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?

orangedv said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GFLPraxis said:
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).
Click to expand...

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?
 
wrldwzrd89 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
dontmatter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apple can bring something to the table that none of the 3 have- a kick ass OS.
 
GFLPraxis said:
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).
Click to expand...

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
 
alfismoney said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GFLPraxis said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
gekko513 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
GFLPraxis said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
GFLPraxis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
dicklacara said:
What's to prevent Mr. Softy offering his OS on whatever computer is based on the Cell?
Click to expand...

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.
 
pubwvj said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
dicklacara said:
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?
Click to expand...
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:
 
wrldwzrd89 said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
dicklacara said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
dicklacara said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 said:
whats wrong with the ppc implementation in the xbox? i thought it ran pretty darn well?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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