IBM Opens Cell Processor

[iomar]

Yes, good! But we are moving to intel processers.

 

[Peace]

Sorry to imply the cell as the new G6..
I was just trying to say new G6 at the WWDC..
What else is left to announce there??
Tiger's out already.
FCP is out already etc..
The G5 was bumped to 2.7 a while back

Powerbook G5 ?
PowerMac G6 ?

It's part of the evolution process!!!

 

[ifjake]

sweet i get to join that club of people that posted something before it reaches the front page.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/128562/



this is nice, but i would rather Apple develop something new for the notebook arena. the CELL seems like it'll pretty much be inhabiting a tower for some time. but i'm being narrow minded i know. this is still an exciting possibility.

 

[MacVault]

Why in the ---- would Apple not make use of this processor, assuming it's all that it's cracked up to be?

And why in the ---- is Apple putting along at 2.something Ghz when the new XBOX has an IBM PowerPC-based CPU with 3 symmetrical cores running at 3.2GHz each.

It's pissing me off! I remember when the G5 came out. Wooo-Hooo!!! It was suppose to be the holy-frickin-grail with great new architecture, etc. up to 3ghz after a few months etc. Well, instead of that we get a duldrum of 100 or 200 mhz updates at a time.



WTF?!

 

[shamino]

Yes, good! But we are moving to intel processers.

Says who? Some random rumor page?

 

[shamino]

And why in the ---- is Apple putting along at 2.something Ghz when the new XBOX has an IBM PowerPC-based CPU with 3 symmetrical cores running at 3.2GHz each.

What makes you think the CPUs in an XBox are even close to the PPC 970 in terms of features or performance-per-clock?

Comparing a CPU that was custom-designed for XBox games to a general purpose workstation CPU is just silly.

It's pissing me off! I remember when the G5 came out. Wooo-Hooo!!! It was suppose to be the holy-frickin-grail with great new architecture, etc. up to 3ghz after a few months etc. Well, instead of that we get a duldrum of 100 or 200 mhz updates at a time.



WTF?!

You're right. IBM has these amazing chips that outperform everything in the universe, but Apple thinks you don't want them, so they are refusing to use them in a computer. Which is why IBM is now selling them exclusively to game console makers.

And if you believe that, there's a room waiting for you at the Massachusettes State Home for the Bewildered.

 

[ifjake]

Yes, good! But we are moving to intel processers.

instigator!!

 

[Frisco]

Says who? Some random rumor page?

I think he was being sarcastic

At least that's the way I took his comment--hope so.

 

[shawnce]

Why in the ---- would Apple not make use of this processor, assuming it's all that it's cracked up to be?

It depends on just how flexible it is and how much work it would take by Apple and 3rd party developers to get things running on par with today's G5 (PPC970xx) based systems. In other words are the gains worth it given the work it would take to achieve those gains and knowing that the G5 family (or its next generation) won't be standing still during this time.

The cell processor that will be used in PS3 has a limited PPC core in comparison to a G5. It would do poorly in comparison to a G5 on existing code streams and even with ones more coded to its model (it simply has less compute power then a G5).

The real power of the Cell processor is in the 8 on die specialized processing units (APU / SPE). Nothing in existing Mac OS X or from 3rd party developers has any concept of such things directly. To leverage them would take learning, new tool chains, and specific coding by developers.

In the case of Mac OS X at least Apple has a few technologies that could leverage APUs if coded to do so and if used those technologies in their applications they would see gains. The obvious examples are Core Audio, Core Image, and QuickTime codecs. Many aspects of those frameworks could be coded to use APUs (will take time for Apple to do this) while shielding developers that use those frameworks from having to know how the magic works.

And why in the ---- is Apple putting along at 2.something Ghz when the new XBOX has an IBM PowerPC-based CPU with 3 symmetrical cores running at 3.2GHz each.

What the Xbox 360 is using is different from a G5 in many ways. It is a simpler CPU with a limited execution model, hence much more dependent on compiler and/or customized coding to make it work well. Also it has fewer execution units then a G5. The G5 on the other hand is rather good at general computing and to do that comes with more a complex execution model.

In other words don't fall into the MHz/GHz myth... you cannot compare the computer power of different cores on clock rate alone.

 

[minimax]

This CANNOT BE A G6!!!! OMG weve said it a million times!

Anyway, the best use for this chip, as it is a MULTIMEDIA CHIP AND IS NOT SUITABLE FOR NORMAL COMPUTING, is to be a co-proc and do something like offload H.264 tasks or video and rendering, but not have it be THE proc

perhaps you could explain what exactly is a multimedia chip and why the cell is not suitable for normal computing? it has been said a million tiimes: a powerpc core with EXTRA FPU & INT co-processors. Yes, the PS3 cell is a stripped down Power4 / 5 processor but it is a SPECIALISED chip for the playstation, just like the G5 is a specialised PPC for the Macintosh platform. Also, the fact that it needs specialised software is nothing new. MMX, SSE, Altivec and even dualcore ask for software implementation, and according to this article writing optimised code for dual core is a real b*tch too, perhaps even more so then the CELL since there are full threads with multicore processing that need to interact with eachother. What i understand form that article dual processing can give an initial boost but if software developers don't succeed in developing efficient tools the multi-core promise may just be a Fata Morgana. Cell-processing seems to be a different story.

The IBM press release indicates the Cell processor is "Multi-thread, multi-core" but since the APUs are almost certainly not multi-threaded it looks like the PU may be based on a POWER5 core - the very same core I expect to turn up in Apple machines in the form of the G6 [G6] in the not too distant future
- http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell1.html

If it's not multithreading (which seems pretty logical with one main processor) we are probably talking extensive Instruction Level Parallelism. ILP needs far less optimised software and already has proved it's potential.

 

[joeboy_45101]

Hopefully Apple will look into this amazing technology. I also hope that this will soften the relationship between Apple and IBM. The G5 development has been good, but we definitely should have been to at least 3Ghz by now.

I hate it when somebody portrays the G4 or G5's power in terms of a X Ghz G4 or G5 is equal to a 2X Ghz or < X Ghz Pentium 4. We honestly can't compare processor power like that. If Apple wants to convince people of the power of it's processor then it's going to have to be up against a processor of equal clock frequency.

Who wants to bet that a 3.2Ghz G5 would smoke a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4?

 

[nuckinfutz]

Who wants to bet that a 3.2Ghz G5 would smoke a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4?

Hell a 2.7GHz G5 will smoke a 3.2Ghz P4

I'd like to see Apple embrace Cell where it offers a tangible improvement over other chips. Encoding h.264 is a bear. We needs some massive glops to toss at this "pain"

 

[griz]

I'm beginning to think that this site should be called MacSpeculation.com
Any use of the CELL in Apple machines is speculative at best. Can anyone show some reasonable source for Apple using Cell other than their own hopes and dreams of a next generation Powerbook or Powermac?

I would love to see Apple come out with something that just trumps everyone and I am guessing that they are working on it. I can't imagine Apple moving up 200Mhz at a time for the next few years. They need a bump like the 68k to PPC move. They successfully pulled off the 68k to PPC move and then the OS9 to OSX move. It's time for them to put the lid on X86 architecture once and for all and kill it with something over the top. As for what that is? It's anyone's guess.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Why can't it do it?

What would happen if a Cell processor would be used as a general computer and integer math? How much slower compared to let's say a G3 or Pentium III? I want my video encoding to be faster. It could be a third processor in my G5 for those tasks.

Perhaps have a Cell Mini that it functions as the only processor for simple web browsing and video encoding.

 

[isgoed]

Or not... considering sony saw it fit to include a GPU as well in their PS3 outside of the Cell processor. Cell is capable of general purpose computing, and IBM even goes and brags that they have used multiple operating systems on Cell. Heck, both sony and IBM do. At the Game Developers Conference, it was something they kind of highlighted on with 2 of their lectures that I had attended. The Cell processor is a capable processor. It is also a very powerful processor, and nowhere near what I would consider comparing to a GPU. I would compare it more to a dual core Opteron running at 3.2GHz... only this Opteron seems to have 8 additional AthlonXP processors around it(The SPEs) running at the same clock speed, all with their own cache and DMA channels, while at the same time, be able to punch the ammount of memory through per second that only 4 to 5 Opterons operating in NUMA would be able to do... in one chip.

Cell is capable of general purpose computing - but MUCH slower than our current designs. It's advantage is that, with specially optimised code it can run much faster, and cooler and cheaper, but only for vector code.

Link? Last bit of vector code I recall in use was for the VU0 and VU1 processors in the PS2. The standard processor in the PS2 used the MIPS architecture. Unfortunately, VU0 and VU1 had to be utilized using assembly, while Cell has been designed to be a much easier programming target using C++.

As a sidemark let me remark that the programming language says little about the architecture.
You wanted validation of thedoc1111's claim. Well anantech says: (see http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2379&p=3 )

There's not much that's impressive about the PPE, other than it's a small, fast, efficient core. Put up against a Pentium 4 or an Athlon 64, the PPE would lose undoubtedly, but the PPE's architecture is one answer to a shift in the performance paradigm. Performance in business/office applications requires a very powerful, very fast general purpose microprocessor, but performance in a game console, for example, does not. The original Xbox used a modified Intel Celeron processor running at 733MHz, while the fastest desktops had 2.0GHz Pentium 4s and 1.60GHz Athlon XPs. Given that the first implementation of Cell is supposed to be Sony's Playstation 3, the simplicity of the PPE is not surprising. Should Cell ever make its way into a PC, the PPE would definitely have to be beefed up, or at least paired with multiple other PPEs.

and

Each SPE is only capable of issuing two instructions per clock, meaning that at best, each SPE can execute two instructions at the same time. The issue width of a microprocessor can determine a big part of how large the microprocessor will be; for example, the Itanium 2 is a 6-issue core, so being a 2-issue core makes each SPE significantly smaller than most general purpose microprocessors.

Obviously somewhat more conservative than your claims. Furthermore there is a real good in depth loook at the cell on arstechnica and he comes with his own insight on apple's business strategy: (from: http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-2.ars )

The Cell and Apple

Finally, before signing off, I should clarify my earlier remarks to the effect that I don't think that Apple will use this CPU. I originally based this assessment on the fact that I knew that the SPUs would not use VMX/Altivec. However, the PPC core does have a VMX unit. Nonetheless, I expect this VMX to be very simple, and roughly comparable to the Altivec unit o the first G4. Everything on this processor is stripped down to the bare minimum, so don't expect a ton of VMX performance out of it, and definitely not anything comparable to the G5. Furthermore, any Altivec code written for the new G4 or G5 would have to be completely reoptimized due to inorder nature of the PPC core's issue.

So the short answer is, Apple's use of this chip is within the realm of concievability, but it's extremely unlikely in the short- and medium-term. Apple is just too heavily invested in Altivec, and this processor is going to be a relative weakling in that department. Sure, it'll pack a major SIMD punch, but that will not be a double-precision Alitvec-type punch.

Sure the cell can find great appliances in the mac, but it indeed depends very much on what exactly those appliances are to say whether the cell will shine at it.

 

[Lord Kythe]

Who wants to bet that a 3.2Ghz G5 would smoke a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4?

Gee... This is a tough one... I don't know... The P4 is SOOO powerful, and oh my SOOO quick... It's a shame it can't use more than one of those GHz while the rest of the CPU "potential" is busy fumbling with inefficient code...

I'd go with the G5 providing we ever get there before it is replaced by a POWER5 or 970MP derivative. P4s are already at 3.6 GHz without liquid-cooling. Obviously PCs being able to use that chip is only a "best-case-scenario-running-under-Mac-OS-X-PC-edition" kind of thing, but let's give Intel just a little bit of credit for upping the ante for IBM. Apple can preach about the MHz myth all they want, people are people and your average PC user knows only this: the higher the better.

Apple: you want to invest in advertising? GET HIGHER CPU CLOCK SPEEDS! Those PC users won't have ANYTHING to say for their Pentium 5 4.2 GHz against a G5/G6 5 GHz, and will switch for the bragging rights.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

To those thinking the Cell is not suitable for "normal" computing: IBM and Sony had a working prototype Cell-powered workstation back in November 2004. (Link...) I see no reason why Apple shouldn't be thinking about doing the same.

A Cell-based (G6 or whatever they want to call it) Mac showcased at WWDC would be awesome, and another advantage is that the Cell seems to scale better than the Power4 (which the G5 is based on) so maybe we'll see 64 bit portable Macs not too far into the future.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Hmm, Cell chips, Intel rumors, new announced Xbox tripple core chips...
This can only mean Powerbook G5 on Tuesday!

I didn't knew Apple was about to expand into the BBQ market....amazing

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Sorry to imply the cell as the new G6..
I was just trying to say new G6 at the WWDC..
What else is left to announce there??
Tiger's out already.
FCP is out already etc..
The G5 was bumped to 2.7 a while back

Powerbook G5 ?
PowerMac G6 ?

It's part of the evolution process!!!

What about
iTMS selling movies?
iPod video/tablet?
dual core G4 PB?
two button mouse with scroll wheel?
the list goes on and on and on....

 

[miketcool]

Hmmmm

I can see this now, 2 Dual Core PowerPC chips, a dedicated Cell video processor and an advanced GPU. We can start replacing our furnace with this advanced space heater!

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

....And if you believe that, there's a room waiting for you at the Massachusettes State Home for the Bewildered.

LMAO... be nice will ya. I can feel his frustrartion. But admit it, it would be cool with a laptop game consol.
The brand new PBGC G6....doubling as a BBQ...

 

[blitzkrieg79]

As a sidemark let me remark that the programming language says little about the architecture.
You wanted validation of thedoc1111's claim. Well anantech says: (see http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2379&p=3 )
and

Obviously somewhat more conservative than your claims. Furthermore there is a real good in depth loook at the cell on arstechnica and he comes with his own insight on apple's business strategy: (from: http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-2.ars )
Sure the cell can find great appliances in the mac, but it indeed depends very much on what exactly those appliances are to say whether the cell will shine at it.

So why can't the "primitive" PPE unit found in the current CELL processor of PS3 be replaced with a 970fx or power5 derivative?
And also why can't a CELL act as a coprocessor for multimedia intensive apps?
I really don't see any reasons why it can't do either...
Anyway, the SPUs of CELL are vector units (INDEPENDENT vector units, thats what makes them special), in the G4-G5 design Altivec is the vector unit but it can't act alone... So theoretically, Take a Power5 derivative (I know its nonexistant but who knows what IBM/Apple is working on right now) and attach a couple of Altivec2 (yes I know its non existant either but there have been some rumors about it) units and make them independent and how would that compare to a CELL...

EDIT: Come to think of it, I wonder how different will be the SPU units of the CELL compared to Altivec2

 

[Lord Kythe]

Cell? Intel? G6? Come on

Jobs said a few days ago (if that) that Apple was not changing its course of actions. Why would he switch from PPC to a gaming-console customized chip (the Cell)?

When did power mac users envy the processors in gaming consoles? (might I add, which specs have yet to be confirmed)

I believe in PPC chips, they have always been good for Apple, and now that more and more companies are recognizing PPC (triple PPC core in XBox 360 and Nintendo's new Revolution for example) chips, you want me to believe the Cell might even be considered?

Developers are having enough of a hard time already optimizing their software for all that the G5 can offer (including AltiVec), I don't think Apple would add to the monumental task by replacing or even simply adding a Cell processor for specific tasks.

970MP, POWER5 derivative or even a totally new PPC chip, I can see.
The Cell or any direct derivative, I can't. Sorry. Don't see it.

You want a gaming console? Go to Walmart. You want a multi-purpose computer? Go to the Apple Store.

 

[minimax]

Jobs said a few days ago (if that) that Apple was not changing its course of actions. Why would he switch from PPC to a gaming-console customized chip (the Cell)?

When did power mac users envy the processors in gaming consoles? (might I add, which specs have yet to be confirmed)

I believe in PPC chips, they have always been good for Apple, and now that more and more companies are recognizing PPC (triple PPC core in XBox 360 and Nintendo's new Revolution for example) chips, you want me to believe the Cell might even be considered?

Developers are having enough of a hard time already optimizing their software for all that the G5 can offer (including AltiVec), I don't think Apple would add to the monumental task by replacing or even simply adding a Cell processor for specific tasks.

970MP, POWER5 derivative or even a totally new PPC chip, I can see.
The Cell or any direct derivative, I can't. Sorry. Don't see it.

You want a gaming console? Go to Walmart. You want a multi-purpose computer? Go to the Apple Store.

On the one hand you state the CELL is a gaming-console costumized chip, therefore it cannot be used in a Macintosh, on the other hand you point to the capabilities of the 'PPC' since it is being used in gaming-consoles. Not only is that a strange argument, but I would recommend to read some more on the CELL and PPC before making such statements, as the CELL is a customized PPC just like the XBOX360 processor but one with additional potential beyond the gaming console.

 

[fluidinclusion]

HAhahaHAH

What about
iTMS selling movies?
iPod video/tablet?
dual core G4 PB?
two button mouse with scroll wheel?
the list goes on and on and on....

I'll give you the fact that there is something to the first three, but for an entire conference to even partially revolve around a new mouse is hilarious! NOT.