הקהילה התחילה בגיוס מתכנתים מכל העולם לממיר שלה

קהילת הלווין הישראלית בעידוד הספונסרים שלה בנהם חברת AME וחברת השקעות גדולה
התחלנו בגיוס מהנדסי תוכנה ומחומרה בישראל ובחול .
לצרכי פיתוח ממיר העתיד
הקהילה משכנעת נכון להיום קבוצות פיתוח להצתרף אליה
אן זה סוד שאנחנו מתחרים ישירות בדרים מולטידיה הגרמנית.
והתחלנו לשכנע את חברי הקבוצה הגרמנית שמפתחת את ה CCCAM
וכן מספר מהנדסים מהחברה להצתרף אלינו
אנחנו מזמינים בזאת כל אחד שרואה עצמו ראוי ומספיק טוב לפיתוח להצתרף אלנו
אנחנו זקוקים למאות מהדנסי תוכנה חומרה ,אלקטרוניקה .
מומחים להצפנה קידוד וקריפוטולוגיה
מומחים ללינוקס
מומחים לפיתוח כרטיסי לווין
מומחים ל IPTV
מומחים ל CABLE TV
מומחים לכתיבת דרייברים .
העבודה היא בשכר גבוהה
אנחנו נשלם פי 2 מהשכר שדרים מולטימדיה או DGSTATION CUBE DIGITAL משלמת לעובדיה ולמתכנתים שלה
העבודה המוצעת הינה בישראל או בחול באחת ממדינות אלה

פריז צרפת PARIS FRANCE LA DEFENSE
צרפת ,פריז רובע לה דפנס
מנהל אחראי david charmentier

AMSTERDAM NETHERLAND
בסניף החברה באמסטרדם , ארנהיים,רוטרדם בהולנד
Jake Richter מנהל אחראי


ברלין גרמניה
BERLIN GERMANY
Erich Weinert מנהל אחראי

MOSCOW RUSSIA
מוסקבה רוסיה
מהל אחראי vladimir procokiev

ישראל
הרצליה פיתוח
מנהל אחראי צבי גרופינקל

לחלופין מביתך באמצעות האינטרנט בכל מקום על כדור הארץ
נא לשלוח הודעה או קורות חים לדואר האלקטרוני הבא
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]






אנחנו הקבוצה הכי רצינית שהיתה אי פעם בתחום הלווין .
קיימנו את כל הבטחותנו .
אנחנו פעילים בכל העולם .
עכב חילוקי דעות עם דרים מולטימדיה ו קוב ריבו דיגיטל
ועכב כך שלא מצאנו אף ממיר ברמה שעונה על הדרישות בשוק
הרשינו לעצמנו לחלום קצת ולצאת לדרך חדשה
כמו כל הישראלים אנחנו חוצפנים !
אנחנו נעשה בית ספר לדרים מולטימדיה זאת הבטחה !
וכידוע לכולם אנחנו מקיימים את ההטבחות שלנו עד תום
לפני שנתים הרבה אנשים לא האמינו והיו קטני אמונה ויש כאלה שפקפקו אחרים צחקו.
היום אנחנו שולטים על תחום הלווין בישראל ובמזרח התיכון
כיום אנחנו הקבוצה הגדולה ביותר גם באירופה
יום אחד וזה לא רחוק ויתכן אפילו השנה אנחנו נהיה הקבוצה הגדולה בעולם
וזה במספרים מאומתים על ידי רואה חשבון מוסמכים ועורכי דין.
בזמן שאחרים מקשקשים אנחנו עושים
ועד היום הספקנו לעשות הרבה
זה לא בגלל הכוח שלנו או בגלל הכסף הרב שעומד מאחורנו
ההצלחה באה בגלל החברים הם אלנו שברחו אותנו ועשו אותנו גדולים
וןאנחנו מחזירים להם תודה
המטרות שלנו הם ברורות
להמציא וליצר ממיר שיעשה מהפכה בתחום התקשורת
משהו שעוד לא היה על כדור הארץ לפני כן
בשביל ללכת רחוק אנחנו זקוקים לכסף גדול
למכולת אי אפשר ללכת עם ידים רקות .
לכן אנחנו משתפים פעולה עם היצרנים הכי גדולים בעולם בתחום הממירים
עם המפיצים הכי גדולים בתחום ההפצה
ועם חברות השקעה גדולות ומוכבדות בעלות כיסים עמוקים
קבלנו אור ירוק לצאת לדרך
אנחנו מגייסים את האנשים הכי טובים בתבל
העבודה תהיה מאמץ משתף של צוות באירופה ובישראל מאוחר
יהיה גם צוות בארצוטת הברית שיתאם גרסאה לארצות הברית
אנחנו עתידים לראשונה להשתמש במעבדים של SONY PLAYSTATION 3
ואולי חדשים יותר
אנחנו זוכים לשיתופי פעולה מצד חברות ויצרני שיפסטים.
אנחנו בודקים את המעבדים הכי חזקים בעולם כרגע
מעבדים CELL SONY
INTEL+NVIDEA
AMD ATI
אנחנו החברה השניה לאחר טושיבה שהסכימו לתת לנו להשתמש במעבדי CELL SONY
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
זה בגלל הספונסר החזק שלנו
מה לעשות היום הכסף והעוצמה קובעים הכול
טוב שהם לצדנו
זה לא בושה לחלום ואפילו לחלום בגדול !
לפעמים חלומות כן מתגשמים.....
אן לנו מה להפסיד הכסף זה לא אנחנו משקיעים
על הזמן של כולנו אנחנו מקבלים שכר
ככה שזה לא יהיה בהתנדבות
זה יעשה בצורה מקצועית
והמטרה היא לא פחות ממסר אחד בעולם
במחיר השווה לכל נפש !
יאללה יוצאים לדרך
בהצלחה לכולנו

אני רוצה להודות למהנדס תוכנה אריאל מפרדס חנה שהכניס בי את החלום הזה
מיותר לציין שהוא יהיה מנהל בכיר במיזם !
תודה רבה גם למהנדס המעבדים מאינטל חיפה אריאל שעזר לנו כה רבות
תודה רבה למהנדס פוגי מיקושוואה מסוני יפן שבלעדיו לא היינו יוצאים לדרך
תודה רבה למהנדס JIN מSAMSUNG, קוראה על עזרתו האדיבה
תודה לכל החברים PANASONIC MISTUSHITA יפן על עזרתם האדיבה
We personally thanks this companies for their help and support
SONY JAPAN
PANASONIC MISTUSHITA JAPAN
TOSHIBA JAPAN
INTEL ISRAEL
SAMSUNG KOREA
MICRON USA
ASUS TECHNOLOGY USA
IBM USA
AMD ATI USA
CONNEXANT USA
3COM USA
GIGABYTE TAIWAN
VIA TAIWAN
ALI TAIWAN
SHENZEN COSHIP CHINA
guide -trend HONK KONG
SUNTECH HONK KONG
UNION CAMBRIDGE CABLEPLUS HONK KONG
AME USA ISRAEL GERMANY NL FRANCE
תודה רבה לכולם
חלומות כן מתגשמים וזה תלוי רק בך


לפעמים חלומות מתגשמים !

Cell is a microprocessor architecture jointly developed by Sony Computer Entertainment, IBM, and Toshiba, an alliance known as "STI". The architectural design and first implementation were carried out at the STI Design Center in Austin, Texas over a four-year period beginning March 2001 on a budget reported by Sony as approaching US$400 million.[1] Cell is shorthand for Cell Broadband Engine Architecture, commonly abbreviated CBEA in full or Cell BE in part. Cell combines a general-purpose Power Architecture core of modest performance with streamlined coprocessing elements[2] which greatly accelerate multimedia and vector processing applications, as well as many other forms of dedicated computation.[2]

The first major commercial application of Cell was in Sony's PlayStation 3 game console. Mercury Computer Systems has a dual Cell server, a dual Cell blade configuration, a rugged computer, and a PCI Express accelerator board available in different stages of production. Toshiba has announced plans to incorporate Cell in high definition television sets. Exotic features such as the XDR memory subsystem and coherent Element Interconnect Bus (EIB) interconnect[3] appear to position Cell for future applications in the supercomputing space to exploit the Cell processor's prowess in floating point kernels. IBM has announced plans to incorporate Cell processors as add-on cards into IBM System z9 mainframes, to enable them to be used as servers for MMORPGs.[4]

The Cell architecture includes a memory coherence architecture that emphasizes efficiency/watt, prioritizes bandwidth over latency, and favors peak computational throughput over simplicity of program code. For these reasons, Cell is widely regarded as a challenging environment for software development.[5] IBM provides a comprehensive Linux-based Cell development platform to assist developers in confronting these challenges.[6] Software adoption remains a key issue in whether Cell ultimately delivers on its performance potential. Despite those challenges, research has indicated that Cell excels at several types of scientific computation.[7]

In November 2006, the College of Computing at Georgia Tech was selected by IBM, Sony, and Toshiba from more than a dozen universities to be designated as the first STI Center of Competence for the Cell Processor.[8][9] This partnership is designed to build a community of programmers and broaden industry support for the Cell processor.[8][10] There is a Cell Programming tutorial video available from them
In mid-2000, Sony Computer Entertainment, Toshiba Corporation, and IBM formed an alliance known as "STI" to design and manufacture the processor.[12]

The STI Design Center opened in March 2001.[13] The Cell was designed over a period of four years, using enhanced versions of the design tools for the POWER4 processor. Over 400 engineers from the three companies worked together in Austin, with critical support from eleven of IBM's design centers.[13]

During this period, IBM filed many patents pertaining to the Cell architecture, manufacturing process, and software environment. An early patent version of the Broadband Engine was shown to be a chip package comprising four "Processing Elements", which was the patent's description for what is now known as the Power Processing Element. Each Processing Element contained 8 APUs, which are now referred to as SPEs on the current Broadband Engine chip. Said chip package was widely regarded to run at a clock speed of 4 GHz and with 32 APUs providing 32 GFLOPS each, the Broadband Engine was shown to have 1 teraflop of raw computing power. This design was fabricated using a 90 nm SOI process.[14]

In March 2007 IBM announced that the 65 nm version of Cell BE is in production at its plant in East Fishkill, New York.[14][15]

In February 2008, IBM announced that it will begin to fabricate Cell processors with the 45 nm process.[16]

In May 2008, IBM introduced the high-performance double-precision floating-point version of the Cell processor, the PowerXCell 8i,[17] at the 65 nm feature size.

In May 2008, an Opteron- and PowerXCell 8i-based supercomputer, the IBM Roadrunner system, became the world's first system to achieve one petaFLOPS, and was the fastest computer in the world until third quarter 2009. The world's three most energy efficient supercomputers, as represented by the Green500 list, are similarly based on the PowerXCell 8i.

The 45 nm Cell processor was introduced in concert with Sony's PlayStation 3 Slim in August 2009.[18]

In November 2009, an IBM representative said that it has discontinued the development of a Cell processor with 32 SPUs[19][20] but they have not halted development of other future products in the Cell family.[21]

On May 17, 2005, Sony Computer Entertainment confirmed some specifications of the Cell processor that would be shipping in the forthcoming PlayStation 3 console.[22][23][24] This Cell configuration will have one Power processing element (PPE) on the core, with eight physical SPEs in silicon.[24] In the PlayStation 3, one SPE is locked-out during the test process, a practice which helps to improve manufacturing yields, and another one is reserved for the OS, leaving 6 free SPEs to be used by games' code.[25] The target clock-frequency at introduction is 3.2 GHz.[23] The introductory design is fabricated using a 90-nanometer SOI process, with initial volume production slated for IBM's facility in East Fishkill, New York.[14]

Note that the relationship between cores and threads is a common source of confusion. The PPE core is dual threaded and manifests in software as two independent threads of execution while each active SPE manifests as a single thread. In the PlayStation 3 configuration as described by Sony, the Cell processor provides nine independent threads of execution.

On June 28, 2005, IBM and Mercury Computer Systems announced a partnership agreement to build Cell-based computer systems for embedded applications such as medical imaging, industrial inspection, aerospace and defense, seismic processing, and telecommunications.[26] Mercury has since then released blades, conventional rack servers and PCI Express accelerator boards with Cell processors.[26]

In the fall of 2006, IBM released the QS20 blade module using double Cell BE processors for tremendous performance in certain applications, reaching a peak of 410 gigaFLOPS per module. The QS22 based on the PowerXCell 8i processor is used for the IBM Roadrunner supercomputer. Mercury and IBM uses the fully utilized Cell processor with 8 active SPEs. On April 8, 2008, Fixstars Corporation released a PCI Express accelerator board based on the PowerXCell 8i processor.[27]

Sony's high performance media computing server ZEGO uses a 3.2 GHz Cell/B.E processor.

Overview
A Cell ProcessorThe Cell Broadband Engine—or Cell as it is more commonly known—is a microprocessor designed to bridge the gap between conventional desktop processors (such as the Athlon 64, and Core 2 families) and more specialized high-performance processors, such as the NVIDIA and ATI graphics-processors (GPUs). The longer name indicates its intended use, namely as a component in current and future digital distribution systems; as such it may be utilized in high-definition displays and recording equipment, as well as computer entertainment systems for the HDTV era. Additionally the processor may be suited to digital imaging systems (medical, scientific, etc.) as well as physical simulation (e.g., scientific and structural engineering modeling).

In a simple analysis, the Cell processor can be split into four components: external input and output structures, the main processor called the Power Processing Element (PPE) (a two-way simultaneous multithreaded Power ISA v.2.03 compliant core), eight fully-functional co-processors called the Synergistic Processing Elements, or SPEs, and a specialized high-bandwidth circular data bus connecting the PPE, input/output elements and the SPEs, called the Element Interconnect Bus or EIB.

To achieve the high performance needed for mathematically intensive tasks, such as decoding/encoding MPEG streams, generating or transforming three-dimensional data, or undertaking Fourier analysis of data, the Cell processor marries the SPEs and the PPE via EIB to give access, via fully cache coherent DMA (direct memory access), to both main memory and to other external data storage. To make the best of EIB, and to overlap computation and data transfer, each of the nine processing elements (PPE and SPEs) is equipped with a DMA engine. Since the SPE's load/store instructions can only access its own local memory, each SPE entirely depends on DMAs to transfer data to and from the main memory and other SPEs' local memories. A DMA operation can transfer either a single block area of size up to 16KB, or a list of 2 to 2048 such blocks. One of the major design decisions in the architecture of Cell is the use of DMAs as a central means of intra-chip data transfer, with a view to enabling maximal asynchrony and concurrency in data processing inside a chip.[28]

The PPE, which is capable of running a conventional operating system, has control over the SPEs and can start, stop, interrupt, and schedule processes running on the SPEs. To this end the PPE has additional instructions relating to control of the SPEs. Unlike SPEs, the PPE can read and write the main memory and the local memories of SPEs through the standard load/store instructions. Despite having Turing complete architectures, the SPEs are not fully autonomous and require the PPE to prime them before they can do any useful work. Though most of the "horsepower" of the system comes from the synergistic processing elements, the use of DMA as a method of data transfer and the limited local memory footprint of each SPE pose a major challenge to software developers who wish to make the most of this horsepower, demanding careful hand-tuning of programs to extract maximal performance from this CPU.

The PPE and bus architecture includes various modes of operation giving different levels of memory protection, allowing areas of memory to be protected from access by specific processes running on the SPEs or the PPE.

Both the PPE and SPE are RISC architectures with a fixed-width 32-bit instruction format. The PPE contains a 64-bit general purpose register set (GPR), a 64-bit floating point register set (FPR), and a 128-bit Altivec register set. The SPE contains 128-bit registers only. These can be used for scalar data types ranging from 8-bits to 128-bits in size or for SIMD computations on a variety of integer and floating point formats. System memory addresses for both the PPE and SPE are expressed as 64-bit values for a theoretic address range of 264 bytes (16 exabytes or 16,777,216 terabytes). In practice, not all of these bits are implemented in hardware. Local store addresses internal to the SPU processor are expressed as a 32-bit word. In documentation relating to Cell a word is always taken to mean 32 bits, a doubleword means 64 bits, and a quadword means 128 bits.

[edit] PowerXCell 8iIn 2008, IBM announced a revised variant of the Cell called the PowerXCell 8i, which is available in QS22 Blade Servers from IBM. The PowerXCell is manufactured on a 65 nm process, and adds support for up to 32 GB of slotted DDR2 memory, as well as dramatically improving double-precision floating-point performance on the SPEs from a peak of about 12.8 GFLOPS to 102.4 GFLOPS total for eight SPEs. The IBM Roadrunner supercomputer, the world's fastest 2008-2009, consists of 12,240 PowerXCell 8i processors, along with 6,562 AMD Opteron processors.[29] The PowerXCell 8i powered super computers also dominated the all top 6 "greenest" systems in the Green500 list, with highest MFLOPS/Watt ratio supercomputers in the world.[30] Beside the QS22 and supercomputers, the PowerXCell processor is also available as an accelerator on a PCI Express card and is used as the core processor in the QPACE project.

[edit] ArchitectureWhile the Cell chip can have a number of different configurations, the basic configuration is a multi-core chip composed of one "Power Processor Element" ("PPE") (sometimes called "Processing Element", or "PE"), and multiple "Synergistic Processing Elements" ("SPE").[31] The PPE and SPEs are linked together by an internal high speed bus dubbed "Element Interconnect Bus" ("EIB"). Due to the nature of its applications, Cell is optimized towards single precision floating point computation. The SPEs are capable of performing double precision calculations, albeit with an order of magnitude performance penalty. New chips expected mid-2008 are rumored to boost SPE double precision performance as high as 5x over pre-2008 designs. In the meantime, there are ways to circumvent this in software using iterative refinement, which means values are calculated in double precision only when necessary. Jack Dongarra and his team demonstrated a 3.2 GHz Cell with 8 SPEs delivering a performance equal to 100 GFLOPS on an average double precision Linpack 4096x4096 matrix.

[edit] Power Processor Element (PPE)The PPE is the Power Architecture based, two-way multithreaded core acting as the controller for the eight SPEs, which handle most of the computational workload. The PPE will work with conventional operating systems due to its similarity to other 64-bit PowerPC processors, while the SPEs are designed for vectorized floating point code execution. The PPE contains a 64 KiB level 1 cache (32 KiB instruction and a 32 KiB data) and a 512 KiB Level 2 cache. The size of a cache line is 128 bytes. Additionally, IBM has included an AltiVec unit[32] which is fully pipelined for single precision floating point. (Altivec does not support double precision floating-point vectors.) Each PPE can complete two double precision operations per clock cycle using a scalar-fused multiply-add instruction, which translates to 6.4 GFLOPS at 3.2 GHz; or eight single precision operations per clock cycle with a vector fused-multiply-add instruction, which translates to 25.6 GFLOPS at 3.2 GHz.[33]

Xenon in Xbox 360The PPE was designed specifically for the Cell processor but during development, Microsoft approached IBM wanting a high performance processor core for its Xbox 360. IBM complied and made the tri-core Xenon processor, based on a slightly modified version of the PPE.[34][35]

[edit] Synergistic Processing Elements (SPE)Each SPE is composed of a "Synergistic Processing Unit", SPU, and a "Memory Flow Controller", MFC (DMA, MMU, and bus interface).[36] An SPE is a RISC processor with 128-bit SIMD organization[32][37][38] for single and double precision instructions. With the current generation of the Cell, each SPE contains a 256 KiB embedded SRAM for instruction and data, called "Local Storage" (not to be mistaken for "Local Memory" in Sony's documents that refer to the VRAM) which is visible to the PPE and can be addressed directly by software. Each SPE can support up to 4 GiB of local store memory. The local store does not operate like a conventional CPU cache since it is neither transparent to software nor does it contain hardware structures that predict which data to load. The SPEs contain a 128-bit, 128-entry register file and measures 14.5 mm2 on a 90 nm process. An SPE can operate on sixteen 8-bit integers, eight 16-bit integers, four 32-bit integers, or four single-precision floating-point numbers in a single clock cycle, as well as a memory operation. Note that the SPU cannot directly access system memory; the 64-bit virtual memory addresses formed by the SPU must be passed from the SPU to the SPE memory flow controller (MFC) to set up a DMA operation within the system address space.

In one typical usage scenario, the system will load the SPEs with small programs (similar to threads), chaining the SPEs together to handle each step in a complex operation. For instance, a set-top box might load programs for reading a DVD, video and audio decoding, and display, and the data would be passed off from SPE to SPE until finally ending up on the TV. Another possibility is to partition the input data set and have several SPEs performing the same kind of operation in parallel. At 3.2 GHz, each SPE gives a theoretical 25.6 GFLOPS of single precision performance.

Compared to a modern personal computer, the relatively high overall floating point performance of a Cell processor seemingly dwarfs the abilities of the SIMD unit in desktop CPUs like the Pentium 4 and the Athlon 64. However, comparing only floating point abilities of a system is a one-dimensional and application-specific metric. Unlike a Cell processor, such desktop CPUs are more suited to the general purpose software usually run on personal computers. In addition to executing multiple instructions per clock, processors from Intel and AMD feature branch predictors. The Cell is designed to compensate for this with compiler assistance, in which prepare-to-branch instructions are created. For double-precision floating point operations, as sometimes used in personal computers and often used in scientific computing, Cell performance drops by an order of magnitude, but still reaches 20.8 GFLOPS (1.8 GFLOPS per SPE, 6.4 GFLOPS per PPE). The PowerXCell 8i variant, which was specifically designed for double-precision, reaches 102.4 GFLOPS in double-precision calculations.[39]

Recent tests by IBM show that the SPEs can reach 98% of their theoretical peak performance using optimized parallel Matrix Multiplication.[33]

Toshiba has developed a co-processor powered by four SPEs, but no PPE, called the SpursEngine designed to accelerate 3D and movie effects in consumer electronics.

[edit] Element Interconnect Bus (EIB)The EIB is a communication bus internal to the Cell processor which connects the various on-chip system elements: the PPE processor, the memory controller (MIC), the eight SPE coprocessors, and two off-chip I/O interfaces, for a total of 12 participants in the PS3 (the number of SPU can vary in industrial applications). The EIB also includes an arbitration unit which functions as a set of traffic lights. In some documents IBM refers to EIB bus participants as 'units'.

The EIB is presently implemented as a circular ring comprising four 16B-wide unidirectional channels which counter-rotate in pairs. When traffic patterns permit, each channel can convey up to three transactions concurrently. As the EIB runs at half the system clock rate the effective channel rate is 16 bytes every two system clocks. At maximum concurrency, with three active transactions on each of the four rings, the peak instantaneous EIB bandwidth is 96B per clock (12 concurrent transactions * 16 bytes wide / 2 system clocks per transfer). While this figure is often quoted in IBM literature it is unrealistic to simply scale this number by processor clock speed. The arbitration unit imposes additional constraints which are discussed in the Bandwidth Assessment section below.

IBM Senior Engineer David Krolak, EIB lead designer, explains the concurrency model:

A ring can start a new op every three cycles. Each transfer always takes eight beats. That was one of the simplifications we made, it's optimized for streaming a lot of data. If you do small ops, it does not work quite as well. If you think of eight-car trains running around this track, as long as the trains aren't running into each other, they can coexist on the track.[40]
Each participant on the EIB has one 16B read port and one 16B write port. The limit for a single participant is to read and write at a rate of 16B per EIB clock (for simplicity often regarded 8B per system clock). Note that each SPU processor contains a dedicated DMA management queue capable of scheduling long sequences of transactions to various endpoints without interfering with the SPU's ongoing computations; these DMA queues can be managed locally or remotely as well, providing additional flexibility in the control model.

Data flows on an EIB channel stepwise around the ring. Since there are twelve participants, the total number of steps around the channel back to the point of origin is twelve. Six steps is the longest distance between any pair of participants. An EIB channel is not permitted to convey data requiring more than six steps; such data must take the shorter route around the circle in the other direction. The number of steps involved in sending the packet has very little impact on transfer latency: the clock speed driving the steps is very fast relative to other considerations. However, longer communication distances are detrimental to the overall performance of the EIB as they reduce available concurrency.

Despite IBM's original desire to implement the EIB as a more powerful cross-bar, the circular configuration they adopted to spare resources rarely represents a limiting factor on the performance of the Cell chip as a whole. In the worst case, the programmer must take extra care to schedule communication patterns where the EIB is able to function at high concurrency levels.

David Krolak explains:

Well, in the beginning, early in the development process, several people were pushing for a crossbar switch, and the way the bus is designed, you could actually pull out the EIB and put in a crossbar switch if you were willing to devote more silicon space on the chip to wiring. We had to find a balance between connectivity and area, and there just was not enough room to put a full crossbar switch in. So we came up with this ring structure which we think is very interesting. It fits within the area constraints and still has very impressive bandwidth.[40]
[edit] Bandwidth assessmentFor the sake of quoting performance numbers, we will assume a Cell processor running at 3.2 GHz, the clock speed most often cited.

At this clock frequency each channel flows at a rate of 25.6 GB/s. Viewing the EIB in isolation from the system elements it connects, achieving twelve concurrent transactions at this flow rate works out to an abstract EIB bandwidth of 307.2 GB/s. Based on this view many IBM publications depict available EIB bandwidth as "greater than 300 GB/s". This number reflects the peak instantaneous EIB bandwidth scaled by processor frequency.[41]

However, other technical restrictions are involved in the arbitration mechanism for packets accepted onto the bus. The IBM Systems Performance group explains:

Each unit on the EIB can simultaneously send and receive 16B of data every bus cycle. The maximum data bandwidth of the entire EIB is limited by the maximum rate at which addresses are snooped across all units in the system, which is one per bus cycle. Since each snooped address request can potentially transfer up to 128B, the theoretical peak data bandwidth on the EIB at 3.2 GHz is 128Bx1.6 GHz = 204.8 GB/s.[33]
This quote apparently represents the full extent of IBM's public disclosure of this mechanism and its impact. The EIB arbitration unit, the snooping mechanism, and interrupt generation on segment or page translation faults are not well described in the documentation set as yet made public by IBM.[citation needed]

In practice effective EIB bandwidth can also be limited by the ring participants involved. While each of the nine processing cores can sustain 25.6 GB/s read and write concurrently, the memory interface controller (MIC) is tied to a pair of XDR memory channels permitting a maximum flow of 25.6 GB/s for reads and writes combined and the two IO controllers are documented as supporting a peak combined input speed of 25.6 GB/s and a peak combined output speed of 35 GB/s.

To add further to the confusion, some older publications cite EIB bandwidth assuming a 4 GHz system clock. This reference frame results in an instantaneous EIB bandwidth figure of 384 GB/s and an arbitration-limited bandwidth figure of 256 GB/s.

All things considered the theoretic 204.8 GB/s number most often cited is the best one to bear in mind. The IBM Systems Performance group has demonstrated SPU-centric data flows achieving 197 GB/s on a Cell processor running at 3.2 GHz so this number is a fair reflection on practice as well.[42]

[edit] Optical interconnectSony is currently working on the development of an optical interconnection technology for use in the device-to-device or internal interface of various types of cell-based digital consumer electronics and game systems.

[edit] Memory and I/O ControllersCell contains a dual channel Rambus XIO macro which interfaces to Rambus XDR memory. The memory interface controller (MIC) is separate from the XIO macro and is designed by IBM. The XIO-XDR link runs at 3.2 Gbit/s per pin. Two 32-bit channels can provide a theoretical maximum of 25.6 GB/s.

The I/O interface, also a Rambus design, is known as FlexIO. The FlexIO interface is organized into 12 lanes, each lane being a unidirectional 8-bit wide point-to-point path. Five 8-bit wide point-to-point paths are inbound lanes to Cell, while the remaining seven are outbound. This provides a theoretical peak bandwidth of 62.4 GB/s (36.4 GB/s outbound, 26 GB/s inbound) at 2.6 GHz. The FlexIO interface can be clocked independently, typ. at 3.2 GHz. 4 inbound + 4 outbound lanes are supporting memory coherency.

[edit] Possible applicationsMain article: Cell microprocessor implementations
[edit] Video processing cardSome companies, such as Leadtek, have released PCI-E cards based upon the Cell to allow for "faster than real time" transcoding of H.264, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 video.[43]

[edit] Blade serverOn 29 August 2007, IBM announced the BladeCenter QS21. Generating a measured 1.05 giga–floating point operations per second (gigaFLOPS) per watt, with peak performance of approximately 460 GFLOPS it is one of the most power efficient computing platforms to date. A single BladeCenter chassis can achieve 6.4 tera–floating point operations per second (teraFLOPS) and over 25.8 teraFLOPS in a standard 42U rack.

IBM Press Release

On 13 May 2008, IBM announced the BladeCenter QS22. The QS22 introduces the PowerXCell 8i processor with five times the double-precision floating point performance of the QS21, and the capacity for up to 32 GB of DDR2 memory on-blade.

IBM Press Release

[edit] PCI Express BoardSeveral companies provide PCI-e boards utilising the IBM PowerXCell 8i. The performance is reported as 179.2 GFlops (SP), 89.6 GFlops (DP) at 2.8 GHz.[44][45]

[edit] Console video gamesSony's PlayStation 3 video game console contains the first production application of the Cell processor, clocked at 3.2 GHz and containing seven out of eight operational SPEs, to allow Sony to increase the yield on the processor manufacture. Only six of the seven SPEs are accessible to developers as one is reserved by the OS.[25]

[edit] Home cinemaToshiba has produced HDTVs using Cell. They have already presented a system to decode 48 standard definition MPEG-2 streams simultaneously on a 1920×1080 screen.[46][47] This can enable a viewer to choose a channel based on dozens of thumbnail videos displayed simultaneously on the screen.

[edit] SupercomputingIBM's latest supercomputer, IBM Roadrunner, is a hybrid of General Purpose CISC Opteron as well as Cell processors. This system assumed the #1 spot on the June 2008 Top 500 list as the first supercomputer to run at petaFLOPS speeds, having gained a sustained 1.026 petaFLOPS speed using the standard Linpack benchmark. IBM Roadrunner uses the PowerXCell 8i version of the Cell processor, manufactured using 65 nm technology and enhanced SPUs that can handle double precision calculations in the 128-bit registers, reaching double precision 102 GFLOPs per chip.[48][49]

[edit] Cluster computingClusters of PlayStation 3 consoles are an attractive alternative to high-end systems based on Cell blades. Innovative Computing Laboratory, a group led by Jack Dongarra, in the Computer Science Department at the University of Tennessee, investigated such an application in depth.[50] Terrasoft Solutions is selling 8-node and 32-node PS3 clusters with Yellow Dog Linux pre-installed, an implementation of Dongarra's research.

As first reported by Wired Magazine on October 17, 2007,[51] an interesting application of using PlayStation 3 in a cluster configuration was implemented by Astrophysicist Dr. Gaurav Khanna, from the Physics department of University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, who replaced time used on supercomputers with a cluster of eight PlayStation 3s. Subsequently, the next generation of this machine, now called the PlayStation 3 Gravity Grid, uses a network of 16 machines, and exploits the Cell processor for the intended application which is binary black hole coalescence using perturbation theory. In particular, the cluster performs astrophysical simulations of large supermassive black holes capturing smaller compact objects and has generated numerical data that has been published multiple times in the relevant scientific research literature.[52] The Cell processor version used by the PlayStation 3 has a main CPU and 6 floating-point vector processors, giving the Gravity Grid machine a net of 16 general-purpose processors and 96 vector processors. The machine has a one-time cost of over $9,000 to build and is adequate for black-hole simulations which would otherwise cost $6,000 per run on a conventional supercomputer. The black hole calculations are not memory-intensive and are highly localizable, and so are well-suited to this architecture. Khanna claims that the cluster's performance exceeds that of a 100+ Intel Xeon core based traditional Linux cluster on his simulations. The PS3 Gravity Grid gathered significant media attention through 2007,[53] 2008,[54][55] 2009 [56][57][58] and 2010.[59][60]

The computational Biochemistry and Biophysics lab at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, in Barcelona, deployed in 2007 a BOINC system called PS3GRID[61] for collaborative computing based on the CellMD software, the first one designed specifically for the Cell processor.

The United State's Air Force Research Labs will be deploying a cluster of 1760 PlayStation 3's nicknamed the "Condor Cluster." It will be used to analyze large high resolution satellite imagery. According to Air Force claims, the Condor Cluster is the 33rd largest supercomputer in the world in terms of capacity.[62]

[edit] Distributed computingWith the help of the computing power of over half a million PlayStation 3 consoles, the distributed computing project Folding@Home has been recognized by Guinness World Records as the most powerful distributed network in the world. The first record was achieved on September 16, 2007, as the project surpassed one petaFLOPS, which had never been reached before by a distributed computing network. Additionally, the collective efforts enabled PS3 alone to reach the petaFLOPS mark on September 23, 2007. In comparison, the world's second most powerful supercomputer at the time, IBM's BlueGene/L, performed at around 478.2 teraFLOPS. This means Folding@Home's computing power is approximately twice BlueGene/L's (although the CPU interconnect in BlueGene/L is more than one million times faster than the mean network speed in Folding@Home.). In late 2008, A cluster of 200 PlayStation 3 consoles was used to generate a rogue SSL certificate, effectively cracking its encryption.[63]

[edit] MainframesIBM announced April 25, 2007 that it will begin integrating its Cell Broadband Engine Architecture microprocessors into the company's line of mainframes.[64]

[edit] Password crackingThe architecture of the processor makes it better suited to hardware-assisted cryptographic brute force attack applications than conventional processors.[65]

[edit] Software engineeringMain article: Cell software development
Due to the flexible nature of the Cell, there are several possibilities for the utilization of its resources, not limited to just different computing paradigms:[66]

[edit] Job queueThe PPE maintains a job queue, schedules jobs in SPEs, and monitors progress. Each SPE runs a "mini kernel" whose role is to fetch a job, execute it, and synchronize with the PPE.

[edit] Self-multitasking of SPEsThe kernel and scheduling is distributed across the SPEs. Tasks are synchronized using mutexes or semaphores as in a conventional operating system. Ready-to-run tasks wait in a queue for an SPE to execute them. The SPEs use shared memory for all tasks in this configuration.

[edit] Stream processingEach SPE runs a distinct program. Data comes from an input stream, and is sent to SPEs. When an SPE has terminated the processing, the output data is sent to an output stream.

This provides a flexible and powerful architecture for stream processing, and allows explicit scheduling for each SPE separately. Other processors are also able to perform streaming tasks, but are limited by the kernel loaded.

[edit] Open source software developmentAn open source software-based strategy was adopted to accelerate the development of a Cell BE ecosystem and to provide an environment to develop Cell applications.[67] In 2005, patches enabling Cell support in the Linux kernel were submitted for inclusion by IBM developers.[68] Arnd Bergmann (one of the developers of the aforementioned patches) also described the Linux-based Cell architecture at LinuxTag 2005.[69]

Both PPE and SPEs are programmable in C/C++ using a common API provided by libraries.

Fixstars Solutions provides Yellow Dog Linux for IBM, and Mercury Cell-based systems, as well as for the PlayStation 3.[70] Terra Soft strategically partnered with Mercury to provide a Linux Board Support Package for Cell, and support and development of software applications on various other Cell platforms, including the IBM BladeCenter JS21 and Cell QS20, and Mercury Cell-based solutions.[71] Terra Soft also maintains the Y-HPC (High Performance Computing) Cluster Construction and Management Suite and Y-Bio gene sequencing tools. Y-Bio is built upon the RPM Linux standard for package management, and offers tools which help bioinformatics researchers conduct their work with greater efficiency.[72] IBM has developed a pseudo-filesystem for Linux coined "Spufs" that simplifies access to and use of the SPE resources. IBM is currently maintaining a Linux kernel and GDB ports, while Sony maintains the GNU toolchain (GCC, binutils).[73]

In November 2005, IBM released a "Cell Broadband Engine (CBE) Software Development Kit Version 1.0", consisting of a simulator and assorted tools, to its web site. Development versions of the latest kernel and tools for Fedora Core 4 are maintained at the Barcelona Supercomputing Center website.[74]

In August 2007, Mercury Computer Systems released a Software Development Kit for PLAYSTATION(R)3 for High-Performance Computing.[75]

In November 2007, Fixstars Corporation released the new "CVCell" module aiming to accelerate several important OpenCV APIs for Cell. In a series of software calculation tests, they recorded execution times on a 3.2 GHz Cell processor that were between 6x and 27x faster compared with the same software on a 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo.[76]

With the release of kernel version 2.6.16 on March 20, 2006, the Linux kernel officially supports the Cell processor.[77]

Differences between CEll/ Multi-CPU SystemsIt would be interesting to read what differences there are between those, both from a coder and consumer point of view. Intel is gradually introducing multi-cernel CPUs with more and more cores so aren't these becoming competing concepts?

We should stay away from points of view and qualitative speculation on Wikipedia. However.. I can say that the consumer is only interessted in CPUs that can run Windows, and Microsoft won't do that. It has nothing to do about technology and all about politics and marketing. Intel's processors and Cell isn't competing since they have totally different targets. -- Henriok 08:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
They may not be competing in the consumer desktop space, but they certainly are in others. The use of PC-like devices versus PS3s and set-top boxes for home media applications is one obvious example. The other one, which I am more directly familiar with, is in the high-performance computing space. I just reviewed a paper that a labmate is submitting to a conference that directly compares performance between the two, with a focus on getting the best performance of each without having to manually manage the SPE's local stores. 98.212.140.54 (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Trusted Computing / DRMI'm extremely surprised that this article makes no mention of the Trusted Computing / DRM system built into the Cell Processor. Some people think it is a good thing and some people think it is bad, but either way it is extremely noteworthy. Just to cite a single link, IBM has a technical document on it here. IBM themselves explicitly discuss Digitial Rights Management there, which should forestall any controversy over applying the term DRM. I may try to add this to the article myself in the future, but I don't have time right now... and to be honest I know I'd have to work pretty hard to produce a suitably Neutral POV writeup. I'm not here to grind an ax, I came here LOOKING for information and was befuddled by its absence. Alsee 11:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

you can run AES and other encryption technolegy on the CPU, but this has nothing to do with hardcoded DRM support in the CPU itself so it's non-existent fantasia talk. Markthemac 03:08, 05 april 2007 (UTC)

I believe he is speaking of the full spectrum of overarching, interacting, hardware based security features which are actually an integral part of the workings of the entire processor. They're not really trusted computing nor are they DRM... they can be used as such, but their main design intent were as general security features to take the place of software applications (e.g. anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall ect.). Among the most central aspects of it all is the 'Secure Processing Vault' which, put simply, allows any number of SPE's to go into a hardware based run-time isolation mode of sorts whereby any SPE is able to disengage itself from the EIB (and subsequently the entire system) during runtime. This feature allows an SPE to run its calculations almost entirely without interference from the outside world (including the operating system) e.g. making the practice of alteration of program code during runtime and in memory almost entirely non-existent.
However that isn't the only feature of the security architecture; as I stated previously there is an entire overarching intarcting spectrum of security features and protection from almost every possible angle. They all work together to form one cohesive fortress and if any one of them is beaten it is not end-game. Many of these features are so heavily integrated into the processor's workings that it makes remote hacking nearly impossible and if you did attempt to break them locally you would probably end up bricking the entire processor thus making the hardware useless for any mal-purpose. These powerful security features are the primary reason why government agencies and militaries worldwide are investing so heavily in the Cell Processor. I too am quite suprised that absolutely nothing has been made of these features here... I guess to most people this is just a regular old processor :'( and not an entire next-generation architecture which I hope will influence the direction of the industry as a whole.
Obviously, I can see how these explanations (the first especially) may present plenty of confusion and headaches since I don't have the time to more thoroughly explain it, as such you should read the full IBM white-paper on it here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I really do hope that someone will come along and write something about these features as they really are among the key benefits of the archetecture. There is soo much missing from this article about this and many many other things it's absurd.
These features combined with the Cell's built in networking features to be used in the planned worldwide Cell Distributed Computing Network will make for some very interesting implications... possibly allowing for intelligent threat level assessment capabilities on a worldwide scale (e.g. bricking an illegally modified or rogue device as soon as it goes online). However that part of it is all just speculation ;). There is indeed no proof anywhere in the public space of this; but you know, there are a lot of things about the full capabilities of this unique processor architecture that have yet to be publicised. All of its features are all mere side effects of our true design intent; the goal around which its entire development was based.
The future of computing lies beyond the box.
Enjoy yourselves!
(76.178.142.59 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
I created this section more than a year ago, and I am astounded that the article still makes no mention of this issue. I explicitly linked a PDF in my post to forestall an inevitable tin-foil-hat/fantasia accusation, as Markthemac made. I see that IBM has taken down the PDF that I linked, now yielding an error page. Instead I'll post a Google link that should survive any attempt to whitewash away references to the EXPLICIT DRM support designed into the Cell: "Cell Broadband Engine Support for Privacy Security and Digital Rights Management". Right there in the title of IBM's own publication, explicit statement of the Cell's explicit DRM support. I may add a DRM section to the main Cell article myself, but it's very frustrating because I am only half-familiar with the technical implementation in the Cell and I have very exacting expectations and standards on technical issues. I only half-grasp the final resultant DRM implications of the specific crypto keys that ARE in fact embedded in the chip and the various crypto mechanisms that ARE in fact embedded in the chip. I've seen these crypto keys and crypto mechanisms documented in other IBM technical papers. I'd have to do quite a bit more research on the technical design before I'd really be comfortable in my own expertise to write anything more substantial than a general explanation that the Cell carries DRM hardware with who-knows-what DRM implications. Alsee 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As the unidentified author above your comment tried to point out, I suspect that there is a confusion of terminology. The CBEA provides for secure execution of encrypted code with hardware-enforced process isolation and hardware-supported code authentication. Here are some details IBM published in a archival, peer-reviewed journal. This should be available in a "technical library near you". It is not at all hidden. (Various articles in vol 51, no 5 of the IBM JR&D [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] discuss these features. The Shimizu, Hoffstee, Liberty article gives the most details.) In less-technical language, this allows programmers to be sure that their programs cannot be tampered with. If these programs manage encrypted data, then this data cannot be tampered with (if the programs are designed properly, of course).
This, however, is not Digital Rights Management, per se, which is probably Markthemac's point. These features could be used to create a digital rights management system if that were desired. The historic business model for a games console involves selling hardware at a loss (and many web sites have done teardowns and analyses of the PS/3 which suggest that the console is sold at a loss) and making up for that loss with sales of software. In order to support this business model, Sony (and Microsoft & Nintendo as well) must have absolute control over the software market so that the flow of royalties is guaranteed. Also, having uncontrolled software could interfere with various "family friendly" and ESRB-related features of the console, but this is speculation on my part.
In fact, in Microsoft's case (a bit off-topic for this article) their spokesman, Major Nelson, has said explicitly that the strict control Microsoft has over the software (IIIRC he even said DRM) is what enables them to get content providers to agree to their video marketplace....they can be assured that only Microsoft's software can access those files and that said software will enforce the terms of the contract Microsoft signed.
Anyway, certainly the CBEA security features should be part of any complete discussion of the Cell processor. Using the term, DRM, would probably be unnecessarily inflammatory. Perhaps the link I provide above would enable someone to write such a section. --Philhower (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC) (as an IBM employee who played a small part in the Cell processor implementation, I believe that directly editing the article may violate my terms of employment)
"Using the term, DRM, would probably be unnecessarily inflammatory." As I cited, it was IBM itself that applied the term DRM. You are accusing IBM itself being "unnecessarily inflammatory" about their own product. As far as the wikipedia page using the term DRM, it cannot possibly be wikipedia-inflammatory to accurately repeat a term in the article which was applied by the very producer of the product. Alsee (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
What DRM are you talking about, application DRM or media based DRM (i.e. music DRM)? If you mean DRM in general, then NO! Because the PS3 can rip DRM based Itunes music files to its HDD. DRM ripping software for the PC is rare, but the PS3 can rip the files perfectly out of the box (not considering that it renames your music files) If you would like to know more please visit the discussion section of the PlayStation 3 on Wiki, I have a discussion going on that topic. DevonTheDude (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

DevonTheDude, this is about very technical points of the hardware innards of the Cell relating to DRM. This is (mostly) unconnected to whether or not the SP3 can rip iTunes files. The point here is that the cell has hardware features designed to prevent "unauthorized" DRM reading software, and when you *are* able to play DRM files to more throughly lock your files against you and lock them into the approved DRM software. Alsee (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

הרבה אומרים שהמעבד הזה למעשה מת כולל IBM עצמה
ורק סוני משתמשת במעבד הזה
לאחרונה גם TOSHIBA בטלויזיות התלת מימדיות שלה.
פשוט אנשים לא רואים למרחקים ארוכים כי זה מעבד מהיר חזק ועד עכשיו היה יקר. כיו הוא זול מספיק בכדי לשלב 2 או 4 מעבדים כאלה בו זמנית
דבר שאי אפשר לעשות עם AMD או אינטל כי זה יקר מדי ולא מגיע לכוח עיבוד או מהירות כזו.
הרצון העז של IBM להרוג את המעבד הזה והפרוייקט לא ברורים לנו.
הרי זה פיתוח שלה ושל סוני וטושיבה .
לא ברור מה מניעה של IBM לקבל את החלטתה .
IBM שלחה לכל היצרנים לעשות הזמנה גדולה של מעבדים בגלל שהיא מפסיקה את יצור המעבדים האלה.
היא לא פרטה מה הסיבה לכך.
IBM has killed off its QS21 two-socket Cell blade server, the second generation of Cell blades sold by IBM, which were announced in August 2007.

The move comes several weeks after IBM murdered a future Cell-based blade server, the QSZ2, that would have given Nvidia's Tesla and Fermi as well as Advanced Micro Devices' FireStream graphics co-processors a run for at least some of the money.

Today, IBM told customers using its QS21 blades, mostly in as supercomputer clusters, that they have until June 25 to order more parts. After that, no mas. The QS21 blade came with two 3.2 GHz Cell processors, each with one Power core and eight synergistic processing elements (SPEs) for doing complex calculations and 2 GB of XDR main memory; the blade sold for $9,995 and a chassis of 14 of the blades was able to deliver 6.4 teraflops of single-precision floating point math performance.

The QS22 was announced in May 2008, offering dual 3.2 GHz PowerX8i processors rated at 230 gigaflops single precision and 109 gigaflops double precision of floating point power each. This QS22 blade, which is still available, had about five times the double precision performance and InfiniBand mezzanine cards. This QS22 blade also sported 32 GB of DDR2 main memory, and it has quad data rate InfiniBand as well as Gigabit Ethernet connectivity. With 8 GB of memory, the QS22 costs the same $9,995; $13,539 will get you a blade with 32 GB.

The clock is ticking for the QS22 blade, of course. And not just because everyone knows that IBM is not going to invest in creating future blade servers based on Cell chips, as it admitted last fall. (The company had actually spiked the QSZ2 blade, which was to deliver around 500 gigaflops of double precision math performance per Cell chip. (The future Cell chip that IBM killed off appeared to have two Power cores and 32 SPEs each, delivering almost five times the double-precision math speed of the PowerXCell 8i chip).

The reason why the QS22's days are numbered is simple. IBM, say sources familiar with the company's plans, is to add specialty processing capabilities like those embodied in the SPEs in the Cell chip to the future Power chips beyond the current Power7 generation. Perhaps starting with Power7+ and definitely in full bloom with the Power8 generation.

This will take several years to come to fruition. And by then, IBM may decide that Nvidia is its new best friend and head off in a different direction entirely. That's how it goes in the HPC business. You can afford to be fickle when you are on the bleeding edge, and so can the customers who are buying the machines - largely with tax money levied by governments for HPC labs that exist for political as well as economic and technical reasons.

IBM has not announced a withdrawal date for the QS22 blade server based on the PowerXCell 8i chips, but it will probably sell them as long as it has customers that want them. Los Alamos National Lab has already upgraded the "Roadrunner" hybrid Opteron-Cell to the QS22 blades, so the big customer is already done and hitting the ceiling.

The Roadrunner blade cluster pairs a Cell chip with each Opteron socket in the machine, allowing the Opteron to offload calculations to the Cells and helping it hit that 1 petaflops performance level. Had the QSZ2 come to market, Roadrunner could, in theory, have been upgraded to 5 petaflops or more.

But clearly the Department of Energy has other ideas about how it is going to get to tens of petaflops of performance, or else IBM would have already delivered beefier Cell chips. The big government-sponsored super labs in the States will no doubt be watching how the Power7-based "Blue Waters" 1 petaflops super pans out at the University of Illinois when it is delivered later this
year and will no doubt be pestering IBM about its plans for Power7+ and Power8 machines