It's interesting how Sony exec wants to associate the PS3 as a PC rather than a console when all the analyst agreed that PC market has pete-out and matured and has very little growth margin; with brutal competition on various fronts (chips, OEMs, graphics). Whereas the game market looks like the next tech bubble yet to burst.

It isn't clear enough on the article whether Cell access (r/w) to the main memory or local memory on the chart relates to the PPE or the SPE. I was rather suprised after reading the embedded.com article on programming the Cell. (Here)

I've always thought that the PPE or RSX would initiate the transfer of data/code to the SPE via DMA since PPE/RSX would know how best to distribute SIMDs' processing load. But it seems that SPE has a mind of its own (or at least a fixed and predetermined task), fetching code/data at its own wimp via the DMA.

Let's assume that "Cell" here refers to PPE access to local store, and assuming that PPE has visibility to SPE's DMAs, I would boldly hypothesize that the abysmal read access figure (16MB/s) makes perfect sense. As there is really no need for PPE to read from the local store, since computation results would ideally be pushed by the SPE via the DMA to external memory.

I sincerely doubt that IBM would screw themselves up like this. They are probably just toying with the minds of doomsayer and folks who had too much coffee and are severely jet-lagged.

This post has been edited by ray_: Jun 15 2006, 02:51 AM

Ah...that made more sense.

You've pretty much nailed it. I don't see a need for Cell to read texture or vector information that were sent to the RSX by Cell in the first place. If Cell really do need these information, it would (at least a discerning programmer would) have placed it into external memory to be worked on later. There should be a few odd cases where Cell does need to read from RSX (status update?), that would be accomplished by having the RSX push data into the external memory and asserting an IRQ (you could poll this as well) informing Cell that the data is served.

This post has been edited by ray_: Jun 15 2006, 10:20 AM

Also the point about developer's lukewarm reception toward the PS3 is expected. XBOX 360 employs symmetrical MP while the PS3 is asymmetrical. It takes more to write optimized code for the PS3 than the XBOX 360.

I'm feeling a sense of deja-vu. I've heard this before when PS2 emotion engine were initially launched. Developer were dissing out complaints about how hard it is to program for PS2. I remember someone commented on this misperception of the emotion engine complexity. And his comment was that these sloppy developer needs to do more reading and understand the architecture before slamming those semicolons and hashes on their keyboard.

Personally, I think Cell is a beautiful beast, it might be hard to program compared to symmetrical MP system, but nothing is really complex after you've put your mind to it. My advice to budding Cell developer is.... read. Give it 1 year, if the PS3 takes off at all, we would be in for some serious eye candy.

This post has been edited by ray_: Jun 15 2006, 11:47 AM

Cramak's point of reference is the PC. Console would never replace the PC when it comes to raw performance, no matter how much Sony exec spins it. PC would still be on the cutting edge of gaming.

This post has been edited by ray_: Jun 15 2006, 11:57 AM

The epitaph of the PS3 will not read "RIP: Overly complex architecture FTW", trust me. Publishing houses will root for the "Cool" kid in town. The epitapth will read "RIP: Overly uncompetitive price point FTW".

I think the reason for this is very much cost related. Intel/AMD wouldn't want to give a premium so that the console manufacturer could sell their console at a loss and regains it through the sale of games which Intel/AMD will not profit from. Plunging into the console market would severely strain Intel/AMD's inventory, which could be sold at a higher profit margin in traditional PC market.

And their embedded solution (Celeron, embedded IA) aren't competitive enough in terms of performance and power consumption compared to the likes of Cell and Xenon.

This post has been edited by ray_: Jun 15 2006, 01:22 PM

Well, I didn't say that Intel/AMD would be selling at a loss, but a reduced profit margin compared to if it were sold on the traditional PC market. Regardless, it was just my hypothesis.

That too.. and the fact that IBM isn't tied up in the CPU brawl.

This post has been edited by ray_: Jun 15 2006, 02:55 PM

Interesting article on Cell's yield.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3295

I foresee a frantic search for 8 cores PS3 and a homebrew software that turns the last core on and puts your PS3 on cracks. Why get a 7 core and be royally screwed when one of the core hits the Davy Jones' locker (customary pirate quote in view of new pirate flick)? Redundancy FTW.

mzaidi,

You look like a distance cousin of ikanayam. You must have been to Galapagos and got morphed into ..... "Tupaiayam".