Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IBM Opens Cell Processor
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's my understanding that IBM uses various forms of the PowerPC (or POWER) for most of their systems - AS/400 minis, their UNIX servers (of various names) and their non-Windows desktop boxes.Chryx said:
The only big-iron architectecture that's not PPC/POWER based is their s/390 boxes. The 360/370/390 processor architecture is very very different from everything else, so systems based on it will probably never move to anything different. Porting the various operating systems (MVS/TSO, VM/CMS, etc.) would be virtually impossible, since the code is decades old and contains huge amounts of hand-optimized assembly language.
I'd like to see Apple do something amazing with their hardware so that when it is compared to anything else on the market it just blows it away and Intel couldn't do anything about it. I don't know where the answer lies but the G5 isn't even at 3 GHz yet, something better be done.
why not check their website?
Your "understanding" would be a lot better if you simply looked at IBM's product website.
You'll have to look a *long* time to find the one and only product that IBM sells with a PPC processor. Except for the zSeries (new name for s/390), every product except for one is either POWER or x86 based.
IBM is not a PPC vendor. The only PPC they offer is one system with a PPC970 (which, of course, isn't as much a real PPC as it is a cut-down POWER4 chip).
shamino said:
Your "understanding" would be a lot better if you simply looked at IBM's product website.
You'll have to look a *long* time to find the one and only product that IBM sells with a PPC processor. Except for the zSeries (new name for s/390), every product except for one is either POWER or x86 based.
IBM is not a PPC vendor. The only PPC they offer is one system with a PPC970 (which, of course, isn't as much a real PPC as it is a cut-down POWER4 chip).
Cell based Blade server running Linux
Looks like they got Linux up and running.
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20050525/105050/
Mac OS X next?
Looks like they got Linux up and running.
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20050525/105050/
Mac OS X next?
PPC and POWER are the same architecture. And I made a point of mentioning both. You ask me to look through IBM's products (which I have done on many occasions) but you obviously didn't bother reading the message you replied to.AidenShaw said:
As for x86, those are all PCs. (A PC-server with a dozen hard drives in it is still a PC, no matter what the marketing department wants to call it.)
shamino said:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/1484851/
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/1484851/
How about a x64 server with a dozen CPUs in it - still a PC?
wdlove said:
It's the IBM two cell blade card that is discussed in the links a couple of posts ago (the two posts right before the one you quoted - the picture is from the article). Apparently despite what some on here assume, IBM thinks the cell will make for much more powerful servers than their current chips.
Some information that may help you to better understand this whole Cell business.
PowerPC is an architecture just like x86. POWER and Cell are both PowerPC. The PPE is a brand new chip. It is not a POWER4 derivative like 970's (G5's)are. It does have some features from POWER5 like SMT though.
The Xbox 360's three core processor is in all probability a set of three PPE's. The PPE is a PowerPC processor probably based on some work IBM did back in 1999/2000 with the first processor to crack the 1 GHz barrier. i.e. it's simple, efficient at in order code and scales very high. IBM owns the PPE, when Microsoft wanted something they probably said, "Well we have this PPE thing that Sony-Toshiba are using for Cell's central processor, but we own the PPE itself and we're happy to customize it to your specs" Microsoft says ok, adds a custom VMX (The VMX-128, the regular VMX is also known as Altivec) and you have a deal. Despite the fact that Xbox 360 is using the PPE, the rest of their system has nothing to do with Cell.
That's because outside of the PPE the Cell is joint intellectual property (IP) of Sony-Toshiba-IBM (STI). The SPE's, the broadband bandwidth, etc. With additional stuff from other companies like Rambus's Flex/IO interface and they're ultra fast XDR (Extreme Data Rate) RAM.
The PPE even with 8 SPE's is not suitable for Macs. That's because while a PPE is roughly equivalent to a pair of of G4's (NOT G4+'s) at 1.4-1.6 GHz it's not good at a lot of things. The original G4 (7400 series) was a G3+Altivec and that's what a PPE can kinda be compared too, not that they ever got up to 1.4 GHz. Modern G4's are G4+'s which are quite different from G4's. The reason the PPE matches a pair of G4's is because of SMT (Simultaneous Multi Threading, like Intel's Hyperthreading but a better design). G3's and G4's are fairly in order processors so code written for them (like the vast majority of current Mac code) will run fairly well on a PPE. However newer code written for G4+'s and G5's will not run that well since the PPE is poor at out of order code, has poor branch prediction, and suffers a fairly large branch misdirection penalty. Therefore while it can be used, it wouldn't be the best solution in its current form. Luckily Cell is more of an architecture then a set of processors, and so the PPE can be modified, as can the number of SPE's.
Apple has a bit of a problem with upcoming processors. The 970 series hasn't seen an improvement since the FX model, and both the GX and the MP are not on the scene yet. IBM seems to be unable/unwilling to make a low power laptop processor, at least until all process improvements are up and running at 90nm. While the G4+ 7448 chip and the e600 series are on the horizon, Freescale is half a generation behind IBM in manufacturing, and may fall further behind. So short (7448) and medium (e600) laptop chips can come from them, but their track record needs watching and long term (e700) depends heavily on unknowns.
IBM's chip division uses a vast amount of the companies resources, but the return-on-investment sucks. Therefore they may have little to no interest in continuing to improve the 970's, or towards producing a POWER5 lite. Or Apple is unwilling to invest the money required for them to continue.
On the other hand Cell is going into probably a 100 million PS3's, and the PPE core will be in something like half that many Xbox 360's. Plus Nintendo is also using an IBM processor (could be a 970GX/MP if they come out, or a PPE, or a custom variant of either). Although Sony and Tosiba will be using their own fabs when they come online at 65nm, and Microsoft will be sourcing their PPE as soon as they find some 65nm fabs, IBM will probably be making a whole lot of Cell's/PPE's at 90nm and some at 65nm. Cash flow. Additionally if IBM also wants to win the processors for the next next gen systems (and I'm sure they do) they'll be investing lots of money in the Cell and PPE and derivatives while selling the improved models to as many people as possible to keep the cash coming in while they wait for the really big orders from the next next gen systems.
Therefore Apple jumping on a custom Cell will make IBM happy because it means moving upwards of 2 million Cell's a year for some time once all Apple systems are using variations of the Cell. Now say 6-10 million isn't a huge amount versus 200 million Sony/Microsoft/Maybe Nintendo but IBM won't be making most of those. Add in some workstation sales, and the money they've already made designing it for various customers and they should have plenty of money to keep working on the Cell/PPE for the next iteration of console wars around 2010.
Jumping on the Cell will make Apple happy because the Cell is going to have dozens of times the resources thrown at then the 970's or some Apple custom POWER5 lite (remember Apple is basically the only customer for 970's, IBM sells a handful in a blade server and that's it). I'm sure a beefed up PPE with more out of order and better branch prediction OR a few PPE's clustered together will make a fine future system once you toss in a few SPE's as well. Additionally Cell would scale very easily from just a single PPE with maybe 1 SPE in a Mac Mini or iBook, to multiple PPE's and SPE's in PowerMacs.
As to those pointing out Cell's size, yes it is big. But this is very first gen stuff at 90nm. Cell was designed to be built at 65nm but both Microsoft and Sony decided to kick off the next round before 65nm fabs are up and running so the first ~6 months for Microsoft and the first couple of months for Sony are stuck using 90nm with all the additional costs that implies.
At 65nm the Cell will be much more affordable, and the current die size should shrink with more engineering dollars. By late 2006/early 2007 Apple would probably be able to buy Cells running at 4+ GHz at 65nm with their own heavily beefed up PPE since IBM prides themselves at custom creations.
Although a 970MP or two would probably be able to match the performance at that point in time, going forward it would probably lose out real fast as it hits scaling limits (which the 970FX has run smack into right now) and the Cell climbs towards 6 GHz.
That gives Apple one to two years to begin rewriting/optimizing for in order code, and optimizing for those SPE's plus all the new internal bandwidth. Independent developer code won't see much of a hit or any depending on how beefed up the PPE(s) are and lots of apps will be able to benefit from the SPEs.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
PowerPC is an architecture just like x86. POWER and Cell are both PowerPC. The PPE is a brand new chip. It is not a POWER4 derivative like 970's (G5's)are. It does have some features from POWER5 like SMT though.
The Xbox 360's three core processor is in all probability a set of three PPE's. The PPE is a PowerPC processor probably based on some work IBM did back in 1999/2000 with the first processor to crack the 1 GHz barrier. i.e. it's simple, efficient at in order code and scales very high. IBM owns the PPE, when Microsoft wanted something they probably said, "Well we have this PPE thing that Sony-Toshiba are using for Cell's central processor, but we own the PPE itself and we're happy to customize it to your specs" Microsoft says ok, adds a custom VMX (The VMX-128, the regular VMX is also known as Altivec) and you have a deal. Despite the fact that Xbox 360 is using the PPE, the rest of their system has nothing to do with Cell.
That's because outside of the PPE the Cell is joint intellectual property (IP) of Sony-Toshiba-IBM (STI). The SPE's, the broadband bandwidth, etc. With additional stuff from other companies like Rambus's Flex/IO interface and they're ultra fast XDR (Extreme Data Rate) RAM.
The PPE even with 8 SPE's is not suitable for Macs. That's because while a PPE is roughly equivalent to a pair of of G4's (NOT G4+'s) at 1.4-1.6 GHz it's not good at a lot of things. The original G4 (7400 series) was a G3+Altivec and that's what a PPE can kinda be compared too, not that they ever got up to 1.4 GHz. Modern G4's are G4+'s which are quite different from G4's. The reason the PPE matches a pair of G4's is because of SMT (Simultaneous Multi Threading, like Intel's Hyperthreading but a better design). G3's and G4's are fairly in order processors so code written for them (like the vast majority of current Mac code) will run fairly well on a PPE. However newer code written for G4+'s and G5's will not run that well since the PPE is poor at out of order code, has poor branch prediction, and suffers a fairly large branch misdirection penalty. Therefore while it can be used, it wouldn't be the best solution in its current form. Luckily Cell is more of an architecture then a set of processors, and so the PPE can be modified, as can the number of SPE's.
Apple has a bit of a problem with upcoming processors. The 970 series hasn't seen an improvement since the FX model, and both the GX and the MP are not on the scene yet. IBM seems to be unable/unwilling to make a low power laptop processor, at least until all process improvements are up and running at 90nm. While the G4+ 7448 chip and the e600 series are on the horizon, Freescale is half a generation behind IBM in manufacturing, and may fall further behind. So short (7448) and medium (e600) laptop chips can come from them, but their track record needs watching and long term (e700) depends heavily on unknowns.
IBM's chip division uses a vast amount of the companies resources, but the return-on-investment sucks. Therefore they may have little to no interest in continuing to improve the 970's, or towards producing a POWER5 lite. Or Apple is unwilling to invest the money required for them to continue.
On the other hand Cell is going into probably a 100 million PS3's, and the PPE core will be in something like half that many Xbox 360's. Plus Nintendo is also using an IBM processor (could be a 970GX/MP if they come out, or a PPE, or a custom variant of either). Although Sony and Tosiba will be using their own fabs when they come online at 65nm, and Microsoft will be sourcing their PPE as soon as they find some 65nm fabs, IBM will probably be making a whole lot of Cell's/PPE's at 90nm and some at 65nm. Cash flow. Additionally if IBM also wants to win the processors for the next next gen systems (and I'm sure they do) they'll be investing lots of money in the Cell and PPE and derivatives while selling the improved models to as many people as possible to keep the cash coming in while they wait for the really big orders from the next next gen systems.
Therefore Apple jumping on a custom Cell will make IBM happy because it means moving upwards of 2 million Cell's a year for some time once all Apple systems are using variations of the Cell. Now say 6-10 million isn't a huge amount versus 200 million Sony/Microsoft/Maybe Nintendo but IBM won't be making most of those. Add in some workstation sales, and the money they've already made designing it for various customers and they should have plenty of money to keep working on the Cell/PPE for the next iteration of console wars around 2010.
Jumping on the Cell will make Apple happy because the Cell is going to have dozens of times the resources thrown at then the 970's or some Apple custom POWER5 lite (remember Apple is basically the only customer for 970's, IBM sells a handful in a blade server and that's it). I'm sure a beefed up PPE with more out of order and better branch prediction OR a few PPE's clustered together will make a fine future system once you toss in a few SPE's as well. Additionally Cell would scale very easily from just a single PPE with maybe 1 SPE in a Mac Mini or iBook, to multiple PPE's and SPE's in PowerMacs.
As to those pointing out Cell's size, yes it is big. But this is very first gen stuff at 90nm. Cell was designed to be built at 65nm but both Microsoft and Sony decided to kick off the next round before 65nm fabs are up and running so the first ~6 months for Microsoft and the first couple of months for Sony are stuck using 90nm with all the additional costs that implies.
At 65nm the Cell will be much more affordable, and the current die size should shrink with more engineering dollars. By late 2006/early 2007 Apple would probably be able to buy Cells running at 4+ GHz at 65nm with their own heavily beefed up PPE since IBM prides themselves at custom creations.
Although a 970MP or two would probably be able to match the performance at that point in time, going forward it would probably lose out real fast as it hits scaling limits (which the 970FX has run smack into right now) and the Cell climbs towards 6 GHz.
That gives Apple one to two years to begin rewriting/optimizing for in order code, and optimizing for those SPE's plus all the new internal bandwidth. Independent developer code won't see much of a hit or any depending on how beefed up the PPE(s) are and lots of apps will be able to benefit from the SPEs.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
Electric Monk said:
Yep I pretty much agree with you, why would IBM want to invest money in for example power5 lite version when the only customer will seem to be Apple. With Cell they have something new, something that it seems will be used by few top players in the tech game... SO obviously over the long run the research and further development of it will won't be as expensive as some exclusive Apple chip... People are saying that the CELL is not for everyday computig that it is specialized, they keep on forgetting that CELL is not one processor, its more of an idea, more of a broad architecture, CUSTOMIZABLE...
Anyway, I am more than sure they will be able to develop an Apple friendly verion of Cell-like processor in lets 12-18 months, they already got the basics and whose to say that Apple and IBM hasn't been working on such a design for the past 6-12 months...
Anyway, I do believe Apple in 1-2 years will use some derivative of the CELL design, IBM and Sony already declared they will develop graphic workstations running on CELLs so I am guessing that the CELL can be customized for more of everyday computing and not be as specialized as for the PS3 console...
You do not provide just information here. You speculate as well. It's kinda misleading.Electric Monk said:
Can you provide a link? I have seen nowhere that the cell can actually run PPC code.Electric Monk said:
You are really making this up? are you?Electric Monk said:
Worldwide PC sales are only 43 Million (Q2 2004). So about 170 million a year. I highly doubt that console sales will top that (or even just cell sales). And I don't think IBM is bothered with the "small market" of Apple. I think more people buy Apple computers than IBM POWER computers.Electric Monk said:
The initial rumours claimed cell speeds of 4.8Ghz. Now when the cell is here it only runs at 3.2Ghz. I think that as long as Mhz is concerned all processors face the same problems. That the 970 ran into its scaling limits is nonsense.Electric Monk said:
Glad you made that clear. You are up to date on computer developments, but I think you mix up fact and fiction too much. Putting cell into Apple requires a lot of hurdless to be overcome and certainly aint as easy as you make believe.Electric Monk said:
Well I made this comment before, but I'll make it again. We know that the PPE unit is based on the POWER architecture. This however does not mean that it can actually run PPC code. For example. The Athlon 64 is based on x86, BUT if they had not added extra instructions, the Athlon 64 could not run x86-32 bit. It all comes donw to the art of logic reasoning.Chryx said:
What is also interesting is the folowing: The Playstation 3 emulates PS1 and PS2 for backwards compatibility Both the PS1 and PS2 are PPC computers. Of course it is not exactly clear what is being emulated. Maybe the code itself can run unemulated and just the hardware is emulated. Of notice is that also the PS2 emulates the PS1.
Naturally.Chryx said:
Runs Linux...runs OSX?
As mentioned earlier...
"Looks like they got Linux up and running.
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/englis...0050525/105050/
Mac OS X next?"
OSX is Linux based. Is the jump to OSX as difficult as some have said ("...cell is not designed to run a full fledged operating system, etc.")? Does this answer the PPC compatible question?
As mentioned earlier...
"Looks like they got Linux up and running.
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/englis...0050525/105050/
Mac OS X next?"
OSX is Linux based. Is the jump to OSX as difficult as some have said ("...cell is not designed to run a full fledged operating system, etc.")? Does this answer the PPC compatible question?
gregoryp said:
OS X is based on BSD UNIX, not Linux. And there is a vast difference between getting Linux (or even Darwin) running on a chip and getting the entire OS X experience ported (heck, Darwin can run on x86 chips, but that doesn't mean that OS X does).
Nooooo. The evil has fallen over us. Can we still be saved, or are we doomed by denying our heritage and diverting to the heartless anarchistic monster called Linux.gregoryp said:
In short: OSX is UNIX based.
I am confident that cell can even run the king of operating systems. However your argument that should support this is invalid. A: Linux can be trimmed down to the simplest of OS so being able to run it proves nothing. B No, it does not answer the PPC compatible question since Linux can run on every processor architecture.gregoryp said: