Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: AmigaBlitter on April 28, 2006, 04:37:15 PM
-
Hi to all
I've posted a poll on Amigaworld about the possibility of Amiga on CELL architecture. What you think about?
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=18800&forum=33
Thank you
-
One word? Insanity.
In couple of more words:
- The CPU is hideously expensive.
- SPEs are very hard to program efficiently.
- CELL is no desktop processor.
- There most likely will never be desktop system having one.
- AmigaOS no multiprocessor OS anyway (and don't give me that Hyperion marketing bs about OS4 being SMP ready), and it never will be, so the SPEs would just be expensive "FPU". You could draw analog to PowerUP systems wtih both 68k and ppc. Here it would be the CELL PPE vs SPEs.
- It's lunacy to expect someone to come up with the money required to get the development systems, or to finance any "porting" (porting being impossible anyway as PPE<->SPE is something completely new, you can't just port code to it, you need to rewrite it).
-
No way.
CELL is a great Hardware for game consoles, but it wasn't developed for Desktop PCs and I don't think that it ever will be used for that purpose.
-
stop the madness....
-
I didn't want to burst your dream bubble when I first read your post but as the other members stated, it is impossible. As far as I know, the CELL architecture specs was known since 2004 and it has taken Sony two years (and more) to build a game console system on it. I can't imagine how long it will take hyperion to write an OS for it.
On the other hand, I don't agree that the cell was not meant for the desktop. It all depends on supply/demand. If enough volume is demanded cell prices can get low and a clever company can come up with a board/system to offer desktop cell computers. I think it's quite possible, however I'm pretty sure that Amiga will not be that company. (maybe apple ?)
-
The reason it is taking so long for Sony to write an OS for it is that (based on what I've heard on OSNews and other sources) the Cell OS will run from an SPE thus freeing up the PPE to run the applications. If AmigaOS runs from the PPE and then adds SPE support via a .resource entry we'd be in business.
The real problem is that the PPE is 64-bit using the same instruction set as the PPC 970MP. Since the 970MP isn't supported yet it will take time to add 64-bit support and SMP support that it requires first before AmigaOS can support the Cell processor.
-
The Cell is not Expensive, considering that the final price of PS3 is about 500 Euro
If you look at the PS Board is something like a complete computer. Hard Disk, USB, Ethernet, Blu Ray Disk... Graphics GPU and 7.1 sound.
-
Anyway, you like the idea of an Amiga Cell based workstation?
-
>As far as I know, the CELL architecture specs was known since 2004 and it has
>taken Sony two years (and more) to build a game console system on it.
Uh. No. It's about product life cycles. Corporations want to milk every product line for it's maximum life and will rarely release a better product hen it's ready. They'll wait for market reasons. Like MS getting a leg up on the. Then they'll get serious about releasing a new product.
As for game vs desktop, it's just semantics. Look at how many arcade units used 68000 and Z80. Both found on desktops. The Amiga started life intended for games and it's the neatest computer I've yet to see.
For now I'd just be happy to see a real Amiga released.
-
The Cell is not Expensive, considering that the final price of PS3 is about 500 Euro
Consider that console vendors typically take a loss on the hardware, especially right when a new console is released. I saw some report about this that claimed it'd cost about US$800 to manufacture the PS3, with about US$300 loss at retail and hope they make lots and lots of money from game license fees. With that much difference it might be hard to profit, but I don't know where these guys got their $800 estimate from (giant grain of salt anyone?) or what the price of games will look like.
-
boing wrote:
As for game vs desktop, it's just semantics. Look at how many arcade units used 68000 and Z80. Both found on desktops. The Amiga started life intended for games and it's the neatest computer I've yet to see.
The industry has changed since the Amiga... In the begining games were just like normal desktop applications with pretty graphics (very linear with simple logic puzzles)... now games are a totally different breed of software (usually complex simulations, with advanced physics and 3d representations), pretty much unrelated to desktop applications.
-
Oh great another "cell" thread!
+1 to everything that Piru said.
Cell is an architecture not a specific chip, so yes IBM or one of the other partners could add a fully functional PPE instead of the hobbled form that will be at the helm of the PS3's cell chip. But you can bet such a CPU would be utilised in massively parallell configurations instead of single unit desktop machines.
So, no. Not only do I not see cell being used with an Amiga OS (unless someone hacks a PS3 to run it as a proof of concept rather than a useable platform). I doubt we'll ever see cell in any desktop platform. Sony will use cell in their PS3 and maybe in some other form in general consumer electronics, acting as a high speed DSP. IBM and Toshiba (maybe) will use it in mainframes.
@boing; actually, if you read a little about development of the cell concept and architecture you'd find that Sony, Toshiba and IBM have been having real trouble getting the thing to work. Its no coincidence that each PS3-cell chip has 8 physical SPE's but only 7 working, one being sacrificed to increase yeild.
Cell in the PS3 will also run HOT! And its a sure bet that Sony cant wait to shift it down to the next process to reduce power consumption/heat output and silicon. I cant wait to see what the cooling inside PS3 looks and sounds like...
-
Personally, I'm not interested in AmigaOS running on any other processors, including PPC. I just want an Elbox Dragon :-(
--
moto
-
bloodline wrote:
boing wrote:
As for game vs desktop, it's just semantics. Look at how many arcade units used 68000 and Z80. Both found on desktops. The Amiga started life intended for games and it's the neatest computer I've yet to see.
The industry has changed since the Amiga... In the begining games were just like normal desktop applications with pretty graphics (very linear with simple logic puzzles)... now games are a totally different breed of software (usually complex simulations, with advanced physics and 3d representations), pretty much unrelated to desktop applications.
You are true today games are different.Today games are the most complex and demanding task that a computer can run.In fact when you run a 3d game you are running all the posible desktop apps in one (music, graphics, 3d, internet.....) .
Or what desktop app do you know that need the requirements of any modern game?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sincerely i don´t understand the people that says that is not suitable for desktop!! my only logical explication is that that people only always like to disagree
-
Fransexy_ wrote:
bloodline wrote:
boing wrote:
As for game vs desktop, it's just semantics. Look at how many arcade units used 68000 and Z80. Both found on desktops. The Amiga started life intended for games and it's the neatest computer I've yet to see.
The industry has changed since the Amiga... In the begining games were just like normal desktop applications with pretty graphics (very linear with simple logic puzzles)... now games are a totally different breed of software (usually complex simulations, with advanced physics and 3d representations), pretty much unrelated to desktop applications.
You are true today games are different.Today games are the most complex and demanding task that a computer can run.In fact when you run a 3d game you are running all the posible desktop apps in one (music, graphics, 3d, internet.....) .
But they are demanding in a very specific way. The cell was an idea started a few years ago, to merge a CPU and a GPU onto the same chip, it was a nice idea but it doesn't really work... Both the CPU and a GPU are hugely complex and can't really share silicon at this time, without sacrificing something. Now nVidia and ATI are thinking of adding physics engines to thier GPU's... the GPU will become vastly more complex... at the same time as CPU's go dual core... there still isn't enough silicon space.
Or what desktop app do you know that need the requirements of any modern game?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You really don't know anything about games programming do you... :-(
I use Logic Pro 7.2, it requires vastly more CPU resources than any game ever has... but it doesn't use the GPU at all... Oblivion on the other hand doesn't even use 50% of the CPU time available on my Dual Core, but the GPU is maxed out.
-Edit- A Cell would has the Vector ability needed to run something like Logic Pro, but it certainly doesn't have the General Purpose ALU needed.
Sincerely i don´t understand the people that says that is not suitable for desktop!! my only logical explication is that that people only always like to disagree
Or they have a better understanding of the problem than you...
-
most of us have stopped dreaming of a new amiga on a new cpu arch. powerpc os4 is becoming more of a vapor, dec alpha was a nice thought but not much more than that. then there was transmeta cpus, and various risc cpus from coldfire to hitachi sh4 etc.
noone out there has both the desire and capability to produce new hardware anymore. and when i say produce i mean prototypes, and production; not just prototypes or limited runs for a few willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a mobo with hardly any support.
like it or not aros and x86 are by far the most capable in power, price and availability. download it and run it, and if you want to port it to some other system, cell ps2, gamecube, pda or whatever; go ahead. the aros team will give you everything you need from there side to be succesfull.
for now i agree with one f the other posters: stop the madness
ps pm lou_dias and discuss alternate systems like the gamecube. (there that should get him out of our hair for a couple years or so :-D )
-
Hi billt
Even 800 Euro or US$ is not expensive.Considering that the new CPU modules (the 1,7 ghz clocked cpu) from ACK Software Controls cost 850 US$, a PS3 system with the CELL, Blu ray disk,an equivalent to G70 GPU, a 7,1 soun system, an hard disk, Ehternet ADSL connection and USB 2.0 ports, is not expensive don't you think?
For the loss calculation, you are right. They probably think that can gain revenues through games, licensing, and so on.
-
But a CELL based workstation with our lovely OS4 inside: you completely refuse the IDEA?
-
I don't think cell's are a good solution. Too expensive, too radical and completely unnecessary. Seriously an OS as lean and mean as Amigo OS should run so damned fast on a standard 2GHz machine! How fast did the A500 run again? ;-)
-
Hi
As i said to others, if you see in a reasonable time a Cell based workstation, you like the IDEA.
Remember that CELL is a target platform as Hyperion said
:-)
Best regards
-
Nycran wrote:
I don't think cell's are a good solution. Too expensive, too radical and completely unnecessary. Seriously an OS as lean and mean as Amigo OS should run so damned fast on a standard 2GHz machine! How fast did the A500 run again? ;-)
How standard a 2GHz system are we talking about. One that comes with Windows preinstalled? Why not just ask Amiga to GIVE AmigaOS to Microsoft since all major preassembled brands of PCs pay OEM licence fees to them.
OEM and standard licencing are an important way to keep Microsoft from taking over any MORE of the industry than they already have.
BTW there is a 1.7 GHz G4 accelerator announced from ACK Software Controls for the AmigaOne XT and MicroA1-c and yes AmigaOS does fly on them. If they were available to everyone it would be good for Amiga but they simply aren't.
The A500 ran at 7 MHz and came with a buggy version of Workbench 1.3. WB 2+ came out and most of the Amiga software wouldn't run on the enhanced chipset because people were so used to bypassing the OS that by the time WB 3+ came out nobody cared about the OS they just wanted to bang on the chipset. What's left for people who bypassed the OS? Nothing.
The Cell is expensive primarily becuase of the large die size and because it runs on RamBus memory. But seriously, if people are willing to pay $750 for a 1.7 GHz G4 processor then what will be the difference if people buy a PS3 instead? Sure OEM licencing will go to Sony but they're taking a loss. I think moving to the Cell is a good idea becuase the instruction set of the SPEs are designed not to need to change so only the PPE needs to improve.
-
AmigaBlitter wrote:
But a CELL based workstation with our lovely OS4 inside: you completely refuse the IDEA?
You know, if they'd just get OS4 onto something freaking reasonable and commonly available, I wouldn't care about all these wacky things they'd like to try to do, but if these two concepts are supposed to be mutually exclusive as we're told, then no, I completely refuse the idea. I'd rather just have OS4 on hardware I can buy and use today and tomorrow.
-
BTW there is a 1.7 GHz G4 accelerator announced from ACK Software Controls for the AmigaOne XT and MicroA1-c and yes AmigaOS does fly on them. If they were available to everyone it would be good for Amiga but they simply aren't.
When do people finally realize that what we need is cheap off-the-shelf hardware in order to enlarge the userbase and get a reasonable amount of developers?
Heck, we don't even have a half-decent webbrowser, no office package and people are dreaming that >$1.000 hardware could save the platform? It's rather looks like DOA.
First aim at something -reasonable-, if that's achieved (b tw, I am still not able to run OS4 on -something- available) then there might be some room for your pipedreams (Cell, Dual G5, blabla).
-
I remember when the HP PA-RISC chip was being reviewed for the next Amiga. I had room for 4 cores. 1 cpu core, the 'AAA' chip, a DSP chip and I forget what else...possibly a Kickstart 'rom'...
ATI's latest technology includes physics processing on the GPU...and this is part of DirectX 10. They also hinted that some of this would be in Nintendo's new GPU. Just watch "The Last Word" feature on Gamespot.com ...
Some one mentioned that the Cell's purpose was do be able to do it all on one chip...including graphics. In that sense it's already a failure. Sony had to give up on the graphics capabilities of the Cell and sign up NVidia.
I like ATI's approach to the GC and Wii. It has an integrated gpu, northbridge, southbridge, dsp and ppu in one tight package. Might I also mention that the GC's PPC cpu is/was a quite capable desktop cpu and since 'Broadway' is going to be 100% backwards compatible with it, so will Wii's cpu.
I would toot the 360's horn but I imagine contracts between Nintendo and ATI prevented Microsoft from getting such an integrated package from technology in the Flipper to have evolved into the Xbox 360...just look at how big it is.
On the GC people only complained about the lack of RAM and USB ports (for storage) to run a proper desktop OS. Still even with 24+16MB AROS would have been great for it running off a 4GB SD card. Wii has USB ports and anywhere from 88MB to 128MB. Still more than enough for the 'so-called' light-weight OS that is supposed to be 'OS4'. Also, that 'remote'-controller is superior to a mouse.
-
There are many comments from the CELL programmers sound like this:
Programming the Cell is like programming the old Amiga. An spe unit is like the copper of the Amiga... and so on.
John Carmak, said that the PS3, is something like the old Amiga computer.
;-)
-
HI T_bone
I'm happy you are here in Aorg.
I don't have a clue of how many people of AW are also Aorg users.
Anyway, we hope to have something real peace of hardware in our hands. If this are Cell Workstation, i can't find an appropriate icon to represent my happiness,
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :-D :-D :-) :-P ;-) :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
-
AmigaBlitter wrote:
There are many comments from the CELL programmers sound like this:
Programming the Cell is like programming the old Amiga. An spe unit is like the copper of the Amiga... and so on.
Well, that's not right... The task the copper did is totally different to the SPE. Frankly the world the Amiga Chipset was build for simply doesn't exist anymore.
John Carmak, said that the PS3, is something like the old Amiga computer.
;-)
The PS3 != The Cell... THe PS3 is an expensive device over encumbered with hardware for throwing polygons at a TV screen. It is not a general purpose computing device.
I really can't understand why people still harbour fantacies about games consoles... history has show that these devices while perform really well at running games, they are useless for general purpose computing. The strength of the Amiga was that even though it was a games machine, it was also a powerful general purpose device (this did not happen by accident, if you read the history of the thing).
-
:horse:
Dammy
-
The PS3 != The Cell... THe PS3 is an expensive device over encumbered with hardware for throwing polygons at a TV screen. It is not a general purpose computing device.
The Cell can be used also as a coprocessor card. I don't mean at the Cell "only" as a primary processor. The Cell can be a secondory processor (a coprocessor) like the old amiga coprocessors.
Anyway a single Cell board has show up to 250 Gflops of computing power. Don't you think that is a dream machine for general purpose computing?
Best Regards
Thank you.
:)
-
Anyway a single Cell board has show up to 250 Gflops of computing power.
Someone been reading Sony Marketing BS?
Using a console as a desktop is like towing a trailer using a Formula-One.
I'm guessing we'll be having this same conversation in 5 years when PS4 comes out, boasting magic-super-wonder-chip. The implications for the Amiga will be just the same.
-
I hope that for that date we have at least a piece of hardware for the Amiga Platform. I this will be a Cell ...
Good for us
:)
-
Can somebody point me to an AmigaBlitter-free forum/newsgroup/IRC-channel? AmigablitterAnywhere :lol:
-
hehe :-D
But if you find me in every place that's mean that you are in every place. So i can say the same thing about you.
hehe :-D
Maybe you are follow my steps?
I'm Joking tech...
:lol:
-
>> 250 Gflops of computing power
Yes but for which kind of operations ? and what about the rest of the CPU commands ? 3D operations ?
3D operations are not everything. Take care of that.
And always remind about the 64 bits ATARI JAGUAR !!
64 bits for just for a part of the GPU and a 68k@14Mhz to synchronise all the chips with a bus limited at around 2MB/s...
Like their TV adds : "Jaguar do your math ! 64 bits", get a closer look to the real PS3 performances ;-)
-
But seriously, if people are willing to pay $750 for a 1.7 GHz G4 processor then what will be the difference if people buy a PS3 instead?
Depends on why a person is buying either. If I want to run OS4, but it doesn't run on PS3, then buying a PS3 may be a complete and total waste of money. One person buying the CPU module to run OS4 gets to use it, the other person buying PS3 leaves it in the box until someone gets OS4 ported to it, forgets abotu the box, gets old and never gets to do anythign on his PS3. Maybe he plays PS3 games on it, but what does that have to do with OS4 at all?
It'd make sense to wait and see if OS4 is ever ported to it first if that is your reason to buy the thing.
-
The PS3 != The Cell... THe PS3 is an expensive device over encumbered with hardware for throwing polygons at a TV screen. It is not a general purpose computing device.
I really can't understand why people still harbour fantacies about games consoles... history has show that these devices while perform really well at running games, they are useless for general purpose computing. The strength of the Amiga was that even though it was a games machine, it was also a powerful general purpose device (this did not happen by accident, if you read the history of the thing).
This is far from correct. In fact we are going through the process of assessing the PS3 for various 'non-gaming' applications.
Id suggest you do some reading up about the PS3, and the Cell for that matter. The PS3 _DOES_ include a complete version of the Cell processor.
The PS3 also DOES resemble the Amiga in many ways. Whereby the Gfx and the CPU were tightly coupled and had high bandwidth between them. Where the CPU and the Gfx (Blitter) could operate on independant code segements.
Also, they are different, in that much of the PS3 will use the seperate internal SPU's to offload work from the main PPE. Yes, the SPU's are entire seperate processor elements, they are NOT just vector units as many people keep on misinforming others.
The most important similarity between the PS3 and the Amiga however, is that it WILL be running an OS (Linux), it will be able to run applications, have USB keyboards, mice, and so on. Making this machine MUCH more like the Amiga than any previous console - the PS2 with the Linux kit was probably closest thing yet.
You might want to note too, that like you mention about the Amiga being designed not just for games, Ken Kuturagi has said _exactly_ the same things about the PS3. It has been designed ground up for use not JUST as a games machine. Expect to see the PS3 much more like the Amiga, than you can imagine - we hope to envision something pretty 'Amiga like' on it.. :)
I should also note, that the PS3 can run pretty much any OS in VM. And I know for certain that OSX, and XP have been trialed on it. So dont write off being able to install your favourite OS :)
-
My opinion in this matter is that Hyperion doesnt have enough money pay to Sony for OS4 port.
Yes, you read it right. Hyperion pays to Sony, Hyperion does the port, and Sony gets their rightful share of OS4 sales for PS3.
-
This is far from correct. In fact we are going through the process of assessing the PS3 for various 'non-gaming' applications...
Yeah, just as some people used PS2 clusters to do cheap vector processing. Still, I dont see any PS2-cluster based supercomputers on the top 500.
PS3 may contain a complete version of (Sony's) cell processor, but read more about the PPU and you'll quickly find it's a hobbled (reduced-transistor-count), G4-class design, hardly current desktop smashing material taken on its own. It remains to be seen how useful those 7 SPE's will be...
In any case, "Cell" is just an umbrella term used to cover an architecture not a single specific chip, so making statements about cell's physical attributes are a waste of time as Toshiba's and IBM's devices could be significantly different to anything Sony produces.
Anyone that thinks a PS3 is going to replace a desktop computer for doing desktop/workstation activities is just as crazy as Ken Kuturagi. Wasnt he the guy that said PS2 would render Toy Story gfx in realtime?
-
The Cell is a mediocre CPU with several VMX-class coprocessors. It works well as a programmable DSP, but isn't that great for scalar and other branching, decision-making problems.
It's arguable whether the CPU is as important as it once was, but what kind of CPU you need depends what you want to do with it.
In the case of Amiga, we need something with a decent chipset, so we can actually build computers. Cell doesn't have any "real" chipsets, and given that PPC is difficult enough to put on a motherboard, Cell probably never will.
bloodline: I really can't understand why people still harbour fantacies about games consoles... history has show that these devices while perform really well at running games, they are useless for general purpose computing.
Yup. A game console could be different, if they plan ahead, but the companies that make game machines are into content, rather than technical sophistication. No matter how much they boast that their systems are more than game machines, in the end, the systems are whittled down to be cheap game platforms that can simply run non-gaming material. That's where the money is: shoveling content to the masses, instead of giving people the tools to write software themselves. Amiga certainly would get no help from Sony to write drivers and other low-level essentials an OS is supposed to handle, so the programmers don't have to.
You can bet that the Linux that comes with PS3 will be crippled and badly crafted, even if it is a turn-key installation. The XP that comes with the X360 is in the same boat. Will a decent SPE compiler even be available, or is PS3Linux simply a content platform?
AmigaBlitter: The Cell can be used also as a coprocessor card. I don't mean at the Cell "only" as a primary processor. The Cell can be a secondory processor (a coprocessor) like the old amiga coprocessors.
So? The Amiga has plenty of coprocessor cards as it is. We need a new base machine in which to put those coprocessors. Besides, I'd rather not saw-up my A1200, and I don't want to have a heatpipe connecting my favorite all-in-one desktop to a refrigerator.
Of course, as a coprocessor, your lovely Cell would be much like the Phys-X card, but not as efficient, as the Cell is not a purpose-built design.
Anyway a single Cell board has show up to 250 Gflops of computing power. Don't you think that is a dream machine for general purpose computing?
Theoretical performance when doing low-accuracy, highly parallel math... and if you really know what you are doing. That kind of work is much more rare in the PC world except for, uh... games, and streaming video. Cell is a good workhorse, but is way too expensive as a desktop coprocessor.
Coldfish: I'm guessing we'll be having this same conversation in 5 years when PS4 comes out, boasting magic-super-wonder-chip. The implications for the Amiga will be just the same.
Probably. For some idiotic reason, people are still whining about what kind of hardware is proper for Amiga, but nobody seems to know what to do with it other than the same things they did with OS3, but "better," or just like Windows and OSX, but "better."
Software comes first, please. Wasn't OS5 supposed to be out by late 2000? :-)
Grover: It has been designed ground up for use not JUST as a games machine.
Yeah, you might use it for web browsing, chatting, or e-mail. Aren't we already able to do that on a Pentium 90? Is Sony willing to shell out highly sensitive hardware information to let people write an OS that will compete with the content platform that will be included with PS3, especially if there's the possibility it may somehow defeat DRM and other forms of lock-outs Sony may include with the system?
Too much risk for Sony, unless Amiga could offer them a $100 million contract or something.
Coldfish: It remains to be seen how useful those 7 SPE's will be...
Hint: man uses his highest technology to amuse himself. I expect physics, realtime deformation, procedural graphics, and the usual glob of eye candy. Using fractals as texture maps would be really cool, but I don't think people are really thinking in that direction, even by gaming standards.
If a real OS was running on Cell -- I dunno, maybe it would defrag your hard drive really fast?
Seriously, database indexing and other forms of searches would probably get a real kick from SPE processing. But, the PPE is still a bottleneck. Transmeta processors run entirely off a vector engine, and those chips are hardly known for performance. I remember when Amigans were fired-up about using the Transmeta processor.
Coldfish: In any case, "Cell" is just an umbrella term used to cover an architecture not a single specific chip, so making statements about cell's physical attributes are a waste of time as Toshiba's and IBM's devices could be significantly different to anything Sony produces.
The vector capabilites of ATI GPUs are similar to Cell, as they use many, many parallel vector units sharing information on a circular bus.
Coldfish: Wasnt he the guy that said PS2 would render Toy Story gfx in realtime?
The lack of proper anti-aliasing and the constant presence of dancing textures killed that theory completely. :roll:
-
Waccoon wrote:
In the case of Amiga, we need something with a decent chipset,
You mean like AGA? ;-)