Cell and PhysX

I was just asking, why wouldn't computer manufacturers create a notebook or a desktop, that has a cell processor (PS3 processor) as it also works as a PhysX processor, thus it'll enable multitasking and PhysX processing, and still having the power of a GPU to enable other video processing, leading to an extreme performance, maybe a performance which can run Crysis on its highest, and going to more than 50 FPS ?

 

Because, the underlying architecture of the Cell processor is not x86; it is PowerPC architecture. x86 is kind of a weird instruction set since it has both the properties of CISC and RISC, while the Cell processor is RISC. Nearly all modern computers are based off of the x86 chipset because of history and because of its flexibility. Microsoft isn't going to support the Cell processor, because that causes an undue burden on its part. It has to scrap Windows and rewrite it from the ground up on the RISC architecture. Why would they ever do that? It just does not make any financial sense. And if Microsoft won't do it, you'll never see it and Intel will kill it before it even starts since that will harm their business. Cell processor are meant specifically for gaming and video processing; not for general computing.

Did you not hear about the Microsoft WARP project in which they are using the processor to output graphics? It's still in its infancy, and the most powerful processor that Intel has plays Crysis at like 9 FPS, but there are projects out there trying to merge the CPU and GPU again.

 

The cell is not a good processor for normal PC enviroment. While it is marketed as being extremely fast or with high FLOPs rates, the reality is that it is an in-line instruction processor and while it may have its eight (somewhere around there) cores, each of those cores can do very little real work. It would be like having an 8-core processor using the old 66MHz Pentium chips. Yes, you would have a lot of cores, but it would still be very slow. This means it would be slow in all but the most niche applications, and would require software written for its unique design. That is exactly what the PS3 offers: a niche (gaming) system with software designed for its unique abilities.

Add to that the lack of any motherboard that supports it, lack of lower and higher power models, and lack of a future road map and you have a very expensive product which has no hope of making you money.

 

One of the main differences of the PowerPC architecture is the Memory Mapped IO, whereas in normal x86 plaforms the IO ports are handled as separate.

This alone causes a difference in the programming of the devices and stuff, also the OS. There are other differences too. The Cell is extremely good at certain tasks (no, not equivalent to a 66mhz pentium) and usually it is made for number crunching, not a general purpose CPU.

It usually excels at physics calculations and other math oriented tasks, also capable for graphics but it would require A LOT of work to get that done because it does not have any apps build for its architecture. It is simply a new architecture that is not very compatible with... anything sadly.

All code must be rewritten in order to be used efficiently by the Cell, it cannot do much with the usual general purpose code that we need in PCs, it would slow down like hell trying to work everything up.

 

Cell processors in a battery powered portable computer? Doesn't sound like a good idea.

 

Now i get the idea, cuz in other sites, *cough* Wikipedia *cough*, they're giving the cell praises about how fast it is.

Thanks all