backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by DingieM.. on Aug 6 at 7:24 AM


The Cell Broadband Engine as it resides in the PS3  (Source: DailyTech)
PS3 CPU and GPU chips shift from play to work in new computer board

When Sony, Toshiba and IBM sunk billions of research and development dollars into designing the Cell Broadband Engine, surely the companies had other plans for the processor other than just to power a games machine.

Sony this week said that it will unveil a prototype of a new Cell Computing Board, which is composed of both Cell Broadband Engine and RSX GPU chips – components also found inside every PlayStation 3. Sony plans to show the Cell Computing Board at the SIGGRAPH show from August 7 to 9.

The Cell Broadband Engine chip alone is capable of outputting 230 GFLOPS, and Sony believes that the incorporation of RSX “realizes arithmetic operation speeds beyond” that speed.

The Cell Computing Board is designed to handle industrial applications. According to Sony is expected to demonstrate the technology’s use in real-time processing of 4K images, or extremely high-resolution pictures. The Cell Computing Board is also expected to be used for computer graphics rendering and various physics simulations that take advantage of “multi-thread processing ability” of the Cell/B.E.

The Board will be able to be embedded in a 1U (unit) sized server and mounted on a 19-inch rack, and will consume 400W or less, said Sony.

The Cell Broadband Engine has already been tested with non-gaming applications. Even on the PlayStation 3, the Cell is able to run protein-folding simulations for Folding@home. Other scientific-related applications include medical imaging at Mayo. The processor is also being used for the sake of national security in surveillance technology .

Before Sony may fully roll out its new computer boards, it may have to contend with a lawsuit stakes claim on the Cell’s architecture. Newport Beach, Calif.-based Parallel Processing Corporation is currently suing Sony for patent infringement over the Cell/B.E.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So basically...
By FITCamaro on 8/2/2007 1:32:33 PM , Rating: 3
They pulled the motherboard of the PS3 out of the PS3 and are selling it as a standalone product?

I would also think IBM would be a little upset about this as the server space is IBM's arena. I doubt they would appreciate Sony trying to intrude on that.




RE: So basically...
By darkpaw on 8/2/2007 1:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
IBM makes their big money on massive parrell systems, or more accurately the software and services that support them. I don't think they'll care much if Sony releases a 1U single processor system.


RE: So basically...
By omnicronx on 8/2/2007 1:43:50 PM , Rating: 1
we all know this is just sony PR.. dont look too deep into it ;)


RE: So basically...
By BiuTech on 8/2/2007 2:07:16 PM , Rating: 1
I was going to say the same thing. More Sony PR - Cell powers the Universe and makes the world go 'round...

Thanks Sony, without you there would be no night and day.


RE: So basically...
By UNCjigga on 8/2/2007 1:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
Unless...[lightbulb]...IBM used it in their products? But why would IBM do that? Makes no sense to sell a product you invested billions of R&D in... ;)


RE: So basically...
By Polynikes on 8/2/2007 7:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. This seems like IBM territory. Sounds like IBM and Toshiba seriously let themselves get screwed in the contract regarding the Cell's uses outside of the PS3.


RE: So basically...
By MDme on 8/2/2007 6:36:12 PM , Rating: 3
Sony has finally found a use for all those UNSOLD PS3 units....

take the mobo, cell and RSX...sprinkle in a little Sony bullsh...er...PR then voila...

SONY COMPUTING BOARD!


RE: So basically...
By iNGEN on 8/4/2007 11:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
This is exactly what IBM got involved for in the first place.

IBM transitioned to being a unified service oriented company under Gerstner in the 1990s. This little gadget, however paltry it may appear to some, is the pioneer product for the generation of centralized systems upon which IBM will depend throughout the next decade.


RE: So basically...
By afkrotch on 8/4/2007 1:47:48 PM , Rating: 1
IBM makes money either way. They create the processors, so they make money by selling them to Sony. If the product does well, many others may look towards IBM's parallel Cell based systems or their Cell based supercomputers.

Either way, the only ppl Sony are competiting with is Mercury, not IBM. Unless Sony decides to jump into making dual Cell blade servers, it's not a problem to IBM.


the future looks grand!
By cheetah2k on 8/2/2007 10:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
Looking at the multitude of tasks the Cell engine could be used for, i'm very interested to know how Cell could be applied to DirectX and used in competition to ATi and Nvidia in the graphics card industry....

Imagine a Quad C2D, and Cell processing your graphics!




RE: the future looks grand!
By Schmeh on 8/2/2007 11:27:20 PM , Rating: 1
It would be terrible at rendering in DirectX. If the cell was a capable real-time render, Sony would have use 2 of them in the PS3 and never used the RSX.


RE: the future looks grand!
By sxr7171 on 8/3/2007 1:15:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well get yourself some Bose speakers and some Absolut Vodka.


RE: the future looks grand!
By B166ER on 8/3/2007 1:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
Now thats funny!


RE: the future looks grand!
By encia on 8/3/2007 7:55:07 AM , Rating: 2
Beaten up AMD Radeon HD 2800(or AMD Radeon X1900) + Intel Quad C2D.


RE: the future looks grand!
By encia on 8/3/2007 8:08:30 AM , Rating: 2
[edit]
Gets beaten up by AMD Radeon HD 2800(or AMD Radeon X1900) + Intel Quad C2D.


RE: the future looks grand!
By DingieM on 8/3/2007 8:18:57 AM , Rating: 2
HD 29xx really


400W power draw?
By killerroach on 8/2/2007 2:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently they're either using some freakish variant of the PS3's processors that I'm not aware of, or they're stating worst-case scenario. The PS3 may have a 380W PSU, but real-world tests show that it actually draws about half that... and this board wouldn't have to deal with the power draw of a Blu-Ray drive, either.

Link: http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/04/26/power_supply_...

That being said, with a robust SDK (knowing Sony, that's a big if, but their Cell development partners may be able to assist here), this could be an interesting way to get some added "oomph" to an HPC or cluster configuration in very little space...




RE: 400W power draw?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/2/2007 2:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
I imagine that number is the result of marketing calling one of the engineers and getting a reply, around a mouth full of lunchtime sandwich, of "well I dunno for sure, but I can promise you it'll be less than 400 watts".


RE: 400W power draw?
By Gul Westfale on 8/3/2007 12:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
yes 400W sounds too much but you have to consider that a 400W using only half its max rating is going to run cooler and more reliably in the long run than a smaller 200 watter that is constantly running at max capacity. also they need to make sure that if a person sticks a couple more hard drives in there that they have enough juice for that.


RE: 400W power draw?
By sxr7171 on 8/3/2007 1:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
Not really. There is an optimal point of operation for a PS, and it is usually around 80% of continuous capacity. Running a PS at 50% tends not to be the most efficient point of operation. It was probably a BS marketing number that the PS could supply for a millisecond or two when the seventh moon of Jupiter lines up the middle star of the middle row of the constellation Orion.


RE: 400W power draw?
By afkrotch on 8/4/2007 1:55:55 PM , Rating: 1
Well, the Cell for the server will be using it's 8th SPE. Also, It's more likely that the server will actually be capable of hitting full load, while the PS3 probably isn't able to, even with Folding@Home.

At the same time, it'll contain more system memory, probably more dedicated graphics memory, a more robust cooling system, expansion slots, etc.

It's really all assumptions though.


RE: 400W power draw?
By JimFear on 8/6/2007 4:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
I expect there'd be some onboard mass storage controller of some variety, a few hard drives and some hefty high draw fans (remember this is U1 form factor, not George Forman form factor).


Hmmmm... Some dreaming for you all
By herrdoktor330 on 8/2/2007 10:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me wrong, guys. I'm not a sony fan-boy or anything, but could you imagine if they made an ATX mobo with integrated video/sound/cpu and all the other fixings. I wonder what a system like that could benchmark on a sysmark or xvid/divx encoding test? I know that in about a year you could build a monster 16 core Intel or octo AMD solution that would walk all over this thing in benchmarks. But for about $400, this would be an interesting stand-alone mobo. Just slap in a serial ATA HD, your DVD burner of choice, install your OS of choice, and I think this would make the fixings for a compelling media center PC with a reasonable power footprint.

From what I've read, this thing performs like a low powered PPC G5 processor, but they weren't able to take advantage of the actual processing power of the platform. Does anyone know if the software support has improved?




RE: Hmmmm... Some dreaming for you all
By sxr7171 on 8/3/2007 1:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
..and some $60 Celeron couldn't beat out a "low powered G5"? Though it will be the RSX that is star of that show with cheap GPU power since that thing has been produced in huge quantities relative to any other GPU of it's power. Still the 360's GPU is probably the better bet having amortized more of it's costs and considered more powerful than the RSX.


By sxr7171 on 8/3/2007 1:32:59 AM , Rating: 2
That should be "being considered" as oppposed to just "considered."


By herrdoktor330 on 8/3/2007 10:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well, this thing must obviously have the horsepower to playback HD content, since it does blu-ray. I was just thinking this would make a fairly straight forward integrated solution to run something like MythTV on.

What's shocking is from the reading I've been doing, this thing is kind of underwhelming. I suppose you really could just build an AMD/nVidia 8600 system for less than what this thing would cost you to do all that and then some. Plus you'd probably get a more configurable option offerings from AMD/ATI/Intel/nVidia.

Makes me kind of wonder why Sony would even bother...


rendering box
By jaybuffet on 8/2/2007 1:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
How would this thing do at rendering? GRaphics and animation is the point of SIG, right?




RE: rendering box
By littleprince on 8/2/2007 4:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
That's what I'm wondering, a little graphics/video workstation would be sweet.


Hmm....
By budapest on 8/3/2007 2:37:11 AM , Rating: 2
Will it play Doom?




RE: Hmm....
By Gul Westfale on 8/3/2007 7:55:10 AM , Rating: 2
that was waaaay funnier the first 1560478 times.


Developer Stance
By agentvertigo on 8/4/2007 1:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
READ CAREFULLY & COMPLETELY or do not comment on this.

I have downloaded and completely studied and yes, completely "understand" the CELL architecture's strengths and weaknesses . Unfortunately, the main weakness is the fact that, yes, to make the 3.2 GHz CELL & 7 SPEs function at high UTILIZATION in accomplishing the same tasks(completion, not time taken) as say the 3-core 3.2GHz PowerPC in the 360, you HAVE TO write many more lines of code, than for the more complete CORES.

SPONSORS pay for the development teams mainframe power, rent(not buy) THE MOST powerful G5s for us to work with, sometimes 12 of us need exclusive use, which means a dozen, are always available, (we'll move to INTEL soon , so we can swap in faster cores instead of whole machines , then we'll buy our own), but when we take longer than normal time to make a game look as good as, to start, while going for better looking, than our XBOX 360 version, it's CURRENTY a different & much LONGER coding cycle.

The DX9/10 SDK & Knowledge Base is pretty common and is added to by most any PRO and the occasional brilliant novice, however CELL SPE coding is still an INFANT , we are all learning and teaching at the same time.

But CELL is not for GRAPHICS, Wii + XBOX 360 is WHAT the PS3 would have BEEN if not for IMMERSION LAWSUIT, as the SPEs WOULD FLOURISH with INTERACTIVITY & CONNECTIVITY as their main focus.

REMEMBER, FLOPS is theoretical. Actual [PIXEL & VERTEX & SHADER] + [RAM SIZE & BANDWIDTH & ACCESS TIME] PERFORMANCE decides how great the games can look on THAT HARDWARE, and is absolutely decided by OPTIMIZATION OF GAME CODE.

PS3 : RSX is SIMPLE , CELL is COMPLEX . RAMBUS VRAM is Higher Latency, wish they had just used more GDDR, would eliminate timing problems.

XBOX 360 : XENOS is as simple as an X1900(we code PC GAMES, too) and the 3-core, 6-thread PowerPC is no more complex than a QUAD-core x86.

IT WILL TAKE LONGER to develop coding routines for a COMPLEX 1-ARM + 7-FINGERS CPU than for a SIMPLE 3-ARMS with 2-FINGERS CPU(@ same 3.2GHz, BTW), especially when the HYPE suggests the complex machine is more powerful FOR GRAPHICS.

THE XENOS & RSX ARE THE GRAPHICS.

XENOS KICKS RSX BUTT in HD-GRAPHICS(10MB E-DRAM w/ 265GB/s IS VERY EFFECTIVE) AND HDR-lighting SHADER CODE. DUAL 1080P on RSX is for VIDEO purposes, it could have been part of XENOS, no biggie, but neither GPU has the POWER for DUAL 1080P GAMING at ACCEPTABLE quality, not enough PIXEL-POWER for that.

RSX only got RAMBUS to use, and ACTUAL throughput is similar to the main GDDR3, NOT more, because of latency.

HD 360 (WHEN DONE RIGHT)looks CONSISTENTLY better than HD PS3 because we haven't yet optimized the SPE use to help RSX compete evenly with XENOS.

IF ONLY IBM/SONY COULD MAKE PS3(CELL) ANALYZERS MORE COMMON.
Remember PS1 analyzer, couldn't make METAL GEAR: SOLID "properly" without it. We need help with this, but they don't seem to know more than us. WISH US LUCK, PS3 OWNERS.




RE: Developer Stance
By Schmeh on 8/4/2007 3:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
RSX only got RAMBUS to use, and ACTUAL throughput is similar to the main GDDR3, NOT more, because of latency.


One problem, the VRAM for the RSX is GDDR3, not Ramubs. The system or main ram, connected to the Cell is the XDR Ram (Rambus). Also the RSX can read and write to and from both pools of memory, not just the GDDR3.


Gotta love marketing spins.
By Shintai on 8/2/2007 4:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
So the PS3 is 2tflops with the RSX.

Cell=200Gflops SP and 15Gflops DP.
RSX=1.8Tflops (Basicly a 550Mhz 7900GT chip.)

Now if anyone wonders, to make the same Marketing flops. You either need something like:
4 K10 CPUs with Quad 2900XT CF or 4 Q6600 with 6 8800GTX cards.

Sure!!!!

Flops is the worst measurement ever, since its can flutuate so much. Like in folding 1 CPU flop is worth around 4 GPU flops.




RAMBUS
By oopyseohs on 8/2/2007 9:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
Could it be? Rambus IP being used for two major applications simultaneously!?!?




other uses
By Gul Westfale on 8/2/2007 10:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
all 3 companies (IBM, sony, toshiba) have stated in the past that they would use the cell chip in other applications some day. if memory serves correctly, toshiba wants to use/already uses the cell in some of its high-def TV sets; and IBM was talking about cell servers in the past as well.

i don't see why they would not be trying to use this thing in other products, they did after all spend billions of dollars on R&D, and on upgrading their factories to produce it.




Too bad
By exdeath on 8/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: Too bad
By Cobra Commander on 8/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: Too bad
By cenobite9 on 8/2/2007 1:26:54 PM , Rating: 5
I guess if the game developers had more experience in developing games for CELL then the games would be a little more advanced and involving than what's currently available. Just have to give them a few more years and we should start seeing some programs on the PS3 that really take advantage of the CELL processor. Personally I don't own any gaming console but I love seeing and hearing about what developers can do with the technology.


RE: Too bad
By xphile on 8/3/2007 8:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree in principle that in time there will almost certainly be better games available that use more of the cells power and features and deliver better experiences etc, why wasn't this done BEFORE expecting people to shell out high end money for it?

The way Sony have deployed this chip would be like Ferrari delivering a new car that cost 500 thousand dollars (high end of market), did 5 miles to the gallon (but promised to be able to do at least 40 one day), and most importantly promised to travel safely at incredibly high speeds anywhere but actually delivered average speed in most places with glimpses of something really special now and again, and sometimes self steered into other cars.

The point here is that if Ferrari did the same thing with a car, asking the high end price and not delivering, but saying, hey we are Ferrari, you know we are good for it. So cough up now, and in time we'll put it all right - they'd be slammed and lose a ton of market share. Consequently in such markets they know that they need to make the product great, no matter what wiz-bang tech is in it, BEFORE they try and sell it at a high price point.

So I just don't understand why Sony think for them it is any different, and are wondering why at the moment they languish in 3rd place, while at the same time the PS2 still rules supreme in its market. How can a company with so much money and so much talent see they clearly did it right, and then go and seemingly deliberately do it all wrong? I like the PS3 in many ways - the tech as you say is wonderfully interesting and promising - what I don't get is the Sony "foot in mouth" marketing and "customers are our least concern" approach to bringing it to market.


RE: Too bad
By herrdoktor330 on 8/4/2007 2:24:45 PM , Rating: 2
Here's my take on the XB360 vs Wii vs PS3 stance: Software sells hardware. Not the other way around. If you don't have a killer app that's going to ship your product, noone is going to buy it. 360s are selling because there's good exclusive games people want to play on it. PS3 has yet to release those core games that are going to sell lots of the console aren't here yet. To be honest, this whole "Next-Gen" of console has been a little rushed because everyone wants to get their new console out sooner, but the games are going to take more time to develop which is what sparks the intrest of the gaming public.

The only real anomaly here is the Wii with it's motion controls. But if they don't keep producing innovative titles that draw public attention, sales will eventually peter out.

My point is that you can make the most state of the art console with all the bells and whistles but if you don't have software that showcases the potential and really makes you say "I have to get one of these", your console will not sell.

So thank your developers and treat them well because they make or break your generation of console gaming.


RE: Too bad
By deeznuts on 8/2/2007 1:53:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Too bad for Sony and their Playstation division that Cell is good at anything BUT video games.
Do you mind telling Epic Games that? They seem to think the PS3 is a great machine for games. UE3 running better this year on PS3 than Gears did last year. Not saying definitively the PS3 is more powerful than the 360, that is yet to be determined. Just that , at one year into release, one is running better than the other did at the same time frame.


RE: Too bad
By exdeath on 8/2/2007 2:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
Oh it's a very powerful chip no doubt, but it's serial DSP like architecture is more suited for raw calculation throughput than gaming.

It would be like writing a game for the Analog Devices SHARC DSPs in my audio processor. Sure they are powerful, but probably not the best choice in CPU for a dedicated game console.


RE: Too bad
By GlassHouse69 on 8/2/2007 11:54:34 PM , Rating: 1
that's a good point. still, it is more powerful than a xbox 360. i think anyone who isnt a moron realizes that. just that the engine is a ferrari with a pinto transmission and chassis


RE: Too bad
By Gul Westfale on 8/3/2007 12:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
ferrari with a pinto transmission and chassis


sorta like the formula 1 engine on bicycle tires that was the PS2, then.


RE: Too bad
By sxr7171 on 8/3/2007 1:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
Ha Ha! People fell for that hook, line and sinker. Stupid Sony hype. Even though I have a PS3, I'd like to see them come down from their arrogance and realize that they've used up the hype from the PS1. Hopefully the Playstation name won't cause people to cream their pants like it used to. Then maybe they'd actually have to make a good, practical gaming console for a change.


RE: Too bad
By DingieM on 8/3/2007 3:23:02 AM , Rating: 2
I have to remind you that what is said about UT3 looking better than GoW was the Xbox360 version and not the PS3.
There is a general misunderstanding about that. And don't expect the PS3 games having a highly dynamic lighting model and neatly looking shaders because it is hampered by the "underdeveloped" RSX.
UT3 was very suited for the PS3 with regard to the user generated content and not the whole game itself. It will come to the Xbox360 as well but the developers have to work with the closed system called Live.

And again, the sole purpose of the Cell is to do streaming calculations and not games.
The Cell is very poor at AI which needs general purpose instructions.

Many people generalize way to much and just describe the PS3 "is more powerful", well that's only the case in a few scenarios.

What they describe here that the RSX could help increase the GFLOPS, they have to tell the truth that nVidia up-to and G7x generation is very poor at GPGPU calculations, especially compared to the ATI offerings (certainly including Xenos) and the Cell itself.
Good for Sony that they are looking for more sales chances though.

O, and the performance of 2xx GFLOPS is already slow compared what ATI demonstrated with their next generation platform architecture: 1.5 TFLOPS. It is in an article of AMD's technology plan posted by TGDaily.
So the hype of the Cell will soon be history unless IBM designs a Cell with at least double the SPE's.


RE: Too bad
By deeznuts on 8/3/2007 12:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have to remind you that what is said about UT3 looking better than GoW was the Xbox360 version and not the PS3.


Remind me of something that was never said? Here you go bud:
quote:
In an interview with Gamespot Mark Rein continues his love affair with the Playstation 3, explaining that Unreal Tournament 3 is running better on the Playstation 3 than Gears of War was on the 360 last year.

http://blog.thebackbuffer.com/2007/07/mark-rein-pl...


RE: Too bad
By DingieM on 8/6/2007 7:24:16 AM , Rating: 2
Dude,

I was referring to looking better and not running better. and that news bit came from the Dutch technical news site tweakers.net.
I want the best graphics and sorry but the PS3 doesn't have it and will not get it. If you understand the technology you know it.

Last but not least due to physics the PS3 *should* play more smoothly but for 200 euro's extra it will not be significant enough.
In the blog the user created content was largely mentioned to be "better" on the PS3. But I don't want that and there is a huge chance that bad and maybe corrupted content will appear. How are they guarding against that?
The reaso the PS3 has a standard hard drive that may create a better game is no excuse, MS will allow hard drive based games on the Xbox360 as well, the recently said.


RE: Too bad
By Chiisuchianu on 8/2/2007 11:52:31 PM , Rating: 3
what's too bad is that you don't know what you're talking about yet you repeat it anyway

the fact is power is power. ps3 has A LOT of power. that power is there and it can be harnessed. saying its "not good for videogames" doesnt mean anything. its simply an insinuation that developers will have a harder time harnessing that power.

conclusively, if and when developers make the effort to harness this power, the ps3 will have superior gameplay, physics, graphics, and more. PERIOD.


RE: Too bad
By Sunrise089 on 8/3/2007 12:02:52 AM , Rating: 2
Gameplay???

I think a few million DS owners might disagree a bit with you on that.

Sony bet a few billion dollars that processing power = gameplay. I wonder where that's gotten them.....


RE: Too bad
By DingieM on 8/3/2007 5:29:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
if and when developers make the effort to harness this power, the ps3 will have superior gameplay, physics, graphics, and more. PERIOD

There is no *if* in this world. And don't think that 360 developers pull everything out of the hat either: CliffyB said 360 could do much more than GoW
It is utterly stupid by Sony by not giving software support, which is increasingly important with very complex hardware.

PS3 has ONLY power to do streaming math calculations, and 80% of the games don't use it.
What about general purpose instructions? Very bad on the Cell. The Xenos dwarfs the Cell in that respect, so the PS3 is VERY WEAK at general purpose. Is that so hard to understand?

quote:
will have a harder time harnessing that power

Regarding the business model, this is utterly stupid and arrogance of Sony to put up developers with screaming high budget costs and time and yet only can touch "a bit of that seemingly over-available POWER"?

Don't you know that of the 8 SPE's 1 is turned off in hardware and 1 other constantly in use by the OS?
Don't you know that the Cell needs vastly more source code to do the same trick as on a general purpose processor with a factor of 20, a memory hungry approach?
Don't you know that 64Mb is constantly in use by the OS (Xbox360 only needs 32).
And many more.

I think you have a wish that PS3 should be superior than all other, and I really know you have been trapped by the Sony PR spin.


RE: Too bad
By Darkon on 8/3/2007 1:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
You don't know what you are talking about Kid

First off the OS doesn't uses the whole reserved footprint yet (since Sony are still adding stuff ) the footprint also has been reduced according to a few devs at beyond3d, further more the OS SPE can be partially used for games several games have already done this.

Secondly the SPE aren't just vector units they are just as good at integer as they are in vectors. You can run pretty much any kind of code you like on the SPEs, they're fully-fledged ( if simple by modern standards )
CPUs with a rich instruction set like any modern day processor, and so can run any program that could run on any other machine though you'll have to madifie your code.

To clarifie a bit SPes instruction set is not lacking in integer math operations

( http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwork...y/pa-cellpe...

scroll down to figure 3
" The SPUs SIMD support can perform operations on sixteen 8-bit integers, eight 16-bit integers, four 32-bit integers, or four single-precision floating-point numbers per cycle. At 3.2GHz, each SPU is capable of performing up to 51.2 billion 8-bit integer operations or 25.6GFLOPs in single precision" )

,logical operations, and flow control operations, all the instructions necessary for general purpose computing

( http://www-01.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/te... )

including a form of branching ala branch hinting, like in the itanium. A dynamic predictor they have not.

IBMs own words

( http://www.research.ibm.com/cell/SPU.html )

"The SPU branch architecture does not include dynamic branch prediction, but instead relies on compiler-generated branch prediction using "prepare-to-branch" instructions to redirect instruction prefetch to branch targets."

( it's kind of the same deal as with caching. You can tell the SPU where the next jump is going to go, so you effectively have manual branch prediction. Again, the idea is that you know better than the processor, what the intention of your code is. )

In other words SPEs are capable of doing general purpose computing (hence why a SPE is running an OS)

Despite that the SPEs can run general perpose code, SPEs can't be considered general purpose processors. Why you ask ? well simple , you have the term "Turing-complete", which means that a chip by itself is capable of computing anything and everything that can be computed. That may be a bit difficult to picture, but in a more succinct sense, it means that the chip can emulate a Universal Turing Machine, and a UTM can emulate this chip.

Now an SPE is technically Turing-complete... by itself, anyway. And this is why you occasionally see the argument that an SPE is "general purpose processor ." Of course, within a Cell, SPEs are kind of cut off from some resources, and are compartmentalized in such a way that outside access requires a few layers of indirection ( an SPE can only address its LS SRAM space, and needs to make DMA requests to copy data into it in order to access anything from anywhere else. ) , so they can't really be general purpose processor directly...

Like IBM said, the SPUs fall fall in the grey-area between special and general purpose processors.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki