Apple+Cell Processor=World Domination ... I'll agree to 1, but number 2 is right for current desktop products. Some games in the past have tried to take advanta ...

katorga · 02-09-2005, 10:20 AM

Quote:

(Unless MS makes Windows available for PowerPC platforms. LOL...that's a funny scenario.)

Don't laugh, I still have an NT for PPC beta CD from back when Moto/IBM were promoting CHiRP and PReP standards for PPC desktops that would run AIX, MacOS or NT. NT used to support x86, MIPS, Alpha and PPC

See this link:

http://www.winnetmag.com/Windows/Art...2247/2247.html

katorga · 02-09-2005, 04:16 PM

http://www.pingwales.co.uk/interface...egy-shift.html

Story implies that MS actually has two OS's ready for PPC and the move to cell processors.

Grahf · 02-09-2005, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katorga

The big question for the Cell will be how hard will it be to program. Based on the specs its going to be a bear to code to. If complexity creates too much lag in game releases, it will kill the PS3, no matter how fast it is.

Sony already stated that they learn their lesson and that the PS3 whould be easier to program.

Quote:

Originally Posted by katorga

Second, a modern GPU is very similar to a cell process...a central cpu with multiple vector processors (pipelines, shaders, etc). In the future I expect more and more general processing to shift to the GPU. OSX Tiger moves a lot GUI display processing to the shader engines of the GPU, and Longhorn will do so as well. Without a fast, top of the line Shader 2/3 compatible GPU both of those OSs will be hobbled. In the future the GPU may replace the CPU as the main component and system board of the computer with the CPUs residing on the expansion card.

That true, Cell is more like a GPU that was design to do CPU's work. Todays GPU are already more powerful than CPU because they are not made from the X.86 architecture, an architecture that has reach it's limit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by katorga

Third, 4Ghz means heat. How much power does the Cell draw and how hot does it get? Can it realistically be used in laptops, especially one's that meet Apple's specs. Apple still can't get the G5 in a laptop due to heat and noise contraints. In the near future, laptops are going to replace desktops as the primary consumer computer platform.

Cell draw 1.3V (P4 Prescott 1.25V) and go up to 85C with only a heatsink. (119C for the p4) I don't really expect to see it in a laptop in a near futur, (maybe with less core... ) but I whould be happy to see it in servers or desktop.

awingedpig · 02-09-2005, 09:13 PM

I reserve judgement until MIPS numbers are published

Until then it's just hype.

katorga · 02-10-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

I reserve judgement until MIPS numbers are published

True enough, but the potential is huge.

Quote:

Cell draw 1.3V (P4 Prescott 1.25V) and go up to 85C with only a heatsink.

That could be an issue given the proposed mass market use of the chip in appliances, game machines, and audio/video/dsp applications. The trend there is small and quiet.

The laptop issue is huge. I seriously think desktop sales are going to decline in the coming years to be replaced by laptops. Remember that the average ultralite laptop today has more than enough power for the majority of consumer users.

Guspaz · 02-10-2005, 06:28 PM

Hmm, I seem remember having replied to this. Oh well, my response:

1) Cell is hype, and it won't live up to that hype
2) It's nearly impossible for games to take advantage of SMP situations effectively, so they will see little benefit.
3) If they do see a major benefit it will require enormous work by developers
4) Processing power does not scale linearly with number of CPUs. two CPUs are not twice as fast as one.
5) I'll reserve final judgement until the thing comes out.

ambitwogunz · 02-10-2005, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awingedpig

I reserve judgement until MIPS numbers are published

Until then it's just hype.

Look at the ps3 specs.

ambitwogunz · 02-10-2005, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guspaz

Hmm, I seem remember having replied to this. Oh well, my response:

1) Cell is hype, and it won't live up to that hype
2) It's nearly impossible for games to take advantage of SMP situations effectively, so they will see little benefit.
3) If they do see a major benefit it will require enormous work by developers
4) Processing power does not scale linearly with number of CPUs. two CPUs are not twice as fast as one.
5) I'll reserve final judgement until the thing comes out.

1- too early to say that
2- same as above
3-revisions are always possible.-FFXI
4-no, but can be....if 1 cpu handles display, cpu#2 handles sound, cpu#3 handles physics etc..
5-

Guspaz · 02-12-2005, 10:26 PM

I'll agree to 1, but number 2 is right for current desktop products. Some games in the past have tried to take advantage of SMP (Quake 3?) and failed miserably. In fact they pulled the feature out of Quake 3 because they just couldn't get it to work.

This ties in to number 3/4... You can't just split up the rendering, sound, and physics engines like that... Synchronizing isn't that simple, and they don't all take up the same amount of CPU. The sound engine doesn't need nearly as much CPU power as the rendering core.

02-09-2005, 04:16 PM	#17
katorga Registered User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 456 Credits: -221	MS is ready for cell according to pingwales http://www.pingwales.co.uk/interface...egy-shift.html Story implies that MS actually has two OS's ready for PPC and the move to cell processors.

02-09-2005, 09:13 PM	#19
awingedpig Registered User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,516 Credits: 35	I reserve judgement until MIPS numbers are published Until then it's just hype. __________________ = ASUS M6Ne = ______________ 1.5Ghz Dothan :: 1.0GB Kingmax :: 60GB 5400rpm Toshiba 16MB Cache :: Xterasys XG-600 802.11b/g

02-10-2005, 06:28 PM	#21
Guspaz That guy who talks a lot Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,705 Credits: 115	Hmm, I seem remember having replied to this. Oh well, my response: 1) Cell is hype, and it won't live up to that hype 2) It's nearly impossible for games to take advantage of SMP situations effectively, so they will see little benefit. 3) If they do see a major benefit it will require enormous work by developers 4) Processing power does not scale linearly with number of CPUs. two CPUs are not twice as fast as one. 5) I'll reserve final judgement until the thing comes out. __________________ Dell Inspiron 9400/E1705 - 256MB GeForce Go 7900 gs - Core 2 Duo T7400 2.16GHz - 2GB PC5300 - 160GB 5400RPM

02-12-2005, 10:26 PM	#24
Guspaz That guy who talks a lot Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,705 Credits: 115	I'll agree to 1, but number 2 is right for current desktop products. Some games in the past have tried to take advantage of SMP (Quake 3?) and failed miserably. In fact they pulled the feature out of Quake 3 because they just couldn't get it to work. This ties in to number 3/4... You can't just split up the rendering, sound, and physics engines like that... Synchronizing isn't that simple, and they don't all take up the same amount of CPU. The sound engine doesn't need nearly as much CPU power as the rendering core. __________________ Dell Inspiron 9400/E1705 - 256MB GeForce Go 7900 gs - Core 2 Duo T7400 2.16GHz - 2GB PC5300 - 160GB 5400RPM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Notebooks For Sale

User Links

Latest Pricing

Top Posters

Todays Top Posters

Fastest Benchmarks

Latest Benchmarks

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hello Apple forum, add yourself to the Notebook Forums World Map.	gr8gatzby	Apple Notebooks	0	10-29-2005 01:07 PM
Apple using Cell processor	Rustican	Apple Notebooks	6	02-22-2005 12:03 PM
Cell Processor based Powerbook!!!!	EZE800	Apple Notebooks	6	02-09-2005 05:34 PM
About Cell Processor 100 time faster than Intel 2.5G?	kivawolf	Sager & Clevo Notebooks	1	11-25-2004 08:37 AM