Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Jun 2006 22:22 UTC
IBM A new paper from a group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, "The Potential of the Cell Processor Scientific Computing" [.pdf], explores the performance of IBM's Cell processor on some specific types of code commonly found in high-performance computing applications. The paper compare Cell's performance on these kernels to the performance of the Cray X1E, AMD Opteron, and Intel's Itanium2. The idea here is that Cell will be a commodity processor (at least that's what the authors and IBM hope), so it'll be a viable HPC alternative for the cost-sensitive academic research market. This paper represents the first formal academic attempt to decide if Cell hardware is something that researchers will want to invest in. So how does Cell stack up in comparison to these three competitors? In a word, it screams.
Permalink for comment 134706
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: platforms
by MediaSex on Sun 18th Jun 2006 11:22 UTC in reply to "RE: platforms"
MediaSex
Member since:
2006-02-08

"one quad Opteron + 3 co-processors with 16 "pipelines" each gives us 4 massively fast CPUs with 48 coprocessor units. Compare that to 4 Cells which gives us 4 slow CPUs and 32 coprocessor units (possibly 28). "

Cell, coprocessor...

Stupid x86 fanboy.

"and we all know what a pain the PS2 is to code for..."

What an idiot.

Here you go Einstein:

http://research.scea.com/research/html/CellGDC05/index.html

Read it and save yourself from making a fool of yourself in the future.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: -5