The 2005 ISSCC

"Xenon" <xenonxbox2@xboxnext.com> writes:

> Cell Architecture Explained: Introduction
   [...]
> 250 GFLOPS (Billion Floating Point Operations per Second)
   [...]
> 6.4 Gigabit / second off-chip communication

A little bit memory starved, I guess -- or do you have an application
that performs in the neighborhood of fifty FLOPS per *bit*?

-kzm
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

Ketil Malde <ketil+news@ii.uib.no> writes:

>"Xenon" <xenonxbox2@xboxnext.com> writes:

>> Cell Architecture Explained: Introduction
>   [...]
>> 250 GFLOPS (Billion Floating Point Operations per Second)
>   [...]
>> 6.4 Gigabit / second off-chip communication

>A little bit memory starved, I guess -- or do you have an application
>that performs in the neighborhood of fifty FLOPS per *bit*?


The claim made in the Cell paper is that there are 8 Rambus XDR channels at
3.2 GB/s each for a total of 25.6 GB/s (I could have sworn XDR was supposed
to be 6.4 GB/s, but maybe that was down the road)  That 6.4 GB/s off chip
communication is the hypertransport equivalent (and also supposed to be per
pin, can't remember how wide that was supposed to be)  Not that this gets
it near 250 GLOPS usable for problems larger than a few megabytes.

-- 
Douglas Siebert                          dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Thomas Jefferson

In alt.games.video.xbox CEO Gargantua <gamers@r.lamers> wrote:

> Moore's Law is dead, and it's taking Wintel down with it.

But is it even needed anymore?

Think about it - how many people *NEED* that 3+Ghz processor?  And the 
people who do actually need that sort of power are going with SMP or 
paralell processing systems already.  Even Doom3 is more concerned with 
the processor and memory of the graphics card - not with your main CPU.

If anything, the days of the single CPU system are numbered.  If you can't 
make the individual chip go faster, why not throw more chips at the 
problem?  This won't lead to a speed-up across the board, but imagine 
being able to dedicate a processor to each application you're running on 
your system?  BeOS used to be able to do this and even let you set how 
many processors you wanted dedicated to each process if you wanted.  Just 
don't set it to 0 CPUs for the OS...bad things would happen ;)

As for margins on its chips, I wouldn't worry about Intel just yet.  If 
they start doing multiple core processors (one chip, 2 or more CPUs) which 
will push their prices along nicely.  After all, there's only so much room 
on a standard desktop ATX motherboard.

> In alt.games.video.xbox CEO Gargantua <gamers@r.lamers> wrote:

This high authority on the issue spake:
> Moore's Law is dead, and it's taking Wintel down with it.

Pantagruel sez:  Then they'll have to start making the software faster.
Won't that be a hoot!

http://www.centaurgalleries.com/Art/00077/I04274-02-500h.jpg

Xenon <xenonxbox2@xboxnext.com> wrote:
>Cell Architecture Explained: Introduction

	A discussion at Joystiq points out that Mr. Blachford, from who 
you stole the article, also explained how to make an antigravity device, 
and how light reduces in frequency the further it travels...

http://www.blachford.info/quantum/gravity.html
http://www.blachford.info/quantum/dimeng.html

follow-ups set to rgv.sony; apologies for this idiot crossposter to the
rest of you all.

-- 
"It's only now, with "Blinded by the Right," that conservatives have grown
a sense of journalistic skepticism when it comes to [David] Brock."

 - "Fight or Flight", David Talbot, Salon Apr 17 2002

"Ronald H. Nicholson Jr." <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:cssfcg$fva$1@blue.rahul.net...
> In article <name99-42B264.17530821012005@localhost>,
> Maynard Handley  <name99@name99.org> wrote:
> >Bottom line is that this thing doesn't resemble any traditional CPU and
> >is therefore a godawful match to existing languages, compilers and
> >algorithms.
>
> GPU shader algorithms and languages?  Common DSP library/toolbox calls?
>
> -- 
> Ron Nicholson   rhn AT nicholson DOT com   http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
> #include <canonical.disclaimer>        // only my own opinions, etc.


???

You do realize that this will still have a GPU, and as a matter of fact Sony
gave up the idea of doing it themselves and gave the contract to nVidia (my
guess was cost vs. bowing to requests from the SW community).  Essentially
that means all your basic T&L (including your shader algorithms) are still
done on the GPU.

J

"Ketil Malde" <ketil+news@ii.uib.no> wrote in message
news:egu0p7f6aq.fsf@ii.uib.no...
> "Xenon" <xenonxbox2@xboxnext.com> writes:
>
> > Cell Architecture Explained: Introduction
>    [...]
> > 250 GFLOPS (Billion Floating Point Operations per Second)
>    [...]
> > 6.4 Gigabit / second off-chip communication
>
> A little bit memory starved, I guess -- or do you have an application
> that performs in the neighborhood of fifty FLOPS per *bit*?
>
> -kzm
> -- 
> If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants


GPUs do.  Stages and stages of pure logic circuitry.  On this beast, every
CPU/APU would have to be executing out of cache of course.

Memory starved is par for the course.  One of those issues that increases as
we move forward.


J

In article <ct3tks$8gj$1@news01.intel.com>,
Jeremy Williamson <jeremiah.d.williamson@NOSPAMintel.com> wrote:
>
>"Ronald H. Nicholson Jr." <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote in message
>news:cssfcg$fva$1@blue.rahul.net...
>> In article <name99-42B264.17530821012005@localhost>,
>> Maynard Handley  <name99@name99.org> wrote:
>> >Bottom line is that this thing doesn't resemble any traditional CPU and
>> >is therefore a godawful match to existing languages, compilers and
>> >algorithms.
>>
>> GPU shader algorithms and languages?  Common DSP library/toolbox calls?
...
>You do realize that this will still have a GPU, and as a matter of fact Sony
>gave up the idea of doing it themselves and gave the contract to nVidia (my
>guess was cost vs. bowing to requests from the SW community).  Essentially
>that means all your basic T&L (including your shader algorithms) are still
>done on the GPU.

Yes, but aren't people experimenting with using shader and DSP languages
and tools for stuff that has nothing to do with the workstation display
or audio output?  The question is whether this software is commercially
interesting and whether this cell device is more suited for this stuff
than the GPU's on which these algorithm were developed.


IMHO. YMMV.
-- 
Ron Nicholson   rhn AT nicholson DOT com   http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ 
#include <canonical.disclaimer>        // only my own opinions, etc.

"Ronald H. Nicholson Jr." <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ctf9ic$n4c$1@blue.rahul.net...
> In article <ct3tks$8gj$1@news01.intel.com>,
> Jeremy Williamson <jeremiah.d.williamson@NOSPAMintel.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Ronald H. Nicholson Jr." <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote in message
> >news:cssfcg$fva$1@blue.rahul.net...
> >> In article <name99-42B264.17530821012005@localhost>,
> >> Maynard Handley  <name99@name99.org> wrote:
> >> >Bottom line is that this thing doesn't resemble any traditional CPU
and
> >> >is therefore a godawful match to existing languages, compilers and
> >> >algorithms.
> >>
> >> GPU shader algorithms and languages?  Common DSP library/toolbox calls?
> ...
> >You do realize that this will still have a GPU, and as a matter of fact
Sony
> >gave up the idea of doing it themselves and gave the contract to nVidia
(my
> >guess was cost vs. bowing to requests from the SW community).
Essentially
> >that means all your basic T&L (including your shader algorithms) are
still
> >done on the GPU.
>
> Yes, but aren't people experimenting with using shader and DSP languages
> and tools for stuff that has nothing to do with the workstation display
> or audio output?
>
> The question is whether this software is commercially
> interesting and whether this cell device is more suited for this stuff
> than the GPU's on which these algorithm were developed.
>
>
> IMHO. YMMV.
> -- 
> Ron Nicholson   rhn AT nicholson DOT com   http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
> #include <canonical.disclaimer>        // only my own opinions, etc.


Yes, especially since GPUs are slowly becoming more generically programmable
(due to the pixel and vertex shaders).  AIUI, the next gen is likely to have
primitive branching.  There was a full day workshop on porting apps to the
GPU at SIGGRAPH last year.   There was even a published paper of someone
porting a database to the GPU.

But, what I was trying to say is the Cell is not a GPU nor is it likely to
take away many of the tasks currently farmed to today's GPUs (T&L).

Jeremy