Question for /g/What's the PC equivalent of CellWhy was the military using them at the timeRealistically was cell overhyped?
>>110334760> PC equivalentryzen cpus> Why was the military using them at the timemulti cores applications> cell overhyped?no, it failed because of the cancer that is intel was too strong. AMD under Lisa Su proved multicores is the future.
>>110334760>What's the PC equivalent of CellAnything PowerPC 64 bit i guess. PowerPC is not just a console architecture.An example is the POWER9 IBM computers like the TALOSII from Raptor. They cost tens of thousands and support up to 2TB (yes, two terabytes) of DDR4 RAM.>Why was the military using them at the timeThey were relatively inexpensive for the processing power they had and putting them together in a networked grid was useful (apparently, i have never researched into it).>Realistically was cell overhyped?For games? Yes, because Sony found out developers were not going to do the hard work to compete with amd64 GPUs that were now making that work easy. It was planned with unfortunate timing just when consoles lost to the amd64 architecture and switched to it.For computers? It wasn't really meant to be a standard PowerPC CPU like the Apple PowerMacs from the early 2000s.
Atomwhat military using powerpc cannot rememberna as a blueray player excellent
>>110336555You act like autists here dont know about massive dara farms and equipment that use that much hardware. Next thing you'll tell us that fiber uses light transmission over glass woahhhhh
>>110334760It was a single core power pc core with a bunch of RISC co-processors, so probably closer to computing on a GPU than a general purpose CPU. The power PC core by itself was not particularly impressive compared to desktop CPUs of the era.
>>110334760POWER8 PCs sold by Raptor Engineering is probably the closest you'll get.
>>110336411PPC failed because IBM was intellectually bankrupt and basically copied the Netburst strategy of shoving more pipeline stages and big clock numbers.the CELL bullshit failed because SIMD/MIMD on CPU is just fucking stupid and Microsoft's shader model on a proper GPU was less retarded (xbox)
>>110334760>What's the PC equivalent of CellEither Threadripper or processing data on the GPU.>Why was the military using them at the timeLink a bunch of them together to build a supercomputer. >Realistically was cell overhyped?Somewhat, but the real attraction is you could get PS3s for way cheaper than any other processing node that could do similar things, install Linux through a Sony-provided feature, and link them together through ethernet to make a supercomputing cluster that was insanely powerful for its price.
It's the SPEs and the ring bus they sit on, you can get tensor-core-like behavior out of them as they compute-and-forward to a neighboring SPE, avoiding slow accesses to main memory
>>110334760>What's the PC equivalent of CellNone>Why was the military using them at the timeCheap and flexible compute>Realistically was cell overhyped?Yes for games, not so for parallel computing.x360 btfo it in games because it had 3 PPC cores plus a fully programmable GPU which proved to be more powerful in the long run
>>110337291>x360 btfo it in gamesonly in the beginning of the generation, by the end of it, every single multiplat game ran at a higher resolution and higher amount of frames on the ps3
>>110337328imma need proof for that
>>110337422Look at DigitalFoundry's old benchmarks from that era
There is no PC equivalent to CELL because desktop CPUs don't use the same architecture.Even big.LITTLE architectures are not the same.In modern Intel CPUs with the smaller efficient cores, the small cores still have the full x86-64 instruction set (I'd have to check if they are missing some extensions that the big cores have). On the AMD side with chiplets, they're all just full cores.CELL had a singular large, full featured, dual threaded, POWERPC core, the PPE. The SPEs in the CELL have a completely different instruction set that is almost entirely SIMD instructions.The closest PC equivalent is probably GPUs more than anything.>>110337030>the CELL bullshit failed because SIMD/MIMD on CPU is just fucking stupidThat's what every modern CPU has.
>>110334760>What's the PC equivalent of CellLiterally powerPC>Why was the military using them at the timeIt could accelerate simulations far more accurately and faster than x86 clusters>Realistically was cell overhyped?No it just wasn't cheap enough for general purpose use>>110336411You are straight up retarded and factually incorrect, your brain is rotted from x86 exposure
>>110337587M1 has been the biggest advancement in desktop PCs since PowerPC & 64bit x86
>>110334760It was kinda like zen 0.5
>>110337719That's nice. Not relevant, though.
>>110336969It was less than other PPC of the era.PowerMac G5 had the real full-far core.Cell had an IN-ORDER PPC970. No OOE. It was shit.
>>110337726No it wasn't.Zen is the probably the furthest thing away from what it was.It's closer to an old single core Atom but with 8 Sandy Bridge AVX pipelines strapped to it like frankensteins monster.
