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 395840
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 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

cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

It's a benchmark that is doing something that Niagara was designed for, that GPGPUs are very good at, and that happens to be a general weakness of the cell. There's no good reason not to trust it. Honestly, it shows the Cell in a very good light, given how close it got. A midrange CUDA-enabled Geforce from a couple years ago would bring a smack down on both of them, I would imagine ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 2

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"I didn't say that the blog entry lies, I said that you should not trust a guy..."

I fail to see the difference?



"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."

No actually, I would not mistrust a benchmark. On other sites, I have discussed with IBM guys and they have refered to benchmarks which I have trusted. No problems at all. The reason that I trust those benches, is because it is far to easy to prove/disprove those benches. Just fire up a machine and try it yourself. If someone lied about those numbers, he would loose credibility.

It is far to dumb to lie about easily proved benches. It is like I say "on p34 i the ISO standard for C++, it says that 'C# sucks'" - well that would be dumb to lie, because it would be to easy to prove/disprove. Then I would be considered as a liar.

So, go ahead, post IBM benches about the CELL if you like. I will trust them. I dont think IBM lies about benches. Why would they? I dont think SUN lies. Why would IBM? Benches are too easy to prove/disprove. No one should dare to lie about them? Or am I wrong?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Nicholas Blachford Member since:
2005-07-06

So, go ahead, post IBM benches about the CELL if you like. I will trust them. I dont think IBM lies about benches. Why would they? I dont think SUN lies. Why would IBM? Benches are too easy to prove/disprove. No one should dare to lie about them? Or am I wrong?


It's not about truth or lies, it's about marketing.
Sun picked a test which really wasn't suited to Cell. What they didn't do it pick a test that wasn't suited to Niagara or was equally suited to both. If Sun had picked any benchmark with floating point Niagara would have been completely destroyed - not just by Cell, but by any processor on the market.

One thing you can do with Cell is emulate a Niagara like architecture (you use software threads and a software cache), I don't know how much work was done in this area but it'd be interesting to see how the benchmark would turn out doing this. OTOH you can't emulate Cell on Niagara (at least not without a great deal of difficulty).

Anyway, Niagara and Cell are both general purpose processors optimised for specific tasks. Those tasks are quite different so there really isn't much point comparing them.

Reply Parent Score: 5