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 395869
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Power7?
by spanglywires on Sun 22nd Nov 2009 18:47 UTC
spanglywires
Member since:
2006-10-23

Sure I read somewhere that IBM hired the US chip guys Sun dumped and that mysteriously Power7 was very 'Niagara' shaped...

It would make sense to roll the ideas from the Cell into that. Still funny to watch IBM eat crow and have to effectively copy their almost dead competitors ideas as well as their OS ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Power7?
by Nicholas Blachford on Mon 23rd Nov 2009 01:14 in reply to "Power7?"
Nicholas Blachford Member since:
2005-07-06

Sure I read somewhere that IBM hired the US chip guys Sun dumped and that mysteriously Power7 was very 'Niagara' shaped...


Kind of sort of...
All server processors are going in that direction.

It would make sense to roll the ideas from the Cell into that. Still funny to watch IBM eat crow and have to effectively copy their almost dead competitors ideas as well as their OS ;)


They all influence each other, who do you think did servers with multi-core and multi-threads first? Hint: it wasn't Sun.

I always found it amusing that IBM built a No1 supercomputer based on Cell. This was ironic because Cray and IBM had been competitors for many years and IBM had always pushed the more complex processors, Cell is much closer to a Cray design (Cray 2 actually).

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Power7?
by Kebabbert on Mon 23rd Nov 2009 11:26 in reply to "RE: Power7?"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"They all influence each other, who do you think did servers with multi-core and multi-threads first? Hint: it wasn't Sun. "

The fun thing is that IBM has long bashed SUNs Niagara architecture. IBM has several times stated that few cores with higher clock frequency is much better than many slow cores. As proof, IBM shows that one Power6 core is faster than one Niagara core, and therefore the Power6 CPU must be faster. This is how IBM's proof goes that Power6 is the fastest CPU. Which is wrong by the way. Because, if a core is slow, it doesnt tell anything about the whole CPU. If the fastest cpu in the world uses 10.000 slow cores, and you can show that Power6 core is faster, does that translate to the Power6 cpu being faster? Of course not. That is just marketing and FUD. Power6 is not fastest, which you can see from benchmarks. SpecINT, SIEBEL v8, etc. One Sun T5440 with four 1.4GHz Niagara is twice as fast as three IBM Power570 servers with 12 Power6 at 4.7GHz - when you compare white papers from SUN and IBM. And one T5440 costs 76.000USD and one P570 cost 413.000USD. So how can the Power6 be fastest, huh? Specially when you consider that Niagara has many world records right now.


Now it is funny to see IBM releasing many slower cores, than few cores. SUN was first to popularize and heavily promote many lower clocked cores. There might be some researcher in 1950 that spoke about multi cores, so what? He didnt take them to the mass market. SUN did.

Reply Parent Score: 2