Jump to content



Photo

PS3 Cell faster than Core i7 965 XE


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Sethos

Sethos

    The Neowin Pessimist

  • Joined: 03-October 05
  • Location: Denmark

Posted 24 May 2009 - 03:40

( Note: The following has been through the Google Translator )

Cell Processor faster than Core i7 965 XE
H.264 Video: New Playstation 3 codec used for transcoding


A novel transcoding tool Fixstars allows for the conversion of video material on the full HD format, with the help of a Playstation 3 in real time.

The conversion of video footage in FULL HD movies at a resolution of 1920 x 1080 provides current desktops CPUs with a lengty task. This allows the transcoding of a movie sometimes half a day.

Now put the Linux Developer Fixstars a video converter called Codecsys CE-10, which was to encode movies into MPEG-4-AV (H.265) The Cell processor uses a Playstation 3 - this format will be predominantly on Blu-ray media and IP-TV via video-stream uses. The CE-10-encoder sends out from a Windows PC, the output data via Ethernet to the console, which finished the encoded data back to the PC sends back.

According to the announcement of Fixstars reached the Cell processor of the Playstation a performance of 29 FPS, that is 1.2 times real-time conversion - the cell has a similar performance as the CUDA Badaboom encoder in combination with an Nvidia Geforce GTX-285. By Comparison, Intel's current top-CPU, the core i7 965 XE, does it still at 18 FPS - normal desktop CPUs even create only about 5 FPS.

Prices Fixstars said the developer still does not know the Codecsys CE-10 will be on 22 Of June will be - More information, see the datasheet


Original Source Found through N4G.com


#2 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 24 May 2009 - 03:49

It's not surprising. A medium to high end video card can process physics much faster than a ultra high end quad-core CPU. Actually, the only thing CPUs are good for is general purpose computing. Of course, speeds for other tasks such as encoding/decoding improve with each release.

#3 soumyasch

soumyasch

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 05-June 05

Posted 24 May 2009 - 04:04

Encodes to H.265? The standard that doesn't exist yet?

And that the Cell processor - an extremely capable processor for SIMD workloads - is better at an SIMD workload than a general purpose processor is supposed to be surprising?

#4 cammy

cammy

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 14-December 05

Posted 24 May 2009 - 16:45

Not surprised really, the cell is unique and much more advanced than anything intel or Amd can offer.

#5 Ci7

Ci7

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 21-June 08
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Sony XZ

Posted 24 May 2009 - 16:51

but can it run Crysis ?

i guess the cell is slower then 975XE then :shifty:

Not surprised really, the cell is unique and much more advanced than anything intel or Amd can offer.


:rolleyes:

#6 SIE

SIE

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 05-January 04
  • Location: Dudley, England

Posted 24 May 2009 - 16:51

Not surprised really, the cell is unique and much more advanced than anything intel or Amd can offer.


Theres nothing unique and advanced about the cell.

An i7 for example is a general purpose CPU, you can't compare the two, the cell is like a GPU without the graphics bits, TMU's, ROP's etc. I'd compare it more to a PPU

#7 REM2000

REM2000

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 20-July 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 24 May 2009 - 16:54

i was going to say the same thing, the Cell is more akin to a GPU from nVidia or ATI than a general purpose CPU from Intel or AMD.

#8 ObiWanToby

ObiWanToby

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 27-April 04
  • Location: Columbus, OH

Posted 24 May 2009 - 17:00

Hopefully with DX11, and the general compute shader being more common, we'll get an encoding boost on Windows.

Though I think the encoding time for h.264 today really is not that bad.

#9 hdood

hdood

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 25-February 04

Posted 24 May 2009 - 17:03

Not surprised really, the cell is unique and much more advanced than anything intel or Amd can offer.

Intel could release a similar coprocessor, but do you think most people would be interested in paying say a $70 premium for something they'd get very little use out of?

#10 carmatic

carmatic

    oh cool i can change my member title

  • Joined: 03-July 04

Posted 24 May 2009 - 17:20

i wonder what other niche jobs can the PS3 excel in..... first there was Folding@Home halving the scores of PS3 users because they were doing too well, then there was the whole rack of PS3's cracking the wifi encryption, as well as a few things i might have missed...

#11 +Brandon Live

Brandon Live

    Seattle geek

  • Joined: 08-June 03
  • Location: Seattle, WA

Posted 24 May 2009 - 17:33

Not surprised really, the cell is unique and much more advanced than anything intel or Amd can offer.


Hahahahahahahaha

That was hilarious. You were trying to be ironic, right?

For those who didn't get the joke...

The Cell is a vastly simpler CPU than anything Intel or AMD has produced in the last few years. Cell is basically a glorified DSP engine. Yes it's excellent at video decoding just like any dedicated video decoder or encoder would be. If you compare it in any other light it will get absolutely devestated by the Core i7.

It's like saying that an iPod is better than a Ferrari Enzo at storing and playing music. That's probably true, but it doesn't mean the iPod is "more advanced" than the Enzo. It just means that playing music is a secondary (or tertiary) feature of the Enzo whereas it's the iPod's primary purpose. Similarly, the Cell is better at video decoding but is utterly useless when it comes to more general computation, especially the sort that desktop CPUs are continually being optimized for. That's what happens when you throw out things like out-of-order execution and rely extremely heavily on programmer and compiler optimizations to make up for lack of things like branch prediction.

For reference, a Core i7 chip has 734 million transistors on a 45nm production process (sooner dropping to 32nm), where the PS3's Cell chip has about 234 million (most of which are the SPEs, which are inadequate or inefficient for most general computing tasks).

#12 bob_c_b

bob_c_b

    broth fascist

  • Joined: 09-September 05
  • Location: Northeast Ohio

Posted 24 May 2009 - 17:49

It's a shame what a schill you have turned in to Brandon. :laugh:

#13 sorlag

sorlag

    Evoke the fire within

  • Joined: 06-November 01

Posted 24 May 2009 - 18:25

Hey, my routers chip is faster than my mp3 player chip, and they all beat my toaster! :cool:

#14 Windows7even

Windows7even

    Apple Lover!

  • Joined: 12-February 04

Posted 24 May 2009 - 18:32

It's a shame what a schill you have turned in to Brandon. :laugh:


he just telling the truth man..apples to oranges comparison is no good

#15 cammy

cammy

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 14-December 05

Posted 24 May 2009 - 20:51

I didn't make the thread man.

I`m relatively new to computing, so whats the point in these people wasting time and money comparing the two?

And why do Sony and MS waste money developing chips with IBM, when they could just put a regular intel chip into their systems?

The PS3 can be used as a linux PC and the ps3 can do a whole variety of things, it can game, play music, surf the web, play video, video in HD, be used as a server, be used for fodling@home.

What things do a core i7 do that's better than the cell? these people have just proven its quicker.

And why would intel waste their time like this? everyone uses their pc to watch videos and listen to music, what more will people be doing? decoding video? what a bit like what a Cell can do better than a core i7?

You tell me what a core i7 can do that the Cell cant please.

:)



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!