Amiga and CELL - What you think about

[AmigaBlitter]

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

[Piru]

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).

[Heinz]

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.

[keropi]

stop the madness....

[countzero]

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 ?)

[SamuraiCrow]

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.

[AmigaBlitter]

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.

[AmigaBlitter]

Anyway, you like the idea of an Amiga Cell based workstation?

[boing]

>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.

[billt]

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.

[bloodline]

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.

[coldfish]

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...

[motorollin]

Personally, I'm not interested in AmigaOS running on any other processors, including PPC. I just want an Elbox Dragon :-(

--
moto

[Fransexy_]

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

[bloodline]

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...