 |
 |
PowerMac G6, PowerBook, and the future of Apple (JPG)
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Cuz I got excited, so here's a new speculation thread. I think I'll go as far as to put it down as my official Apple Prediction, seeing how I'm 4-0 in my predictions.  Take a look at the following pic (if it'll hotlink):
That's the PS3's Cell processor. It's using a Power5 derived 64-bit CPU with AltiVec driving 7 SPUs at 3.2GHz each.
Now stick that into a tower with something like a "G6" (Power5 based PowerPC980) driving 14 SPUs all running at 3+ GHz.
Considering they stuck it into a Playstation, I'm assuming that the heat distribution for the Cell is very well organized. Sticking 4 SPUs + driver CPU into a PowerBook or iBook seems pretty reasonable.
Can you imagine a Mac mini playing 12 High-Definition videos at the same time?
The year of HD? New partnership with Sony?
We can hope. 
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes, hope is what we have.
Now the questions is how soon. We also need a new design for the G6. 
|
"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense." Winston Churchill
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think you're right that Cell (or something very like it) will become the G6. The real question is when it will happen.
As for seeing it in PowerBooks, although it is probably easier to do than a G5, don't make the mistake of thinking it'll be trivial. The PS3 is small, but PowerBooks are even smaller, and there is much less room for airflow because there's more stuff inside the machine. The fact that the case is made out of metal won't help either, because you have to get the heat down to a level where you're not burning people; most desktops don't have to worry about that so much.
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Millennium
I think you're right that Cell (or something very like it) will become the G6. The real question is when it will happen.
As for seeing it in PowerBooks, although it is probably easier to do than a G5, don't make the mistake of thinking it'll be trivial. The PS3 is small, but PowerBooks are even smaller, and there is much less room for airflow because there's more stuff inside the machine. The fact that the case is made out of metal won't help either, because you have to get the heat down to a level where you're not burning people; most desktops don't have to worry about that so much.
Exactly. I couldn't see anything happening with the Cell for at least a year. However, I definately think the Cell is the future for Apple.
If they have 7 SPUs + the PU in the PS3, I'd imagine (obviously pure speculation) that they could stick in fewer SPUs and a lower power PU. Perhaps a specialized G4 (there's a new very-low-power version already out) that would be the PU, then stick in maybe only 2 or 3 SPUs.
In any event, it seems very impressive and something I think Apple really needs to jump on.
Think about XGrid working with the Cells that already have hardware support for distributed computing, that's what they're made for (Cells will detect other Cells and work together.) You have your PowerMac at home and your laptop on the road. You get home, stick your PowerBook right next to your PowerMac, you now have an instant 2 computer cluster that automatically detects each other and works in tandem.
How about this scenario: Your friends bring over their Cell based PowerBooks or iBooks for a LAN party. You have your tower there in your room or whatever, maybe 2 towers total in the household. Your buddies bring in 4 PowerBooks or iBooks. They all detect each other, start sharing CPU power, you now have an instant 5 or 6 computer cluster. Start doing some serious gaming and what-have-you.
Very exciting.
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
AFAIK the PPE core is not derived from the Power5, it's an in-order core.
|
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Keep in mind that not all apps can benefit from clusters. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that relatively few can. You have to be able to break a task up into smaller subtasks and send those tasks over the network to machines which perform those tasks and then send the resulting data back to the machine which coordinates them all. Not all tasks lend themselves to this kind of thing.
Even if that were not an obstacle, I'd still like to point out that most games are ill-suited for clusters for another reason. Clusters can have huge amounts of throughput (that is, how much data you can crunch in a given amount of time) but their latency (how long it takes a single packet of data to get from point A to point B) is extremely high, and high latency is a Bad Thing. No matter how much horsepower you put into a a cluster, the latency is still always going to be much higher (several orders of magnitude higher, in fact) than it would be for processors in a single machine, simply because of the limitations of networking. In particular, it is likely to be much too high for games, which require both very high processing power and very low latency in order to keep the real-time feel going.
That's the thing about clusters: they work well for crunching huge amounts of data, but only when latency doesn't matter. When you're rendering a 3-D animation to be stored on disk or crunching SETI numbers this is fine, because it really doesn't matter when the tasks are done as long as they are done quickly. Games, however, require precise timing, and clusters generally cannot provide that.
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Think about XGrid working with the Cells that already have hardware support for distributed computing, that's what they're made for (Cells will detect other Cells and work together.)
That only works when they're in the same machine; Cells themselves cannot do computer-to-computer networking.
You have your PowerMac at home and your laptop on the road. You get home, stick your PowerBook right next to your PowerMac, you now have an instant 2 computer cluster that automatically detects each other and works in tandem.
Cells do not harm the process any, but they don't help it either. What you say is possible now, with XGrid and Rendezvous doing the heavy lifting of organizing the cluster. Cell processors will not change that in the slightest.
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Exactly. I couldn't see anything happening with the Cell for at least a year. However, I definately think the Cell is the future for Apple.
A year? Talk about most optimisic (and vague) predictionof the year. How lond did Apple stay with SDR RAM before moving on to DDR? Or on G4 before moving to G5? In addition, Cell is as much property of IBM and as it is of Sony who have invested years and millions, if not billions, into it. You think Sony is likely to give that technology up easily? Morover, the cell is strong on vector and weak in scalar. Good for gaming but no so good for general computing.
And why no mention of 360's processor, is it simply because it is used by Microsoft? At this stage, it is also more powerful than any existing G5's, it is closer to production, and closer to the dual-core G5's that people have been rumouring about.
|
|
One iMac, iBook, one iPod, way too many PCs.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by klinux
A year? Talk about most optimisic (and vague) predictionof the year.
Vague, but in the forseable future. I was just saying that, if Apple decide to do anything with Cell processing, end users wouldn't see anything for at least a year from now. Meaning Apple may stick with traditional processing for who knows how long. Although I think that would be suicide given the technology that's coming out.
In addition, Cell is as much property of IBM and as it is of Sony who have invested years and millions, if not billions, into it. You think Sony is likely to give that technology up easily?
What would Sony have to lose if Apple used it in a computer? They're not even competing markets. Sony's computers use x86 chips and run Windows, and the gaming market for the Macintosh is practically non existent.
And why no mention of 360's processor, is it simply because it is used by Microsoft? At this stage, it is also more powerful than any existing G5's, it is closer to production, and closer to the dual-core G5's that people have been rumouring about.
I'm more excited about Cell technology in general. I don't know anything about the XBox's processor other than that (apparently) it closely resembles a G5. In any event, Sony's been testing Cell production since the middle of last year.
Besides, Apple wouldn't use either CPU for a while now anyway. So I don't think production would be a factor by the time Apple picks one or the other (if they pick either, period.)
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Millennium
That only works when they're in the same machine; Cells themselves cannot do computer-to-computer networking.
Not according to this article. Of course, they could be wrong.
"Cells can even roam over a network, allowing the processor to perform a type of distributed or grid computing, an increasingly popular enterprise technique in which demanding tasks are divvied up among a gang of networked computers."
Here's another article from the Register that goes pretty in depth about it. This part is nifty:
"Imagine an apulet running on your PDA that depends on a result coming from another apulet running on a computer in Norway," writes Tom. The Cell processor must make its best guess, based on network latencies, how to distribute the workload."
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -
Status:
Offline
|
|
Didn't they invite the sony guy at mw or something.... there must be something going on... more than just HD, maybe.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
One of the visions for the Cell processor is that it will one day cluster with other units all over the world automatically. So when little Johnny fires up his Playstation 4 or whatever, it will find 100 other PS4's not in use somewhere in the world and grid them together. Once broadband reaches 100MB/sec as standard, it might actually be a realistic proposal.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
The cell processor is NOT a general purpose computer. It's full of compromises that don't hurt a game machine. There's no virtual memory or multiuser protection for access to the SPUs, and the SPUs have no cache (there's some articles that says they do, but what they're talking about is really shared memory that has to be loaded by commands from the CPU). Building a mechanism that would let normal apps running in the CPU safely and securely share access to the SPUs would be a tough job. Quartz Extreme 2d is not simpler, and Apple's been inching up on THAT over a period of years.
|
|
レスナ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by resuna
The cell processor is NOT a general purpose computer. It's full of compromises that don't hurt a game machine. There's no virtual memory or multiuser protection for access to the SPUs, and the SPUs have no cache (there's some articles that says they do, but what they're talking about is really shared memory that has to be loaded by commands from the CPU). Building a mechanism that would let normal apps running in the CPU safely and securely share access to the SPUs would be a tough job. Quartz Extreme 2d is not simpler, and Apple's been inching up on THAT over a period of years.
CELL might not be your regular general purpose processor as it somewhat lacks the integer punch but you can't really call it a specialized processor because GPU is a specialized processor, CELL definatley can do more than a GPU, its floating point performance (which i think in multimedia apps counts the most) seems to be really really good...
Anyway, I really dont see any reason why Apple can't use the CELL as a coprocessor or maybe there is an Apple version of the CELL concept in the works (Intel and AMD released dual cores recently where CELL is basically an eight core processor)
Since almost a year there hasn't been any rumors on Power5 derivative for Apple, which makes me believe that IBM/Apple revamped their roadmap and since IBM wants everyone to use the CELL, how can anyone say if there isnt a Mac version of a CELL-like architecture in the works...
Power5 derivative as a PPE unit and a couple of independent Altivec2 units and suddenly it looks more Apple-friendly...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
but you can't really call it a specialized processor because GPU is a specialized processor, CELL definatley can do more than a GPU
It's not what it *can* do that's the issue, it's what it *can't* do. In particular, it doesn't have any multiuser protection and it doesn't context-switch with the CPU because it has no VM. That means the cell would have to be accessed only from the kernel, using a specialised API like OpenGL. Except that they'd have to develop that API from scratch, because it doesn't already exist.... so I guess it's like developing QE2d *and* OpenGL at the same time.
|
|
レスナ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
The Power4 CPU had great features, but was not pracitcal for a desktop computer. Apple and IBM took a lot of great features out of the Power4 and made the PowerPC 970. Presumably the G6 or a G5 update will have a PowerPC 975 (?) or a PowerPC 980 based off the Power5.
The Cell is based off the Power5 as well. I'm just hoping to see a G5/G6 with a Cell like architecture. Most of you are right in saying that the Cell isn't good from general computing, but I think it has some serious potential (when adapted) for desktop computing.
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
The Power4 CPU had great features, but was not pracitcal for a desktop computer. Apple and IBM took a lot of great features out of the Power4 and made the PowerPC 970. Presumably the G6 or a G5 update will have a PowerPC 975 (?) or a PowerPC 980 based off the Power5.
The Cell is based off the Power5 as well. I'm just hoping to see a G5/G6 with a Cell like architecture. Most of you are right in saying that the Cell isn't good from general computing, but I think it has some serious potential (when adapted) for desktop computing.
Yup thats what I meant too... I never said that the current PS3 version of CELL should make it in to a MAC because its probably as tuff as Mac going to x86... However IBM/Apple can borrow few architectural benefits of the CELL and turn it into an Apple friendly processor, for example use a Power5 derivative as a PPE unit and make Altivec processor independent (a la SPU units of CELL) and we got a serious processor... Of course cost would be a factor but if a gaming console can have a nine core processor why can't a Mac have it considering that Powermacs go for 2000-3000...
What makes the CELL special (unlike the G4 G5 series of processors found in Macs) is that the SPU units are totally independent from the processor (which makes them act as speciallized independent processors) where Altivec is constrained by the CPU...
Another possibility is to add a CELL as a multimedia coprocessor to speed up audio/video routines...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bellevue, WA
Status:
Offline
|
|
woo.. 3,130 hits, but only 17 replies.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dead whale
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg79
Yup thats what I meant too... I never said that the current PS3 version of CELL should make it in to a MAC because its probably as tuff as Mac going to x86... However IBM/Apple can borrow few architectural benefits of the CELL and turn it into an Apple friendly processor, for example use a Power5 derivative as a PPE unit and make Altivec processor independent (a la SPU units of CELL) and we got a serious processor... Of course cost would be a factor but if a gaming console can have a nine core processor why can't a Mac have it considering that Powermacs go for 2000-3000...
What makes the CELL special (unlike the G4 G5 series of processors found in Macs) is that the SPU units are totally independent from the processor (which makes them act as speciallized independent processors) where Altivec is constrained by the CPU...
Another possibility is to add a CELL as a multimedia coprocessor to speed up audio/video routines...
I can imagine Apple doing something exactly like Sony is with the PS3. They could have the G6 for the main PU, then have 10 SPUs. Since the SPUs are, well, extensible, Apple could have real fun with using those. One could be strictly for handling HD content (like the PS3, think full HD handling editing on a Mac mini,) one could be used for Core Audio -- I don't know if it'd be worth using one for Core Video since it already uses the GPU, -- hell, even one could be used JUST for the GUI and effects so you have a truely Snappy interface. The other 4 or 5 could be for general purpose stuff.
I think I'd keep AltiVec on the PU itself, though, instead of moving it to a Cell.
Anyway, the options seem limitless.
Apps that take advantage of XGrid + Cell CPUs = *where's the damn drool smiley?!*
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Millennium
No matter how much horsepower you put into a a cluster,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's all coming together. Mwuhahahaha!
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...13&_loopback=1
With the outlook for the multicore chip's use beyond Sony's internal systems cloudy at best, the partners are hoping to spark its uptake in applications ranging from HDTVs to supercomputers.
The IBM Corp. fellow who led the design team said his company currently has no plans to make Cell-based chips for its own systems or for the merchant market. Instead, IBM has set up a team in its engineering services division to help others custom-design versions of Cell that could be made in IBM's fabs.
A representative of Toshiba Corp., the development partner most likely to pursue the merchant market with Cell-based designs, said the company will release hardware reference designs and a software development platform for Cell. Details about the cost and timing of those products were not available. Toshiba has said it would use the chip in a television set in 2006.
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
The news on slashdot today, that IBM is releasing the full specification of the Cell, could be the tie in with the other recent news that Apple was discussing CPUs with Intel. Get Intel to make a custom Cell for Apple with the necessary features that a modern CPU needs.
|
|
weird wabbit
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by theolein
The news on slashdot today, that IBM is releasing the full specification of the Cell, could be the tie in with the other recent news that Apple was discussing CPUs with Intel. Get Intel to make a custom Cell for Apple with the necessary features that a modern CPU needs.
That's the article I just posted. The deal with the Cell is if you want to make your own, you have to make sure it's compatible and will be fabricable (?) in IBM's plants. So that kinda rules out Intel actually making them, but it wouldn't surprise me if Apple's still looking towards Intel for some pointers as you suggested.
In any event, this boasts great news for Apple looking for a boost. Having three of the largest computer corporations working together to make a CPU, and they come up with the Cell? That's awesome. If Apple goes with the Cell they'll have 3 companies participating in the design instead of relying on only one.
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well... if i were Apple, id be pissed off at IBM. IBM bitches n mourns to get a single core PPCG5 over 3Ghz and cant even deliver a year after the promiced date. and then out of nowhere, Microsoft of all companies, and Sony, come out and announce to the world that they have 3.2Ghz PPC processors with upwards of 4 cores, that are derivatives of PPCG5s(or better)...... here's the punch line.....
When Apple gets a hold of 3Ghz PPCG5s from IBM, they'll package it into a machine that'll have 2 processors, single cores, in a case as big as the PMG5, and try and sell it for $2000+. While at the same time....Sony and Microsoft ship 3.2Ghz PPC machines, in boxes a little bigger than your VCR, and probably under $500 !!!!! Seems to me like IBms been treating Apple as a second class customer.
And despite that fact...if someone manages to hack a version of OSX for the PS3, that'll be my next Mac for sure. i mean that thing can decode 12 HD streams simutaneously !!!! And M$ claims that the XBox360 will be a couple of factors faster than the DP-PMG5s !! and theyre probably gonna price that thing under $500. man i feel like we are getting ripped off by Apple !!
(
Last edited by Hawkeye_a; May 25, 2005 at 02:18 PM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Microsoft said they're going to be replacing the PowerMac G5s with a much more powerful development solution. That also might mean PowerMac G5s running on dual Xenons (the triple-core "G5" that's in the XBox.)
Cell or Xenon, either way, it would mean a huge increase in performance for the Macintosh. Seems to me, though, that the Xenon might actually be a better choice. Apparently the architecture is close enough to the existing G5 that software emulation alone can handle the differences between the XBox and a PowerMac.
I wonder how long before the XBox development software hits the torrents and XBox emulators are running around.
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: /OV DRK 142006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Busemann
One of the visions for the Cell processor is that it will one day cluster with other units all over the world automatically. So when little Johnny fires up his Playstation 4 or whatever, it will find 100 other PS4's not in use somewhere in the world and grid them together. Once broadband reaches 100MB/sec as standard, it might actually be a realistic proposal.
I've always thought this was one of the worst ideas ever. While some people do leave their game boxes on all the time, most people turn them off when they are done. I wouldn't want to come back to a paused game and find out that my console was laggy or had an error due to sharing processor time. Also, I'm not going to pay for electricity or bandwidth so some punk kid can get better performance in GTA7.
By the time bandwidth gets that high, you might need it for movie downloading or whatever. I tried playing on XBox Live while sending a friend a 1 GB file on a 1.5/512 connection. I had to cancel the file transfer to be able to play. The whole idea of sharing distant console power for low latency gaming just seems dumb, unless they're playing in the same game with you and everyone is the game host.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by iLikebeer
I've always thought this was one of the worst ideas ever. While some people do leave their game boxes on all the time, most people turn them off when they are done. I wouldn't want to come back to a paused game and find out that my console was laggy or had an error due to sharing processor time. Also, I'm not going to pay for electricity or bandwidth so some punk kid can get better performance in GTA7.
I would imagine there will be a "CPU Sharing : OFF" option.
But why would you think you're be the one getting the short end of the stick? As long as you have GTA7 playing, you get all the other cycles too.
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kenneth
woo.. 3,130 hits, but only 17 replies.
Exactly. Because getting Cell into a Mac is so improbable that a discussion is unworthy. Beside the fact that 1) the product is a vaporware (no release date, no demo - E3 footage is prerendered) , 2) Sony hypes its product more than anyone else, even besting Microsoft (remember Emotion Engine?), and 3) Cell is too specialized for general computing whereas the 360 CPU variant is a more likely CPU candidate.
|
|
One iMac, iBook, one iPod, way too many PCs.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by klinux
Exactly. Because getting Cell into a Mac is so improbable that a discussion is unworthy. Beside the fact that 1) the product is a vaporware (no release date, no demo - E3 footage is prerendered) , 2) Sony hypes its product more than anyone else, even besting Microsoft (remember Emotion Engine?), and 3) Cell is too specialized for general computing whereas the 360 CPU variant is a more likely CPU candidate.
I was about to agree with you, until this article popped up this morning.
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...050525/105050/
IBM has demonstrated a fully working Blade Server running on the Cell architecture using Linux. This means that IBM already has a version intended for general computing purposes. If we have a whole year to see Cell based Macintoshes, I think it's perfectly plausable. I love this quote:
The prototype, called the Cell Processor Based Blade Server, measured approximately 23 x 43 cm. Each board featured two Cell processors, two 512 Mb XDR DRAM chips and two South Bridge LSIs. The Cell processors were demonstrated running at 2.4-2.8 GHz. "We are driving the Cell processors at higher rates in the laboratory," said the engineer. "If operated at 3 GHz, Cell's theoretical performance reaches about 200 GFLOPS, which works out to about 400 GFLOPS per board," he added. IBM plans to release a rack product capable of storing seven of these boards.
That's nearly 10x faster than a Dual G5.
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
I count 2 PPUs and 20 SPUs. 400 GFLOPs.
And you thought the G5's heatsinks were big:
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status:
Offline
|
|
That would not fit into ibm's blade form factor by the looks of it, but it is just a proto.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by klinux
......
2) Sony hypes its product more than anyone else, even besting Microsoft (remember Emotion Engine?), and 3) Cell is too specialized for general computing whereas the 360 CPU variant is a more likely CPU candidate.
Remember "G5 - World Fastest Personal Computer" or even "G4 - Super Computer - 18Gigflops"
Apple generates more hype than anything else, delivering products that were never ready, and give waiting and delivering times 3 times longer then they said they would.
BTW Mac processors ARE specialized chips, Remember Alti-Vec, the only thing that didn't make the G4 suck! The only thing that propelled the G4 and G5 to respectable speeds was optimisations that the chips specialized in.
Der head!!!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NYC*Crooklyn
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Cuz I got excited, so here's a new speculation thread. I think I'll go as far as to put it down as my official Apple Prediction, seeing how I'm 4-0 in my predictions. Take a look at the following pic (if it'll hotlink):
That's the PS3's Cell processor. It's using a Power5 derived 64-bit CPU with AltiVec driving 7 SPUs at 3.2GHz each.
Now stick that into a tower with something like a "G6" (Power5 based PowerPC980) driving 14 SPUs all running at 3+ GHz.
Considering they stuck it into a Playstation, I'm assuming that the heat distribution for the Cell is very well organized. Sticking 4 SPUs + driver CPU into a PowerBook or iBook seems pretty reasonable.
Can you imagine a Mac mini playing 12 High-Definition videos at the same time?
The year of HD? New partnership with Sony?
We can hope.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Dudes as long as Intel delivers faster ships at cheaper prices, I think most people will be very happy.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Westside Island
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by JoshuaZ
Dudes as long as Intel delivers faster ships at cheaper prices, I think most people will be very happy.
And chips too!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status:
Offline
|
|
I was right about IBM and it's suckyness a year ago.
|
"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
I count 2 PPUs and 20 SPUs. 400 GFLOPs.
And you thought the G5's heatsinks were big:
Proof IBM *CAN* deliver although it wasn't what Steve wanted. 
|
|
20" iMac C2D/2.4GHz 3GB RAM 10.6.8 (10H549)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NYC*Crooklyn
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by dru
Proof IBM *CAN* deliver although it wasn't what Steve wanted.
WTF? they clearly cannot deliver what Steve wanted?!?
in their discussions IBM probably told them... "NO THANKS, WE CANNOT HELP YOU."
(they have different aspirations for the Cell than using it for Macs)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't see that fitting into a laptop case. Neither did Steve.
Hence, Intel.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Screw IBM.
Screw them I say!
They'll rue the day.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top