New version of cell running at 6ghz!

[Samboini]

This would be an interesting response to MS alleged home server system....

A revised PS3 (the fabled PS4 maybe?) running a hypervisor enabled/ VM / partitioned system, allowing Linux to serve media to remote devices while simultaneously allowing video games to be played in another system partition at full speed.

Nice, but keep dreaming!!

[.Markus]

I can't believe some people...

The PS3 has barerly left the factories, and yet people start to speculate about what components will be inside it's successor..?

Incredible :sleep:

[Morpheus Phreak]

you cant ADD the speeds of the cores, Platinum. Plus, following that logic, the PS3 would be more powerful because it has more cores ;) . Anyway, I think this new technology will bring the price of the current PS3 down. I dont think we need more than is currently provided in the PS3. So if there is a choice between a $300 3.2ghz and a $600 6.0ghz, im goin cheap ;)

Actually yes you can add the speeds of the cores silly man.

Just think real carefully about what you just said. The core IS the CPU.

If you are running a Dual CPU rig with 2 3.2 GHz CPU's then you say that you have 6.4GHz of processing power at your command right?

Well that's what a Dual Core CPU is. It's literally Dual CPU's just sitting on one substrate package. That means that you have the power of 2 3.2 GHz CPU's making for 6.4 GHz.

In the case of the XBox360 it's 9.6GHz total since each core can be assigned seperate tasks and run at full speed.

While the PS3 does have more "cores" running at the 3.2GHz frequency the cores are not designed to execute General Instructions which means that they are a severe disadvantage for processing anything other than a Floating-Point operation.

That basically means Sony shot themselves in the foot when they designed this thing along with IBM.

So while the XBox is slower at FP calculations it is far faster at the GI side of things which means they just about break even. Add on the fact that the ATi GPU inside of the 360 can handle more processing operations (even sony admits this one by stating that they were more worried about per-pixel calculations with their nVidia-based chip, in comparison to the sheer pixel output done by the ATi chip) and you start to see a bit of a pull away for the XBox.

Now throw in the fact that the XBox360 actually has a true hardware based scaling system for it's HD output and you realize something else. The PS3 basically takes the image they have on their BluRay and have to downscale it via software (since they have no hardware scaling system to power the HD output) and have a upscale back to an HD resolution (again with no scaling system.)

So what does that mean? It means that once the image has been shrunk and then re-expanded that it has lost quality. The 360 on the other hand actually natively supports all of the resolutions (yes including 1080p) via th at chip and so it has no need do to downscale and upscale the image. It can do it on the fly.

Now throw in the fact that the XBox360 will have IPTV on it this year as well as several other improvements and the fact that Live will be coming to Windows as well to allow cross-platform gaming.

Well now you have something that Sony would be extremely hard pressed to duplicate.

So once again where does all of that leave Sony? So much for the vaunted super powerful Cell and it's legacy.

Now that being said, the Cell is amazing when it comes to FPU as I said earlier. If only they would work on also bringing the GI sets in line with that. Then we'd have something to blow everyone away ;)

[MGS4-SS]

Well that's what a Dual Core CPU is. It's literally Dual CPU's just sitting on one substrate package. That means that you have the power of 2 3.2 GHz CPU's making for 6.4 GHz.

Oh my...

For real you don't think you're actually correct, right?

[Nocstar]

Must've been smoking a DOOOB

When he said that.

[Corris Veteran]

^^^lol! what a read that was, but I want my few minuets back. :p

[Enrico Fermi]

I have been following this for a long time and thought I would add another aspect to this story. Sony, Toshiba, and Transmeta have been busy incorporating a power saving and overclocking technology called LongRun2 into the Cell Broadband Engine. The technology basically dynamically adjusts frequency, operating voltages, and something called threshold voltage to reduce the power of the chip, allow for higher frequency operation, and increase chip yields, therefore reducing cost.

They are able to utilize chips on a die that would have normally been tossed in the trash, and create processors that can choose to be faster, more energy efficient, or both, and all of this is determined dynamically by software. So now I imagine that this relationship has resulted in what we are seeing in this presentation, as Transmeta was working on this tech for the 65nm cells. If the goals are similar to what Transmeta has demonstrated on its own processors then it will allow for highly versatile chips and for Sony to sell the multiple versions of their processors, in all different product lines. They could use chips that would normally have been destined for the trash in the regular PS3, or use these 6Ghz chips in even new games while slowing down for others, assuming that is necessary. Now, the same 6GHz chips could be told by software to operate efficiently to given thresholds, say 8hrs of battery life in a handheld (PSP2 ehem) Also, when plugged in for example, or while doing something demanding, the chip could switch to a high power mode.

Lastly, these same processors can be kept to insanely low temperatures, which could allow for a slim version of the PS3, with just a heat sink and no fan. Also, I think there is a possibility that Sony releases faster and faster processors in the PS3 over time, rather than trying the age old strategy for game systems. This is more like the PC model and the games would already be capable due to the the existing requirements of the Cell compiler. These new processors will actually cost far less than the existing ones in the PS3, by probably more than a factor of two (higher yields and smaller die size), even while they are capable of operating nearly twice as fast.

Believe it:

[Ajapi]

If you are running a Dual CPU rig with 2 3.2 GHz CPU's then you say that you have 6.4GHz of processing power at your command right?

Wow silly man...please tell me you were being sarcastic and making a joke. Do you actually believe dual core or dual CPU rigs offer twice the performance? Cause that's not the way it works :p Latencies and a truckload of other factos get in the way to prevent perfect scalability: there is no way on EARTH that a dual core 3.2Ghz CPU will offer the same performance as a single core version of the same CPU clocked at 6.4Ghz. :pinch:

The rest of your post did make sense though, and presented a valid argument. Nice job.

[Morpheus Phreak]

Wow silly man...please tell me you were being sarcastic and making a joke. Do you actually believe dual core or dual CPU rigs offer twice the performance? Cause that's not the way it works :p Latencies and a truckload of other factos get in the way to prevent perfect scalability: there is no way on EARTH that a dual core 3.2Ghz CPU will offer the same performance as a single core version of the same CPU clocked at 6.4Ghz. :pinch:

The rest of your post did make sense though, and presented a valid argument. Nice job.

Where did I ever say twice the performance?

I said 6.4GHz of processing power which is a fact.

The latencies don't change that fact at all.

Also there's very little lost in the latencies, most of where you lose your performace is the OS kernel not properly handling multicore CPUs.

Thread/Task affinity is the single biggest source of loss in the Dual CPU/Core system. It's just not done properly :(

Now on the other hand if they would just rearchitecture the way they approach the pre-emptive multi-tasking in systems then you would see a huge improvement in how things are handled and rather than gaining 40-50% you would see closer to 80-90% gains.

[soniqstylz]

sounds very possible indeed.

its running 3.2Ghz. Go read the FCC report on PS3 if you don't believe us lol.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/bl...tive_or_pdf=pdf

Understood. Just pointing out that in June, it was all over teh interwebs that the Cell was being downgraded.

http://ozymandias.com/archive/2006/07/18/P...or---Redux.aspx

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/sony/more-ps3...-way-179863.php

http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/news...;sectionId=1006

Naturally, like all rumors-gone-wrong, the salcious details were the stuff of front-page news. Sony's PR was not to be believed, and the fact that it is running at 3.2 was never nearly as widely reported, other than on Sony sites.