So Is the cell really a super processor?

Do they use it in the LHC? (large Hadron Collider)

Is it really more powerful than the latest PC processor (including i7)

I heard the cell outperform other processors? (in game?)

If so, when will it be commercialized as PC processor?

It's IBM, is it not? IBM started PC last I remembered.

Someone tell me how much powerful the cell is than a regular processor and why PS3 is cheaper than a latest gaming PC if the cell is so powerful?

lol its not...not even close.

it is not comparable to a traditional CPU it is a very different architecture type, it is more comparable to a GPgpu. However to answer your question in laymen's terms: NO.

That's marketing for you. Cell is a terrible cPU processor. lol. don't believe sony's hype BS.

Sure it is...

when it's in a cluster of over 100,000 other Cells.

No, they dont use it in the the LHC. Yes, its more powerful than the latest PC processors (in some areas). Yes, it does perform other CPUs (in some areas). No, it does not perform other CPU's in games. It will never be commercialized for PC's because tis a pretty expensive and piss poor CPU for general processing. It was developed by IBM, yes, in conjuction with several other companies.

The cell is much, much faster than a PC at GFLOPS. However, they arent terribly useful for games or general processing, which is why a decent PC still smokes a PS3.

Why is a PS3 cheaper? Its not, Sony loses money off every PS3 (even when they sold it at $600) and recoup the losses by selling games - one main reason why console games are $140 than PC games.

In short, the Cell processor is great at some tasks and terrible at others, and ultimately suffers for it in games relative toother CPUs. Sony stuck wiht it because it spent way, way too much money on it to see it go to waste depsite other CPU's providing better results at a lower price point.

No, they dont use it in the the LHC. Yes, its more powerful than the latest PC processors (in some areas). Yes, it does perform other CPUs (in some areas). No, it does not perform other CPU's in games. It will never be commercialized for PC's because tis a pretty expensive and piss poor CPU for general processing. It was developed by IBM, yes, in conjuction with several other companies.

The cell is much, much faster than a PC at GFLOPS. However, they arent terribly useful for games or general processing, which is why a decent PC still smokes a PS3.

Why is a PS3 cheaper? Its not, Sony loses money off every PS3 (even when they sold it at $600) and recoup the losses by selling games - one main reason why console games are $140 than PC games.

In short, the Cell processor is great at some tasks and terrible at others, and ultimately suffers for it in games relative toother CPUs. Sony stuck wiht it because it spent way, way too much money on it to see it go to waste depsite other CPU's providing better results at a lower price point.

XaosII

The PS3 is now making profit, FYI.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/ibms_next_cell_processor_dead_water

Cell processor successor dead in the water. Another failure for sony.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/ibms_next_cell_processor_dead_water

Cell processor successor dead in the water. Another failure for sony.

bphan

How is this a failure? :|

[QUOTE="bphan"]

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/ibms_next_cell_processor_dead_water

Cell processor successor dead in the water. Another failure for sony.

BigBoss154

How is this a failure? :|

If it was so great and powerful, a successor would go through, but it isn't. so its a failure.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/ibms_next_cell_processor_dead_water

Cell processor successor dead in the water. Another failure for sony.

bphan

[QUOTE="BigBoss154"]

[QUOTE="bphan"]

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/ibms_next_cell_processor_dead_water

Cell processor successor dead in the water. Another failure for sony.

bphan

How is this a failure? :|

If it was so great and powerful, a successor would go through, but it isn't. so its a failure.

"In November 2009, an IBM representative said that it has discontinued the development of a Cell processor with 32 SPUs. But they have not halted development of other future products in the Cell family."

Nope, the PS3 CPU is far weaker than current computer CPUs.

[QUOTE="bphan"]

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/ibms_next_cell_processor_dead_water

Cell processor successor dead in the water. Another failure for sony.

BigBoss154

How is this a failure? :|

It is a failure. The Cell's itentions were to have incredible scalability and was designed to be used on their dvd players, projectors, calculators, TVs, radio, etc. All of their electronics. All they had to do was scale it up or down based on demand.

Its a very smart idea.... On paper. It would save the company massive amounts of money for years and years. Instead of pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars in R&D with each new iteration of a small consumer device, they can just use 1 SPE of the Cell processor, maybe 2 on their TV's, or 3 on their projectors, or maybe 20 on a server unit. But it clearly didn't work out because you simply can't do that. The Cell processor ultimately made too many compromises making it not a very good CPU for any one particular task (except vector floating point crunching - useful only in SOME types of supercomputing purposes), yet not very good as a general CPU either.

Its a disastrous failure on every level. Im sure they've even yet to recoup the R&D expenditure even after all these years because the intent was to use the cell CPU in practically every electronic device they make.

Do they use it in the LHC? (large Hadron Collider)

Is it really more powerful than the latest PC processor (including i7)

I heard the cell outperform other processors? (in game?)

If so, when will it be commercialized as PC processor?

It's IBM, is it not? IBM started PC last I remembered.

Someone tell me how much powerful the cell is than a regular processor and why PS3 is cheaper than a latest gaming PC if the cell is so powerful?

Ravenchrome

Nope, the PS3 CPU is far weaker than current computer CPUs.

RyviusRan

[QUOTE="BigBoss154"]

[QUOTE="bphan"]

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/ibms_next_cell_processor_dead_water

Cell processor successor dead in the water. Another failure for sony.

XaosII

How is this a failure? :|

It is a failure. The Cell's itentions were to have incredible scalability and was designed to be used on their dvd players, projectors, calculators, TVs, radio, etc. All of their electronics. All they had to do was scale it up or down based on demand.

Its a very smart idea.... On paper. It would save the company massive amounts of money for years and years. Instead of pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars in R&D with each new iteration of a small consumer device, they can just use 1 SPE of the Cell processor, maybe 2 on their TV's, or 3 on their projectors, or maybe 20 on a server unit. But it clearly didn't work out because you simply can't do that. The Cell processor ultimately made too many compromises making it not a very good CPU for any one particular task (except vector floating point crunching - useful only in SOME types of supercomputing purposes), yet not very good as a general CPU either.

Its a disastrous failure on every level. Im sure they've even yet to recoup the R&D expenditure even after all these years because the intent was to use the cell CPU in practically every electronic device they make.

[QUOTE="BigBoss154"]

[QUOTE="bphan"]

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/ibms_next_cell_processor_dead_water

Cell processor successor dead in the water. Another failure for sony.

XaosII

How is this a failure? :|

It is a failure. The Cell's itentions were to have incredible scalability and was designed to be used on their dvd players, projectors, calculators, TVs, radio, etc. All of their electronics. All they had to do was scale it up or down based on demand.

Its a very smart idea.... On paper. It would save the company massive amounts of money for years and years. Instead of pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars in R&D with each new iteration of a small consumer device, they can just use 1 SPE of the Cell processor, maybe 2 on their TV's, or 3 on their projectors, or maybe 20 on a server unit. But it clearly didn't work out because you simply can't do that. The Cell processor ultimately made too many compromises making it not a very good CPU for any one particular task (except vector floating point crunching - useful only in SOME types of supercomputing purposes), yet not very good as a general CPU either.

Its a disastrous failure on every level. Im sure they've even yet to recoup the R&D expenditure even after all these years because the intent was to use the cell CPU in practically every electronic device they make.

My AMD Phenom II x4 would run circles around the Cell. It is the most powerful of current consoles but not current PC's.djsifer01

[QUOTE="djsifer01"]My AMD Phenom II x4 would run circles around the Cell. It is the most powerful of current consoles but not current PC's.i_am_interested

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]My AMD Phenom II x4 would run circles around the Cell. It is the most powerful of current consoles but not current PC's.djsifer01

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]My AMD Phenom II x4 would run circles around the Cell. It is the most powerful of current consoles but not current PC's.djsifer01

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]Games is all i use my PC for. Are you implying its not a fast processor?djsifer01

[QUOTE="djsifer01"][QUOTE="i_am_interested"] and that has absolutely nothing to do with your gpu right?i_am_interested

you know how folding@home on ps3 was a huge deal since it could use it's amazing gpgpu capabilites to "own" PC processors, well guess what a q6600 has over double the PPD.

Link? I hear about Toshiba using cell processors in their tv's. Haven't seen Sony trying to put a cell processor in a radio.Zero_epyon

You don't build a CPU architecture like the Cell with massive scalability if you don't intend to scale it up and down for your needs. Thats the entire point of its scalability. But if you're dieing for a link here you go: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2006/12/05/afx3230989.html It was their intenion well even before this posting to use it as i described...it just not something that will work. Again, great on paper, poor in execution. To date, despite the artcile being 3 (almost 4!) years old, we still dont see it.

They only canned one of the project, which is certainly a small set back. But the R&D is still on going, the canceled project is probably due to PS3 having a longer life cycle than expected. http://www.hardwareheaven.com/news.php?newsid=344mystervj

I dont really know what you're trying to say with that link. The cell was meant to be widely used by Sony's products. It hasn't. It didnt meet its target goals.

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"] Link? I hear about Toshiba using cell processors in their tv's. Haven't seen Sony trying to put a cell processor in a radio.XaosII

You don't build a CPU architecture like the Cell with massive scalability if you don't intend to scale it up and down for your needs. Thats the entire point of its scalability. But if you're dieing for a link here you go: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2006/12/05/afx3230989.html It was their intenion well even before this posting to use it as i described...it just not something that will work. Again, great on paper, poor in execution. To date, despite the artcile being 3 (almost 4!) years old, we still dont see it.

They only canned one of the project, which is certainly a small set back. But the R&D is still on going, the canceled project is probably due to PS3 having a longer life cycle than expected. http://www.hardwareheaven.com/news.php?newsid=344mystervj

I dont really know what you're trying to say with that link. The cell was meant to be widely used by Sony's products. It hasn't. It didnt meet its target goals.

EDIT: This article is 4 years old and doesn't say what products they'll put the cell in. All I've seen is a Toshiba TV with a cell processor that's capable of recording 8 HD channels simultaneously and used to process HD programming. That tv was said to cost $12K. I don't see it as a failure if they never released the products. They saved us and themselves from the embarassment.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]Did i say that? ferret-gamer

you know how folding@home on ps3 was a huge deal since it could use it's amazing gpgpu capabilites to "own" PC processors, well guess what a q6600 has over double the PPD.

you make it seem like thats so definitive when its just one program, just like cell "owns" that core 2s big brother when it comes to h.264 encoding

Take it easy I didn't say it was impossible just wanted to see it.

EDIT: This article is 4 years old and doesn't say what products they'll put the cell in. All I've seen is a Toshiba TV with a cell processor that's capable of recording 8 HD channels simultaneously and used to process HD programming. That tv was said to cost $12K. I don't see it as a failure if they never released the products. They saved us and themselves from the embarassment.

Zero_epyon

It was not my intent to come off as hostile.

But thats pretty much what im saying, you HAVENT seen it in multiple products of theirs because its not a very good processor to be used for those applications. They tried to make a CPU that could be used for a wide range of their products. *That* was the Cell's true goals. They ultimately made a design that was not very good for specific tasks (save for gflops) and not very good as a general processor.

As a result, they probably havent even made back the money that was spent making the CPU. Its a failure. They were *supposed* to have released those products out.

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

Take it easy I didn't say it was impossible just wanted to see it.

EDIT: This article is 4 years old and doesn't say what products they'll put the cell in. All I've seen is a Toshiba TV with a cell processor that's capable of recording 8 HD channels simultaneously and used to process HD programming. That tv was said to cost $12K. I don't see it as a failure if they never released the products. They saved us and themselves from the embarassment.

XaosII

It was not my intent to come off as hostile.

But thats pretty much what im saying, you HAVENT seen it in multiple products of theirs because its not a very good processor to be used for those applications. They tried to make a CPU that could be used for a wide range of their products. *That* was the Cell's true goals. They ultimately made a design that was not very good for specific tasks (save for gflops) and not very good as a general processor.

As a result, they probably havent even made back the money that was spent making the CPU. Its a failure. They were *supposed* to have released those products out.

i bet my 4ghz duo core 2 is better than it

isnt the cell so hard to program for or whatever?

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"] so what exactly does your cpu run circles around cell on?i_am_interested

you know how folding@home on ps3 was a huge deal since it could use it's amazing gpgpu capabilites to "own" PC processors, well guess what a q6600 has over double the PPD.

you make it seem like thats so definitive when its just one program, just like cell "owns" that core 2s big brother when it comes to h.264 encoding

you mean a gpgpu processing it can beat a CPU at parallel processing application? astounding! Especially when said program is made specifically for the PS3 and Cell. You talk about me using only one example yet you turn around an use an even worse one, good job. Dont forget that the folding@home client on the ps3 according to sony is supposed to be 10x faster than a desktop CPU. How did that turn out?

The ps3 can outperform a traditional CPU when it is doing parralell processing type of applications that graphics cards and other GPGPU chips excell at, See nvidia's CUDA. But when you are using that type of stuff you shouldnt be comparing the cell to a CPu but instead the GPU.

You seem to know quite a bit. Question for you. My motherboard only supports DDR2 but my video cards are DDR3. Is that creating a large bottleneck in my performance?djsifer01

While your best bet is to ask in the PC hardware forum, your video card uses GDDR.. and its probably GDDR 4 or 5 by this point since GGDR 3 was used around 2002-ish.

Its completely different and seperate from your memory. Video cards "tap" in directly to your CPU bypassing most of your RAM. While you can get better performance out of more RAM, if you have any particular bottleneck, its like to come from your CPU or video card being too weak.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

you know how folding@home on ps3 was a huge deal since it could use it's amazing gpgpu capabilites to "own" PC processors, well guess what a q6600 has over double the PPD.

ferret-gamer

you make it seem like thats so definitive when its just one program, just like cell "owns" that core 2s big brother when it comes to h.264 encoding

you mean a gpgpu processing it can beat a CPU at parallel processing application? astounding! Especially when said program is made specifically for the PS3 and Cell. You talk about me using only one example yet you turn around an use an even worse one, good job. Dont forget that the folding@home client on the ps3 according to sony is supposed to be 10x faster than a desktop CPU. How did that turn out?

The ps3 can outperform a traditional CPU when it is doing parralell processing type of applications that graphics cards and other GPGPU chips excell at, See nvidia's CUDA. But when you are using that type of stuff you shouldnt be comparing the cell to a CPu but instead the GPU.

doing parallel processing types of applications? you mean like the type of applications "super processors" are used for?

did sony say 10x any desktop cpu or did they get that 10x by comparing it to a specific high level processor at the time? you know, like a p4?

[QUOTE="djsifer01"][QUOTE="i_am_interested"] at doing what? running microsoft office?i_am_interested

Right... because every PS3 exclusive has incredible physics and AI. :roll: A mid end dual core can out perform the Cell processor when it comes to gaming. Hell, and E8400 would eat it alive. And ironically, the only thing the cell is good as, is some number crunching, which is pretty much a Office suite. :lol:

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]Games is all i use my PC for. Are you implying its not a fast processor?WhenCicadasCry

Right... because every PS3 exclusive has incredible physics and AI. :roll: A mid end dual core can out perform the Cell processor when it comes to gaming. Hell, and E8400 would eat it alive. And ironically, the only thing the cell is good as, is some number crunching, which is pretty much a Office suite. :lol:

and what exactly is that mid-end dual core outperforming the cell at when it comes to this basic term you refer to as "gaming"

because awsome physics are the one and only true characteristic for what makes awsome games right?

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"] and that has absolutely nothing to do with your gpu right?i_am_interested

Right... because every PS3 exclusive has incredible physics and AI. :roll: A mid end dual core can out perform the Cell processor when it comes to gaming. Hell, and E8400 would eat it alive. And ironically, the only thing the cell is good as, is some number crunching, which is pretty much a Office suite. :lol:

When a dual core is running Crysis completely maxed out, with physics far superior to any PS3 game.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"][QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

Right... because every PS3 exclusive has incredible physics and AI. :roll: A mid end dual core can out perform the Cell processor when it comes to gaming. Hell, and E8400 would eat it alive. And ironically, the only thing the cell is good as, is some number crunching, which is pretty much a Office suite. :lol:

WhenCicadasCry

When a dual core is running Crysis completely maxed out, with physics far superior to any PS3 game.

its too bad uncharted 2 didnt have barrel stacks of 3000 other wise they may actually won a goty award

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"] and what exactly is that mid-end dual core outperforming the cell at when it comes to this basic term you refer to as "gaming"i_am_interested

When a dual core is running Crysis completely maxed out, with physics far superior to any PS3 game.

Um, what? How about trees falling around you, shockwaves causing the vegetation to be effected by wind physics, aswell as particles, aswell as AI routines. Everything in PS3 exclusives is pre calculated. The PS3 struggles to play multiplats in 720p. :lol:

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"][QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

When a dual core is running Crysis completely maxed out, with physics far superior to any PS3 game.

WhenCicadasCry

Um, what? How about trees falling around you, shockwaves causing the vegetation to be effected by wind physics, aswell as particles, aswell as AI routines. Everything in PS3 exclusives is pre calculated. The PS3 struggles to play multiplats in 720p. :lol:

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

you make it seem like thats so definitive when its just one program, just like cell "owns" that core 2s big brother when it comes to h.264 encoding

i_am_interested

you mean a gpgpu processing it can beat a CPU at parallel processing application? astounding! Especially when said program is made specifically for the PS3 and Cell. You talk about me using only one example yet you turn around an use an even worse one, good job. Dont forget that the folding@home client on the ps3 according to sony is supposed to be 10x faster than a desktop CPU. How did that turn out?

The ps3 can outperform a traditional CPU when it is doing parralell processing type of applications that graphics cards and other GPGPU chips excell at, See nvidia's CUDA. But when you are using that type of stuff you shouldnt be comparing the cell to a CPu but instead the GPU.

doing parallel processing types of applications? you mean like the type of applications "super processors" are used for?

did sony say 10x any desktop cpu or did they get that 10x by comparing it to a specific high level processor at the time? you know, like a p4?

Ok, here is how it works in laymens terms: you throw raw mathematical operations at the cell and it will excel thats what it was made to do: spit out its operations. each group ofSPUs needs to be told exactly what it needs to do at any given time by its PPE.

Now a conventional program and CPUs work off of instruction sets, and each core can use different instructions at the same time and because of the instructions each core does not need to be told what it needs to do to the extent the cell does.

So basically anything that is raw number crunching the Cell will do well like as you showed earlier with the video encoding which is just abunch of number crunching.

The cell needs a program written specifically for it for it to take advantage of its power and doesnt have nearly the flexabliity as a normal CPU.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"] because shooting 300 stacked barrels fits well into killzone and uncharted's stories right?i_am_interested

Um, what? How about trees falling around you, shockwaves causing the vegetation to be effected by wind physics, aswell as particles, aswell as AI routines. Everything in PS3 exclusives is pre calculated. The PS3 struggles to play multiplats in 720p. :lol:

Yeah... running on a mid end DUAL CORE. :| Until I see Crysis running maxed out at 1080p on the PS3, the Cell fails. The end.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

you mean a gpgpu processing it can beat a CPU at parallel processing application? astounding! Especially when said program is made specifically for the PS3 and Cell. You talk about me using only one example yet you turn around an use an even worse one, good job. Dont forget that the folding@home client on the ps3 according to sony is supposed to be 10x faster than a desktop CPU. How did that turn out?

The ps3 can outperform a traditional CPU when it is doing parralell processing type of applications that graphics cards and other GPGPU chips excell at, See nvidia's CUDA. But when you are using that type of stuff you shouldnt be comparing the cell to a CPu but instead the GPU.

ferret-gamer

doing parallel processing types of applications? you mean like the type of applications "super processors" are used for?

did sony say 10x any desktop cpu or did they get that 10x by comparing it to a specific high level processor at the time? you know, like a p4?

Ok, here is how it works in laymens terms: you throw raw mathematical operations at the cell and it will excel thats what it was made to do: spit out its operations. each group ofSPUs needs to be told exactly what it needs to do at any given time by its PPE.

Now a conventional program and CPUs work off of instruction sets, and each core can use different instructions at the same time and because of the instructions each core does not need to be told what it needs to do to the extent the cell does.

So basically anything that is raw number crunching the Cell will do well like as you showed earlier with the video encoding which is just abunch of number crunching.

The cell needs a program written specifically for it for it to take advantage of its power and doesnt have nearly the flexabliity as a normal CPU.

as little abstraction as possible to get in the way of raw performance

you and i both know what youre talking about when it comes cell's raw performance with it comes to programs with as little abstraction as possible that utilize the spus, thats us though, im still waiting to hear what he has to say about what his phenom runs circles around cell at