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
???
As much as I love reading Macrumors' forums, every time I go through a page one rumor therad I feel like I'm the only one that didn't get high on crack.
First, please stop with the G5 Powerbook! This is simply not going to happen. Just as Intel are having two different lines of procesors for desktops and laptops (namely Pentium 4 and Pentium M), so are Apple. Pentium M is just about as different from Pentium 4 as G4 is from G5. Why would you need G5 on a laptop anyway. Noone ever clamed Powerbooks are desktop replacement portable computers, they are simply high-end laptops. If the day, when POWER5 and Itanium (or at least Xeon) laptops hit the market, comes feel free to start again with this nonsence. But untill then, please, lets just call it NextGen Powerbook, or something.
Second, please understand that PowerPC architecture doesn't mean the same processor in different packaging. The chips in next-gen consoles are NOT G5, the only common thing is that they are both following the PPC guidelines. These chips are much simpler (and/or smaller) and therefore can run on higher clock speeds. IBM are not screwing anybody! The 970GX as fast as the design allows. Two years ago they (and Stevo) promised 3GHz, probably expecting to go to 90nm and 65nm manufacturing faster and so getting "free" MHz out of 970GX, but they (as well as Intel and AMD) hit the wall. Now there are two choices - either redesign of the G5 (970FX/970MP anyone) or hanging around till IBM can make 65nm SSOI 970GX' (if ever). For now it seems Apple are doing the second, while we are all hoping for the former (it all depends on Apple's plans for adopting Cell CPU - since a redesign costs money, if Apple are to use anyday Cell CPUs they may just decide to hold on for a while).
And third, now that I mentioned Cell, please understand that Cell is an architecture, a platform, not a single processor model. You would feel kinda' stupid if you say PowerPC is not a very good general purpose chip, won't you? Which PowerPC - the G5, the G4, the one in XBox360, one of the gazillion comunications equipment embeded chips form both Freescale and IBM?
But anyway, even the current version of the Cell is perfectly good CPU (it IS PS3's CPU after all). It has it's own downsides (e.g. inorder execution) but they are completely belied by the higher clock speed and the massive vectorised calculations performance (in both integer and fp). And I haven't heard anyone complaining that they can't reach 10000 characters per minute in Word, most complaints are of choppy h264 decoding, unsatisfactory game performance, rendering or encoding that takes forever - just the stuff that will benefit from the sinergistic processors in the Cell.
Yesterday a ton of people were vowing that PPC -> x86 transition will be a snap, and yet today a PPC -> PPC transition seems impossible? (On a sidenote, as wild as it may sound to some of you, judging by your posts, POWER is IBM's improvisation (and improvement if I may add) on PowerPC architecture; G5 is a POWER4 derivative and so is Cell's main core.)
To conclude I'll just add that IMHO a Cell workstation from Apple is not to be seen in the next 9 to 12 months, at the least. I'd rather expect a 970 redesign or even a POWER5 derivative, but again in order to cut R&D costs Apple may decide to just stick with the good old GX for another year. I think Cell's adoption by Apple will depend on the number of developers that are going to use Quartz2D Extreme, CoreImage, CoreVideo, etc., for these are things that Apple themselves can adjust to take advantage of the new architecture, therefore ensuring (relatively) painless early adoption.
Sorry for the rant, but I just don't want to see pointless, ala Slasdot, babbling here.
As much as I love reading Macrumors' forums, every time I go through a page one rumor therad I feel like I'm the only one that didn't get high on crack.
First, please stop with the G5 Powerbook! This is simply not going to happen. Just as Intel are having two different lines of procesors for desktops and laptops (namely Pentium 4 and Pentium M), so are Apple. Pentium M is just about as different from Pentium 4 as G4 is from G5. Why would you need G5 on a laptop anyway. Noone ever clamed Powerbooks are desktop replacement portable computers, they are simply high-end laptops. If the day, when POWER5 and Itanium (or at least Xeon) laptops hit the market, comes feel free to start again with this nonsence. But untill then, please, lets just call it NextGen Powerbook, or something.
Second, please understand that PowerPC architecture doesn't mean the same processor in different packaging. The chips in next-gen consoles are NOT G5, the only common thing is that they are both following the PPC guidelines. These chips are much simpler (and/or smaller) and therefore can run on higher clock speeds. IBM are not screwing anybody! The 970GX as fast as the design allows. Two years ago they (and Stevo) promised 3GHz, probably expecting to go to 90nm and 65nm manufacturing faster and so getting "free" MHz out of 970GX, but they (as well as Intel and AMD) hit the wall. Now there are two choices - either redesign of the G5 (970FX/970MP anyone) or hanging around till IBM can make 65nm SSOI 970GX' (if ever). For now it seems Apple are doing the second, while we are all hoping for the former (it all depends on Apple's plans for adopting Cell CPU - since a redesign costs money, if Apple are to use anyday Cell CPUs they may just decide to hold on for a while).
And third, now that I mentioned Cell, please understand that Cell is an architecture, a platform, not a single processor model. You would feel kinda' stupid if you say PowerPC is not a very good general purpose chip, won't you? Which PowerPC - the G5, the G4, the one in XBox360, one of the gazillion comunications equipment embeded chips form both Freescale and IBM?
But anyway, even the current version of the Cell is perfectly good CPU (it IS PS3's CPU after all). It has it's own downsides (e.g. inorder execution) but they are completely belied by the higher clock speed and the massive vectorised calculations performance (in both integer and fp). And I haven't heard anyone complaining that they can't reach 10000 characters per minute in Word, most complaints are of choppy h264 decoding, unsatisfactory game performance, rendering or encoding that takes forever - just the stuff that will benefit from the sinergistic processors in the Cell.
Yesterday a ton of people were vowing that PPC -> x86 transition will be a snap, and yet today a PPC -> PPC transition seems impossible? (On a sidenote, as wild as it may sound to some of you, judging by your posts, POWER is IBM's improvisation (and improvement if I may add) on PowerPC architecture; G5 is a POWER4 derivative and so is Cell's main core.)
To conclude I'll just add that IMHO a Cell workstation from Apple is not to be seen in the next 9 to 12 months, at the least. I'd rather expect a 970 redesign or even a POWER5 derivative, but again in order to cut R&D costs Apple may decide to just stick with the good old GX for another year. I think Cell's adoption by Apple will depend on the number of developers that are going to use Quartz2D Extreme, CoreImage, CoreVideo, etc., for these are things that Apple themselves can adjust to take advantage of the new architecture, therefore ensuring (relatively) painless early adoption.
Sorry for the rant, but I just don't want to see pointless, ala Slasdot, babbling here.
tdewey said:
You are right - sorry for the misleading info there. Still, future iterations of the Cell should remove this (hopefully), and even so, 2 cells should be enough for anyone
What else is out there anyway? The main contenders are PPC and Intel. Both Intel and AMD produce x86/64 chips only. Sure everyone also produces arm/strongarm chips, but theyre still weak, the fastest strongarm from Intel is used on higher end PDAs.
Whats left is MIPS, Ultrasparc, PA-RISC, Alpha and special purpose FPGA chips.
MIPS is dead. SGI was producing servers on Itanium which also died.
Whats left is MIPS, Ultrasparc, PA-RISC, Alpha and special purpose FPGA chips.
MIPS is dead. SGI was producing servers on Itanium which also died.
I assume the PS3 has ethernet and/or wireless networking. I wonder if Apple could write a "game" for the PS3 that turns it into a video compressing device running on Xgrid - so any Mac running DVDSP or iDVD could share the compression work with their PS3 games console.pgwalsh said:
Did you read the article quoted? IBM haven't gotten Linux running yet which may indicate it's not as easy, and they also say that there are some significant programming challenges. In addition, they say the Cell chip will not be portable, it simply uses too much power - so it's not going into an Apple Powerbook.Mitthrawnuruodo said: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. <snip> 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.
Lacero said:
to add to your point:
PA-RISC is dead, HP is moving to the Itanium
Alpha died long ago
I really can't imagine any switch to another 32-bit processor, G5 is 64-bits so any replacement should be also (so no Pentium-M for the Intel lovers).
on the bad front, the CELL (in its current incarnation) is a big chip and will not be a nice thing to have in a portable (check the heat / wattage figures in some of the technical articles). As others have stated, dual is the current limit without a custom switch (well, I guess there are no quad macs currently). Also, check the memory you need to use with this thing, not very cheap.
Ars Technica is running an article about the XBox's new PPC. It has some nice stuff and might be a little closer to what the Mac would need.
I do wish Freescale would get their e700-base CPUs out and they would be low power. Always love to see "Future products in plan" on the roadmap.
Ars Technica is running an article about the XBox's new PPC. It has some nice stuff and might be a little closer to what the Mac would need.
I do wish Freescale would get their e700-base CPUs out and they would be low power. Always love to see "Future products in plan" on the roadmap.
What on earth...
What on earth makes you think that you need more than 4 GiB of RAM on a laptop?
Even though the PPC970 does support 64-bits, Apple is still stuck in 32-bit land! 10.3 is pure 32-bit addressing. 10.4 has some 64-bit stuff - *unless* you want to use graphics or a GUI or Carbon or Cocoa - that's still 32-bit only.
And for "switching to another 32-bit processor" - did you not notice that both Intel and AMD are all 64-bit now (on the higher end)? It should be obvious that Apple would choose an x64 architecture to jump to....
mccoma said:
What on earth makes you think that you need more than 4 GiB of RAM on a laptop?
Even though the PPC970 does support 64-bits, Apple is still stuck in 32-bit land! 10.3 is pure 32-bit addressing. 10.4 has some 64-bit stuff - *unless* you want to use graphics or a GUI or Carbon or Cocoa - that's still 32-bit only.
And for "switching to another 32-bit processor" - did you not notice that both Intel and AMD are all 64-bit now (on the higher end)? It should be obvious that Apple would choose an x64 architecture to jump to....
instead of going into the high end powermacs, doesn't it make a ton of sense for the cell to be in the next Mac Mini? Imagine a Mac mini with the following
Cell CPU
Blu-Ray Drive
HDMI out
Digital optical out
HDTV input
Tivo like software
Who here wouldn't buy one of those for each of their HDTVs? I'd order 3 the day they were announced. It would play DVDs, blu ray DVDs, CDs, iTunes, play quicktime, video games, browse the web, etc, etc, etc. The G4 in the Mac mini doesn't have the horsepower to do all of that. Shoot, it takes dual 2GHz G5s to decode 1080i video. The cell can do all of that. Tiger should run just fine on it with the PowerPC and Apple already has system libraries already in place that seem well suited to the cell.
Cell CPU
Blu-Ray Drive
HDMI out
Digital optical out
HDTV input
Tivo like software
Who here wouldn't buy one of those for each of their HDTVs? I'd order 3 the day they were announced. It would play DVDs, blu ray DVDs, CDs, iTunes, play quicktime, video games, browse the web, etc, etc, etc. The G4 in the Mac mini doesn't have the horsepower to do all of that. Shoot, it takes dual 2GHz G5s to decode 1080i video. The cell can do all of that. Tiger should run just fine on it with the PowerPC and Apple already has system libraries already in place that seem well suited to the cell.
AidenShaw said:
Video - if I need all that speed past a G4 on my laptop, then I would imagine it is a mobile Final Cut Pro station and video takes a lot of RAM.
I would also imagine, if Apple is switching processors, then the whole line is going to go (no sense in doing it by half - that would just confuse buyers).
AidenShaw said:
Well, I don't care about < 10.4 (as they would not port the older OS to the new platform). Having a GUI does not exclude having parts of your app be 64-bits - to quote Apple :
Takes a little thought as a developer, but not something too far out.
AidenShaw said:
I specifically mentioned a 32-bit member of the Intel line, that is being mentioned heavily in another (non-CELL) thread. I did not say anything about the 64-bit x86. I assume they would not switch to another 32-bit processor, the 64-bit x86's are not 32-bit processors.
Looking at the 64-bit x86's, I am having a tough time believing a "real - decent battery life" portable could be built around those processors.
I still think the 970 is a fine 64-bit processor, my only holdup on the PowerMac is the AGP bus. I will buy a PowerMac when AGP is replaced with PCI-Express.
while we're on the g4/g5 powerbook conversation...
how much extra performance would you be likely to see in a g5 powerbook, it would still have to have a slower hdd and a lower fsb.
my point is, how does a top end 1.67ghz powerbook compare to a 1.6ghz imacg5?
i am sure a lot of the performance of the g5 comes from apple removing all the bottlenecks to performance, which exist in so many pc's these days. I think there would be a lot of bottlenecks in a laptop.
how much extra performance would you be likely to see in a g5 powerbook, it would still have to have a slower hdd and a lower fsb.
my point is, how does a top end 1.67ghz powerbook compare to a 1.6ghz imacg5?
i am sure a lot of the performance of the g5 comes from apple removing all the bottlenecks to performance, which exist in so many pc's these days. I think there would be a lot of bottlenecks in a laptop.
I think it is a new architecture. The cell uses PowerPC instructions because that was just convenient for IBM. But that doesn't mean that it is PowerPC compliant.GFLPraxis said:
You can for example say that the G4 is a powerPC core + additional altivec instructions. This is simply proved by the fact that you can compile G3 code and it will run on the G4.
And with that same argument I highly doubt that G3 code will run on a cell. Simply because the threads that run on cell are not regular threads and the task of the general Purpose processor is to be the arbiter over the cells. It doesn't understand doing things itself. Furthermore the way the cell works requires a whole lot more cell specific instructions and communications commands in the cell. I think this is even more illustrated by the comment above that Linux does not run on Cell. If Cell was just general PPC this would be a piece of cake.
so, would it be closer to expect XBox360's CPU instead of Cell?
M$ use G5s to run XBox360 & develop its game
PowerPC Based 3.2Ghz multi-core right?
As i remembered, PS2's architecture is linux based, so as PS3?! I am not sure. But Cell is originally developed for Cluster computing, and this is also somehow close to sth like XGrid with G5s....so it may also be possible.
Question: what is faster? and which generates more heat?
Cell@3.2Ghz or XBox360 CPU@3.2Ghz or current G5 ?
M$ use G5s to run XBox360 & develop its game
PowerPC Based 3.2Ghz multi-core right?
As i remembered, PS2's architecture is linux based, so as PS3?! I am not sure. But Cell is originally developed for Cluster computing, and this is also somehow close to sth like XGrid with G5s....so it may also be possible.
Question: what is faster? and which generates more heat?
Cell@3.2Ghz or XBox360 CPU@3.2Ghz or current G5 ?
My Novel of thoughts
It is funny to watch these threads. As someone else said, we don't know what is coming from Apple in the near future, and the same goes for IBM. What I am talking about, is the next advance in the Macintosh line.
Apple has an extremely limited Market share in the Home and business PC market, yet they have been consistent in having some of the fastest computers on the market. So the Powermac isn't the fastest home / office system on the market now, oh well, it doesnt necessarily mean that Apple is going to stand by and stop working to produce products in the top 10 or 20% of fastest consumer and professional computers. The only bad thing about the current situation is that it opens the doors more for the Apple nay-Sayers to bop in and slam the Macintosh and Powerbook line.
Are the computers we own and buy THAT slow? Heck no, they are not the fastest in the market, but they still have allot going for them. I am sure that Apple will take care of us, and with the IBM leak (a while back) in regards to Dual Core G5 Processors (that seems to have been forgotten on recent debates) may come to market sooner then later.
On the Intel subject, I have yet to see an official announcement from Apple or Intel, that the next Powermac will be X86, or even have an Intel core. I dont think anyone should commit suicide, or loose sleep over this at this point.
I am not, and will not be in the market for a faster computer in the near future, but that doesnt keep me from being optimistic that Apple may soon release more then a speed bumped upgrade to the Powermac. Don't let the recent 2.7 GHZ speed bump make you think a larger upgrade isn't coming soon. If you look at the history of the Macintosh line, speed bumps sometimes only lasted a couple of months, before the release of an other bump, and or replacement model with much faster gains or new Technology.
I know this is Macrumors, but a BIG part of Apple computer in the last 5 years, as been their love for the element of surprise!
just my thoughts, nothing more.
840
It is funny to watch these threads. As someone else said, we don't know what is coming from Apple in the near future, and the same goes for IBM. What I am talking about, is the next advance in the Macintosh line.
Apple has an extremely limited Market share in the Home and business PC market, yet they have been consistent in having some of the fastest computers on the market. So the Powermac isn't the fastest home / office system on the market now, oh well, it doesnt necessarily mean that Apple is going to stand by and stop working to produce products in the top 10 or 20% of fastest consumer and professional computers. The only bad thing about the current situation is that it opens the doors more for the Apple nay-Sayers to bop in and slam the Macintosh and Powerbook line.
Are the computers we own and buy THAT slow? Heck no, they are not the fastest in the market, but they still have allot going for them. I am sure that Apple will take care of us, and with the IBM leak (a while back) in regards to Dual Core G5 Processors (that seems to have been forgotten on recent debates) may come to market sooner then later.
On the Intel subject, I have yet to see an official announcement from Apple or Intel, that the next Powermac will be X86, or even have an Intel core. I dont think anyone should commit suicide, or loose sleep over this at this point.
I am not, and will not be in the market for a faster computer in the near future, but that doesnt keep me from being optimistic that Apple may soon release more then a speed bumped upgrade to the Powermac. Don't let the recent 2.7 GHZ speed bump make you think a larger upgrade isn't coming soon. If you look at the history of the Macintosh line, speed bumps sometimes only lasted a couple of months, before the release of an other bump, and or replacement model with much faster gains or new Technology.
I know this is Macrumors, but a BIG part of Apple computer in the last 5 years, as been their love for the element of surprise!
just my thoughts, nothing more.
840
MacVault said: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.
WTF?!
Please...NO MORE OF THESE POSTS...it has been explained so many times
mccoma said:
That's why Intel has the Napa64 and Meram projects underway - to move the Pentium M line to x64....
the cell is a powerpc - there should be no reason why existing powerpc code wouldn't run unmodified on the cell - only it wouldn't take advantage of the cells themselves. But Apple building tiger for the cell could have appropriate OS stuff use the cell - stuff like quarts extreme, core image, quicktime codecs, etc, thus speed up many apps without the apps themselves needing to be rewritten.
To those of you stating that Cell is a multimedia chip and not suitable for standard processing...
it has a 64bit PowerPC core with full VMX/Altivec support, this is augmented by an array of independent vector units with their own memory.
a 4Ghz+ Cell would quite happily run OSX, and very quickly at that, obviously, the SPE's would need directly tuned code... which is where things like Coreimage come into the equation.
it has a 64bit PowerPC core with full VMX/Altivec support, this is augmented by an array of independent vector units with their own memory.
a 4Ghz+ Cell would quite happily run OSX, and very quickly at that, obviously, the SPE's would need directly tuned code... which is where things like Coreimage come into the equation.
we dont know if it will be able to run OSX or not as it is. when it starts running linux then we will know if in its current state it is ready for a full featured OS.