I know what my next computer is running, wow Options

[Uppitycracker]

Playstation 3 processor and new PC processor competitor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4242447.stm

Tim

This post has been edited by Uppitycracker: Feb 8, 2005 - 7:14 PM

[Anub1s]

holy chit I hope they come out with that to the public. Whens AMD getting in on this?

[Andason]

intel = pwnt

[946thGenGT]

You guys really don't think that Intel or AMD haven't developed something similar or maybe even better? Just because it's not out on the market yet doesn't mean they don't have it. These guys make the most money by releasing chips just a bit faster every few months. I'm sure they have processors developed already that aren't going to be released for years...

But I will say it's nice to see that they'll be putting a decent chip in the PS3... although by 2006 when it's released I'd imagine we'll have 5ghz intel chips on the market and people will complain the PS3 isn't fast enough.

[mr_dude]

Better learn whatever Linux or OS distro IBM is using come 2006.

"IBM said Cell was 'OS neutral' and would support multiple operating systems."

That sentence contradicts itself. The mere idea that Microsoft would adapt its operating system to whatever architecture IBM is using is laughable.

[SinisterWhisper]

it is impossible to compare a console cpu to a comp cpu due to several things (only exception is the xbox which was essentialy a celeron).
1. No cross platform benchmarking software
2. Difference in clock speeds actual power ie compare an intel to an amd and you will find the amd stomps intels right now with alot lower clock speeds.

Any questions?

Amd already is in line to release multi core cpu's next year and last I heard intel would follow soon after.

[WannabeGT4]

Better learn whatever Linux or OS distro IBM is using come 2006.

"IBM said Cell was 'OS neutral' and would support multiple operating systems."

That sentence contradicts itself.  The mere idea that Microsoft would adapt its operating system to whatever architecture IBM is using is laughable.
[right][snapback]243674[/snapback][/right]

"laughable" eh? They sure churned out a 64 bit version pretty quickly when the 64 bit processors came out. They'd be ignorant to not support this new chip architecture. All "hardcore" computer geeks will have this processor in there PC even if they have to run a different operating system... well... I would at least.

[WannabeGT4]

it is impossible to compare a console cpu to a comp cpu due to several things (only exception is the xbox which was essentialy a celeron).
1. No cross platform benchmarking software
2. Difference in clock speeds actual power ie compare an intel to an amd and you will find the amd stomps intels right now with alot lower clock speeds.

Any questions?

Amd already is in line to release multi core cpu's next year and last I heard intel would follow soon after.
[right][snapback]243692[/snapback][/right]

From the linked article:
"IBM has said it will sell a workstation with the chip starting later this year."

Apparently it's not going to be just a console cpu.

[Supersprynt]

Well lets see how high we can drive up the price for a PS3.

As game consoles are starting to act more like computers, I may switch to Xbox

[mr_dude]

"laughable" eh? They sure churned out a 64 bit version pretty quickly when the 64 bit processors came out. They'd be ignorant to not support this new chip architecture.

That's because the 64-bit was still x86, don't have to recode for a new instruction set, just optimize for an extended one (if they even did that). No reason to support a new IBM architecture when Intel and AMD still own the entire consumer market share on x86. You don't see a Windows for PowerPC, SPARC, etc.

And I agree in not comparing computers to Xboxes to Playstations. There are too many considerations to try and benchmark performance. And all that really matters is the games that are made for them. Fine, designers can do more with better hardware, but that seems to be more of a crutch than anything else nowadays.

[Uppitycracker]

it is impossible to compare a console cpu to a comp cpu due to several things (only exception is the xbox which was essentialy a celeron).
1. No cross platform benchmarking software
2. Difference in clock speeds actual power ie compare an intel to an amd and you will find the amd stomps intels right now with alot lower clock speeds.

Any questions?

Amd already is in line to release multi core cpu's next year and last I heard intel would follow soon after.
[right][snapback]243692[/snapback][/right]

It all depends on your type of computing. The amd64 may perform better in benchmarks. But try multitasking like you can with a p4ht and its not going to happen. I have multiple programs running all the time without slowing down each other. Thats much better then some trivial benchmark number.

And if you read the article, the chip is going to be used for PC's aswell.

Tim

This post has been edited by Uppitycracker: Feb 9, 2005 - 1:49 AM

[Uppitycracker]

You guys really don't think that Intel or AMD haven't developed something similar or maybe even better?  Just because it's not out on the market yet doesn't mean they don't have it.  These guys make the most money by releasing chips just a bit faster every few months.  I'm sure they have processors developed already that aren't going to be released for years...

But I will say it's nice to see that they'll be putting a decent chip in the PS3... although by 2006 when it's released I'd imagine we'll have 5ghz intel chips on the market and people will complain the PS3 isn't fast enough. 
[right][snapback]243656[/snapback][/right]

So will cell

And if Intel has something equal I'll go intel for sure.

Tim

[SinisterWhisper]

intels have always been better at numbers while amd have been more of a gamers cpu but right now amd just stomps intel. (prescott is a joke)

What I do want to know is what the leap in power is going to be as far as graphics and ability goes with these new consoles. When the xbox came out it was running mid range stuff. The cpu was a celly and its graphics was based off a geforce 2 which by that time was budget. This time they are going with top of the line stuff which when coupled with the low os requirements and games geared toward *that* hardware should result in some amazing stuff. Personally I am more interested in what new ai will be like and the possibilities of the next gen systems when it comes to expanding game play itself.

[turboinduction]

I'll wait for Intel's chip. Figuring they started it all and will close it all. For AMD's sake... come on. In AMD didn't have Intel to copy they'd be nothing. And they still haven't figured out the LGA 775 chip yet. Granted Nintendo 64 was huge with power.... but Playstation (32bit) was always above the pack.... Hummmm. This Cell stuff isn't new. They've been working on it for years now. Intel and AMD both will have a chip of the same design out soon enough. I'm pretty confident in saying that a new style of computer hardware will NOT be found in a video game system before a computer box.

-Ti

[lagos]

the problem with these cell chips is that the app you run on them, will need to be coded to take advantage of multi processors. so, if you fire up a normal pc game on your windows maching running a cell chip, chances are it will only use 1 of its 8 cpus to run the game.

the results will be much better in the ps3 because the games are written for all 8 cpus.
but, it seem to me like they are doing this to save cost of the unit. its cheaper to get 8 500mhz cpus then 1 4ghz cpu.

This post has been edited by lagos: Feb 9, 2005 - 2:45 PM

[WannabeGT4]

Link from article posted above:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4246569.stm

According to that article it sounds like IBM and Sony don't want microsoft to be a part of this anyway. The article also mentioned the processors ability to share resources with other Cell processors in different parts of the home such as in the fridge and TV.

[SinisterWhisper]

umm ps2 is behind the pack when it comes to power (crappy cpu plus too little ram) gamecube has lower specs but they squeeze more out of it. Xbox reigns supreme in power but doesnt have the titles (yes halo pwns we know that).

As for multi cpu pros and cons one big one would be the fsb seeing how for once they could actualy advertise it correctly but splitting the information up will be time consuming so that might negate this advantadge. Also heat output (intels biggest problem right now) is going to be higher with more cores (less heat per core perhaps but more overall) so I want to see what the cooling solution is

[pr_caralho]

I dont know exactly what the deal with halo was, I mean I know its my opinion and all but I didnt see anything revolutionary about that game. And im sorry but i dont think a robot who never has a weapon on him is a cool character.

My opinion, no offence were all celica owners.....hey... they should make a game were a 6th gen is the main character and it has to save the princess (Supra) from the evil cluthes of a dark lord (Civic).............................lame

[Sev408]

i heard the other day that cpus are getting to the point where they are maxed out. they are trying to find other ways to make them, they looked into gold and now diamonds but they are not cost effective so only like NASA and the government are going to use them. They said that when they cross a certain gig the chip gets so hot that it starts to melt and it cant handle the heat.