstee said, the SPEs are fully-capable processing units that are capable not only of running threads spawned off from a main program, but also running "single-core," scalar programs in their entirety - not only multithreading, but multitasking.

Dr. H. Peter Hofstee, Cell processor architect, IBM (Photo courtesy IBM Corp.)

But also, in making that distinction, Dr. Hofstee wanted to make certain we recognized the Cell as a powerful general-purpose processor. "[Cell] is already fairly general-purpose, even today," he said, "but of course, over time, we expect it to go even further. Over time, [whether] it is going to become the new general-purpose standard, that is to be determined." In characterizing the general-purpose nature of Cell, he told us that development systems used by IBM today are running Linux, and that general-purposeapplications are being developed using a suite of Linux-based tools.

Hofstee told us that PlayStation 3 plans to use a high-end graphics processor to complement the Cell CPU. "So that concept was there from the very beginning," he said, "that we would complement the more general-purpose processor. Quite clearly, even though Cell can be pretty darned good at pushing polygons, that is not its reason for being in the game console."

What Dr. Hofstee could neither confirm nor deny, and what IBM can neither confirm nor deny, is whether any of these Linux-based development systems could be considered PlayStation 3 prototypes. An IBM spokesperson told us that Dr. Hofstee could not speak on behalf of Sony, nor for the Sony/Toshiba/IBM alliance (STI) which is responsible, at least on paper, for Cell's eventual marketing. But as Dr. Hofstee told us, "I think that this game space is a good economic engine behind this kind of innovation. There's enough momentum there that people will, in fact, take a lot of software to this platform."

Dr. Hofstee finds himself today in the type of quandary that the engineers at Atari Computer, 20 years ago, could only dream of finding themselves in. Back then, Atari's engineers had conceived an elegant, useful, and relatively fast general-purpose platform design for the 68000-based ST computer. But Atari had extreme difficulty convincing the general public that it was a competitive general-purpose platform, at the same time it was obligated to maintaining its sales commitments with retail outlets that pushed it as a game machine. Consumers rejected the ST as unsuitable for general use, especially compared with the IBM PC, even though some general-purpose ST applications at the time were more powerful.

Today, Hofstee's best option for introducing the Cell processor to the market at large, is as the driver for a gaming platform. But this is what the market wants, as PlayStation 3 is likely to be a tremendous seller, and what Sony apparently hopes will be the driver for a major new interactive media standard. Twenty years later, the market wants a game machine. Yet Hofstee sees PS3 as an opportunity to introduce consumers to a new and powerful architecture whose purpose extends beyond gaming.

The evolutionary platform Dr. Hofstee has in mind, however, is not a Linux-based PC. "I don't know if the conventional desktop is a system that I'm most interested in," he told Tom's Hardware Guide. What users are demanding is performance improvements, he said, but not necessarily in the context of the traditional personal computer. A new kind of platform, he envisioned, could make a significant difference in people's lives. At the same time, he said, there's an "insatiable demand" for more performance in the workstation and supercomputer spaces, and finally a need for greater game performance. Some of the brightest minds to emerge in science and technology, he pointed out, entered the game programming business when there were other choices available to them. As a result, a future platform of some sort, empowered by Cell, could fuse all three of these groups together. "These are all going after sort of the very similar set of problems ... so those are the spaces that I'm interested in. I'm really not interested in something that can do conventional PC apps."

The platform that would drive these emerging markets at this time appear like something other than a PlayStation 3, so we asked it could be. "I hope it's going to be pretty optimal for a PlayStation," he responded. "If it's not, then we have missed something."

You lost me here, I'm afraid.

The Cell is as much a 8 core CPU as the Intel core 2 quad is a 4 core CPU.

The cache is shared in the quad core -- its not part of the cores themselves.  There's nothing misleading about calling the Cell SPUs "cores".  Its their interface to the rest of the machine architecture that differs, and that difference is, fundamentally, a semantic one only.  They aren't specialized hardware, in the same sense that GPUs are, if that's what you're implying.

If you're arguing that the utilization model is different, then sure, I totally agree.  They are worthy of being called cores, however, in the same manner that every core on a multicore shared CPU are.  Its the OS that abstracts them away and makes them easy for programmers to use (which is a big deal, when you're talking about the business of writing an app).  Any OS using the Cell could do the same, its just that the relatively small size of the localstore would make retriving new instructions and data from main memory, during operation, inefficient.  The SPUs are best used for shotgun parallelism, with small (meaning memory footprint, not computational expense) tasks.  

Its only the OS that requires you load an entire code module at once to run a job on one, however.  That's not a hardware requirement at all.  You could stream in code and data automatically, if you authored the OS differently.  It'd be silly, and inefficient, however.  Multi-core, shared task architectures are better for general purpose computing because they don't much care about efficient cache usage.  Its only apps that want to solve problems efficiently in parallel that really benefit from the Cell's design.  Like games, and lots of scientific apps.  In other words, high-performance computing apps.

General purpose processors will never be like the Cell.  Why would they?  It'd be a waste of hardware (meaning cost/performance).  High performance processors will, eventually, all be descendants of the Cell concept, because likewise, using general purpose processors would be a waste (meaning cost/performance) for those apps.

I have faith in the fact that money drives hardware.  And the Cell design is all about saving money, per unit performance, for high-performance computing.  It achieves that goal very well.  Games are often high-performance computing apps.  Hence... once the concepts get ingrained in the games development community, that'll be the big thing, until the next big thing comes.  Console manufactures don't like to waste money on multiple cores that spend most of their time and hardware waiting.  That's potentially billions of dollars speaking in the Cell's favor, down the road.

@joeorc - The 360 GPU is faster, better or any other metric you choose to measure performance in, that is a proven fact stated by many developers and indeed is proved by what you see onscreen very often by the fact the 360 does AA at so little cost.

I have no doubt when using a properly optimised engine the Cell is a faster solution than the 360 solution but is the cost of optimising the game engine worth it to get that extra performance, most developers are starting to do some extra work thankfully but a few games still are done on the cheap.

There is no doubt we will move over to ever increasing parrallel processing in both CPU and GPU terms but I've always doubted the Cell would win through ultimately. Currently we have Intel working on there Larrabee project which if it works could change the face of GPU's, especially given the change over to ray tracing it could trigger. AMD and Intel are both now heavily pursuing the multi core route and in all honesty they have the marketing and R&D budgets that IBM will not spend to break into the domestic markets. The Cell was a revolution but ultimately like many IBM products over the years I fear it will be a catalyst for other companies successful projects as it will not be pushed enough. Ths is just my thoughts on the situation, I'm not an analyst or expert so think of it what you will.

that's thinking of just the GPU's by itself..which you cannot do without putting out quite a few misconceptions about each systems graphic capabilities as a whole.

the 360's GPU vs's the PS3's GPU just the GPU's by itself .

yes

the xbox360's GPU is faster but its not because of the Mhz.

that's not the reason why it is faster than the RSX

 its faster mainly by its function of unified shader's. and that's only if the code for the game is aligned that it can be ,but that also does not take into account your limited on the ammount of resources that your system has on hand that are free to do so. 

yes GPU to GPU the xbox360's GPU is better than the ps3's GPU

on the same token though the entire graphic's system for each system the PS3 has the better graphics system as a whole over the xbox360

 Which if you take the complete graphic's each system is capable of the PS3 is faster and can reach its upper limits of its shader ops/sec

over the xbox360 due to they way the graphics systems are designed in each system. its easier to get better results in a shorter ammount of time than it is to right now than on the ps3. An that is due to the level of experience and the tool's not as mature for the Cell processor and in its development. IT will not be this way forever though.

the reason why the PS3's entire graphics system is more robust is because of the Cell processor that takes off strain on the RSX for graphics tasks. and thus let the RSX do what it does best and that is draw what you see on the screen.

with the Cell processor helping the GPU in the PS3 the PS3's near upper limit that the RSX can be reached much more than the xbox360 GPU though with the current software APi's not as developed as they are for standard GPU's there is more time needed to attain better results than development on the xbox360 can because the software tool's for the xbox360's GPU are much more mature than the Cell processor's GPU functions that are not as well tweaked yet. there has not been enough time yet.

example:

Hofstee told us that PlayStation 3 plans to use a high-end graphics processor to complement the Cell CPU. "So that concept was there from the very beginning," he said, "that we would complement the more general-purpose processor. Quite clearly, even though Cell can be pretty darned good at pushing polygons, that is not its reason for being in the game console."

joeorc said: the PDF is very clear in what the Cell Processor is classed as. It is indeed a C/GPU Hybrid Multi-Core processor. that was what it is. Look I respect you and all , an as you can see English was not my strongest subject. The very fact that this is just one PDF in quite a number of Documents that I have about this HPC processor. There have been many speaking engagement's from many chip designer's in the field of HPC that i have had the privilege of listening to and to that end ,I do not have an Agenda at all .I am just pointing out misconception's about the Cell. Just like the Misconception of the Wii just being 2 Game Cube's stuck together. or that The Xbox360 is far weaker than the PS3 which is not true at all. just like that the xbox360 has a more powerful Graphics capability than the ps3 which is not true at all. All thress systems Each have their strengths and weakness. For the most part all the systems this generation spec's aside are even anyway because they all play Game's. That's what it's about is it not? The Game's is what its about, Now for Me i like talking about the Game's and the Spec's of each of the machine's . which is why i posted what i did.There have been many on this forum that have stated that The SPE's in the Cell processor are not Core's.The truth of the matter is they are Core's other's may not agree with it but, that is their Opinion on the CELL processor an while I respect their Opinion. I also respect that their Opinion is wrong, From the people who designed the Cell Processor in the first place. the fact that I have had to post such fact's twice on the forum, and the very same people refuse to Agree with the Chief Cell processor team's Claims is troubling in my Opinion. because it seem's to me ,The same people have the Opinion of the Cell and no matter what the fact's are they refuse to learn something Instead they just do not care to learn about it because they do not want to learn about it .But on the same token want to give their opinion on it , and be dismissive toward anyone who has Fact's that are not just conjecture, but Fact's just the same and say no matter what their Opinion is more credible than the main people who happen to have created in this case the Cell Processor. Like i said I respect that they have an Opinion on the Matter . But to me it just seem's they on one hand demand proof, and when its shown no matter what it's just dismissed as the person has an Agenda or a fanboy because he just so happens to have fact's about in this case the PS3 that is contrary to popular Opinion of people who have agreed that their Opinion is right an that it is this way instead of how it actually is. just sayin

You know what, I'm just going to repost your post, but with everything pretty much fixed. 
Bold means that I fixed a single word -- be it spelling, capitalization, a one-word grammar issue, or those damned apostrophes. 
Italics means that I fixed a phrase, or some grammar, or a whole sentence -- basically anything bigger than a word. 
[Bracketed, italicized text indicates commentary.]

The PDF is very clear in what the Cell processor is classed as. It is indeed a C/GPU hybrid multi-core processor.

That is what it is.  Look, I respect you and all, and as you can see English was not my strongest subject.

The very fact that this is just one PDF in quite a number of documents that I have about this HPC processor. 

[...what?  That whole thing was an introduction:  "The very fact that this is so ... MEANS that ... what?"  Alternately, you could say "IN fact, this is just one ...."]

There have been many speaking engagements from many chip designers in the field of HPC that I have had the privilege of listening to.  In the end, I do not have an agenda at all:  I am just pointing out misconceptions about the Cell. 

["To that end" made no sense whatsoever.  I redid things in such a way that seemed consistent with what I thought you were trying to communicate.]

Just like the misconception that the Wii is just 2 GameCubes stuck together, or that the Xbox 360 is far weaker than the PS3, or that the Xbox 360 has a more powerful graphics capability than the PS3.  All three of these systems each have their strengths and weaknesses.

[Deleted the pointless phrase "which is not true at all" from items in your LIST OF MISCONCEPTIONS.  Also, since it was one sentence (or ought to have been), commas are now where two periods were.]

For the most part, all the systems this generation (specs aside) are even anyway because they all play games.  That's what it's about is it not?

The games are what it's about.  Now, for me, I like talking about the games and the specs of each of the machines, which is why I posted what I did.  There have been many on this forum that have stated that the SPEs in the Cell processor are not cores.  The truth of the matter is that they are cores; others may not agree with it, but that is their opinion on the Cell processor and, while I respect their opinion, I also respect that their opinion is wrong, according to the people who designed the Cell processor in the first place.  The fact that I have had to post such facts twice on the forum, and see the very same people refuse to agree with the chief Cell processor team's claims, is troubling in my opinion.

[Consolidated two paragraphs because the paragraph break had occurred MID-SENTENCE.  Also, while I have seen Cell (referring to the specific processor) written CELL, it's best to go for consistency rather than have it written the other way, once in your post, randomly.  Finally, I inserted "see" because otherwise that whole second part didn't fit into the sentence.  I thought the usage of "opinion" at the end, which makes us think of the earlier usage, was very neat.] 

It seems to me that these people have a particular opinion of the Cell and no matter what the facts are they refuse to learn anything:  they do not care to learn about it because they do not want to learn about it.  But at the same time they want to give their opinion on it, and be dismissive toward anyone who has facts -- not just conjecture, but facts -- and say that, no matter what, their opinion is more credible than those of the main people who happen to have created the Cell processor.

[The first part of the paragraph was just a mess.  I rewrote it in a way I felt was consistent with your opinion and which fit the rest of the sentence.  Secondly, "not just conjecture, but facts" was an interjection that you didn't tell us about (by way of punctuation) AT ALL, which I fixed; and "just the same" did not seem to be an appropriate phrase for what you were saying, and your statement seemed fine without it, so I took it out.  "In this case" was not quite as out of place, but seemed unnecessary (there aren't any other cases we're talking about, right?), so I likewise removed it.]

Like I said, I respect that they have an opinion on the matter.  But to me it just seems they on one hand demand proof, and (on the other) when it's shown, no matter what, it's just dismissed as the person having an agenda or being a fanboy, because he just so happens to have facts about (in this case) the PS3 that is contrary to popular opinion of people who have agreed that their opinion is right and that it is this way instead of how it actually is.

just sayin
[Left that one as is. ]

[P.S.] 
100% lover "nothing else matters" after that...

Your talking about a system that is in all probability twice as expensive only just having the clout to beat the 360 graphically.  The PS3 was a rushed design that produced a overly expensive product that is inefficient, in the 360's case the rushed design caused the horrendous reliability.  The Cell may bolster the weaker the GPU in the PS3 but for the component costs it should be pushing a lot further ahead by now 3 years into it's shelf life.  The Cell is hampered in the PS3 by most of the other components, memory is way too limiting, the GPU was a bolt on last minute addition as Sony relized the costs were sky rocketing for their original design.

Also I personally hate the smear effect the Cell AA post processing produces, although it would probably be better than jaggies I'd imagine, this isn't bolstering the GPU on the PS3 to surpass the 360 in nearly every multiplatform title even now.  People constantly blame the developers for not getting the most out of the hardware but the bottom line is Sony have produced a substantially weaker SDK than Microsoft and they've built a very complex parrallel architecture that will never be truly cost effective to redesign game engines to get the best from. 

The last home console that was as complex as the PS3 was the Saturn which also used a parraellel architecture (albeit it a bolt together quick fix), it bombed badly on multiplatform titles as it was too expensive to spend all the time to make it work equivalent to the competitor (PS1).  Ultimately Sony have jumped the gun on parrallel processing this generation as developers will take years to get up to speed properly, PC titles having multiple cores for a long time prove this. 

Finally I don't buy Sony haven't had enough time to build a mature SDK, they got their CPU from IBM at almost the same time as Microsoft, they have had exactly the same amount of time to get where we are now, they've just not produced the goods to the standards of Microsoft.  Perhaps Microsoft have a advantage being the software giants they are but that'sfor Sony to have solved by hiring staff not for people to make excuses for them.

I'll add some positives to what is a very negative post towards the PS3, imo Killzone 2 and ultimately Unchartered 2 will be the best looking consoles games for a while and that proves with the right developers and a lot of time and money the PS3 can produce the goods the 360 might struggle at.  I happen to agree the Cell is a better CPU than the 360 equivalent also, it's just the packages as a whole that muddy the waters in discussion.