http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy 48 tiny mpeg decoders and snap them together instead of developing a whole new chip and programming structure?]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
I think they were using the parallel MPEG decoding as an indicator of multimedia horsepower. Not as a standard task.

Although, I would bet that yes, it is cheaper to use one Cell chip than 48 individual decoder chips. For what it's worth.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
For #2, sticking 48 decoder would be inefficient because of bus bottleneck. Simple rule of thumb, more closer the units are, more efficient they are in shuttling data back and forth. The internal bus runs at Chip speed, but the external bus runs right now at about 800MHZ. This is the reason Intel tries to make bigger and bigger Cache built into the chip. Accessing data in the Hard disk is always slower than accessing it in the Cache. Also mutli core is the future, AMD & Intel have announced dual core chip. Wait for IBM & SUN to announce their multi core chip.

For #3 there is only one CELL, low end and high end difference would be in Frequency ie 3GHZ or 4GHZ. Right now CELL has the maximum theoretical compute power for multimedia data crunching.

I would like to the video of the demo.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
For #2, sticking 48 decoder would be inefficient because of bus bottleneck. Simple rule of thumb, more closer the units are, more efficient they are in shuttling data back and forth. The internal bus runs at Chip speed, but the external bus runs right now at about 800MHZ. This is the reason Intel tries to make bigger and bigger Cache built into the chip. Accessing data in the Hard disk is always slower than accessing it in the Cache. Also mutli core is the future, AMD & Intel have announced dual core chip. Wait for IBM & SUN to announce their multi core chip.

For #3 there is only one CELL, low end and high end difference would be in Frequency ie 3GHZ or 4GHZ. Right now CELL has the maximum theoretical compute power for multimedia data crunching.

I would like to the video of the demo.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
Fredi]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
And for those wondering, from the Witgenstein dictionary:

aporia - Wonder and amazement before the confusing puzzles and paradoxes of our lives and of the universe. Socrates and the other ancient philosophers tried to evoke the philosophic spirit in young men by awakening their aporia, not by simply providing answers to these puzzles. The aporetic voice is the voice that expresses wonder and perplexity.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
Fredi]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Aporetic]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
48 simultanious mpeg-2 streams is very VERY impressive. Typically, you can't even edit one stream of mpeg-2 in realtime, let alone play 48 back.

Just to keep you up to date with video nerdry, SD (Standard definition) is 525 lines. Typically its 720 x 486 (DVSD) or sometimes people say its 720 x 480, but just depending on who you talk to. (I edit in 1080i for our local TV NEWS, so I dont know.)]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
Main Entry: aporetic
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: tending to doubt
Example: The aporetic voice is that which expresses wonder and perplexity.
Etymology: from a Greek word meaning `to be at a loss'

That's what I got from dictionary.com, so from the defenition, I think the mighty 'E' is saying they don't want a representational test, they want to see the PS3's cell in action proper before they form an opinion.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
It may be helpful to note that Blueray DVDs will likely use 1080p even if the PS3 does not. The ability to play next generation DVDs is a big difference between the PS3 and XBOX 360, which uses traditional DVDs not BlueRay or HDDVD. This is how I will justify buying both!]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
Using 6 SPEs to decode forty-eight 704x480 MPEG2 streams at once, while 1 SPE downsizes it 1,920 x 1,080, and another SPE just idling is mighty impressive.

...Especially for a chip that isn't specifically designed for MPEG2 decoding.

And practical. Says in the article that it would be used browsing video content. Sounds useful for a DVR or Blu-ray applications.

Microsoft may be touting the XBox 360 as a revolutionary machine that is leading us into the HD era, but in reality it looks like the PS3 is really the true HD harbinger. Especially since the PS3 actually supports HD format media (Blu-ray) while XB360 doesn't.

]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
Fredi]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/here you can read that the streams were all read from a HDD,decoded and then projected onto a 1080i
rez screen divided into 8*6 cells, with each stream resized to the cell on the screen. so it WAS decoding the full rez of each stream and one of the SPE's was doing the resizing for the cell of the screen it was going to. so no 240*180 stuff going on in the chip, just that as you guessed the display was the limiting factor. it would actually have been EASIER for the chip if it DIDN'T have to re-scale the display for final output! the chip is dealing with the full rez of the streams the whole way.
]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/4x prettier, we're in for some amazing gaming experiences.

It's funny how us gamers grew up, now we all know what these technical numbers mean...yet we still can't predict how fun these games will be. Too many gamers are becoming cynical. Anyone agree?]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
Brad, you fail to appreciate that the MPEG data is compressed, which means there's a whole bunch of processing going on to decode 48 streams at once, then transform them into a single screen and still have a whole pile of processing power hanging around.

Of course we will really know the power once there's a game to look at - or are you all going to cry foul again and wait for a live playable version claiming it's prerendered? - but there's no way to avoid the fact that that's a lot of processing being thrown around. A Pentium couldn't do that.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
(and this demo was with Qty. *1* cell chip?)]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Of course, this could all be speculation on the part of the reporting site. But even so, just one or two cells would be great, 4 would be amazing, and by putting 6 in there would give the PS3 the ability to play Kasparov in some chess.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/
I think that IBM's marketing department is doing a good job of confusing the public, getting them to believe its somehow three simultaneous things: a supercomputing-level floating point number cruncher, a tiny cheap embedded processor, and a multimedia processor.
I think Cell is just one of those things: a multimedia processor.

On ibm's website i read about how the cell processor is about making a single general purpose architecture for embedded processors. But this makes no sense. Embedded processors are supposed to be unique function specific processors. It doesn't make sense to make a 'general purpose' 'function specific' processor.

The use of the terms 'embedded' and 'supercomputer on a chip' are marketing things to build of public excitement. I think its just a multimedia processor, which is powerful like a more general purpose cpu (intel P4's), but with extra vector processing kick for extra multimedia punch.

I'm also annoyed by the demonstration they provide. Why would anyone need one single cpu to produce 48 simultaneous video streams on one screen?! And this is what they show us. I've learned that the only way to tell the value of a processor (in other words, provide a meaningful benchmark) is to run REAL applications on it. I want to see Mac OS X, Halo 2, or some video editing tool running on it. IBM is selectivly chooseing demonstrations to make the processor look good, regardless of whether or not the use is of any real use.

My guess is that the Cell unit is going to be extremly inefficient for realistic use. The 8 SIMD processing units are probably going to largly unused because many programs do not have 8 things to do simultaneously, all of which need vector processing (which performs the same operation on multiple data). Probably, only a few of the SIMD units will ever need to be active at once.

As currently specified, I think the Cell processor is going to be a niche thing; a few wierd areas of the market will be able to get good use out of it. If it can be tweaked and adjusted (perhaps reducing the number of SIMD units), then it could have a broader apeal.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/25/playstation-3s-cell-processor-demoed/Dec 19th 2005 12:53AM