First Next-Gen CELL Processor: 2 PPEs - 32 SPEs - at least 1 Teraflop
|
From: Thor Lancelot Simon on 9 Dec 2006 18:40 In article <sWFeh.801$yC5.90(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, mike <mike(a)mike.net> wrote: > >What if IBM abstracted out the SPE interface logic and management >software (once it is perfected) to allow third parties to re-use the >Cell's high-level design with different specialized SPE instruction >sets? Just as they re-use the PowerPC processor architecture on >several projects, they could re-use the cell multi-processor >extensions to the PPC. The new SPE's could be mini-PPC machines or 64 >bit vector floating point engines or IP protocol engines, or >compression / de-compression engines, or encryption engines, etc. That's a beautiful idea. I hope IBM listens -- or already has, to someone who generated it internally. -- Thor Lancelot Simon tls(a)rek.tjls.com "The liberties...lose much of their value whenever those who have greater private means are permitted to use their advantages to control the course of public debate." -John Rawls
From: Del Cecchi on 9 Dec 2006 19:02 "Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:elfhh4$qq3$1(a)reader2.panix.com... > In article <sWFeh.801$yC5.90(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > mike <mike(a)mike.net> wrote: >> >>What if IBM abstracted out the SPE interface logic and management >>software (once it is perfected) to allow third parties to re-use the >>Cell's high-level design with different specialized SPE instruction >>sets? Just as they re-use the PowerPC processor architecture on >>several projects, they could re-use the cell multi-processor >>extensions to the PPC. The new SPE's could be mini-PPC machines or 64 >>bit vector floating point engines or IP protocol engines, or >>compression / de-compression engines, or encryption engines, etc. > > That's a beautiful idea. I hope IBM listens -- or already has, to > someone who generated it internally. > > -- > Thor Lancelot Simon > tls(a)rek.tjls.com > "The liberties...lose much of their value whenever those who have > greater > private means are permitted to use their advantages to control the > course > of public debate." -John Rawls An interesting idea. Now, how would IBM make money from this project? Is there some organization that would pay IBM for such a chip? Who would buy it and how many would they buy if IBM built it on spec? If you represent an organization with money, email me and we can get the project underway as soon as the deal is signed. :-) (It's easy to figure out seemingly good ideas, harder to make money off them) del
From: Robert Myers on 9 Dec 2006 19:57 Del Cecchi wrote: > > An interesting idea. Now, how would IBM make money from this project? > Is there some organization that would pay IBM for such a chip? Who would > buy it and how many would they buy if IBM built it on spec? > > If you represent an organization with money, email me and we can get the > project underway as soon as the deal is signed. :-) (It's easy to > figure out seemingly good ideas, harder to make money off them) > A little testy, no? IBM is one of the few non-government players in a position to take a leadership role. As we are going now, the US is aiming to be a second or third class player in technology and science, and much of the negative leadership is coming from players who think themselves the brightest thing in the firmament. If the nobodies speak up, they're doing no worse than the somebodies doing all the talking. Robert.
From: Del Cecchi on 9 Dec 2006 22:53 "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165712275.771127.89640(a)j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Del Cecchi wrote: >> >> An interesting idea. Now, how would IBM make money from this project? >> Is there some organization that would pay IBM for such a chip? Who >> would >> buy it and how many would they buy if IBM built it on spec? >> >> If you represent an organization with money, email me and we can get >> the >> project underway as soon as the deal is signed. :-) (It's easy to >> figure out seemingly good ideas, harder to make money off them) >> > > A little testy, no? > > IBM is one of the few non-government players in a position to take a > leadership role. > > As we are going now, the US is aiming to be a second or third class > player in technology and science, and much of the negative leadership > is coming from players who think themselves the brightest thing in the > firmament. If the nobodies speak up, they're doing no worse than the > somebodies doing all the talking. > > Robert. > All these folks that love to tell others what they "ought to do" as if the folks in a position to actually do stuff are dough heads or something sometimes bug me. I merely wanted to point out that economics enter into the equation. And a little more rigor than "hey wouldn't it be great if..... we painted it candy apple red and put on a 6-71 blower" would be nice. IBM did take a leadership role with Blue Gene. It was specifically developed to be useful for a certain class of problems. It turned out to also be useful for some others. Now they are taking a leadership role in finding new applications for Cell, including some that the government is paying for. At the very least those making suggestions should think about and discuss tradeoffs involved. And yes, I suppose I was a little testy. del
From: mike on 9 Dec 2006 23:13
"Del Cecchi" <delcecchiofthenorth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4u113vF16253pU1(a)mid.individual.net... | | "Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls(a)panix.com> wrote in message | news:elfhh4$qq3$1(a)reader2.panix.com... | > In article <sWFeh.801$yC5.90(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, | > mike <mike(a)mike.net> wrote: | >> | >>What if IBM abstracted out the SPE interface logic and management | >>software (once it is perfected) to allow third parties to re-use the | >>Cell's high-level design with different specialized SPE instruction | >>sets? Just as they re-use the PowerPC processor architecture on | >>several projects, they could re-use the cell multi-processor | >>extensions to the PPC. The new SPE's could be mini-PPC machines or 64 | >>bit vector floating point engines or IP protocol engines, or | >>compression / de-compression engines, or encryption engines, etc. | > | > That's a beautiful idea. I hope IBM listens -- or already has, to | > someone who generated it internally. | > | > -- | > Thor Lancelot Simon | > tls(a)rek.tjls.com | > "The liberties...lose much of their value whenever those who have | > greater | > private means are permitted to use their advantages to control the | > course | > of public debate." -John Rawls | | An interesting idea. Now, how would IBM make money from this project? | Is there some organization that would pay IBM for such a chip? Who would | buy it and how many would they buy if IBM built it on spec? | | If you represent an organization with money, email me and we can get the | project underway as soon as the deal is signed. :-) (It's easy to | figure out seemingly good ideas, harder to make money off them) | | del OUCH! I am a retired CIO and unfortunately I do not have a $billion to throw at the idea or a business that could make a $billion from it. However, IBM has already talked about "an open PPC development strategy". They also used the PPC to develop business with the big three game console companies. If I were a business development guy in the IBM microelectronics group and looking for the next big opportunity, I would talk to CISCO about the IP protocol engine and the encryption engines mentioned above for starters. If that did not fly I am sure there are several other router companies to talk to or other special SPE's to think about. The point is that the Cell architecture if not the current Cell implementation could provide the basis of a whole new market area for IBM. There are any number of potential partners that need cheep cycles to make their next generation products. Mike Sicilian |