Posted on 06/10/2008 6:23:21 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
You were taking in circles like usual, saying the chip was quote “far too advanced” for Apple, going on and on about how even their servers couldn’t handle the output from a single Cell over the network, blah blah blah how powerful this thing was some more, even though it’s used in a game console for kids as if that’s somehow more avanced than what Apple is capable of. Learn to stick with the subject, and try to make non-contradictory statements that add up on basic levels when you post, if possible.
The quote "far too advanced" appears first in this thread in the very post I am responding to right now -- yours. You put it in quotes so you can't say you were paraphrasing. Your habit of lying about my posts is getting absurd.
on and on about how even their servers couldn’t handle the output from a single Cell over the network
You are also the only one here to have said that. Lie #2.
how powerful this thing was some more, even though it’s used in a game console for kids
Such game console being more powerful than the PCs in Folding@Home and being used to make small supercomputers. Yes, it is an extremely powerful chip, the most powerful ever put into a game console.
Learn to stick with the subject, and try to make non-contradictory statements
The subject led here with someone else's question about the subject of the thread.
And learn to quit lying. Two in this very post -- would be impressive for anybody but you. You're slowing down a bit.
I will "whine" whenever you misrepresent my posts, whis is often. I said the Cell is far more advanced than what was made for Apple, which was several years go. This is true. You misrepresented my post to say "too advanced" which would mean that Apple couldn't handle such high technology, which is ridiculous. It's an especially dumb statement since Apple contributed to the technology in the PowerPC, technology that went into the Cell.
You misrepresented my post. IOW, you lied, again. You didn't think I'd catch you? I always do.
what's really going to be funny is if Apple releases new software technology that helps multicore processing in Macs which is exactly where programming for the Cell has flopped.
Ignorance shining through again. Multicore programming is the ONLY thing that gives the Cell the performance we see today. Without multicore you only have an average PowerPC CPU, and even that requires multithreading to fully use its power (it's two-way multithreaded). It is generally said that nobody even takes advantage of all of the Cell's potential with the multiple cores right now, yet it's already blazing fast. Lots of room for growth and speed increases without even changing the chip. Pretty cool.
how little ole Apple not only dumped your chip
The "my chip" Apple dumped was the PPC 970. You can't dump what you didn't even consider. Just how dense are you?
Hopefully they'll patent it so the Linux leeches at IBM won't be able to get their grubby hands on it either
IBM already has compilers and tools tuned for multi-core processing with Linux and the Cell, Apple is just apparently making it easier and more transparent. Apple often takes existing technology and concepts, and revolutionizes them for ease of use.
You seem to forget that IBM has been doing multi-processor systems for decades, and multi-core five years before Intel. Look at the POWER4: dual-cores per chip, four chips in a plug-in package, several packages in a computer. Yeah, and they did that without knowing how to optimize for multicore.
IBM and their new chip and software sharing labs in Asia
I see your usual association: Asia/China is evil. IBM does business there. Thus IBM is evil.
Then I'd like to remind you that Intel's first new-location fab in 15 years is in China.
You are indeed the biggest whiner I've ever seen LOL but I didn't misrepresent anything, just exposed you trying to claim the Cell is "far more advanced" than what Apple could ever need when Sony uses it in a kid's game console.
It is generally said that nobody even takes advantage of all of the Cell's potential
No kidding Sherlock, starting with Steve Jobs. While you were busy trying to turn this thread into an IBM advertisement, I was reading what Jobs said about current multicore programming and how Apple's new O/S will make what is currently difficult if not impossible much easier for developers to access. Too bad for IBM, they already got kicked to the curb, Cell and all, and more propoganda and insults from you isn't going to change it.
I love it! You just said you don't misrepresent, when you did it again in this very post! Apple needed an advanced desktop processor like the Core series, Apple needed an advanced server/workstation processor like the Xeon series, Apple did not need an advanced streaming processor like the Cell.
in a kid's game console
Of all of this generation's consoles, the PS3 is the one most considered as the adult game console, especially considering that it has the highest price. It debuted at $600, and Sony was taking a several-hundred dollar loss on each at that price.
No kidding Sherlock, starting with Steve Jobs.
Please show were jobs specifically addressed the complexity of getting the absolute maximum performance out of the Cell processor. I'm waiting. Actually, the reason most people can't get max performance is that most software is games. Game developers were not used to using multiple cores when this generation's multi-core consoles came out. IBM has already shown a program that almost hits the theoretical throughput of the Cell.
While you were busy trying to turn this thread into an IBM advertisement, I was reading what Jobs said about current multicore programming and how Apple's new O/S will make what is currently difficult if not impossible much easier for developers to access
Duh! Another subject of the thread was Apple giving access to the matrix processor that resides many Macs -- the GPU. In discussing how powerful programming access to a matrix processor can be I gave a current example -- the Cell.
Too bad for IBM, they already got kicked to the curb
IBM lost a customer that was relatively so small that IBM didn't even bother to put in much R&D for that customer as it wasn't worth it. IBM moved on to more profitable pastures. Apple found a supplier that has motive other than Apple to keep its chips cutting-edge. Do you think Intel would do all this R&D for the Core series if Apple was the only buyer?
Here is Jobs’ quote to the NY Times, looks like another shot from him at the Cell. Obviously you don’t belive him, so send HIM a letter calling him a liar LOL.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/apple-in-parallel-turning-the-pc-world-upside-down/
“The way the processor industry is going is to add more and more cores, but nobody knows how to program those things,” he said. “I mean, two, yeah; four, not really; eight, forget it.”
LOL Apple sells more computers than IBM does, by a long shot. And Apple is still growing while IBM is in a tailspin despite your endless shilling.
Here’s the quantity sales figures from the last quarter, more than a 20 to 1 margin, with Apple rising and IBM tanking LOL:
http://www.crn.in/ITChannelJan4-08IBMReorganizesHardwareSales.aspx
A Gartner report in November said IBM’s server sales plunged in the third quarter of 2007, dropping nearly 11 percent from the same period one year earlier to 92,582 units, according to Gartner.
Apple shipped 2,319,000 Macs, racking up 44 percent unit growth and 47 percent revenue growth over the year-ago quarter.
Huh???
Interesting. We have servers with 16 or more DIMM slots, each capable of supporting 4GB DIMMs.........hmmmmm.......running Windows.......hmmmmm..........
No more phone calls; we have a winner......
As one who used to work for Kubota Graphics with their (at the time) amazing Denali graphics subsystem...I know exactly what you mean.
As one who used to work for Kubota Graphics with their (at the time) amazing Denali graphics subsystem...I know exactly what you mean.
And not one word from Jobs about the Cell in that article. The only thing there about the Cell is speculation from the blogger. In fact, you just showed Jobs discounting programming for processors with four cores ("four, not really"), yet he uses them in the Mac Pro. Plus those systems have eight cores among two processors, and he said "eight, forget it."
You're still Googling what you have no knowledge about to save a failing argument. My proof? Your first "evidence" is the first hit on "steve jobs cell processor."
You'd think so since IBM got out of the relative low-end computer business, concentrating only on very high-end machines (although their 1/5 ownership of Lenovo, the world's third-largest PC maker, still brings in the money). Now they're in the gaming market, making the chips for all three of this generation's consoles, over 56 million sold. I know you don't want to face the fact that Microsoft is using their chips, but it's true. Sob, sob, Oh Microsoft, How could you have failed me? Get in line lackey, you know your orders are to praise the mighty Bill Gates!
Look, I’ve worked in Silly Valley. We (cisco) investigated using IBM’s Cell technology seven or so years ago. They’re bleeding edge stuff, and not just for their CPU’s. You won’t see much of it in a general purpose desktop, because, quite frankly, the cost of the entire system (chip to software) is lower on x86 platforms than with Cell. But if you have a job that can parallelize well, they’re the best game in town, bar none.
Most desktop software hasn’t done well at multi-threading because most programmers don’t know how to design good multi-threaded software. Let’s put aside the considerations inside the OS, which are getting better and better understood of recent, and it appears that Apple is improving in 10.6. Let’s just talk of how well the applications from the thread API upwards, can take advantage of multiple cores/CPU’s. The answer is “not well” and the fault doesn’t lie with the hardware guys designing the multi-core chips like Core [2] Duo, or Cell. The problem rests with the application programmers.
Being a retired (20+ year) engineer in the computing industry, recognize antiRepulicrat as another techie who does for-real product engineering, ie, someone who is a tad more than a ‘fanboy.’ To me, a guy who had been around the block a few times in high tech, you’re completely missing the point here, and I have to say that antiRepublicrat has been far more patient with you than I would be.
I can tell you’re unfamiliar with IBM’s Microelectronics Division, their products and how large they are. I can tell you for a fact that they’re not going away anytime soon, and that they sell far more silicon than Apple peddles. You just don’t see it, because you’re not familiar with them and you’re equating their output with IBM’s moribund personal computer product line.
This amount of silicon that IBM ships is before we take into account the vast numbers of custom, bleeding-edge chips that IBM fabs for third parties, like Juniper, cisco, etc. They have the Juniper, cisco or other name on the package, but they were fab’ed by IBM - because IBM has one of the two most advanced fab lines in the world. When you have a 20-million+ gate fab, and you want it at bleeding edge clock speeds, there’s one place you go: IBM.
Typical distraction attempt by you in attacking Apple and Jobs, but they are addressing the problem when all you can apparently do is blindly shill for IBM's chip.
Lie #3, I have attacked neither Jobs nor Apple in this thread. You have invented it. Care to go to Lie #4? Never mind, you're probably already there and I just missed one. You throw out the lies so fast it's hard to keep track sometimes.
Which has blown up in their face. PC sales are growing by double digits every year, while IBM server sales are sinking like a rock. FYI HP is now king of the server hill, largest computer company in the world, IBM has completely blown it. Oh well, they still have you worshiping their every move I guess.
although their 1/5 ownership of Lenovo, the world's third-largest PC maker
You mean IBM's partnership with the Chicom government? Of course being an IBM cheerleader you're all for it, but fact is many US government organizations have completed banned Lenovo's crap completely. Apple is in another league from Lenovo, anybody knows that but an IBM pimp. Lenovo LOL. Even they pulled the IBM logo off their stuff before they had to LMAO.
I know you don't want to face the fact that Microsoft is using their chips, but it's true.
Not the Cell. Nobody but Sony is using that, and they posted a 1.24 Billion dollar loss last year because of it. Things have gotten so desperate they even sold their Cell chip plants to Toshiba LOL, I can hear Jobs laughing now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.