CELL CHIP?? Big news for apple?

[burger011]

It's being reported that IBM, Sony and Toshiba will produce a new chip called "CELL"

Could we see this in apple computers any time soon?



http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6b31ebfe-786b-11d9-9961-00000e2511c8.html

burger

[jadam]

Welcome to last year :p

[jmsait19]

Actually, yeah, that was reported somewhere around the day after the PS2 came out, which happened to be something like 4 years ago.

Anyway, if Apple used, that would be very cool.

I read a report last year that stated if the PS3 were to come out today it would be the 45th most powerful computer in the world. Which for a video game console is amazing. The PS3 should be stunning.

[Lacero]

iPray for Cell processors for Macs. If Apple did introduce a cell-based Mac, it would not be called a PowerMac. It would be called something else entirely as the entire OS would have to be re-written to Cray-like efficiency.

[TyleRomeo]

iPray for Cell processors for Macs. If Apple did introduce a cell-based Mac, it would not be called a PowerMac. It would be called something else entirely as the entire OS would have to be re-written to Cray-like efficiency.

it would be called the Powermac G6

[Platform]

it would be called the Powermac G6

Yup

But i think that it would take a very long to re-write the OS and apps so maby they come up with something else better than the cell cpu (IBM has been working on the next gen PowerPC cpu's for a long time, started even before the G5 was out, so let's just sit and wait) :p

[JRM]

CELL Powerbook next Tuesday!!!!

4.6GHZ?

But i heard reports of 4.2GHZ

[SBG88]

CELL Powerbook next Tuesday!!!!

4.6GHZ?

But i heard reports of 4.2GHZ

Awesome!! Just cancelled my Powerbook order.

[jmsait19]

Yup

But i think that it would take a very long to re-write the OS and apps so maby they come up with something else better than the cell cpu (IBM has been working on the next gen PowerPC cpu's for a long time, started even before the G5 was out, so let's just sit and wait) :p

Maybe, just maybe, that next gen PowerPC cpu they have been working on is a cover up for the CELL.

[maya]

iPod Shuffle

iPod mini

iPod

iPod Photo

iPod Video a.k.a. iPod Cell. ;) :)



It had already been stated that iPod didn't have a powerful enough processor in the current and past generations and the Cell processor is scalable, so I think this will become a reality. :)

[maya]

Maybe, just maybe, that next gen PowerPC cpu they have been working on is a cover up for the CELL.


Market the Cell processor as a G5, I don't think that will happen. :)

Apple might as well move away from the "G"moniker, we already know who has the G6 moniker. :p :rolleyes: , no need for associations. ;) :)

[maya]

Awesome!! Just cancelled my Powerbook order.

Why?, just Cell it when the new ones are released. ;) :)

[Lacero]

iCell my current laptop for the new one.

[GonzoRob]

i guess the next superbowl ad with have Jennifer Lopez in it .......





(movie geek :) )

[ClimbingTheLog]

How hot does this thing run?

I wonder how many unannounced sessions there will be at WWDC this year...

[Littleodie914]

Wow... This is a pretty big advancement, isn't it? We were having a discussion in our Adv. Computers class with the teacher (who was explaining the cell processor), and he said that the transistors in this thing are only a few atoms long :eek: Is that true? Or was he thinking about something else?

[geoffism]

i guess the next superbowl ad with have Jennifer Lopez in it .......
Kiss of death. ;)

Why don't we just go total mainstream and have Trump push it like nickel crack on his show?

[Mord]

this is the G6/powerpc 980

it's power5 based and has crazy fast altivec which was rumored to be in the 980.

[MrMacMan]

If you noticed it doesn't mention Apple, geez whats with this speculation you guys keep having.

Its made in east fishkill so therefore its a Mac Chip?
No.

It will probably slow G5 production tho since a chip like this (presumably) will be for the PS3 and the PS3 will have no doubt huugee demand.

If you noticed this aint a PowerPC chip, no doubt it could be turned into one if apple wished it, but the G5 roadmap has been leaked for a while so I don't see the Cell fitting in anywhere. We still need dual core and higher speed increases. '3GHZ chip in 12 months' anyone?

[nagromme]

Digging through this speculation...

http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell0.html

...leads one to think that a Cell might not replace a G5 (or G6) for ALL tasks. But might be used ALONGSIDE one, in theory. (And it also suggests that developing for the Cell could be more difficult than for traditional processors.)

All speculative, but it could be one more reason why Apple chose wisely in going with PPC over x86.

My expectation is still that the G6 will be a POWER5-based chip, but I'm sure Apple won't ignore Cell IF it truly has Mac potential.

[relimw]

Welcome to last year :p
Since you're oblivious to what is happening this week, I'd like to point out that ISSCC is this week, and IBM and friends will be presenting 5 papers relating to the Cell processor (mainly on Tuesday).

Some new information regarding the chip: (http://http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=59301616)

The memory and processor bus interfaces designed by Rambus provide the Cell processor with an aggregate processor I/O bandwidth of approximately 100 gigabytes-per-second, Rambus said.

[allpar]

Pontiac may have a G6, but as I recall, cellphone tech has a G3. I'm sure there are lots of Gs out there, but a trademark only extends to one domain...

[SiliconAddict]

Yup

But i think that it would take a very long to re-write the OS


Which begs the question is this the CPU that will be powering Mac OS 11?

The time frame could be right? :confused: Another 4-5 years down the road. The question is does the G5 have long enough legs to take Apple that far. Since there is now talk of dual core my _guess_ is yes.

[nagromme]

I've seen rumors (maybe more?) that although Apple worked with IBM on creating a desktop POWER4 variant (the PPC 970 aka G5) after POWER4 already existed... but that with POWER5, Apple and IBM have worked together on the desktop flavor from the start. Implication: that a POWER5 Mac chip (PPC 980 or whatever it might be called) would follow closely on the heels of POWER5.

If that's true, then the POWER5 desktop chip Apple is likely to use as a "G6" is probably NOT the Cell processor, but rather a different POWER5 chip.

The Cell is interesting too, but it's not the ONLY thing beyond the G5.

(And it's possible Apple might choose to keep the G5 name for both POWER4 and POWER5 chips. Regardless, POWER5 is the generation leap I am waiting for to buy a PowerMac. Good thing my G4 already has enough speed for me!)

[obeygiant]

judging on how bad the movie "the cell" was, i'm not expecting these anytime soon. :p

prolly MWDC 2008.

[mrclark411]

Which begs the question is this the CPU that will be powering Mac OS 11?

The time frame could be right? :confused: Another 4-5 years down the road. The question is does the G5 have long enough legs to take Apple that far. Since there is now talk of dual core my _guess_ is yes.

I agree completely. Tiger will probably not support a Cell processor in any variation. Jobs himself has said that the rate of new OS X releases will slow down considerably, meaning Tiger is ours for the next 2-3 years, easy.

Apple will also want to wait for IBM to get their manufacturing backlogs and processes fixed. More than once Apple has sold fewer macs due to IBM. Look for Apple to wait for the PlayStation and other console-like sales to level off before they release a Cell based Mac.

[dlfitch]

Digging through this speculation...

http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell0.html

...leads one to think that a Cell might not replace a G5 (or G6) for ALL tasks. But might be used ALONGSIDE one, in theory. (And it also suggests that developing for the Cell could be more difficult than for traditional processors.)

All speculative, but it could be one more reason why Apple chose wisely in going with PPC over x86.

My expectation is still that the G6 will be a POWER5-based chip, but I'm sure Apple won't ignore Cell IF it truly has Mac potential.

I was surprised at how much information the guy had crammed into that report when I found it, I'm glad it's now getting some attention around here... skip ahead to the Cell vx. The PC chapter for some Apple related stuff.

I think people don't understand the emulation that the Cell is capable of. Even if no OS X programs are ever written for the processor, you could just emulate everything and still run it faster on a Cell than a G5/G6, etc. Even better you could have a G6 AND a Cell in one PowerMac, but you would still be better off emulating most stuff in the Cell than using the G6 for anything more than the most basic tasks.

The same goes for PCs, people have talked about x86 computers with no x86 chip... and if you do use a CPU in it, it doesn't really matter if it's a cheap Celeron or an Opteron because the APU(s) - the cell chips - do almost everything. The Blanchford article mentions that Intel could stick a dozen cores onto a chip and a single cell would still be faster. Plus, if they do manage to catch up, you can just stick a few more Cells into your system and get a proportional speed boost.

Apple had better take interest in this...

[CTerry]

Personally I doubt that the Cell will ever be found in a Mac, but IBM could surely use what they learn from the Cell and put that knowledge back into the G5 and any future processors they make for the Mac.

[Xapplimatic]

The new multicode processor will top out at 4GHz and is designed to power a variety of operating systems.

..could it not be that one of those "operating systems" is OS X?

Furthermore, isn't it likely that this is also the same system which is like all of IBM's Power series processors able to run multiple OS' simulataneously?

I can foresee PowerMacs running Windows, Linux, and OS X apps natively, simultaneously...

I also find it likely that this didn't just "come out of the blue".. Surely it is based on something existing, and more than likely, with IBM as a chief partner in it, I would stab a bet on Power architecture (therefore being PPC friendly)...

[Stike]

I read that the Cell consists of one DualCore Power5 derivative with 512 kB L2 cache and 8 (eight!) on-chip vector-processing units, each with its own 256 kB cache.
It is supposed to scale up to 5 GHz but it would run too hot, since its in 90 nm process and @4.6 GHz emits 85°Celsius.

Since at its core its a PPC chip, I would guess that Steve has at least an eye on it... who knows...! ;)

[hvfsl]

Well if Apple does release a new Mac using the Cell chip, I think they should think up a new naming scheme. Maybe PowerMac Evolution.

[wrldwzrd89]

I read that the Cell consists of one DualCore Power5 derivative with 512 kB L2 cache and 8 (eight!) on-chip vector-processing units, each with its own 256 kB cache.
It is supposed to scale up to 5 GHz but it would run too hot, since its in 90 nm process and @4.6 GHz emits 85°Celsius.

Since at its core its a PPC chip, I would guess that Steve has at least an eye on it... who knows...! ;)
I'm not sure about the controller chip being dual core - actually, this thing technically has 9 cores: one controller and eight vector processing units. 4.6 GHz is awfully fast when compared to today's best from Intel...but when you've got technology like this, capable of as much performance as you have Cells to spare, what difference does it make?

This thing will make the PS3 fly. The PS2 was a pretty radical design, and programming it isn't easy, yet it manages to keep up with the GameCube and Xbox. The PS3, however, will be even more radical and even tougher to program...if done right, only another Cell-based machine will be able to beat it - at least until a "Cell-killer" is invented.

[GFLPraxis]

I wonder how many of you guys actually read the articles about Cell (specificly, this one
http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell0.html
posted above). It's not a stand-alone processor, per say. It's an APU. It won't replace the processor.

A Cell system will still require a Power Architecture chip (aka, POWER4, POWER5, or PowerPC 970 [aka G5]). That means if Apple did use it, it would be added IN ADDITION to the G5 processor. We don't need a new naming scheme, people; we'd still have a PowerMac G5, it'd just have multiple Cell processors in addition to the G5 processor.

Since Apple and HP both like using the + symbol alot...maybe they'll call it PowerMac G5 + Cell? ;)


http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell_Arch.gif

See the bit labeled "Processor Unit (PU)"? That's where the G5 goes (as it says even in the picture). The APUs are the Cells.




On the subject of consoles...
This is what I forsee:

PlayStation 3 shall be the master of graphics, with the Cell chip.

Nintendo Revolution shall be the master of gameplay, with gyroscopic controllers and out-of-the-box online play (it's about time, Nintendo!), and possibly a hard drive (the HD is leak/rumor), DS connectivity and possibly built in Wi-Fi.

XBox 2 shall suck, with graphics far inferior to the PS3 and none of the uniqueness of the NR, plus no HD in the stock model. Halo fanboys will be the main buyers. Bill Gates will cry.

[benpatient]

wow. you guys aren't so hot on the up-take.

can someone edit the front page news post to "mention" that the chip won't "top out" at 4ghz, but in fact has already exceeded this speed?

I can't believe that you guys think Apple is in any way involved with this program. they are not going to use CELL.

"hey, nabisco likes cool new technology, i can't imagine why Nabisco isn't going to team up with IBM to create a new CELL-based triscuit...cancel your powerbook orders, everyone..."

sheish.

[billystlyes]

Wow this could hurt Intel !! Could some this techology be built into future G5's?

[benpatient]

here's a picture of a CELL chip with 8 SPEs and one 64-bit PPE (capable of 2 instructions per clock)...thus 10 simultaneous (max) operations per clock. That's theoretical peak, of course...which is not real life, but the potential is there.

http://gearmedia.ign.com/gear/image/article/585/585862/details-on-cell-20050207005224717-000.jpg

10 operations per clock X 4 billion clocks per second=40 billion operations per second.

So something isn't quite being added up properly from the initial specs they've give us.

[lom8104]

"Cell is based on the core of IBM's existing Power processor line, and is designed to work with a variety of software packages.."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&u=/nm/20050207/tc_nm/tech_cell_dc_4&printer=1

Does this mean that OS X will run natively on it?

[dongmin]

I wonder how many of you guys actually read the articles about Cell (specificly, this one
http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell0.html
posted above). It's not a stand-alone processor, per say. It's an APU. It won't replace the processor.

A Cell system will still require a Power Architecture chip (aka, POWER4, POWER5, or PowerPC 970 [aka G5]). That means if Apple did use it, it would be added IN ADDITION to the G5 processor. We don't need a new naming scheme, people; we'd still have a PowerMac G5, it'd just have multiple Cell processors in addition to the G5 processor.Sorry, but my reading of the article is that the Cell comprises all of those components in the diagram, not just the APUs. I'm no engineer (nor do I play one on TV), but from the article, the APUs are more like the Altivec units in a PPC970.

[GFLPraxis]

wow. you guys aren't so hot on the up-take.

can someone edit the front page news post to "mention" that the chip won't "top out" at 4ghz, but in fact has already exceeded this speed?

I can't believe that you guys think Apple is in any way involved with this program. they are not going to use CELL.

"hey, nabisco likes cool new technology, i can't imagine why Nabisco isn't going to team up with IBM to create a new CELL-based triscuit...cancel your powerbook orders, everyone..."

sheish.


Apple is not involved in making the Cell, but they could use it. It's designed to work alongside PowerPC processors, so why not?

After all, my Pismo has an IBM hard drive. Apple wasn't involved in making it, but they still use it :p

The fact is, I can't see a good reason for Apple NOT to use Cell.

[GFLPraxis]

"Cell is based on the core of IBM's existing Power processor line, and is designed to work with a variety of software packages.."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&u=/nm/20050207/tc_nm/tech_cell_dc_4&printer=1

Does this mean that OS X will run natively on it?

Like I said, Cell requires a PowerPC or POWER processor (such as a G5) as the PU, and the Cells are APUs. Even without being Cell optimized, my guess is that OS X should natively run on a Cell system (though it won't use the Cells, so will run at whatever speed the G5 is running at).

[dongmin]

I can't believe that you guys think Apple is in any way involved with this program. they are not going to use CELL.Yeah this isn't going into a Mac anytime soon, but maybe in the distant distant future. No one would've ever guessed that a Power4 was going into a Mac, but it did, with some modifications of course. The Cell, as is, won't go into the current generation of Macs which relies heavily on Altivec. But maybe down the road.

The other possibility for the Cell is within the iPod family. If it can power PDAs and Sony Playstations, why not the next generation of iPods and iPod Home devices?

[GFLPraxis]

Yeah this isn't going into a Mac anytime soon, but maybe in the distant distant future. No one would've ever guessed that a Power4 was going into a Mac, but it did, with some modifications of course. The Cell, as is, won't go into the current generation of Macs which relies heavily on Altivec. But maybe down the road.

The other possibility for the Cell is within the iPod family. If it can power PDAs and Sony Playstations, why not the next generation of iPods and iPod Home devices?

Cell powered iPod Video and iNewton next Tuesday!

[Xtremehkr]

Sony might have something say about Apple using the Cell chip. They are still competitors in a lot of areas. However, the Apple-Sony relationship seems pretty cozy. Cozy enough to let that guy from Sony come and ramble unintelligably at the last big Apple forum.

Maybe Sony and Apple laptops will share the chip while Sony makes the jump to using OSX. Ok, that's dam near an impossibility, but it would be a coup.

I am so glad that Sony is not rolling over and letting M$ take over another industry. Sony is not making life easy for XBox. The Halo series may be te he only thing that keeps the XBox alive alive. I heard XBox 3 (code name Xenon) is coming out this year, but there is little hype so far. I wonder what that may mean.

I wonder how much Sony invested in this chip?

[vitaboy]

Like I said, Cell requires a PowerPC or POWER processor (such as a G5) as the PU, and the Cells are APUs. Even without being Cell optimized, my guess is that OS X should natively run on a Cell system (though it won't use the Cells, so will run at whatever speed the G5 is running at).

GFLPraxis, I think you have it all wrong. Here's a more detailed article from Electronics Weekly

IBM, Sony, Toshiba present Cell (http://www.electronicsweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=38754&liArticleTypeID=1&liCategoryID=1&liChannelID=114&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1)

Here's the key paragraph:

The version of Cell announced today contains eight 64-bit floating point processors, referred to as synergistic processor elements (SPEs). Along side these is a 64-bit Power processor capable of running two threads.

Basically, the Cell has 9 cores. One of the cores is a PowerPC derivative, which control 8 other "synergestic processing elements" that do the heavy computational lifting.

To put it another way, it's like a PowerPC with "HyperThreading" (to borrow Intel's marketing terminology) core with 8 separate Altivec (Velocity Engine) units working in parallel. Except that the SPE far outform the Altivec units in the G4s and G5s.

Consider this: a dual 2.0 GHz Xserve G5 can do 30 gigaflops.

A single Cell chip can do 256 gigaflops.

All I can say is, Apple better be finding a way to utilize the Cell in its G5s. Gigaflops won't speed up Microsoft Word, but can you imagine 10x faster iMovies exports, Motion effects, and other computationally intensive operations than a top-of-the-line PowerMac today? And with Tiger pushing off virtually all the rendering of the interface to the GPU, you'd be looking at major, major performance in OS X from top to bottom.

Actually, with the Cell, you wouldn't even need a separate ATI or NVIDIA card. Apple would need to rewrite Quartz and Quartz Extreme calls to hook directly into the Cell's SPEs, and other graphics drivers, but having the Cell's SPEs do all the graphics work is probably going to be way faster than any video card (the 100 gigabits per second bandwidth to memory that the Cell has definitely helps)

[GFLPraxis]

Sony might have something say about Apple using the Cell chip. They are still competitors in a lot of areas. However, the Apple-Sony relationship seems pretty cozy. Cozy enough to let that guy from Sony come and ramble unintelligably at the last big Apple forum.

Maybe Sony and Apple laptops will share the chip while Sony makes the jump to using OSX. Ok, that's dam near an impossibility, but it would be a coup.

I am so glad that Sony is not rolling over and letting M$ take over another industry. Sony is not making life easy for XBox. The Halo series may be te he only thing that keeps the XBox alive alive. I heard XBox 3 (code name Xenon) is coming out this year, but there is little hype so far. I wonder what that may mean.

I wonder how much Sony invested in this chip?

XBox 2, not 3...
Rumor has it that after the loss MS took on the XBox, they'll drop out of the console market if XBox 2 fails again.

Considering that the XBox will be them most disadvantaged console, I expect MS to lose badly.

The XBox 1 got a lot of FPS nuts because of the dual triggers. But Nintendo is going to get the FPS fans this time around with gyroscopic controllers, and PS3 is going to get the graphics nuts with the Cell processor. Microsoft...will get Halo fans. That's about it.

[Hiroshige]

iPray for Cell processors for Macs. If Apple did introduce a cell-based Mac, it would not be called a PowerMac. It would be called something else entirely as the entire OS would have to be re-written to Cray-like efficiency.


The OS already is written to such standards. The Virginia Tech machine (#4 in the world on the TOP500 List) and other XServe clusters use OS X. It's a matter of porting the OS to the Cell architecture, not so much improving the quality of the OS.

[GFLPraxis]

GFLPraxis, I think you have it all wrong. Here's a more detailed article from Electronics Weekly

IBM, Sony, Toshiba present Cell (http://www.electronicsweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=38754&liArticleTypeID=1&liCategoryID=1&liChannelID=114&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1)

Here's the key paragraph:

The version of Cell announced today contains eight 64-bit floating point processors, referred to as synergistic processor elements (SPEs). Along side these is a 64-bit Power processor capable of running two threads.

Basically, the Cell has 9 cores. One of the cores is a PowerPC derivative, which control 8 other "synergestic processing elements" that do the heavy computational lifting.

To put it another way, it's like a PowerPC with "HyperThreading" (to borrow Intel's marketing terminology) core with 8 separate Altivec (Velocity Engine) units working in parallel. Except that the SPE far outform the Altivec units in the G4s and G5s.

Consider this: a dual 2.0 GHz Xserve G5 can do 30 gigaflops.

A single Cell chip can do 256 gigaflops.

All I can say is, Apple better be finding a way to utilize the Cell in its G5s. Gigaflops won't speed up Microsoft Word, but can you imagine 10x faster iMovies exports, Motion effects, and other computationally intensive operations than a top-of-the-line PowerMac today?

I still got the basic architecture right (PowerPC core + several Cell units = Cell chip). You're probably right that it won't run natively though, but it should be fairly easy to port. Sorta like the special edition Jaguar they released for the G5, remember? While it's not the same thing, they might release a cell-enabled version of OS X just for the Cell systems.

[Xtremehkr]

XBox 2, not 3...
Rumor has it that after the loss MS took on the XBox, they'll drop out of the console market if XBox 2 fails again.

Considering that the XBox will be them most disadvantaged console, I expect MS to lose badly.

The XBox 1 got a lot of FPS nuts because of the dual triggers. But Nintendo is going to get the FPS fans this time around with gyroscopic controllers, and PS3 is going to get the graphics nuts with the Cell processor. Microsoft...will get Halo fans. That's about it.

Yeah, XBox2, not three. I don't pay that much attention, they are almost interchangable for me. I do enjoy Halo though.

The price may make a difference, how much is Sony going to charge for this monster?

[anjaki]

Check this out for more info....

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/the_next_wave_a_closer_peek_at_sonys_cell_patent_what_are_we_missing

The plot thickens!!!!!

[vitaboy]

The OS already is written to such standards. The Virginia Tech machine (#4 in the world on the TOP500 List) and other XServe clusters use OS X. It's a matter of porting the OS to the Cell architecture, not so much improving the quality of the OS.

Very true. Let's not forget Apple is the master of platform porting.

Apple managed to movie from the Motorola 68K CISC-based architecture to the PowerPC 601 RISC-based platform in the 1990s almost seemlessly. Think about that. Apple moved the OS from one chip architecture to a completely different chip architecture ALREADY without sacrificing performance and still maintaining compatability with 99% of the old apps.

Since the Cell already has one 64-bit POWER core, it should be relatively trivial to do the necessary legwork to get OS X to run on the Cell.

[Hiroshige]

Check this out for more info....

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/the_next_wave_a_closer_peek_at_sonys_cell_patent_what_are_we_missing

The plot thickens!!!!!


That is a very interesting link...a person can probably invest based on that kind of information!

[ASP272]

iCell you my iBook for $5 if these end up in a PowerMac. Just aint gonna happen. iPod, hopefully! :D

[vitaboy]

I still got the basic architecture right (PowerPC core + several Cell units = Cell chip). You're probably right that it won't run natively though, but it should be fairly easy to port. Sorta like the special edition Jaguar they released for the G5, remember? While it's not the same thing, they might release a cell-enabled version of OS X just for the Cell systems.

That's true, but one distinction that should be stressed is that the PowerPC core is not an "option." Your post made it seem like the PowerPC wasn't integrated into the Cell, when the PPC core itself is an integral part of the Cell.

So if Apple were to use the Cell, it wouldn't run alongside the PPC 970 already in the G5 machines - the Cell would probably replace the G5 chips entirely. For one thing, the Cell requires very high bandwidth, specialized memory from Rambus (that's not even on the market yet). The G5's memory architecture, as robust as it is, would not be compatible with the Cell at all.

On that note, this is actually an argument against the Apple adopting the Cell. Relying on proprietary Rambus memory would make things VERY expensive, as history has shown. It was just a few years ago that some PC makers were using Rambus memory for some versions of the P4 (because Intel made those Pentiums compatible with only Rambus memory). That made adding memory to those PCs two or three times more expensive than using the DDR memory you find in every PC and Mac today.

Disappointing that Sony would work with a company with such an questionable and convoluted corporate history as Rambus....

[Lacero]

Didn't I read an article that Rambus is changing their business practices so that their next memory technology won't go down crashing that was RDRAM memory.

[GFLPraxis]

Didn't I read an article that Rambus is changing their business practices so that their next memory technology won't go down crashing that was RDRAM memory.

Yeah, I saw that on Slashdot...

[vitaboy]

Didn't I read an article that Rambus is changing their business practices so that their next memory technology won't go down crashing that was RDRAM memory.

The proof will be in the pudding, as they say. Or, we won't know until it actually happens. Let's hope that partnering with Rambus won't be a huge mistake. It's possible Sony partnered Rambus for legacy reasons - I think the PS2 also uses specialized Rambus memory.

[vitaboy]

I've listed some pros and cons to Apple adopting the Cell for Macs

Pro:


PC-busting performance (30 gigaflops for a dual 2.0 GHz PowerMac G5 vs 256 gigaflops for a single Cell)
Economies of scale (they will be pumping out tens of millions of Cells each year, compared to the few million 970s that are used in G5 machines)
Ability to run multiple OSs simultaneously (although it's not clear how this will be implemented yet)
Scalable architecture (the first Cell will have one PPC core and 8 SPEs....imagine a 2nd or 3rd generation Cell with 4 PPCs and 32 SPEs....or imagine a PowerMac that can do 1000 gigaflops....1 teraflops of power on your desktop!)
Marketing heaven (imagine the PR coup Apple would net at announcing a "Cellular" PowerMac)



Cons:


New architecture (unknown how feasible it will be to port OS X to the Cell, even with the Power instruction core. Also, Cell is not a proven technology)
Rambus memory required (sure, 512 MB in a PS3 may be more than enough for a console, but how expensive will it be to stick 8 GB in a Mac?)
Compatability (even if OS X is ported to the Cell, is that enough to guarantee 99% compatability with existing software and hardware?)
Timing (unknown when the Cell will see the light of day)

[GFLPraxis]

I've listed some pros and cons to Apple adopting the Cell for Macs

Pro:


PC-busting performance (30 gigaflops for a dual 2.0 GHz PowerMac G5 vs 256 gigaflops for a single Cell)
Economies of scale (they will be pumping out tens of millions of Cells each year, compared to the few million 970s that are used in G5 machines)
Ability to run multiple OSs simultaneously (although it's not clear how this will be implemented yet)
Scalable architecture (the first Cell will have one PPC core and 8 SPEs....imagine a 2nd or 3rd generation Cell with 4 PPCs and 32 SPEs....or imagine a PowerMac that can do 1000 gigaflops....1 teraflops of power on your desktop!)
Marketing heaven (imagine the PR coup Apple would net at announcing a "Cellular" PowerMac)



Cons:


New architecture (unknown how feasible it will be to port OS X to the Cell, even with the Power instruction core. Also, Cell is not a proven technology)
Rambus memory required (sure, 512 MB in a PS3 may be more than enough for a console, but how expensive will it be to stick 8 GB in a Mac?)
Compatability (even if OS X is ported to the Cell, is that enough to guarantee 99% compatability with existing software and hardware?)
Timing (unknown when the Cell will see the light of day)


I think I can solve the 1st and 3rd con you list.

OS X can be modified (without completely re-optimizing it for Cell) to run on the PowerPC core for the cell processor. Of course, you don't get the speed boost except on specially optimized programs, though. But it guarantees compatibility with anything that will already run on a G5, and allows it to run Cell-specific programs at fast speed.

OR

Emulation. Design a Cell-centric version of OS X, and use emulation to run all older programs (heck, even Windows programs). If Cell is so vastly more powerful than current processors, heck, a Cell Mac could probably emulate faster than most x86 and current PPC processors RUN! As a result, a Cell-based OS X, using emulation, could run almost all current Mac programs with near-perfect compatability by emulating a G5, and specially designed Cell programs would run with an added boost. THat'd probably work better than the first.

Sorta like the 68k/PPC transition IIRC.

Furthermore, a Cell PowerMac could probably run VPC so ridiculously fast that it'd probably run faster than an actual Windows PC. :D

[Hattig]

http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell_Arch.gif

See the bit labeled "Processor Unit (PU)"? That's where the G5 goes (as it says even in the picture). The APUs are the Cells.


No, the grey box is a Cell, a Cell consists of:

1) 1 SMT (two thread) capable PowerPC Processing Core
- i.e., a single core POWER5 derivative, maybe cut down further because it isn't using much die size from the available die photos
2) 8 APUs, i.e., vector processors
3) A lot of on-chip bandwidth between these components!

[Plastic Chicken]

here's a picture of a CELL chip with 8 SPEs and one 64-bit PPE (capable of 2 instructions per clock)...thus 10 simultaneous (max) operations per clock. That's theoretical peak, of course...which is not real life, but the potential is there.

http://gearmedia.ign.com/gear/image/article/585/585862/details-on-cell-20050207005224717-000.jpg

10 operations per clock X 4 billion clocks per second=40 billion operations per second.

So something isn't quite being added up properly from the initial specs they've give us.

Vector operations. One instruction acts on multiple numbers. If the patent application as explained by Blachford (http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell0.html) is how it's actually implimented, then each SPE instruction will actually operate on 4 numbers, hence 4 operations.

so ( 2 operations + 8 instructions * 4 operations ) * 4 billion clocks per second = 136 billion operations per second.

But if it has a multiply-add instruction, and you pretend that's all it does, then you get 272 billion operations per second, which is roughly the cited 256 GFLOP.

Correction: from http://www.electronicsweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=38754&liArticleTypeID=1&liCategoryID=1&liChannelID=114&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1 Each 2.5x5.81mm SPE can issue two instructions per cycle to seven execution units using two pipelines. There is no out of order execution.
Thus, you don't to assume multiply-add operations to get to around 256 GFLOP

Correction: I works out somehow. I'm not a chip designer, I don't know how it all works.

[matticus008]

iPod Shuffle

iPod mini

iPod

iPod Photo

iPod Video a.k.a. iPod Cell. ;) :)



It had already been stated that iPod didn't have a powerful enough processor in the current and past generations and the Cell processor is scalable, so I think this will become a reality. :)

The Cell processor is too large for the current iPod enclosure. Maybe if they move up to say, a 7" LCD or so, the iPod Cell would be a strong seller as a replacement for portable DVD players (no need to lug around all the DVDs!)

[nek]

Consider this: a dual 2.0 GHz Xserve G5 can do 30 gigaflops.

A single Cell chip can do 256 gigaflops.

All I can say is, Apple better be finding a way to utilize the Cell in its G5s. Gigaflops won't speed up Microsoft Word, but can you imagine 10x faster iMovies exports, Motion effects, and other computationally intensive operations than a top-of-the-line PowerMac today? And with Tiger pushing off virtually all the rendering of the interface to the GPU, you'd be looking at major, major performance in OS X from top to bottom.


Its much faster than a G5. Where did you find the 256 gigaflops number? Based on a news release in November, IBM stated: "The companies expect that a one rack Cell processor-based workstation will reach a performance of 16 teraflops or trillions of floating point calculations per second."

I expect that IBM will be using this in their future cluster supercomputers. I don't think that Apple will use the Cell, but they will use the PowerPC core from it, and they will likely benefit from the rest of the design.

[AlanAudio]

When we migrated from 68K to PPC, I remember all sorts of tales about how emulation would allow computers to pretend to be other types and work faster than the real thing. We were told in glowing terms how RISC computers would be so fast that they could pretend to be anything the software writer wanted.

At the time it seemed entirely plausible, but the reality never quite lived up to the expectations.

This all seems totally plausible too, probably rather more plausible than before. Can we be sure that the reality will be close to the promise on this occasion ?

[GFLPraxis]

Its much faster than a G5. Where did you find the 256 gigaflops number? Based on a news release in November, IBM stated: "The companies expect that a one rack Cell processor-based workstation will reach a performance of 16 teraflops or trillions of floating point calculations per second."

I expect that IBM will be using this in their future cluster supercomputers. I don't think that Apple will use the Cell, but they will use the PowerPC core from it, and they will likely benefit from the rest of the design.

One rack is not equal to one chip. Basic math :rolleyes:

256 x 64 = approx. 16 teraflops. So one rack has 64 of these processors.

Actually, a Cell processor can have as many cell units as needed (these figures are for one with eight cell units and a PowerPC PU). So if you made a big one...

The Cell processor is too large for the current iPod enclosure. Maybe if they move up to say, a 7" LCD or so, the iPod Cell would be a strong seller as a replacement for portable DVD players (no need to lug around all the DVDs!)

A slightly larger enclosure just big enough to actually see the video should do it easily. We don't need all 8 APUs, one should easily do the trick for an iPod video.

[GFLPraxis]

When we migrated from 68K to PPC, I remember all sorts of tales about how emulation would allow computers to pretend to be other types and work faster than the real thing. We were told in glowing terms how RISC computers would be so fast that they could pretend to be anything the software writer wanted.

At the time it seemed entirely plausible, but the reality never quite lived up to the expectations.

This all seems totally plausible too, probably rather more plausible than before. Can we be sure that the reality will be close to the promise on this occasion ?

Because we now HAVE emulation, and we SEE how it works.

Look at Virtual PC...we have a visible example of the type of performance you get.

Now, if you multiply that speed by 10x...you get some VERY useful emulation speeds.

So the only question is, will Cell perform as good as hyped? If so, then the emulation should be ridiculously fast.

[eclipse525]

The New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/technology/07chip.html?ex=1108443600&en=78e28644451c5c3d&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY) Mentions of Apple's possible roll in the Cell Chip scenario. It seems that it IS a possiblity but Apple's still not convinced.


~e

[maxvamp]

I found through the Altivec mail list this (http://www.scee.presscentre.com/imagelibrary/detail.asp?
MediaDetailsID=25555) Sony news announcement site.

For me, the most important paragraph found in the details doc at the bottom ( open the word doc ) is the following:


• Contains 64-bit Power ArchitectureTM with VMX that is a dual thread SMT design – views system memory as a 10-way coherent threaded machine

Since the news point out that a target for this chip is for embedded applications, I think we found our PowerBook proc.

I also have recently read more on the OS independence. Essentially, the cell can also emulate in hardware an instruction set. Couple that with the ability to run multiple OSs at once, and you now have a single chip that can run PPC and x86 instructions simultaneously.

Should be fun!!

Max.

[vitaboy]

Its much faster than a G5. Where did you find the 256 gigaflops number? Based on a news release in November, IBM stated: "The companies expect that a one rack Cell processor-based workstation will reach a performance of 16 teraflops or trillions of floating point calculations per second."

I expect that IBM will be using this in their future cluster supercomputers. I don't think that Apple will use the Cell, but they will use the PowerPC core from it, and they will likely benefit from the rest of the design.

It's in the News.com article:

PlayStation 3 chip has split personality (http://news.com.com/PlayStation+3+chip+has+split+personality/2100-1043_3-5566340.html)

Cell can process 256 billion calculations per second (256 gigaflops), falling a wee bit short of marketing hyperbole calling it a "supercomputer on a chip." The slowest machine on the current list of the Top 500 supercomputers can do 851 gigaflops.

Where does IBM get the 16 teraflops figure? "The companies expect that a one rack Cell processor-based workstation will reach a performance of 16 teraflops or trillions of floating point calculations per second."

The biggest standard-sized rack you can get is 48U or enough to stack 48 XServes on top of each other.

48 * 256 gigaflops = 12,288 gigaflops or about 12 teraflops.

Or if you had a dual processor Cell server, you would have

48 * 2 * 256 gigaflops = 24,476 gigaflops or 24 teraflops

But you have racks that are 24U, 25U, 40U, etc. Apple uses a 42U rack on its Xserve page. So IBM could have used whatever size rack to come up with the 16 teraflops number, but here's the money line:

A single rack of Cell-powered single processor 1U servers would theoretically have the same processing power as the hundreds of Xserves that make up System X at Virginia Tech.

Also, there is no way Apple can "use the PowerPC core from [the Cell]."

The PPC core is integral to the Cell's design. It is not "separate" from the Cell, as seems to be the misconception that several people have stated in this thread. You might as well say that Apple can use the PowerPC core from the G5 and strip off the Altivec unit (which is not an option when ordering G5s from IBM).

Again: the Cell is 1 PowerPC core + 8 SPE ("Altivec-like") cores. These 9 cores make up one chip that is called the Cell. The PPC core by itself is useless for Apple's purposes - you wouldn't have an FPU nor Altivec. The last time we saw a chip without an FPU was, hmmm, the Motorola 68000 or the Intel 286. If Apple uses the Cell, it needs to commit to the entire chip.

[GFLPraxis]

When the term was originally developed, a 'supercomputer' was a computer that did over a billion calculations per second.

That's why Apple even calls the G4 a "supercomputer on a chip"- even the older 1 GHz eMac can hit 7 gflops.

So they can't deny that it's a 'supercomputer on a chip' ;)

[GFLPraxis]

Also, there is no way Apple can "use the PowerPC core from [the Cell]."

The PPC core is integral to the Cell's design. It is not "separate" from the Cell, as seems to be the misconception that several people have stated in this thread. You might as well say that Apple can use the PowerPC core from the G5 and strip off the Altivec unit (which is not an option when ordering G5s from IBM).

Again: the Cell is 1 PowerPC core + 8 SPE ("Altivec-like") cores. These 9 cores make up one chip that is called the Cell.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you have a dual core processor, single-threaded apps or OSes will only use the first core, correct? What would be the difficulty in only using one core (the PPC one)?

Either way, emulation would be the best solution. Make a Cell-optimized OS X and add PPC emulation...

[AlanAudio]

Because we now HAVE emulation, and we SEE how it works.

Look at Virtual PC...we have a visible example of the type of performance you get.

Now, if you multiply that speed by 10x...you get some VERY useful emulation speeds.

So the only question is, will Cell perform as good as hyped? If so, then the emulation should be ridiculously fast.

But that was really my question.

We were previously sold the idea of emulation because PPC chips were going to be so much faster than CISC chips and a PC could be emulated.

In reality, the CISC chips got faster and for a while the PPC ones didn't.

Virtual PC certainly emulates a PC, but it does it at a rather low speed.

Chips running 10x faster sound fantastic right now, but I just get this Deja Vu feeling.

I just hope I'm wrong.

[wrldwzrd89]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you have a dual core processor, single-threaded apps or OSes will only use the first core, correct? What would be the difficulty in only using one core (the PPC one)?

Either way, emulation would be the best solution. Make a Cell-optimized OS X and add PPC emulation...
They'll only use one core - not necessarily the first one, since the operating system scheduler could be running some system process on core 1 and assign the single-threaded application to core 2. There isn't really any difficulty with using one core if we assume that the operating system is Mac OS X - it intelligently allocates applications to processors/cores, thus preventing idle resources.

[GFLPraxis]

They'll only use one core - not necessarily the first one, since the operating system scheduler could be running some system process on core 1 and assign the single-threaded application to core 2. There isn't really any difficulty with using one core if we assume that the operating system is Mac OS X - it intelligently allocates applications to processors/cores, thus preventing idle resources.

so with that, couldn't Apple make a special version of OS X (like the 64-bit extensions version of Jaguar for G5s) that will use the PowerPC core for older PPC apps, guaranteeing compatability? (aka no emulation required)

[Plastic Chicken]

Where does IBM get the 16 teraflops figure? "The companies expect that a one rack Cell processor-based workstation will reach a performance of 16 teraflops or trillions of floating point calculations per second."

As said before, all you have to do is cram 64 cells into one box and you have 16 teraflops. It's very concievable that IBM would do something like this, especially with the cell.

[GFLPraxis]

But that was really my question.

We were previously sold the idea of emulation because PPC chips were going to be so much faster than CISC chips and a PC could be emulated.

In reality, the CISC chips got faster and for a while the PPC ones didn't.

Virtual PC certainly emulates a PC, but it does it at a rather low speed.

Chips running 10x faster sound fantastic right now, but I just get this Deja Vu feeling.

I just hope I'm wrong.

Yeah, you have a point. But at the point we're at now, PPC chips are barely behind x86 chips. Even a 2x speed boost would be a big deal, and a 3x or 4x boost would be excellent. A 5x boost or bigger would virtually guarantee that anyone doing heavy work would use a Mac, and would also see a large surge in Mac-only games. That would utterly CEMENT the scientific users (UNIX compatabilitiy + far better performance) and video editors (who are mostly Mac already, this would just pull the few still on Windows) in the Mac platform, and begin to attract the gamers (the only market Apple has failed to touch).

It'd be a huge deal for Apple.

[swissmann]

Is the G4 still under 3 GHz? Coming up 2 years when the promise was 1 year. What chip is going to get us there and beyond?

[Marianco]

If a $300 Playstation 3 can have 2 Cell Chips in it, then the Cell Chip is a hell of a lot cheaper than a G5 CPU. It is essentially a G5 on Steriods since it has 8 Altivec or similar units. It also uses up 30 watts - low enough for Powerbooks and air-cooled PlayStation 3s. Given the huge demand for the Cell chips as it is incorporated into all sorts of Consumer gadgets, I can't believe that Apple won't take advantage of it.

With the Cell Chip (AKA PowerPC on Steriods), Apple has a fast CPU which will be much less expensive than current Intel CPUS. Apple can also use 2 to 8 of them easily in one desktop.

If anything, the someone has to write programs for the Cell CPUs. The Japanese are poor computer programmers - thus it will be an American Company that will do the programming. Since the Cell is a PowerPC Variant, the Mac OS X is a natural platform for programming the Cell. You will be able to write Playstation 3 games on the Mac just as you will be able to program X-Box 2 games on the Mac (The X-Box 2 uses PowerPC chips).

[vitaboy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you have a dual core processor, single-threaded apps or OSes will only use the first core, correct? What would be the difficulty in only using one core (the PPC one)?

Either way, emulation would be the best solution. Make a Cell-optimized OS X and add PPC emulation...

It depends. The OS or the app itself could handle distributing workload across both cores, but it's not always possible to utilize both cores in parallel. For example, iMovie is not optimized for dual processors, so it runs essentially at the same speed on a single 1.8 GHz PowerMac as it does on a dual 1.8 Ghz PowerMac (only one processor is being used).

Final Cut Pro is dual processor aware, so most operations would get distributed over both processors. So renders will run much faster on the dual 1.8 Ghz.

Dual processors are also great when running multiple apps. So just running iMovie on a dual won't be any faster than on a single, but if you were running iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, iTunes, and GarageBand, even though none of these apps are multiprocessor-aware, OS X would step in an manage how the apps run. So OS X might decided to run iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, and iPhoto on Processor 1 and dedicate Processor 2 for GarageBand.

With dual core designs, instead of having two separate, discrete chips, chip designers decided to sequeeze two chips into the space of one. (Note quite, since you actually don't have two of everything). But the OS will see a dual core chip as two separate chips.

Both Intel and AMD are aggressively working on dual-core designs, i.e. two Pentiums for the price of one! IBM hasn't said very much about dual core plans for the PowerPC.

To make it even more confusing, the Cell's PowerPC core is NOT dual core (just one core, remember), but it's multi-threaded capable of running two threads simultaneously. This appears to be similar to the HyperThreading that P4 chips have. Multi-threading makes the chip "virtually" seem like two discrete chips to the OS. So a dual core Pentium with HyperThreading will look like four chips to the OS. Multi-threading isn't nearly as efficient as having multiple cores, but it does allow the chip's power to be much better utilized.

But you're right...if Apple decides to adopt the Cell, then I'm sure some kind of emulation will come into play. But again, not unprecedented - Apple emulated an entire 68020 instruction set in the PowerPC 601's cache, thereby allowing emulated apps to run as fast as (or even faster) than the fastest 68040 Macs of the day.

[vitaboy]

As said before, all you have to do is cram 64 cells into one box and you have 16 teraflops. It's very concievable that IBM would do something like this, especially with the cell.

In other words, the possibilities are mind-boggling. ;)

[GFLPraxis]

If a $300 Playstation 3 can have 2 Cell Chips in it, then the Cell Chip is a hell of a lot cheaper than a G5 CPU. It is essentially a G5 on Steriods since it has 8 Altivec or similar units. It also uses up 30 watts - low enough for Powerbooks and air-cooled PlayStation 3s. Given the huge demand for the Cell chips as it is incorporated into all sorts of Consumer gadgets, I can't believe that Apple won't take advantage of it.

I may be wrong, but I think it means that the PS3 has two of the Cell APU's in one chip.

The XBox 2 is supposed to have a two-core G5 btw.

With the Cell Chip (AKA PowerPC on Steriods), Apple has a fast CPU which will be much less expensive than current Intel CPUS. Apple can also use 2 to 8 of them easily in one desktop.

If anything, the someone has to write programs for the Cell CPUs. The Japanese are poor computer programmers - thus it will be an American Company that will do the programming. Since the Cell is a PowerPC Variant, the Mac OS X is a natural platform for programming the Cell. You will be able to write Playstation 3 games on the Mac just as you will be able to program X-Box 2 games on the Mac (The X-Box 2 uses PowerPC chips).

Yes, except the XBox 2 runs a Windows NT kernel IIRC with DirectX, so really, XBox 2 games will just be Windows games recompiled for PowerPC.

[vitaboy]

Because we now HAVE emulation, and we SEE how it works.

Look at Virtual PC...we have a visible example of the type of performance you get.

Now, if you multiply that speed by 10x...you get some VERY useful emulation speeds.

So the only question is, will Cell perform as good as hyped? If so, then the emulation should be ridiculously fast.

Actually, this is where we should turn down the hype. Remember, a Cell processor is 10x faster for certain types of operations. Like rendering photorealistic, 3D scenes for games like Doom 3 or rendering Toy Story 2 in real time.

The Cell almost certainly will not make VirtualPC 10x faster, even if Apple got OS X to run on it natively. The vast majority (probably 95%+) of the code in Virtual PC would utilize the single PowerPC core, and not utilize any of the 8 SPEs at all. Even FPU operations in VirtualPC are emulated, and don't touch the G5s FPU at all.

Realistically, the PowerPC core will be at most twice as fast as a 2.0 GHz G5 - almost all of it from the 4 GHz clock speed. With the multi-threaded design, you may see about 30% additional performance (depending on the app), but that's about it.

So VPC will be twice as fast realistically on a Cell Mac.

But yes, I would have to agree on the point that VPC will need to be 10x faster than it is on a dual 2.5 Ghz PowerMac to make the Cell Mac the perfect, no compromise machines for the Switcher.

[vitaboy]

If a $300 Playstation 3 can have 2 Cell Chips in it, then the Cell Chip is a hell of a lot cheaper than a G5 CPU. It is essentially a G5 on Steriods since it has 8 Altivec or similar units. It also uses up 30 watts - low enough for Powerbooks and air-cooled PlayStation 3s. Given the huge demand for the Cell chips as it is incorporated into all sorts of Consumer gadgets, I can't believe that Apple won't take advantage of it.

First of all, I don't believe Sony has announced a price tag for the PS3. Secondly, I don't think Sony has released any kind of detailed specs for the PS3 - they certainly have not said the PS3 will utilize two Cell chips. It's possible, but it's just speculation at this point.

My guess is that PS3 will come in at $399, or more. Just based on die size, it's a heckuva expensive chip. At this point, I think the Cell will be a far more expensive chip than the G5. Even at $399, I would bet that Sony will be selling at a loss for quite a while.

ADDENDUM: From IBM's website, it appears that the die size of the 970FX is just 65 mm square. The Cell is 221 mm square. All things being relatively equal in fab costs, the Cell will cost about 3.4 times more to produce than the G5s chips you find in the current PowerMacs.

[gotmac1]

This 'newbie' is learning a lot about chip architecture. Thanks for the lesson guys.

[Lacero]

Playstation 2 has been around for quite a while now. I remember seeing it in 2000 or 1999 4 months before it hit retail. PS3 should rock.

[Frobozz]

If you noticed this aint a PowerPC chip, no doubt it could be turned into one if apple wished it, but the G5 roadmap has been leaked for a while so I don't see the Cell fitting in anywhere. We still need dual core and higher speed increases. '3GHZ chip in 12 months' anyone?

*ahem* It IS a PowerPC Chip, and it's first run is 4.6GHz In fact, the 8 SPU's (cores) are controlled by a PowerPC POWER core that is not only a 64bit PowerPC, but has full AltiVec support.

Coverage of the press release from Sony:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/semis/10207791.html

... and here ...

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050207/cell_processor_5.html

... and if anyone is worried about it being vaporware, here's the chip lithography:

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=38754

Of note: IBM is going to sell workstations based on the chip. It doesn't take a leap of faith to realize that since this _is_ a Power 64bit PowerPC CPU, that Apple _could_ use it. I'm not saying the will, of course, but it certainly makes sense.

[GFLPraxis]

First of all, I don't believe Sony has announced a price tag for the PS3. Secondly, I don't think Sony has released any kind of detailed specs for the PS3 - they certainly have not said the PS3 will utilize two Cell chips. It's possible, but it's just speculation at this point.

My guess is that PS3 will come in at $399, or more. Just based on die size, it's a heckuva expensive chip. At this point, I think the Cell will be a far more expensive chip than the G5. Even at $399, I would bet that Sony will be selling at a loss for quite a while.

ADDENDUM: From IBM's website, it appears that the die size of the 970FX is just 65 mm square. The Cell is 221 mm square. All things being relatively equal in fab costs, the Cell will cost about 3.4 times more to produce than the G5s chips you find in the current PowerMacs.

Don't forget the extra cost of the Rambus RAM...

HOWEVER, different Cell chips have different numbers of APUs.
It's very possible that the PS3 will use a lower clocked PU (the PowerPC core) and only 2 APU's instead of 8 to make it cheaper. So the Cell that goes in the PS3 might be a lot cheaper to produce than the high end ones.

[Frobozz]

First of all, I don't believe Sony has announced a price tag for the PS3. Secondly, I don't think Sony has released any kind of detailed specs for the PS3 - they certainly have not said the PS3 will utilize two Cell chips. It's possible, but it's just speculation at this point. My guess is that PS3 will come in at $399 ...

Much speculation to this point exists, but not many people believe it'll be over $400. I think your estimation of $399 is spot-on.

From IBM's website, it appears that the die size of the 970FX is just 65 mm square. The Cell is 221 mm square. All things being relatively equal in fab costs, the Cell will cost about 3.4 times more to produce than the G5s chips you find in the current PowerMacs.

That's a bad comparison because die size is not the only factor in chip production cost. A better comparison for Cell are graphics cards.

For example, the nVidia 6800 graphics chip is 270mm. That's bigger than Cell (roughly 22% bigger.) The 6800 has 222 million transistors. Obviously there's still an issue of price and volume-- but that works to Cell's advantage. Cell will be in a LOT of mass produced products and this will bring the cost-per-chip down because of volume. In addition, Cell will be released at 65nm in the not-too-distant future, which will reduce the die size.

I think it's got a lot of promise.

[GFLPraxis]

Much speculation to this point exists, but not many people believe it'll be over $400. I think your estimation of $399 is spot-on.



That's a bad comparison because die size is not the only factor in chip production cost. A better comparison for Cell are graphics cards.

For example, the nVidia 6800 graphics chip is 270mm. That's bigger than Cell (roughly 22% bigger.) The 6800 has 222 million transistors. Obviously there's still an issue of price and volume-- but that works to Cell's advantage. Cell will be in a LOT of mass produced products and this will bring the cost-per-chip down because of volume. In addition, Cell will be released at 65nm in the not-too-distant future, which will reduce the die size.

I think it's got a lot of promise.

Here's a question. Could the Cell theoretically replace the graphics card? If it's so good with media, could OS X be modified to use Cell for OpenGL and all 3d calculations, meaning that Apple can remove the graphics card to make up for the extra cost of the cell processor?

Or is a dedicated graphics card still necessary?

(I know a considerable amount about processors, but not enough about GPUs)

[Platform]

Which begs the question is this the CPU that will be powering Mac OS 11?

The time frame could be right? :confused: Another 4-5 years down the road. The question is does the G5 have long enough legs to take Apple that far. Since there is now talk of dual core my _guess_ is yes.

When is the "Cell" cpu to be in new computer's and how long will the G5 live (wondering of getting a G5 :p )

[silvergunuk]

If this new chip is going to be incorporated into Apple products, we can safely assume it'll happen by mid 2006. The reason being that microsoft will be shipping longhorn around that period, so alot of people will be upgrading their pcs to run it, but if Apple come along with a macmini for $400 running a cell and OS Tiger, customers will think twice before upgrading to a new intel or amd pc.

[wrldwzrd89]

so with that, couldn't Apple make a special version of OS X (like the 64-bit extensions version of Jaguar for G5s) that will use the PowerPC core for older PPC apps, guaranteeing compatability? (aka no emulation required)
Maybe...it all depends on the Cell's design. If the Cell wasn't meant to be used in this way, then such an approach obviously won't work. If the PPC core can be used independently of the vector processing units, then doing what you suggested would be the perfect way to put a Cell based CPU in a Mac.

[Platform]

If this new chip is going to be incorporated into Apple products, we can safely assume it'll happen by mid 2006. The reason being that microsoft will be shipping longhorn around that period, so alot of people will be upgrading their pcs to run it, but if Apple come along with a macmini for $400 running a cell and OS Tiger, customers will think twice before upgrading to a new intel or amd pc.


Don't think that it is going to happen
becasue: They have already "made" OS X Tiger and to port it to the cell it need re-writing.
But if it does happen then a lot of people will at least have a closer look at apple before buying their next PC :D (if not hope for the wintel people that longhorn will be a whole lot better than XP but not likely :p )

[silvergunuk]

Isnt the cell based on a power pc core with extra vector units? if so it wouldnt be too hard to incorporate into a tiger update would it? im not very technical so it's all a wonder to me.

[all-devourer]

But that was really my question.

We were previously sold the idea of emulation because PPC chips were going to be so much faster than CISC chips and a PC could be emulated.

In reality, the CISC chips got faster and for a while the PPC ones didn't.

Virtual PC certainly emulates a PC, but it does it at a rather low speed.

Chips running 10x faster sound fantastic right now, but I just get this Deja Vu feeling.

I just hope I'm wrong.

Ermm...the emulation excitement was more of a 32bit v 16bit (or was it the 8 v 16?? I forget) question rather than RISC v CISC. The pre-PPC moto chips were also RISC. And the emulation DID play out exactly as anticipated...only they weren't talking about emulating x86 PCs, they were talking about emulating the older moto chips so everything was automagically backward compatible. And it worked perfectly. The PPC macs running the Mac OS in emulation were faster than the previous chips running natively. This is detailed somewhat in Insanely Great

[Xtremehkr]

Sony lose money on the console and there is already talk of more expensive games coming when the new consoles are released. Anywhere from a $5 to a $20 increase from what they are now.

And then there are all of the new peripherals to add which will help them recoup their loss on the console. If you're not dead set on being a first adopter, you could wait a year and get a really good price on a new console and have some second hand games available for purchase.

[relimw]

Also, there is no way Apple can "use the PowerPC core from [the Cell]."

The PPC core is integral to the Cell's design. It is not "separate" from the Cell, as seems to be the misconception that several people have stated in this thread. You might as well say that Apple can use the PowerPC core from the G5 and strip off the Altivec unit (which is not an option when ordering G5s from IBM).

Again: the Cell is 1 PowerPC core + 8 SPE ("Altivec-like") cores. These 9 cores make up one chip that is called the Cell. The PPC core by itself is useless for Apple's purposes - you wouldn't have an FPU nor Altivec. The last time we saw a chip without an FPU was, hmmm, the Motorola 68000 or the Intel 286. If Apple uses the Cell, it needs to commit to the entire chip.

From what I understood from IBM's press release last year, was that the Cell was setup to use whatever cores you wanted. The version being presented at ISSCC is just the version that Sony needs. For instance, if you needed 4 fpus and 2 gpu's and 2 vector units, you could have that configuration. The Cell would still have the ppc core for the 'traffic cop', and would effectively look like a ppc chip with fpu, gpu, and vector instructions added to it. Remember, this is a System on a Chip (SoC) setup, and different rules apply verus being a standard cpu setup.

[maxvamp]

Cell... Power Architecture
970... Power Architecture

What is this porting of OSX that everyone keeps talking about? The base instruction sets for both chips are the same. If anything, the process scheduler in OSX might need tweaked, but I doubt that this is a huge hurdle for Apple, Especially since OSX is based on Next, which in itself had proven to be incredibly portable...

Am I missing something?

Max.

[GrannySmith_G5]

some dude told me the cell processor was going to be absurdly radical and bodaciously awesome.

[wrldwzrd89]

some dude told me the cell processor was going to be absurdly radical and bodaciously awesome.
The design of the Cell is certainly radical when compared to the PowerPC 970 and the Pentium 4. It also is supposed to deliver awesome performance when programmed properly. I'd say this dude was right on the money.

[Lacero]

But why did they have to call it Cell? They shoulda called it "The Bodacious".

[blueflame]

I read someting recently that apple could be working on an even higher end workstation, for far more intensive use than the powermac, mabye this is its roots?
andreas

[SnakeDeath]

some dude told me the cell processor was going t
o be absurdly radical and bodaciously awesome.
I think That same dude told me it was FrEEKin SweeT!!! and totally Core! Can anyone set it straight whether it is radical or freekin sweet.

[GregA]

Personally I doubt that the Cell will ever be found in a Mac, but IBM could surely use what they learn from the Cell and put that knowledge back into the G5 and any future processors they make for the Mac.If the cell processor is as good as rumours and marketting/advertising say... then Apple will be looking at their Power options and deciding if it's worthwhile...

IF the chip is amazing, I'm sure it'll find it's way into Apple products.

[wizard]

If what informaiton I've seen is true I don't think that a major rewrite is needed at all. Apple has been structuring its software for a long time to leverage multiprocessing. Some things would fit naturally onto Cells structure.

Yeah some apps would take a bit longer to leverage the capability, but some never will. Just as some applicaitons today never leverage SMP.

Dave



Yup

But i think that it would take a very long to re-write the OS and apps so maby they come up with something else better than the cell cpu (IBM has been working on the next gen PowerPC cpu's for a long time, started even before the G5 was out, so let's just sit and wait) :p

[GFLPraxis]

Don't think that it is going to happen
becasue: They have already "made" OS X Tiger and to port it to the cell it need re-writing.
But if it does happen then a lot of people will at least have a closer look at apple before buying their next PC :D (if not hope for the wintel people that longhorn will be a whole lot better than XP but not likely :p )


So? They made a special G5 edition of Jaguar. What prevents them from making a special Cell edition of Tiger?

[GFLPraxis]

Cell... Power Architecture
970... Power Architecture

What is this porting of OSX that everyone keeps talking about? The base instruction sets for both chips are the same. If anything, the process scheduler in OSX might need tweaked, but I doubt that this is a huge hurdle for Apple, Especially since OSX is based on Next, which in itself had proven to be incredibly portable...

Am I missing something?

Max.

Scroll back, I said the same thing and it was explained.

[GFLPraxis]

If what informaiton I've seen is true I don't think that a major rewrite is needed at all. Apple has been structuring its software for a long time to leverage multiprocessing. Some things would fit naturally onto Cells structure.

Yeah some apps would take a bit longer to leverage the capability, but some never will. Just as some applicaitons today never leverage SMP.

Dave

I disagree, the performance increase would be worth it.

After all, people aren't still writing programs for 68k Macs and using emulation. When Apple has an all-cell lineup, people will start writing for Cell procs.

[dguisinger]

I haven't seen any mention of cache. On chips like the P4 and I beleive the 970 as well, 1/3 to 1/2 of the die is cache, easily. Therefore external bandwidth is lower.

What appears to happen here is Sony said: Hey, we want to fit more processing power in, ditch the cache, lets add a massively unnessecary amount of bandwidth for ram. Problem is, once they lost the cache, they are dependent on that bandwidth actually being there. If anyone in electronics is here, let us know what the proper signal length is for the speeds they are talking. I beleive it was 6Gbytes per second to ram....that is insane, the memory chips will have to be within centimeters of the Cell chip..... the question becomes can Sony make it work at the speeds they are needing.

Also, the ATI and NVidia chips are massively parrallel and have a ton of floating point power (and are programmable using shaders!). Remember that if Sony doesn't use a dedicated graphics chip, they are pushing all of that onto this chip. The chip isn't dedicated to 3D, and an existing PowerMac G5 cannot do 3D as well as current generation GPUs. So the 10x the power of a 970 isn't very accurate in terms of graphics performance, we don't yet know what this means for real-time graphics. For the people claiming this will seal the coffin on the XBox, don't count on it. We are atleast 1 generation away on ATI and Nvidia gaphics processors.... you have no idea what Microsoft will be using. As far as graphics power goes, they could have nearly identical power when all is said and done. While Sony may have done this because they can reprogram the chip to do things other than GPU, on a graphics intensive game you will rarely do that. On the other hand, the XBox2 will have a next-generation GPU, with probably 6 or 8 pipelines. And at the same time they will have a dual-core PPC-based core for all other functions such as AI, physics, sound, etc. I wouldn't count them out. I would bet Sony went with the Cell to reduce costs, assuming they could eliminate the GPU. However the grave mistake is they are now VERY dependent on Rambus for XDR memory and the two busses they licensed. I bet in the end, it will cost them more to produce even though they saved themselves from the GPU, and the power will be about equal between the two products.

[nagromme]

If a $300 Playstation 3 can have 2 Cell Chips in it, then the Cell Chip is a hell of a lot cheaper than a G5 CPU.
Except that consoles are often sold at a loss, to make money on games.

I still theink the Cell could be economical due to economies of scale, though.

[GFLPraxis]

I haven't seen any mention of cache. On chips like the P4 and I beleive the 970 as well, 1/3 to 1/2 of the die is cache, easily. Therefore external bandwidth is lower.

What appears to happen here is Sony said: Hey, we want to fit more processing power in, ditch the cache, lets add a massively unnessecary amount of bandwidth for ram. Problem is, once they lost the cache, they are dependent on that bandwidth actually being there. If anyone in electronics is here, let us know what the proper signal length is for the speeds they are talking. I beleive it was 6Gbytes per second to ram....that is insane, the memory chips will have to be within centimeters of the Cell chip..... the question becomes can Sony make it work at the speeds they are needing.

Also, the ATI and NVidia chips are massively parrallel and have a ton of floating point power (and are programmable using shaders!). Remember that if Sony doesn't use a dedicated graphics chip, they are pushing all of that onto this chip. The chip isn't dedicated to 3D, and an existing PowerMac G5 cannot do 3D as well as current generation GPUs. So the 10x the power of a 970 isn't very accurate in terms of graphics performance, we don't yet know what this means for real-time graphics. For the people claiming this will seal the coffin on the XBox, don't count on it. We are atleast 1 generation away on ATI and Nvidia gaphics processors.... you have no idea what Microsoft will be using. As far as graphics power goes, they could have nearly identical power when all is said and done. While Sony may have done this because they can reprogram the chip to do things other than GPU, on a graphics intensive game you will rarely do that. On the other hand, the XBox2 will have a next-generation GPU, with probably 6 or 8 pipelines. And at the same time they will have a dual-core PPC-based core for all other functions such as AI, physics, sound, etc. I wouldn't count them out. I would bet Sony went with the Cell to reduce costs, assuming they could eliminate the GPU. However the grave mistake is they are now VERY dependent on Rambus for XDR memory and the two busses they licensed. I bet in the end, it will cost them more to produce even though they saved themselves from the GPU, and the power will be about equal between the two products.

IIRC, the PS3 will have an NVidia graphics card...
If the PS3 can beat out the XBox 2 in the graphics department, it WILL nail the coffin, because the Nintendo Revolution will have the most unique gameplay and the PS3 would have the best graphics.

So the death of the XBox 2 hinges on the PS3.

HOWEVER, I seem to remember that the XBox 2 was going to be released before the PS3, and if that is true, that too would make it more likely the PS3 would have better graphics.

[dguisinger]

IIRC, the PS3 will have an NVidia graphics card...
If the PS3 can beat out the XBox 2 in the graphics department, it WILL nail the coffin, because the Nintendo Revolution will have the most unique gameplay and the PS3 would have the best graphics.

So the death of the XBox 2 hinges on the PS3.

HOWEVER, I seem to remember that the XBox 2 was going to be released before the PS3, and if that is true, that too would make it more likely the PS3 would have better graphics.

Lets not forget the level of problems IBM had with 90nm. They just finally got that all going well. If they have to make the Cell in 65nm just to get the cost down low enough, Sony is in trouble. There are no guarentees that the launch of a process that it will go smoothly, and Sony's timeline is probably VERY dependent on that supply being steady. One small mistake and it could destroy their launch, we've seen what its done to Apple's availability. There is one thing thats nice about what MS is doing: Tried and true technologies. Infact in the past, thats all Console vendors have ever done.... until you got up around the dreamcast....fail. PS2 only succeeded because Nintendo wasn't doing so hot and Dreamcast missed big time. PS1 and PS2 (PS2 specifically) were hell to program for, and full potential wasn't realized for years. Sony is really betting on an experimental platform.... for their sake I hope it works as well as they claim at launch. If the development tools aren't there, or if IBM can't get the chip in quantities....goodbye market leader.

As far as your statement of Sony using a NVidia chip. I haven't seen it mentioned; and I would find it doubtful. There is nothing else beyond graphics that needs 256GFlops of floating point. Sound comes no where close, physics doesn't need more than 1-2GFlops max... there is really no point to making a chip so powerful unless you want to remove the graphics processor.

Remember, these machines won't be used for compressing live HD video and compressing with the latest lossless codecs for broadcast studios, or doing the latest Final Cut Pro editing.... gaming consoles are 3D graphics and decoding only (primarly, i know they are starting to add PVR, but thats low-usage compared to the power they have here).

[remingtonhill]

the death of the XBox 2 hinges on the PS3.

HOWEVER, I seem to remember that the XBox 2 was going to be released before the PS3, and if that is true, that too would make it more likely the PS3 would have better graphics.[/QUOTE]
<<>>

Microsoft will never let this happen.

[GFLPraxis]

the death of the XBox 2 hinges on the PS3.

HOWEVER, I seem to remember that the XBox 2 was going to be released before the PS3, and if that is true, that too would make it more likely the PS3 would have better graphics.
<<>>

Microsoft will never let this happen.

Why not? Unless they delay the XBox to let the PS3 come out first (yeah, right. They got killed on the first one, being last to the market), the PS3 will probably have better graphics. Cell + a bit more time for new things to come on the market = probably a more powerful system.

If the PS3 ends up with better graphics, and the Nintendo with better gameplay, the XBox 2 will go down the gutter.

[GFLPraxis]

Lets not forget the level of problems IBM had with 90nm. They just finally got that all going well. If they have to make the Cell in 65nm just to get the cost down low enough, Sony is in trouble. There are no guarentees that the launch of a process that it will go smoothly, and Sony's timeline is probably VERY dependent on that supply being steady. One small mistake and it could destroy their launch, we've seen what its done to Apple's availability. There is one thing thats nice about what MS is doing: Tried and true technologies. Infact in the past, thats all Console vendors have ever done.... until you got up around the dreamcast....fail. PS2 only succeeded because Nintendo wasn't doing so hot and Dreamcast missed big time. PS1 and PS2 (PS2 specifically) were hell to program for, and full potential wasn't realized for years. Sony is really betting on an experimental platform.... for their sake I hope it works as well as they claim at launch. If the development tools aren't there, or if IBM can't get the chip in quantities....goodbye market leader.

As I said, the XBox 2 hinges on the PS3.

If the PS3 doesn't come through as promised, the XBox 2 may very well displace it, and it will be a war with the NR vs XBox 2. But if the PS3 does come through, XBox will have weaker graphics and not have the extra capabilities of the NR, and will die.


As far as your statement of Sony using a NVidia chip. I haven't seen it mentioned; and I would find it doubtful. There is nothing else beyond graphics that needs 256GFlops of floating point. Sound comes no where close, physics doesn't need more than 1-2GFlops max... there is really no point to making a chip so powerful unless you want to remove the graphics processor.

http://gear.ign.com/articles/571/571598p1.html
To quote:
"The press release basically states that NVIDIA is and has been working on a GPU for Sony's system for some time now, and unfortunately not a whole hell of a lot more than that. This sort of came from left field as it sounded like Sony's Cell processor was going to be doing all of the work in its upcoming console, including the graphical duties."

And, http://www.techimo.com/newsapp/i12702.html

And, http://www.ferrago.com/story/4910

[anjaki]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I've been reading up about this chip for the past few weeks and a couple of things have struck me:

1: IBM has bet the house on this thing, which means that either it's going to be huge or it will spell the end of IBM.

2: It will need an OS, there are 4 main options:

A version of Windows - not likely as no one wants to be held in a Microsoft half-nelson anymore.
Linux - not likely as it not very consumer friendly, and lacks overall control, think of the government.
A new OS - has anyone heard any rumours, I certainly haven't.
OS X - Already prized as the best OS out there, PowerPC experience, links to IBM, Sony etc.

[Evangelion]

I was surprised at how much information the guy had crammed into that report when I found it, I'm glad it's now getting some attention around here... skip ahead to the Cell vx. The PC chapter for some Apple related
stuff.

I would take his ramblings with a huge grain of salt: Link (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050124-4551.html). I think Ars Technica is propably the most respectable website when it comes to technical stuff. Hell, the guy who wrote the Cell-article talks about time-travel and anti-gravity on his website!

My thoughts and comment about the Cell: it looks very, very interesting. Will Apple use it? I don't know. But they would be stupid not to even consider it! While they would have to do some major re-designing of the hardware, it shouldn't be THAT hard in the end. As to software.... there shouldn't be that much problems. Hell, Cell even has Altivec!

[DavidCar]

There is a detailed explanation of Cell at ArsTechnica here, which is different from the link in the previous post. Also, a part II article is coming tomorrow with more details:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050207-4594.html

[dguisinger]

I would take his ramblings with a huge grain of salt: Link (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050124-4551.html). I think Ars Technica is propably the most respectable website when it comes to technical stuff.

My thoughts and comment about the Cell: it looks very, very interesting. Will Apple use it? I don't know. But they would be stupid not to even consider it! While they would have to do some major re-designing of the hardware, it shouldn't be THAT hard in the end. As to software.... there shouldn't be that much problems. Hell, Cell even has Altivec!


Hmm, well I would bet that if Apple were to use it, it would be a variation. Fewer ALUs, more cache, allowing for slower bus speeds and cheaper ram. Further more it would probably have dual primary cores. IBM has a certain agreement that they usually require on their design projects....that they can license the technology they develop. Hence once upon a time when IBM officially made intel chips (Intel used to use several companies such as IBM, AMD, and NEC, all with similar arrangements), after the arrangement was over IBM made the BlueLightning, a 486 class processor that really kicked ass.

I would it put it past IBM to redesign a desktop class processor with similar design elements but in a more-consumer grade design for lower cost parts and better mass-production capabilities. In that case, Apple would have more say.

Lets also remember that these are just MACs, Multiply-Add-Accumilator, from what we gather. While used quite often, they aren't the only functions used in floating point. We'll see if most applications really need 8 parallel MACs on a chip. If 95% don't, then Apple won't spend the money for a premium waste of CPU....

[AlanAudio]

A 5x boost or bigger would virtually guarantee that anyone doing heavy work would use a Mac, and would also see a large surge in Mac-only games. That would utterly CEMENT the scientific users (UNIX compatabilitiy + far better performance) and video editors (who are mostly Mac already, this would just pull the few still on Windows) in the Mac platform, and begin to attract the gamers (the only market Apple has failed to touch).

It'd be a huge deal for Apple.

Yep … that certainly makes perfect sense. I also think that those users would find many other benefits, apart from speed, if they switched to Apple.

However, forgive me for sounding like the pessimist again, but is there any reason why this is only good news for Apple ?

Couldn't PCs use the same technique to get similar speed increases ?

[Evangelion]

Hmm, well I would bet that if Apple were to use it, it would be a variation. Fewer ALUs, more cache,

Why more cache? Cell as it is has more cache that G5 does! The PPC-CPU in the cell has 512KB of L2-cache (same as G5) and each SPE has 256KB of local memory at it's disposal. The design that IBM now introduced has 2.5MB of cache/local RAM, and that's quite a bit more than what the G5 has.

Further more it would probably have dual primary cores.

Would you rather have two slower cores, or one faster core with SMT? I have no definite answer to that, but dual-cores are not a necessity. Besides, this thing alrady has 9 cores ;).

[wrldwzrd89]

Hmm, well I would bet that if Apple were to use it, it would be a variation. Fewer ALUs, more cache, allowing for slower bus speeds and cheaper ram. Further more it would probably have dual primary cores. IBM has a certain agreement that they usually require on their design projects....that they can license the technology they develop. Hence once upon a time when IBM officially made intel chips (Intel used to use several companies such as IBM, AMD, and NEC, all with similar arrangements), after the arrangement was over IBM made the BlueLightning, a 486 class processor that really kicked ass.

I would it put it past IBM to redesign a desktop class processor with similar design elements but in a more-consumer grade design for lower cost parts and better mass-production capabilities. In that case, Apple would have more say.

Lets also remember that these are just MACs, Multiply-Add-Accumilator, from what we gather. While used quite often, they aren't the only functions used in floating point. We'll see if most applications really need 8 parallel MACs on a chip. If 95% don't, then Apple won't spend the money for a premium waste of CPU....
Your acronym's a bit goofed up...shouldn't it be "MAA"? Anyway, I agree with your points.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I've been reading up about this chip for the past few weeks and a couple of things have struck me:

1: IBM has bet the house on this thing, which means that either it's going to be huge or it will spell the end of IBM.

2: It will need an OS, there are 4 main options:

A version of Windows - not likely as no one wants to be held in a Microsoft half-nelson anymore.
Linux - not likely as it not very consumer friendly, and lacks overall control, think of the government.
A new OS - has anyone heard any rumours, I certainly haven't.
OS X - Already prized as the best OS out there, PowerPC experience, links to IBM, Sony etc.


IBM has pushed linux boxes for about a year now... hasn't they...?

Edit: Took a look at IBM's pages and on most of the systems the sell you can choose between Win XP and Red Hat Enterprice as preloaded OS...

[johnadurcan]

A short story on where I think it is heading:

Speculation is mounting as to where the future plans of colaboration between Apple and Sony will lead. Often people suspect that it will be headed towards products that sony produce that will aid the Mac's infiltration into the home media segment, yet a deeper look into the pockets that could line both companies will undobtably show that their are bigger plans ahead.

With the recent news of the Cell Processor that will feature in a workstation and then later in the Playstation 3, the applications of the processor have been made apparent. Along with parallel processing of content their is another feature that is detailed of the processor. That of broadband shared processing. Since they seem to be flauting this at a consumer market with the PS3, why would we(the consumer) need to have grid processing?
The reason to this would seem to be that the consumer can have a richer experience of media across multiple platforms within the home, with plans already being made to place the cell processor in a multitude of applications from PC's, TV's and even fridges.

So why does this relate to the Mac, you ask? Well, since the cell processor is a collaboration between Sony, Ibm and Toshiba and the flexibility of the processor, we can assume that the three companies have plans to use it in a large array of their future products. Sony with the Playstation and TVs, Toshiba with their multitude of consumer electronics, and IBM with the Server and workstation range of computers.

Global domination here we come and move over intel and microsoft at the same time! Because, it is afterall, IBM who provides the PowerPC processor to Mac. With such large development costs placed into the Cell processor, it is almost undeniable that IBM will plan to use CELL as it's fore runner to the PowerPC. Since it is also RISC based, it provides the ideal transition processor platform for all it's previous PowerPC line.

Bottom Line: Cell processor is likely to be the new MAC G6 (or whatever they call it. Perhaps it will be called MacCell.)

So now onto the global domination plan. You can clearly see the future of all these products melded together. We all know that Sony is extremly worried about the future plans of microsoft with it's media center PC's, XBOX and variety of operating systems that support these platforms. So how can Sony compete with the Might of Microsoft while at the same time retain the look of a nice company that loves it's customers(Sony, Global Domination? Nah! Never! Or would they?)? The answer to this is already found in the preceeding paragraphs. That's right, CELL Processor. Because the Cell processor will allow a multitude of consumer products to work together in a more consumer friendly way. That is to say, 'press play and it plays'. Not 'press play, and set up this connection, then make sure this connection exists, and hold on, you need this patch, and restart this...'.

So consider this future collaboration between Sony and MAC: Sony announces the new Sony Playstation 3 around the same time that Mac announces the new G6 Cell based Mac. They both announce the collaboration of joint projects to allow media content sharing in the home allowing your MAC to be based in the office with all the media content, and the PS3 able to access that content. In addition, the MAC can access the PS3 processor to ofload processing tasks and also assist in heavy duty tasks such as video rendering and 3D rendering.

Think it sounds far fetched? Well think how microsoft are thinking. You know that they are planning to do the same with the XBOX 2 and PC.

The only two questions are: Who can do it better and who can market it better? I think I know the answer to the first question but the second could be a very big slagging match!

[shen]

IBM has pushed linux boxes for about a year now... hasn't they...?

Edit: Took a look at IBM's pages and on most of the systems the sell you can choose between Win XP and Red Hat Enterprice as preloaded OS...

IBM has pushed linux to big companies for well more than a year, and "under the radar" for 2. part of the IBM strat seems to be multiple OS, especially on one box (the mainframes do some cool sandboxing and self heal things) and cell will be no exception. despite a lot of talk about how hard it will be to port OS X, i doubt it will. the NeXT BSD base it is built on is pretty friendly to porting. the apps will take more work than the OS, and even then i will wager it will be minimal. IBM has worked hard to create a powerhouse CPU that is pretty OS neutral, and if anyone can, they can.

cell chips will, if IBM gets its vision, be in your cell phone, TV microwave, PDA, iPod, laptop, desktop, car, and super-computing node. why would Apple not use it? no good reason.........

[Booga]

I would be surprised if Apple never released a Cell-based Macintosh, but it might not happen with the chip we see today. The number of APUs, from my understanding, is not set by the architecture, nor is the full nature of the core. I would expect to see a G4+2APU embedded chip, a G5+16APU supercomputer chip, and several variations in-between. In effect, you could think of the G5 with a different memory bus as a Cell with no APUs. I wouldn't be surprised to see the next generation PowerPC chip all be based on a Cell core.

Apple could offer the APU instructions as an option to developers, and integrate them into Quicktime and their own high-performance floating point and image manipulation libraries for noticable speedups to existing applications written to the APIs.

After 2 years of hearing how 64-bit "native" code will speed up software (it won't) and such, it's nice to see an innovation in the PowerPC field that really CAN speed up software.

[GFLPraxis]

Bottom Line: Cell processor is likely to be the new MAC G6 (or whatever they call it. Perhaps it will be called MacCell.)

I don't know about you, but I just don't see this being called the G6. The Cell processor still has a PowerPC 970 inside with multiple APU's attached-it's technically a souped-up G5, and the very few programs that cannot take advantage of Cell (such as, say, VirtualPC) would run at the speed of the 4 GHz G5 processor in it.

I think this would be kept under the G5 name. G5 Extreme, perhaps? ;)

HOWEVER, since the Cell can work with POWER4, POWER5, and PowerPC 970 (G5; based on POWER4), I think we can expect that when a POWER5-based PowerPC 980 comes out it will be called the G6 and it will go in the Cell as well.

[burger011]

who knew that one day one of my post (other than the one where I was trying to figure out why my ipod shuffle wouldn't charge) would eventually be the first post in one of macrumors "headlined" discussions.

thanks macrumors!

burger

[GFLPraxis]

I would be surprised if Apple never released a Cell-based Macintosh, but it might not happen with the chip we see today. The number of APUs, from my understanding, is not set by the architecture, nor is the full nature of the core. I would expect to see a G4+2APU embedded chip, a G5+16APU supercomputer chip, and several variations in-between. In effect, you could think of the G5 with a different memory bus as a Cell with no APUs. I wouldn't be surprised to see the next generation PowerPC chip all be based on a Cell core.

Apple could offer the APU instructions as an option to developers, and integrate them into Quicktime and their own high-performance floating point and image manipulation libraries for noticable speedups to existing applications written to the APIs.

After 2 years of hearing how 64-bit "native" code will speed up software (it won't) and such, it's nice to see an innovation in the PowerPC field that really CAN speed up software.

Very reasonable. I doubt we will see a G4 with the APU's since it's made by Motorola and not IBM, or at the very least, it will come out at least a year later (Motorola might very well keep the G4 alive, they're pushing for 2 GHz this year...if they go 3 GHz when the G5 reaches 4.6 for the Cell, they could stay in low-end Macs).

But when a G6 comes out (a PowerPC chip based on POWER5), I'd expect it to work with Cell right away.

[relimw]

I think this would be kept under the G5 name. G5 Extreme, perhaps? ;)

HOWEVER, since the Cell can work with POWER4, POWER5, and PowerPC 970 (G5; based on POWER4), I think we can expect that when a POWER5-based PowerPC 980 comes out it will be called the G6 and it will go in the Cell as well.

Or will they do like Intel did with the 586 (pentium)? Say, G5 II, G5 III, etc?

[rob_osx]

After reading many articles about the cell, here is why I think Apple will use the Cell processor.

The Cell processor is based on the POWER architecture, which means it would be compatible with Apple’s software. Though some people disagree, stating “[the cell] processors are not compatible with Altivec” and “almost impossible to achieve backward compatibility”. This is totally wrong because I'm running Panther with a G3 that does not have an Altivec unit, and if you look at Apple's Core Image it seems as if they are heading away from the Altivec and using a GPU.
The Cell processor is made to scale from low power, consumer electronics devices like the Playstation 3, to high performance requirements, servers. IBM has said that one rack of Cell servers would have around 16 teraflops of performance. Using Apple’s current Xserves it takes 40 racks to get 25 Tflop/s of performance. Apple would be silly to turn away from that type of performance/footprint ratio.
The Cell processor will have a low cost, because of volume of production.

Go here if you want the details and references (http://www.tweet2.org/wordpress/index.php?p=13) to the articles I used to support my ideas.

[GFLPraxis]

After reading many articles about the cell, here is why I think Apple will use the Cell processor.

The Cell processor is based on the POWER architecture, which means it would be compatible with Apple’s software. Though some people disagree, stating “[the cell] processors are not compatible with Altivec” and “almost impossible to achieve backward compatibility”. This is totally wrong because I'm running Panther with a G3 that does not have an Altivec unit, and if you look at Apple's Core Image it seems as if they are heading away from the Altivec and using a GPU.
The Cell processor is made to scale from low power, consumer electronics devices like the Playstation 3, to high performance requirements, servers. IBM has said that one rack of Cell servers would have around 16 teraflops of performance. Using Apple’s current Xserves it takes 40 racks to get 25 Tflop/s of performance. Apple would be silly to turn away from that type of performance/footprint ratio.
The Cell processor will have a low cost, because of volume of production.

Go here if you want the details and references (http://www.tweet2.org/wordpress/index.php?p=13) to the articles I used to support my ideas.

I need an appluading smiley. Excellent post.

Your second post works the other way, too. Due to its scalabilitiy, Apple could get the ultimate in performance out of their XServes...but they could also scale down, and put cell chips in something as small as the Mac Mini, as well. :D

[chaos86]

did nobody else notice this little idea:

the cell requires a HUGE amount of cooperation between hardware creators and software programmers. as alot of people have said, it will require a complete rewrite of any OS or software, and of course the hardware around it will be built from the ground up.

now apple, as the only computer company that makes both the hardware and the software, has a big advantage. the hardware and software teams can work side-by-side, whereas in the windows (for example) world, intel needs to make a prototype, let ms play with it and program it, intel revise it, ms revise the software, back and forth. and even then it will be full of bugs and problems for years with AMD and Intel both making systems and ms making their crap.

if all sides start at the same time, apple will win the initial race to incorporate the cell (properly).

[XForge]

Wow... This is a pretty big advancement, isn't it? We were having a discussion in our Adv. Computers class with the teacher (who was explaining the cell processor), and he said that the transistors in this thing are only a few atoms long :eek: Is that true? Or was he thinking about something else?
So electrons go through these transistors like bowling balls in the ball return?? = )

[Booga]

Very reasonable. I doubt we will see a G4 with the APU's since it's made by Motorola and not IBM, or at the very least, it will come out at least a year later (Motorola might very well keep the G4 alive, they're pushing for 2 GHz this year...if they go 3 GHz when the G5 reaches 4.6 for the Cell, they could stay in low-end Macs).

Pretend I said "G3+2APUs" could be embedded. IBM loved the G3, and would have preferred pumping it up the GHz rather than touching AltiVec, which they only did at Apple's insistence. Now we see why.

Remember, most CPUs sold today are NOT x86 CPUs. Last I checked the x86 hadn't broken 5% market share of TOTAL CPUs sold each year, and most CPUs sold today are still 8-bit. While the desktop market is currently very lopsided toward x86, there is a lot of money to be made in cars, DVD players, microwave ovens, security systems, whatever. If the Cell is really as scalable as they say, and IBM does a good job with selling cheap reference boards and supporting them well, we could easily see the Cell chip dwarf the x86 market in no time at all. As for desktop chips, hopefully economy of scale will keep it competitive in that arena, too.

[eric_townsend]

I think the perfect name for such a new PowerMac would be the QuantumMac... :cool:
I would think Apple would be foolish to not at least consider it... Depends on what the IBM/Sony/Toshiba consortium will offer Apple too.

[kcm]

The new multicode processor has already exceeded 4GHz in lab testing and is designed to power a variety of operating systems.

I don't think I saw this mentioned already -- should be multicore.

[mzlin]

My apologies if this has been posted already. Go to part 4 for some interesting speculation about Apple.

http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell0.html

[Lord Blackadder]

Geez, I've spent some time reading to get to this end of the thread!

I've a notion:

If the prototype Cell contains an IBM Power5 on the die, and is clocking at 4+ GHZ already, doesn't that mean that IBM has the capability to make a 4+ GHz standalone PowerPC CPU? If not, why?

This seems to have even more relevence to Apple hardware than the Cell since a Power5 derivative is likely to replace the 970 eventually, IIRC.

[rob_osx]

did nobody else notice this little idea:

the cell requires a HUGE amount of cooperation between hardware creators and software programmers. as alot of people have said, it will require a complete rewrite of any OS or software, and of course the hardware around it will be built from the ground up.


I think the point you are missing is that to take FULL advantage of the Cell, some areas of software might have to be re-written. A new compiler would probably be able to handle some of this. How would you like a current G5, 970, running at 4.6GHz?! Sure software could run faster if optimized for the cell, but the fact that the processor is running almost twice as fast as the current 970 and the memory bus being faster, applications will run faster.

When Apple came out with the G4 with the Altivec, software was not optimized for that, but it still ran. Eventually software was tweaked to take advantage of the Altivec unit, the same will happen for the Cell.

I do agree that new hardware will have to be built to handle the Cell. This is mainly due to a new memory bus.

[rog]

When oh when is the PowerBook quad core Cell ever going to come out? Wintel laptops are running at 100GHz and they're only 5 bucks! Apple needs to catch up now!

[joeboy_45101]

I believe that software can be designed to emulate anything. How hard would it be to emulate the function of an x86 or PowerPC processor in a software program. I know that this would be considered extremely complex, but I don't think impossible. And if somebody could learn how to emulate specific hardware like an x86 processor then later on it would be easier to emulate different platforms. With a Cell type processor you could instruct certain cores to emulate an x86 processor running Windows and other cores to emulate a PowerPC processor running Mac OS X. If it could be done then it would be a tremedous step in system design. You could build a system using 1 or 2 Cell's maybe one to emulate a CPU and sound card and another to emulate the GPU and other pieces of harware.

[rob_osx]

I've a notion:

If the prototype Cell contains an IBM Power5 on the die, and is clocking at 4+ GHZ already, doesn't that mean that IBM has the capability to make a 4+ GHz standalone PowerPC CPU? If not, why?

This seems to have even more relevence to Apple hardware than the Cell since a Power5 derivative is likely to replace the 970 eventually, IIRC.

The 970 was not made to scale to the higher frequencies, and that is why we have not seen a 3.0+ GHz G5. You are correct in pointing out that the 3 or 4GHz barrier was not an IBM frequency barrier, but a barrier specific to the 970. The POWER5 can handle the higher frequencies and I belive this does prove IBM can create a higher frequency stand alone PPC CPU for Apple.

So the question is why hasn't Apple/IBM come out with a faster chip for the PowerMac. We know Steve wanted 3.0GHz the summer of 2004. IMHO IBM told Apple about the Cell, and instead of Apple giving money to IBM to build a new chip based off the POWER5, Apple decided to wait for the Cell. Yes, it would cost Apple some lost sales because they didn't have faster PowerMacs and possibly laptops in the short term, but given the amount of money it would take for a new chip Apple decided to wait for the Cell that they could put in laptops and servers. This is not just a small step forward, but a giant leap. Apple likes leaps, remember when the G5 came out and the commercials with tanks guarding it?

Apple wants a processor that has a future roadmap. The Cell has a roadmap for both high and low power requirements. This is what Apple wants a chip that can go into all their products, and one that they don't have to pay for all the R&D costs.

[Frobozz]

Here's a question. Could the Cell theoretically replace the graphics card? If it's so good with media, could OS X be modified to use Cell for OpenGL and all 3d calculations, meaning that Apple can remove the graphics card to make up for the extra cost of the cell processor?

Or is a dedicated graphics card still necessary?

(I know a considerable amount about processors, but not enough about GPUs)

That's a fascinating concept... but I wouldn't see why not. After all, Cell is designed for multimedia processing. Hmmmm.... :-)

[dontmatter]

Its much faster than a G5. Where did you find the 256 gigaflops number? Based on a news release in November, IBM stated: "The companies expect that a one rack Cell processor-based workstation will reach a performance of 16 teraflops or trillions of floating point calculations per second."

I expect that IBM will be using this in their future cluster supercomputers. I don't think that Apple will use the Cell, but they will use the PowerPC core from it, and they will likely benefit from the rest of the design.

equals how many gigaflops per processor? Meaning: How many processors are in "a one rack Cell processor-based workstation"

[MarkCollette]

Ok, here's a few facts from the articles, which my ramblings below are based on:
- Cell contains a PU, which i a fully functional Power5 derived chip, similar to what we on MacRumors called the G6 for the past year or so
- Cell also contains a bunch of APUs (8 in this chip) which are given little APU programs from the PU. These little programs run on the APUs, and do whatever calculations.
- The PU, being a fully functional Power5 derived CPU, has things like cache, SMT, Altivec, etc.
- The APUs are designed to crunch through streamed data, holding interim data in their registers, so it actually makes no sense to give them cache. Caches only make sense when you have to reaccess parts of memory, which you haven't stored in your registers.


Now my intuition/guesses:
- From a hardware point of view, Cell would require a full motherboard redesign compared to, say, the G5. But, they'll have had years of time to do it, by the time Cell chips ship
- From a software point of view, there are always two stages of supporting new hardware: (1) Make old software run on it (2) Take advantage of new features. So, I wouldn't expect new Cell Macs to come with some totally new operating system initially, but rather follow the pattern of the G5 with OS X 10.2.7.
- Taking the lead from Quartz Extreme and CoreImage and the Pixel Shader programming standards in OpenGL and DirectX, I think we're moving away from a programming model of having the CPU doing number crunching, towards more hardware accelleration.
- In the past, one used the CPU (Use the CPU's ALU and/or FPU), and then later one might use the SIMD unit, then came using the GPU, and soon we'll have the Cell's APU.
- There are several problems with having all of these options:

- Only some compilers properly support autovectorization, so right now we're taking advantage of SIMD units nearly as much as we could
- Not everyone has a GPU that supports Quartz Extreme or CoreImage, or Pixel Shader programs. So, one can't count on using the GPU, and even if one could, the tools and APIs for using it are even further behind support for SIMD units.
- We don't even have Cell's shipped, so who knows how long it will be before there are APIs to make use of the APUs?
- At some point, with all of these different means of accellerated processing competing with each other for software support, the only real solution will be for regular software developers to code at a sufficiently high level, that the APIs or the operating system will then be able to, at install time or runtime, make the decision of which accelleration method to use.
- After a couple years, who knows, maybe one way wil win out and become standard, but for the next 5 years or so, things will get a lot more complex.
- So, look towards codecs and scientific programs, and compilers, and operating systems to all try to provide support for the new accellerations, while standard programs sit on the fence waiting for simple trivial support to be provided to them.
- Oh yes, and some people were wondering if Apple would use the Cell chips. My opinion is that when the Cell chips first ship, all of the capacity will probable go towards PS3, for at least 3-6 months. After that, I assume Apple will be able to get their hands on Cell chips in volume. If the don't support Cell, then I would expect share holders to sue the board for negligence.
- So, one question is, will Apple ship systems with what we called the G6 in the mean time, until Cell arrives, or will they just stall in the water until Cell? It might not be cost effective to make a new motherboard design for the G6, when another will be required for Cell. But, it'll probably be a year at least until Cell Macs come out, and IBM might not want to bother making more 970 chips as they focus more on Power5 and Cell.

[Catfish_Man]

The 970 was not made to scale to the higher frequencies, and that is why we have not seen a 3.0+ GHz G5. You are correct in pointing out that the 3 or 4GHz barrier was not an IBM frequency barrier, but a barrier specific to the 970. The POWER5 can handle the higher frequencies and I belive this does prove IBM can create a higher frequency stand alone PPC CPU for Apple.

So the question is why hasn't Apple/IBM come out with a faster chip for the PowerMac. We know Steve wanted 3.0GHz the summer of 2004. IMHO IBM told Apple about the Cell, and instead of Apple giving money to IBM to build a new chip based off the POWER5, Apple decided to wait for the Cell. Yes, it would cost Apple some lost sales because they didn't have faster PowerMacs and possibly laptops in the short term, but given the amount of money it would take for a new chip Apple decided to wait for the Cell that they could put in laptops and servers. This is not just a small step forward, but a giant leap. Apple likes leaps, remember when the G5 came out and the commercials with tanks guarding it?

Apple wants a processor that has a future roadmap. The Cell has a roadmap for both high and low power requirements. This is what Apple wants a chip that can go into all their products, and one that they don't have to pay for all the R&D costs.


Actually, the POWER5 tops out at 1.9GHz right now, with very good reason. The G5 goes a little faster than that, but not much. This new processor is NOT a G5 core, it's smaller and simpler, with less performance per clock, and longer pipelines so that it can reach higher clock frequencies. It also appears that the Xbox2 will be using the same core, but with 3 of the powerpc cores, instead of one PPC and 8 vector cores. It's not certain that the Xbox core is the same or very similar to the CELL's PPC core, but it seems extremely likely. I think we'll find that they are the same. I'd say that a design like the Xbox2 is *much* more practical for Apple, since the vector cores are not Altivec compatible, while the more general purpose core is. In other words, we're likely to see some sort of multicore 4GHz processor without the CELL's specialized vector coprocessors (note that they're not vector units like Altivec. They're separate cores, running separate threads or programs). Porting to CELL would be hard. Like, brain destroying, work for years hard. It's highly unlikely that CELL will be competitive without using its vector coprocessors, and those coprocessors will require a lot of rethinking of programs, and probably some very smart tools. The Xbox appears to be much more traditional; not as powerful, but much much easier to program for and get performance from.

[MarkCollette]

The 970 runs at higher MHz than the Power4, from which it was derived, because the Power4 is made to be more physically resilient, with thicker wiring, and includes more circuitry for error detection, etc. So, I fully expect the Power5 derivatives, used for the XBox and Cell, etc. to run at higher MHz than the Power5.

A lot of technical articles online describe the XBox and Cell chips, and I have seen nothing to indicate that they are the same. I believe they are similar, in that, at their core, they use Power5 derived technology, but I think they differ from there on.

In the very short term, it is likely that a computer with 3 Power5lite cores would be better than a Cell, in a desktop computer. But, as soon as Photoshop, FCP, iMovie, etc. all support the APUs, or better yet use a library that is retargetable to run on standard CPUs or APUs interchangeably, then Cell will prove itself the better choice. However it is, the outcome will be obvious within a year of their release.

Actually, the POWER5 tops out at 1.9GHz right now, with very good reason. The G5 goes a little faster than that, but not much. This new processor is NOT a G5 core, it's smaller and simpler, with less performance per clock, and longer pipelines so that it can reach higher clock frequencies. It also appears that the Xbox2 will be using the same core, but with 3 of the powerpc cores, instead of one PPC and 8 vector cores. It's not certain that the Xbox core is the same or very similar to the CELL's PPC core, but it seems extremely likely. I think we'll find that they are the same. I'd say that a design like the Xbox2 is *much* more practical for Apple, since the vector cores are not Altivec compatible, while the more general purpose core is. In other words, we're likely to see some sort of multicore 4GHz processor without the CELL's specialized vector coprocessors (note that they're not vector units like Altivec. They're separate cores, running separate threads or programs). Porting to CELL would be hard. Like, brain destroying, work for years hard. It's highly unlikely that CELL will be competitive without using its vector coprocessors, and those coprocessors will require a lot of rethinking of programs, and probably some very smart tools. The Xbox appears to be much more traditional; not as powerful, but much much easier to program for and get performance from.

[pubwvj]

iPod Video a.k.a. iPod Cell.

Yeah, finally, iPalm. A scaled down Mac for the shirt pocket.
PowerMac/iMac for the desktop that never moves
PowerBook/iBook for the rest of us
PowerPalm/iPalm for the rest of the time

Carry all your data, backed up continuously to your iPalm.
Real-World Ruggedness.

Incidentally, yes, the iPalm will also play music. :)

[pubwvj]

Which begs the question is this the CPU that will be powering Mac OS 11?

From a marketing point of view I question Apple ever using the moniker MacOS 11 because all too (two, to :) ) many people are confused by such things. They'll wonder if that is OS 11 or OS II or OS 2 (Gak!) and chaos will rain (er, reign :) ). That's a real marketing know-no :) unless you're doing it on purpose to play on it to beat your way through the skull and into the consumer's long term memory. This isn't such a case.

[pubwvj]

How hot does this thing run?

Yes, this was one of my first questions, power consumption. Is this a possible portable chip or not? Is it an EnergyStar or a EnergyGuzzler? Sipper or Slurper?

Hopefully they are designing the chip to scale it's power consumption. When you're plugged in and need the CRU it burns up to max temp. When you're on battery is slows and sips to make the juice last.

[pubwvj]

When we migrated from 68K to PPC, I remember all sorts of tales about how emulation would allow computers to pretend to be other types and work faster than the real thing. We were told in glowing terms how RISC computers would be so fast that they could pretend to be anything the software writer wanted.

The reality turned out to be even better. I have very old CISC software written back in the 1980's, some by me, some by others. It's legacy stuff we still need to use but isn't worth rewriting for the PowerPC. The beauty is it runs far faster on our current G3 and G4 machines (never mind G5 et al.) at a mear 266MHz to 500MHz than it ever ran on the original machines or even the CISC machines of the 1990's. The promise really came through.

Then there is VPC. Note something you may like using but it does do the job when you just have to touch the evil. :)

[pubwvj]

From IBM's website, it appears that the die size of the 970FX is just 65 mm square. The Cell is 221 mm square. All things being relatively equal in fab costs, the Cell will cost about 3.4 times more to produce than the G5s chips you find in the current PowerMacs.

There is a lot more to chip costs than die size. % rejection, etc make a big difference. All things aren't relatively equal.

[pubwvj]

If this new chip is going to be incorporated into Apple products, we can safely assume it'll happen by mid 2006. The reason being that microsoft will be shipping longhorn around that period, so alot of people will be upgrading their pcs to run it, but if Apple come along with a macmini for $400 running a cell and OS Tiger, customers will think twice before upgrading to a new intel or amd pc.

Good point about the time table. Especially if the MacCell Mini runs Windows applications thus easing the transition like Classic and emulation on the Mac did for 9 to OSX and CISC to RISC.

[wrldwzrd89]

The reality turned out to be even better. I have very old CISC software written back in the 1980's, some by me, some by others. It's legacy stuff we still need to use but isn't worth rewriting for the PowerPC. The beauty is it runs far faster on our current G3 and G4 machines (never mind G5 et al.) at a mear 266MHz to 500MHz than it ever ran on the original machines or even the CISC machines of the 1990's. The promise really came through.

Then there is VPC. Note something you may like using but it does do the job when you just have to touch the evil. :)
Apple came up with a wonderful piece of software called a 68k-to-PPC dynamic recompiling emulator and used it to run all old 68k code, including parts of the Mac OS itself before the Mac OS 8.5 era. It got better and better with each release - boy does it fly now on today's hardware.

[pubwvj]

I don't know about you, but I just don't see this being called the G6. The Cell processor still has a PowerPC 970 inside with multiple APU's attached-it's technically a souped-up G5, and the very few programs that cannot take advantage of Cell

Why? G4 is roughly a G3 with an vector processor inside. Same-o, same-o.

What would make a lot of sense is for Apple to standardize on a scaleable processor and stick with it for a long time. Then they can focus on stability, real-world ruggedness, battery life, etc. Imagine:

iPod - Cell with 1 APU - no screen - place music, stores data

iPal - Apple's PDA with Cell + 1 to 4 APUs with a good small screen - replaces high end iPod - carry all your data with you, backups up Home to iPal nightly (continuously?) - your data in the field.

iBook - Cell + 8 to 16 APUs - the future best seller - compute at home, work and on the road

iMac - Cell + 8 to N APUs - desktop version of the Mac (why bother but some people want them)

That is the basic lineup. Of course you can have your Power versions (PowerPod, PowerPal, PowerBook, PowerMac) of each with more features and power for the pros. Maybe additional Cells are plug-in-able like memory. "Care to super-size that iBook, sir? Can I offer you a few more Cells?"

By having a more standardized core hardware it will make software developement even easier and more consistant than it is already.

[GFLPraxis]

Why? G4 is roughly a G3 with an vector processor inside. Same-o, same-o.

What would make a lot of sense is for Apple to standardize on a scaleable processor and stick with it for a long time. Then they can focus on stability, real-world ruggedness, battery life, etc. Imagine:

iPod - Cell with 1 APU - no screen - place music, stores data

iPal - Apple's PDA with Cell + 1 to 4 APUs with a good small screen - replaces high end iPod - carry all your data with you, backups up Home to iPal nightly (continuously?) - your data in the field.

iBook - Cell + 8 to 16 APUs - the future best seller - compute at home, work and on the road

iMac - Cell + 8 to N APUs - desktop version of the Mac (why bother but some people want them)

That is the basic lineup. Of course you can have your Power versions (PowerPod, PowerPal, PowerBook, PowerMac) of each with more features and power for the pros. Maybe additional Cells are plug-in-able like memory. "Care to super-size that iBook, sir? Can I offer you a few more Cells?"

By having a more standardized core hardware it will make software developement even easier and more consistant than it is already.

Actually, I've changed my stance on the name. This isn't a PowerPC 970 (I was mistaken on that), it's a new PPC based on POWER5, so it WOULD be called G6.

[GFLPraxis]

I've been discussing this on another forum, as well. Someone smarter than me has made some interesting points.

Could someone read this and tell me how accurate it is? (I'm no processor engineer)

If he's right, Apple WOULDN'T use it.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=62208&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25

The post in particular:

You're not getting this are you? For desktop applications, the Cell is an oversized waste, only applications that use highly parallelized code are going to have any use for it. Apple might have use for it as an accelerator, but for 90% of the applications people used, Cell isn't going to provide much of a performance boost. This is the same reason using GPU's for general processing tasks has been mostly stillborn outside of render farms--worse in the case of cell since you are devoting millions of transitors to logic that will almost never be taken advantage of, regardless of how much you optimize the code.

And his reply to mine:


Yes, rendering would see quite a boost, but it's not something that enough Mac users do to increase the costs of Apple CPU's by that much, which is why it would make more sense to sell it as an accelerator like Durandal suggested, much like the old x87's.
...
No, games, especially on the Mac platform, aren't going to see much of a boost from Cell. Most of the parallelized code in a game is in the graphics engine, which is already handled by the GPU. It is concievable that future games will make use of a lot of parallel code for AI and background processing tasks, but game programmers are not going to add such exotic features purely for the Mac market, if they will at all.
...


Not much of an etcetera here. Most desktop software outside of rendering simply isn't going to use these vectored FP engines that the Cell offers, no matter how much you optimize it. It's not worth it to add it as a standard feature at this point in time.
...

Only in VERY select pro applications. Why do you think someone hasn't done this before? Why did the drive to use GPU's for software besides games largely fail? Because it's a lot of silicon that isn't going to be of much use outside of HPC.


The ...s are where he was quoting me.
Is he right?

[wrldwzrd89]

I've been discussing this on another forum, as well. Someone smarter than me has made some interesting points.

Could someone read this and tell me how accurate it is? (I'm no processor engineer)

If he's right, Apple WOULDN'T use it.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=62208&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25

The post in particular:


And his reply to mine:



The ...s are where he was quoting me.
Is he right?
Judging by what I know about Cell, and what was written in that post, I'd say that's 100% correct. The Cell may have the most amazing vector capabilities, but the vast majority of Mac software isn't vectorized and thus wouldn't take full advantage of what the Cell offers.

[GFLPraxis]

Judging by what I know about Cell, and what was written in that post, I'd say that's 100% correct. The Cell may have the most amazing vector capabilities, but the vast majority of Mac software isn't vectorized and thus wouldn't take full advantage of what the Cell offers.

So then why would Apple use it?

Would it be possible to use it to replace the graphics card like I mentioned earlier?

Or would it end up just boosting the cost of the Mac up and offering few performance boosts?

[pubwvj]

I don't know about you, but I just don't see this being called the G6. The Cell processor still has a PowerPC 970 inside with multiple APU's attached-it's technically a souped-up G5, and the very few programs that cannot take advantage of Cell

Why? G4 is roughly a G3 with an vector processor inside. Same-o, same-o. g3 + vectors -> G4, G5 + APUs -> G6. Makes reasonable sense.

What would make a lot of sense is for Apple to standardize on a unified scaleable processor and stick with it for a long time. Then they can focus on stability, real-world ruggedness, battery life, etc. Imagine tough machines you can take to the beach:

iPod - Cell with 1 APU - no screen - place music, stores data

iPal - Apple's PDA with Cell + 1 to 4 APUs with a good small screen - replaces high end iPod - carry all your data with you, backups up Home to iPal nightly (continuously?) - your data in the field on a slower machine but still accessible.

iBook - Cell + 8 to 16 APUs - the future best seller - compute at home, work and on the road. Expandable with extra plug-in Cells, memory, HD...

iMac - Cell + 8 to N APUs - desktop version of the Mac (why bother but some people want them)

XServer - Cells to the Nth for the ultimate in scaleable supercomputing.

That is the basic lineup. Of course you can have your Power versions (PowerPod, PowerPal, PowerBook, PowerMac) of each with more features and power for the pros. Maybe additional Cells are plug-ins like memory. "Care to super-size that iBook, sir? Can I offer you a few more Cells?"

By having a more standardized core hardware it will make software developement even easier and more consistant than it is already.

[wrldwzrd89]

So then why would Apple use it?

Would it be possible to use it to replace the graphics card like I mentioned earlier?

Or would it end up just boosting the cost of the Mac up and offering few performance boosts?
Apple would make it an add-on accelerator for software designed to take advantage of its capabilities if they were to use it in their Macs. Other software would simply continue running on the main PowerPC core like it always has (ever since the transition from 68k to PPC, at least).

[GFLPraxis]

Apple would make it an add-on accelerator for software designed to take advantage of its capabilities if they were to use it in their Macs. Other software would simply continue running on the main PowerPC core like it always has (ever since the transition from 68k to PPC, at least).


So you're saying Apple WOULDN'T sell systems with Cells in them?

[pubwvj]

I've been discussing this on another forum, as well. Someone smarter than me has made some interesting points.
:
Is he right?

Sort of, sort of not. One of the most fascinating aspects is that the Cell architecture could replace a bunch of other hardware. This would save space on the motherboard, cut power consumption, reduce heat loads, speed up communications, and run a whole lot faster while doing it.

Your word processor, address book and email programs would not feel a whole lot snappier. :)

It opens the possibility for several Cells working together in a PowerBook, or just one in an iPal (my current favorite for the handheld Mac) which would give decent processing speed so you could access all your data in the field. Or 32 in a PowerMac. Or 4096 in an XServer. :) It could unify the computing hardware in a way that we don't currently have. This could go all the way from the lowly embedded processor in your iPod or toaster oven (Gak!) to your closet supercomputer.

On the other hand, or the gripping claw if you prefer, applications that are written to take advantage of the Cell would scream to highest halls of Valhalla. Examples would be photo editing programs, movie programs, animation, massive databases, web servers, flight sims (e.g., X-Plane), renderers, weather forcasterers, particle physics simulators, etc.

[wrldwzrd89]

So you're saying Apple WOULDN'T sell systems with Cells in them?
Correct! Apple really can't justify using a Cell in a Mac as the only processor because it wouldn't be anywhere near fully utilized most of the time. Folding@Home would absolutely FLY on one of those, since the folding process is highly vectorizable...but that's beside the point.

[relimw]

Correct! Apple really can't justify using a Cell in a Mac as the only processor because it wouldn't be anywhere near fully utilized most of the time. Folding@Home would absolutely FLY on one of those, since the folding process is highly vectorizable...but that's beside the point.

But you're missing the point. The Cell processor is an architecture, not a specific processor. The chip being presented at ISSCC is the one Sony designed for their needs. Nothing that I have seen has said that the Sony variant is the one and only configuration.

From IBM's Cell page (http://www-1.ibm.com/businesscenter/venturedevelopment/us/en/featurearticle/gcl_xmlid/8649/nav_id/emerging)
STI cell processor defined
Two years ago, Sony and Toshiba and IBM (STI) announced that they had teamed up to design an architecture for what is termed a system-on-a-chip (SoC) design. Code-named Cell, chips based on the architecture will be able to use ultra high-speed broadband connectivity to interoperate with one another as one complete system, similar to the way neural cells interoperate over the brain's network.

[wrldwzrd89]

But you're missing the point. The Cell processor is an architecture, not a specific processor. The chip being presented at ISSCC is the one Sony designed for their needs. Nothing that I have seen has said that the Sony variant is the one and only configuration.

From IBM's Cell page (http://www-1.ibm.com/businesscenter/venturedevelopment/us/en/featurearticle/gcl_xmlid/8649/nav_id/emerging)
That leaves the question - how best to configure the Cell for Apple's needs? I can't think of what would work best. I guess we won't know until the patent is fully de-mystified.

[dontmatter]

So, IBM, Sony, and was it toshiba, I don't remember?

Why the three company alliance? Usual reasons-split the costs, get all the benefits, less risk, etc.

now... why would this new alliance let apple in on the deal, given that they weren't in initially? Apple would be getting a free ride, and would be competition. Cell is an attempt for high end pc makers to combat dell et al. Giving it over to apple would just be giving a hand to the only major company in the high end PC buisness turning a serious profit.

all I'm saying is, I read this the first time, and went, oooh, IBM, it'll come to apple. Then I kept thinking about the lack of apple, the lack of the mention of personal computers, in the otherwise EXTENSIVE list of possible uses for the chip, and the partnership...

And I frankly don't know if this chip even makes sense in a PC, exactly. But I can say, I'd be surprised if this was good news for apple.

[GFLPraxis]

So, IBM, Sony, and was it toshiba, I don't remember?

Why the three company alliance? Usual reasons-split the costs, get all the benefits, less risk, etc.

now... why would this new alliance let apple in on the deal, given that they weren't in initially? Apple would be getting a free ride, and would be competition. Cell is an attempt for high end pc makers to combat dell et al. Giving it over to apple would just be giving a hand to the only major company in the high end PC buisness turning a serious profit.

all I'm saying is, I read this the first time, and went, oooh, IBM, it'll come to apple. Then I kept thinking about the lack of apple, the lack of the mention of personal computers, in the otherwise EXTENSIVE list of possible uses for the chip, and the partnership...

And I frankly don't know if this chip even makes sense in a PC, exactly. But I can say, I'd be surprised if this was good news for apple.

Firstly, Apple already has an alliance with IBM and is the #1 PowerPC buyer in the world.

Secondly, Apple is working on a Sony alliance. Remember MacWorld?

Thirdly, Cell is using a PowerPC-based processor, remember? Apple is in on the PowerPC alliance (Motorola + Apple + IBM).

[alfismoney]

price is the main reason why apple will be using some variation of this technology sooner rather than later. if ibm can produce these in numbers high enough to meet PS3's needs while keeping costs below $300 for an entire console system, you guarantee that it will cause ripples in the processor market.

the dollar ends up being the bottom line here. if the chip costs a quarter of what the g5 does to produce (from the looks of it it will be much less even) then apple will develop the software to take advantage of this technology somehow. sure only power software will need to adapt for this but think of who writes it. avid/digidesigns will miss the wagon, as always. apple writes all their own stuff. if adobe refuses to comply they know apple is capable of producing/buying software that will cripple its market share. microsoft could refuse to port office but then apple will simply pay for development of OpenOffice. This isn't a switch that will happen tomorrow but it will be the case in the next 18 months.

[Evangelion]

My apologies if this has been posted already. Go to part 4 for some interesting speculation about Apple.

http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell0.html

Like I said: take that article with a grain of salt. The whole article seems to be nothing but "oooh boy, the Cell is going to kick ass! It's just so damn great! You have no idea how awesome it is! Now, look here....". if you want really insightful articles about Cell, read Ars Technica.

[Evangelion]

Judging by what I know about Cell, and what was written in that post, I'd say that's 100% correct. The Cell may have the most amazing vector capabilities, but the vast majority of Mac software isn't vectorized and thus wouldn't take full advantage of what the Cell offers.

Well, GCC 4.0 will bring autovectorizarion to the table. And IBM is working with "open-source compiler" to add support for Cell in it. I wonder what compiler that could be.....

[trebblekicked]

price is the main reason why apple will be using some variation of this technology sooner rather than later. if ibm can produce these in numbers high enough to meet PS3's needs while keeping costs below $300 for an entire console system, you guarantee that it will cause ripples in the processor market.

not quite. iirc, sony, microsoft and nintendo all take a bath on hardware. they make up the loss in software sales and licensing.

[wrldwzrd89]

Well, GCC 4.0 will bring autovectorizarion to the table. And IBM is working with "open-source compiler" to add support for Cell in it. I wonder what compiler that could be.....
I meant to bring up GCC 4.0...

Good point though! GCC 4.0 will help everyone with a vector unit, including Cell.

[orangedv]

Why not? Unless they delay the XBox to let the PS3 come out first (yeah, right. They got killed on the first one, being last to the market), the PS3 will probably have better graphics. Cell + a bit more time for new things to come on the market = probably a more powerful system.

If the PS3 ends up with better graphics, and the Nintendo with better gameplay, the XBox 2 will go down the gutter.

Cant agree with you there fellah, if you follow the graphic card scrap between Sony, Microsoft, ATI and Nvidia, the current state of play is Microsoft have the ATI good stuff and Sony have the Nvidia leftovers.

Nintendo have always had better quality regarding gameplay than the others, but the competition use that as an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Stringent quality control is a time burner, meaning slow release of titles. Sony took the view with PS1 'lets let anyone release titles on this, flood the market with choice". It works too; the magazines and the net sort the wheat from the chaff of PS games and you walk into a gamestore and see PS games EVERYWHERE. Also, don't beat the xbox up too badly, version 2 is closer to your Mac than any other console will be, twin dual cpu G5's are the dev tool for this console. Also, over here in the UK the Xbox pushed the Nintendo system so quickly into third place in market share that the Uk's biggest supplier of consumer electronics to the public phoned Nintendo up and politely told them they were not going to sell their stuff anymore. That sent shockwaves around the game industry I can tell you.

[AidenShaw]

http://news.com.com/Cell+chip+Hit+or+hype/2010-1006_3-5568046.html

This sort of excitement and speculation about chips is driven by what I call the "Battlestar Galactica" principle. It goes as follows: If the domination of the universe isn't contested on a weekly basis, ratings will go down. Analysts, reporters, consumers and even executives need a gladiatorial contest to keep the job interesting.

The high-public profile of Sun Microsystems can partly be attributed to its role as the William Shatner of computing--donning a new uniform every three seasons to battle a new nemesis.

Put in that perspective, the Cell story starts to look different.

[GFLPraxis]

Cant agree with you there fellah, if you follow the graphic card scrap between Sony, Microsoft, ATI and Nvidia, the current state of play is Microsoft have the ATI good stuff and Sony have the Nvidia leftovers.

Nintendo have always had better quality regarding gameplay than the others, but the competition use that as an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Stringent quality control is a time burner, meaning slow release of titles. Sony took the view with PS1 'lets let anyone release titles on this, flood the market with choice". It works too; the magazines and the net sort the wheat from the chaff of PS games and you walk into a gamestore and see PS games EVERYWHERE. Also, don't beat the xbox up too badly, version 2 is closer to your Mac than any other console will be, twin dual cpu G5's are the dev tool for this console. Also, over here in the UK the Xbox pushed the Nintendo system so quickly into third place in market share that the Uk's biggest supplier of consumer electronics to the public phoned Nintendo up and politely told them they were not going to sell their stuff anymore. That sent shockwaves around the game industry I can tell you.

Bah, NVidia owns ATi :p

And you're wrong. The XBox 2 has dual G5's...but the OS is just a PPC recompiled version of Windows NT, running DirectX.

The Nintendo Revolution is also G5 based, and I doubt it's running DirectX, so it's probably much closer to a Mac.

[gekko513]

Firstly, Apple already has an alliance with IBM and is the #1 PowerPC buyer in the world.

Secondly, Apple is working on a Sony alliance. Remember MacWorld?

Thirdly, Cell is using a PowerPC-based processor, remember? Apple is in on the PowerPC alliance (Motorola + Apple + IBM).

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but if Apple is allowed to use the Cell chip, wouldn't it be natural that they had to agree to license Mac OS X to Sony in return?

[gekko513]

Correct! Apple really can't justify using a Cell in a Mac as the only processor because it wouldn't be anywhere near fully utilized most of the time. Folding@Home would absolutely FLY on one of those, since the folding process is highly vectorizable...but that's beside the point.
I don't see the reasoning behind this. The G5 isn't anywhere near fully utilized most of the time in most Macs, today, and neither is the G4. If the Cell chip is to be used in Playstations it can't be that much more expensive than a G5 either, so I don't see why they couldn't gradually move to use the Cell as the standard processor.

[rdowns]

So, IBM, Sony, and was it toshiba, I don't remember?

Why the three company alliance? Usual reasons-split the costs, get all the benefits, less risk, etc.

now... why would this new alliance let apple in on the deal, given that they weren't in initially? Apple would be getting a free ride, and would be competition. Cell is an attempt for high end pc makers to combat dell et al. Giving it over to apple would just be giving a hand to the only major company in the high end PC buisness turning a serious profit.

all I'm saying is, I read this the first time, and went, oooh, IBM, it'll come to apple. Then I kept thinking about the lack of apple, the lack of the mention of personal computers, in the otherwise EXTENSIVE list of possible uses for the chip, and the partnership...

And I frankly don't know if this chip even makes sense in a PC, exactly. But I can say, I'd be surprised if this was good news for apple.

Apple can bring something to the table that none of the 3 have- a kick ass OS.

[Frobozz]

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/0208/kaigai153.htm

The above link has several pictures including the prototype chip, detailed statistics, and more.

[relimw]

Secondly, Apple is working on a Sony alliance. Remember MacWorld?

Thirdly, Cell is using a PowerPC-based processor, remember? Apple is in on the PowerPC alliance (Motorola + Apple + IBM).

Hmm, here's a thought or two:

What if Sony, knowing Apple's extensive knowledge of the PowerPC, came to Apple and asked them to create a workstation to develop PS3 games on? Said workstation is supposed to be released in the next month or so.

Hmm, Apple is due a PowerMac upgrade also in a month or so.

Sony might also be interested in Darwin as it's OS.
For three reasons:
1) Basic stable unix core
2) A lot of able unix programmers
3) Gnu gcc - IBM is expected to be working to bring full Cell capabilities to it

[relimw]

the dollar ends up being the bottom line here. if the chip costs a quarter of what the g5 does to produce (from the looks of it it will be much less even) then apple will develop the software to take advantage of this technology somehow. sure only power software will need to adapt for this but think of who writes it. avid/digidesigns will miss the wagon, as always. apple writes all their own stuff. if adobe refuses to comply they know apple is capable of producing/buying software that will cripple its market share. microsoft could refuse to port office but then apple will simply pay for development of OpenOffice. This isn't a switch that will happen tomorrow but it will be the case in the next 18 months.

I'm not really sure that 'porting' is required. Recompiling/rewriting to get optimal benefit, would prolly be a better statement.

From my understanding, the PowerCore is basically a traffic cop/instruction translator/dispatcher. That is, to your code, the Cell processor just looks like a G5 (or better) processor with several extra instructions available.

[Mac_Rules]

I need an appluading smiley. Excellent post.

Your second post works the other way, too. Due to its scalabilitiy, Apple could get the ultimate in performance out of their XServes...but they could also scale down, and put cell chips in something as small as the Mac Mini, as well. :D

I completely agree with your argument and would like to add that this kind of processor could well be used on such devices like handheld and even cell phones.
And are circulating rumors that Apple and Motorola are joinning efforts to develop cell phones.
So ... the clue here is that almost everything fits perfectly for Apple using these babys in the near future.

[dke]

I wrote some in-depth analysis of the Cell processor...

Available here (multiple locations):


http://www.igeek.com/CellProcessor.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/dke/.cv/dke/Public/CellProcessor.pdf-binhex.hqx
http://www.mymac.com/fileupload/CellProcessor.pdf

[Mac_Rules]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but if Apple is allowed to use the Cell chip, wouldn't it be natural that they had to agree to license Mac OS X to Sony in return?

Not the "whole" Mac OS X, but the main part of it: "Darwin".
And yes, Sony is positively interested not only about Darwin itself but also about many more technologies that Apple developed.
Don't forget that recently Steve Jobs said "three" great PC makers asked Apple to license it's OS for their computers. Well, sony has a complete line of notebooks as well as camcorders and other devices that would benefit from Apple's technologies.

[Mac_Rules]

I've been discussing this on another forum, as well. Someone smarter than me has made some interesting points.

Could someone read this and tell me how accurate it is? (I'm no processor engineer)

If he's right, Apple WOULDN'T use it.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=62208&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25

The post in particular:


And his reply to mine:



The ...s are where he was quoting me.
Is he right?

I don't think so. PCuser's are aways aware with the processor's potential for solving integers. They're are right for most of the applications IN USE TODAY don't require and don't even use such enormous amount of processing power.
But, here comes the falacious argument. 20 years ago the apps on the market if used today an actaul processor were an enomous waste of processing power. PC users use to say that because the only argument in favor for PC is price. But note that they don't care to buy or build PCs as much US$2000 expensive just to say that these PCs are "overhauled" machines.
The applications are evolving and each time they demand more processing power (let's take a look for overclock on Google or even the evolution of the GPUs along time).
This chips were not designed for spreadsheets or word processing. They were designed for media rich scenarios like games, video streamming, 3D and all of the float point intensive applications in use today.
If you use word processing with cell it's ok, because they will not be as much expensive as ordinary processors in use today. They were projected from the botton to be mass consuming on a wide range of applications (more than actual x86 architecture).
The big difference from Cell comes to the eye when you have the possiblity to run multi-OS at the same time (let's say Linux, Mac OS X and even emulated Windows) and spread processes across the grid. Need more process power? Just spread processes with other cells on the network. No need to "hack" your computer doing overclock or adding expensive componentes. No need to "throw away" your old PC into the trashcan just because it's slower than actual PCs on the market.
There are no doubts that the actual model (Win/x86) will finaly meet it's major rival with this.

[dicklacara]

I may be wrong, but I think it means that the PS3 has two of the Cell APU's in one chip.

The XBox 2 is supposed to have a two-core G5 btw.


Yes, except the XBox 2 runs a Windows NT kernel IIRC with DirectX, so really, XBox 2 games will just be Windows games recompiled for PowerPC.

So, conceivably, the XBox 2 could run either OS X or Win.

By extrapolation, OS X or Win could run on the Cell chip!

What's to prevent Mr. Softy offering his OS on whatever computer is based on the Cell?

[pubwvj]

What's to prevent Mr. Softy offering his OS on whatever computer is based on the Cell?

There is a _lot_ more to the computer than what processor it uses.

Chickens and you both use the same basic central processors and cell structure.

Your OS won't fit on a chicken. Subtle differences in I/O hardware, auxilliary processors, firmware, etc.

[dicklacara]

There is a _lot_ more to the computer than what processor it uses.

Chickens and you both use the same basic central processors and cell structure.

Your OS won't fit on a chicken. Subtle differences in I/O hardware, auxilliary processors, firmware, etc.

I realize that, but: there has been all this talk about the ease/difficulty of rewriting portions of OS X to take advantage of the additional capabilities of the Cell while taking advantage of the CPU compatibility... giving Apple an advantage over MSoft.

My point is: Since MSoft already has a version of win running on the G5, couldn't they do exactly the same thing with their OS... nullifying any Apple advantage?

[wrldwzrd89]

I realize that, but: there has been all this talk about the ease/difficulty of rewriting portions of OS X to take advantage of the additional capabilities of the Cell while taking advantage of the CPU compatibility... giving Apple an advantage over MSoft.

My point is: Since MSoft already has a version of win running on the G5, couldn't they do exactly the same thing with their OS... nullifying any Apple advantage?
The advantage Apple would have in that situation is greater than you might think, since there's a two-way problem both Apple and Microsoft face. First, consider the situation of a PowerPC-native mainstream Windows version. All the software made for the x86 version of Windows won't run on this version without emulation. Second, consider an x86-native Mac OS X. Do you see the exact same problem? I sure do.

What do you mean, dicklacara? If Microsoft has a version of Windows running on the G5, then they already have their OS running on the G5. Are you referring to making a version of Windows XP/Longhorn for the PowerMac G5? :confused:

[dicklacara]

The advantage Apple would have in that situation is greater than you might think, since there's a two-way problem both Apple and Microsoft face. First, consider the situation of a PowerPC-native mainstream Windows version. All the software made for the x86 version of Windows won't run on this version without emulation. Second, consider an x86-native Mac OS X. Do you see the exact same problem? I sure do.

What do you mean, dicklacara? If Microsoft has a version of Windows running on the G5, then they already have their OS running on the G5. Are you referring to making a version of Windows XP/Longhorn for the PowerMac G5? :confused:

My post along these lines was based on the statement that someone made:

Yes, except the XBox 2 runs a Windows NT kernel IIRC with DirectX, so really, XBox 2 games will just be Windows games recompiled for PowerPC.

Doesn't that mean that Windows NT is running on the G5?

Doesn't that mean that MSoft could port/migrate Windows NT to run on the cell?

Now, I have no idea what platform is required for Longhorn!

But, It appears that MSoft knows how to port (at least one version of) their OS to Run on the G5.

It is not too much of a stretch to think they might have the capability to port Longhorn to G5 or Cell, if that were to their advantage.

Especially if the Mac/Cell offering were so great that it started to erode MSoft's fair market share.

[wrldwzrd89]

My post along these lines was based on the statement that someone made:

Yes, except the XBox 2 runs a Windows NT kernel IIRC with DirectX, so really, XBox 2 games will just be Windows games recompiled for PowerPC.

Doesn't that mean that Windows NT is running on the G5?

Doesn't that mean that MSoft could port/migrate Windows NT to run on the cell?

Now, I have no idea what platform is required for Longhorn!

But, It appears that MSoft knows how to port (at least one version of) their OS to Run on the G5.

It is not too much of a stretch to think they might have the capability to port Longhorn to G5 or Cell, if that were to their advantage.

Especially if the Mac/Cell offering were so great that it started to erode MSoft's fair market share.
I agree with what you posted, as far as Microsoft being able to port Windows to Cell fairly easily. However, that ugly software not running problem still exists (x86 Windows software won't run on the Cell) unless a way is found to run x86 code on the Cell at the same speed or faster than a real x86.

[pubwvj]

I realize that [a human OS running in a chicken wet ware would be strange and incompatible but] Since MSoft already has a version of win running on the G5, couldn't they do exactly the same thing with their OS... nullifying any Apple advantage?

It would still be a dumb chicken, er, I mean Windows, whether it was running on a chicken brain with it's limited and poorly designed wetware (poor for the purposes of being a human that is, great for chickens) or if it was running on a human brain. Just changing the OS doesn't do a whole lot. For each evolutionary nitch there is a whole machine that has developed and the OS is a part of that. There are a lot of chickens out there but they still are dumb birds (I have several hundred and speak from experience) although they do excel at being chickens.

Just sticking Windows on a G5 processor won't make it better or even close to a MacOS on Mac hardware, be it with all the great design of an Apple PowerMac G5 or some imaginary lowly Dell G5. Windows is still squat. More over, without it's x86 base it means recompiling or emulating existing Windows software which is a big deal.

Yes, VirtualPC shows that it can be done, I have vPC, but it is not a very elegant solution and a poor performer. For things that the majority of Windows PCs do (accounting, wordprocessing, cash registers) it is a waste to bother running Windows on a G5. For the majority of the other applications (games) it would not be a happy situation because the current game world is wrapped up around the x86 so game developers wouldn't bother recompiling and supporting a totally different processor. If they were going to do that they would just do it for the Mac now - mostly not a happening thing.

A chicken's a chicken and peck as it might it won't do calculus or great art.

Besides, Intel and MS are in each other's pockets too deeply. MS experimented with the PowerPC with XBox but they're losing big time.

[chaos86]

whats wrong with the ppc implementation in the xbox? i thought it ran pretty darn well?

[wrldwzrd89]

whats wrong with the ppc implementation in the xbox? i thought it ran pretty darn well?
You mean the Xbox 2 (or whatever MS decides to name it), right? As far as I can tell, nothing's wrong with it per se...in fact, Mac users like me are (in general) pleased to see other companies using PPC in their products.