Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Nov 2009 21:58 UTC
IBM German website Heise Online has received confirmation that IBM is terminating its Cell processor line. This means that no future development will take place, making the PoweXCell 8i the last Cell processor. Parts of the Cell project will still make it into future processor designs, however.
Thread beginning with comment 395829
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Francis Kuntz
Member since:
2006-09-23

I wouldn't even bother trying to extract a reason out of the guys mouth; his attacking the source of the information is nothing less than a variation of ad-hom attack. He can't address the facts displayed to him so he attacks the source of the information - the same sort of thing christian fundamentalists do with the 'origin of the species' who attack Darwin instead of attacking the theory itself.


[EDIT]Hummm, I put a big post about my problems in my corporate, but I am not sure it's not risky to speak about that on a public forum. So removing it.

Ho yeah, and I am atheist.

Edited 2009-11-22 10:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Sorry to hear about your problems in your corporation. But could you please post the true Niagara and CELL numbers? I would like to know the true benchmark results on string pattern matching.

According to the SUN blogger, he took the CELL results from IBM's report. IBM heavily optimized the CELL code and used assembler, and all sorts of intricate optimizations. And IBM reported the CELL numbers, which the SUN blogger reports.

Whereas the SUN Niagara just did a compile of the algorithm implemented directly from pseudo code, with no optimizations at all. I bet someone here with access to the Niagara could do a straight forward implementation of the pseudo code and verify the numbers that are reported in the Niagara benchmark.

But what do I know, maybe SUN blogger lies, as you claim. So again, could you please post the true numbers? Aparently, the CELL numbers (reported by IBM) should be... what? 5? 10? times as high? Or is it 100 times higher?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Francis Kuntz Member since:
2006-09-23

I didn't say that the blog entry lies, I said that you should not trust a guy working in a corporate making benchmark for its own company product.

I am pretty sure that if someone here put a benchmark from an IBM guy saying that it rules the Sun servers, everybody should say that it's not true.

If Paul Thurrott's make a benchmark telling that Windows 7 outperform all unixes, you will trust him ?

But on OSNews, just like for Linux, you can't say anything bad on Sun or something good on IBM / Apple.

Edited 2009-11-22 12:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3