Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

CELL CHIP?? Big news for apple?

SiliconAddict said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
nagromme said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
This is good news, I think.

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

..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)...
 
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...! ;)
 
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.
 
Stike said:
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...! ;)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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? ;)


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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
GFLPraxis said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
benpatient said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
lom8104 said:
"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?
Click to expand...

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).
 
benpatient said:
I can't believe that you guys think Apple is in any way involved with this program. they are not going to use CELL.
Click to expand...
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?
 
dongmin said:
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?
Click to expand...

Cell powered iPod Video and iNewton next Tuesday!
 
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?
 
What the Cell is

GFLPraxis said:
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).
Click to expand...

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

IBM, Sony, Toshiba present Cell

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)
 
Xtremehkr said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lacero said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

IBM, Sony, Toshiba present Cell

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
GFLPraxis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Hiroshige said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back