Sony Ends Chip Development Deal with IBM, Toshiba [Archive]

fitbabits

11-07-2007, 09:50 PM

From Trading Markets.com (http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/792750/)...

TOKYO, Nov 07, 2007 (Thomson Financial via COMTEX) -- SNE | charts | news | PowerRating -- Sony Corp, the world's second-largest consumer electronics maker, plans to withdraw from its basic research project with IBM Corp and Toshiba Corp to develop manufacturing technologies for next-generation semiconductor chips, the Nikkei reported on Wednesday.

The move follows the company's decision to sell Toshiba its production facility for the Cell microprocessor, used in the PlayStation 3 video game console, the business daily said.

Under the project, the three companies are researching and developing materials and technologies necessary for the manufacture of chips with line widths of 32 nanometers or narrower.

This project began in late 2005 and is scheduled to run until the end of 2010, the report said.

In addition, Sony plans to cancel capital investments in production facilities for the 45 nanometer or later generations of the Cell microprocessor, it said.
That's the whole story, folks - make your own minds up.

TheFlyingOrc

11-07-2007, 09:53 PM

I'd say it's because the Cell isn't leading them to dominate chip technology like they were hoping.

Grifter

11-07-2007, 10:01 PM

Dude Orc! You so fail this thread but don't worry I got your back...
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j262/grifter_66/DrDoomChap.gif

scythe

11-07-2007, 10:12 PM

And don't forget...

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~mjordan/Doom.png

Heretic Machine

11-07-2007, 10:15 PM

I'd say it's because the Cell isn't leading them to dominate chip technology like they were hoping.

Which was pretty dumb to begin with. I could of told them that their PS3 technology wasn't going to be applicable to anything outside of the console itself. But then again, this is the company that thought the military might use the Emotion Engine (at least, that is the way I remember it).

Anyhow, this probably isn't a big deal for the PS3, it is just Sony waking up to some stupid mistakes and misconceptions.

Disgustipated

11-07-2007, 10:16 PM

So they're not even going to bother with 45nm on the Cell, because they figure 65nm is as far as they need to go?

Durka-Dan

11-07-2007, 10:19 PM

I'd say it was a dumb idea to build the plant in the first place. They could have focused that money somewhere else, like a little more PS3 R&D.

TheBrainKills

11-07-2007, 10:27 PM

It's because they are bleeding money and they have to trim the fat. Unfortunately that fat just happens to be their future. Oh well maybe they can buy back into it later after they get their shit together.

digitalErich

11-07-2007, 10:31 PM

I'd say it was a dumb idea to build the plant in the first place. They could have focused that money somewhere else, like a little more PS3 R&D.
Cell was planned to be much larger than just the PS3. The Cell was going to be used across a lot of different Sony devices. The original scope was quite impressive, in fact. I was interning at IBM when they were setting up the partnership and I remember hearing what their goals were and thinking it would be a really hard to achieve, but very profitable if they ever got there.

LiquidRain

11-07-2007, 10:37 PM

So they're not even going to bother with 45nm on the Cell, because they figure 65nm is as far as they need to go?
I don't think so. Any die shrink will always be a benefit. The more chips per silicon wafer you can squeeze out the better. They'll just have IBM do the fabbing for them now.

It's too early to tell if the Cell investment was worth it for the PS3 (ie: what performance we'll see out of the PS3, and how much is attributable to it) however, in my opinion it seems like a lot of recent games and future games are going to stress the GPU a lot more than the CPU. So it's just not worth it for Sony to put in all this money into CPU R&D when something closer to an off the shelf product will be good enough and a lot cheaper.

Rafer

11-07-2007, 10:38 PM

Which was pretty dumb to begin with. I could of told them that their PS3 technology wasn't going to be applicable to anything outside of the console itself.

I thought it was the other way around, that Cell was pretty good technology for certain applications, just not that well suited for a game console.

Entropy Effect

11-07-2007, 10:57 PM

But then again, this is the company that thought the military might use the Emotion Engine (at least, that is the way I remember it).

To be fair, that all came from the way the Japanese government initially controlled exports of the PS2: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s119754.htm.

Although I do seem to remember Sony, or at least Sony fans, spinning it as "OMG THE PS2 IS SOOO POWERFUL MILITARIES COULD USE IT FOR WEAPONS SYSTEMS OMG."

Chameleo

11-07-2007, 11:58 PM

Zeal

11-08-2007, 12:49 AM

cell was destined to be a failure from the beginning. here we have sony practically discontinuing it.

steve jobs warned them.

LiquidRain

11-08-2007, 01:34 AM

cell was destined to be a failure from the beginning. here we have sony practically discontinuing it.
Saying it's discontinued when the PS3 has just started is going a bit far.

The article just states Sony's involvement in this process. Dollars to doughnuts, I'll bet IBM/Toshiba will continue to do die shrinks. It'd save too much money not to. Die shrinks are not for heat/power consumption purposes, they are to squeeze more chips per wafer at the fab, allowing for lower per chip costs and generally better yield rates. This'll be crucial to PS3 price cuts for years to come, so don't think it won't happen.

Instead of all the costs, investment, amortization of equipment, etc. being handled by Sony, they'll let IBM/Toshiba handle it and all of it will just be lumped into the cost per chip of a Cell instead of smattered all over Sony's budget.

Sony's interest with Cell's core engineering was over the day it was finalized for the PS3, and when it was obvious it wasn't going to be used anywhere else. Was it a mistake? It might be, but I'm not going to play armchair analyst since I can't fairly judge that. Whether it is or not, Sony did this to save money now and for the future. I'd say this is a smart move to reduce costs in the long run.

Besides, Sony probably wants all their engineers working on the Cell 2 for the PS4. :D

i remember reading sony's ambitions a while back, how the PS3 and all your electronics in your entertainment center would run on the cell... the toshiba TV, and the Sony speakres etc..
Well that was a load of crap in the first place.

51|RandoM

11-08-2007, 02:29 AM

So they're not even going to bother with 45nm on the Cell, because they figure 65nm is as far as they need to go?

Why should Sony pay for it if IBM and Toshiba will develop it for them?

LiquidRain

11-08-2007, 02:42 AM

Why should Sony pay for it if IBM and Toshiba will develop it for them?
Way to wrap up my post in one sentence man. You're a real party killer. :|

PathMaster

11-08-2007, 04:29 AM

Why should Sony pay for it if IBM and Toshiba will develop it for them?

Exactly. Why pay for the expense of R&D, when you could just purchase what item in quantities that you need. Sony is cutting costs, and this makes perfect sense in my mind.

Yeti2005

11-08-2007, 04:41 AM

i remember reading sony's ambitions a while back, how the PS3 and all your electronics in your entertainment center would run on the cell... the toshiba TV, and the Sony speakres etc..

with all of them running on the same chip they said something to the effect that the chips would work together and provide you with a better experience... faster processing... etc... the only catch would be that you could only buy from companies who develped the cell.

it was a great idea - too bad for sony that they couldn't pull it off. i wonder if any devices other than the PS3 will have the cell chip in it regardless of sony's involvement with cell R&D.

Yeah I remember being fed that load of bull a while back. It's a great idea however I don't see how it would work for a game console. Wouldn't developers have to program for the different levels of processing power ...what happens if my fridge decides to help process a game or what about my fridge AND my microwave? ;)

J-Dizzle

11-08-2007, 05:02 AM

Why should Sony pay for it if IBM and Toshiba will develop it for them?

Ok I can think of one reason... Here's a potential scenario... does this sound like it might ever happen ?

The Cell processor is now developed. Sony drop out of the loop, since they've got what they wanted - The PS3 out in the world.

Assuming that they effectively disolve their partnership over Cell development/production, surely Toshiba/IBM will be pushing for other uses of the chip to recoup some of THEIR costs.

Now, further assuming that the Cell ends up in a few more places other than the PS3 (desktop PCs, household appliances, whatever...), then IBM and Toshiba will be working on more efficient chips for those platforms.

Then potentially, when Sony come to them and say "hey can we have a few 45nm Cell chips for the PS3 so we can reduce costs?", IBM and Toshiba might tell them to take a hike, unless they pay inflated costs.

I mean these two companies have their investment to recoup too right ? And if Sony bail on the chip, then they might lose the financial benefits of being a partner further down the line. Bad news for PS3 price.

Just a thought...

Zander

11-08-2007, 05:18 AM

In addition, Sony plans to cancel capital investments in production facilities for the 45 nanometer or later generations of the Cell microprocessor, it said.

How can a processor destined to last as long as Sony has said it would NOT look at 45nm? I find this very strange.

Serapth

11-08-2007, 05:49 AM

Dukefrukem

11-08-2007, 05:58 AM

So they're not even going to bother with 45nm on the Cell, because they figure 65nm is as far as they need to go?

it hasn't failed on them like the 360 version. and i thought the 45nm chip was in the 40gb ps3s?

teksama

11-08-2007, 06:56 AM

The Cell was a moronic idea from start to finish. Apple moved away from RISC processors for a reason. To add SPEs which are basicaly just DSPs without their own instruction set is "sofa king we todd ed". That means they rely on the RISC processor for directions which takes away from the CPU running the games. Bad idea. Also, SPEs are only impressive when it comes to floating point numbers, they do nothing else. Bundle that with low memory bandwidth and you defeat the purpose of adding blu-ray because you can't move any of that data on the disc at a decent speed to anywhere in the system bottlenecking your whole process. The design of the PS3 is befuddling to say the least.

Now Sony bails out on the plant cause they realize it is not going to be needed because nobody wants a Cell.

Also you always want a smaller die for a processor; price, performance, production, all those things improve when you go that route. Them bailing on their own facility means no Cell 2 for PS4, thank the lord.

Johan

11-08-2007, 06:57 AM

They're reevaluating their long-term strategies and exposure financially, which I would say is a good idea.

Cut your losses now, rather than when they grow large enough to eat up more of the company's revenues than can be sustained.

Trazzlo the Magnificant

11-08-2007, 07:16 AM

it hasn't failed on them like the 360 version. and i thought the 45nm chip was in the 40gb ps3s?Pretty sure it got no reduction at all and is still in its original 90nm process.

Edit: Found the linky on the other thread. (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1082668&postcount=36), as well as the other engadget linky (http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/03/sony-says-the-40gb-ps3-is-still-using-90nm-chips/) also mentioned in that thread by bunuel.

SPBTooL

11-08-2007, 07:44 AM

Maybe just maybe Sony finally realized they suck balls at chip design and threw in the towel. Good for us, good for game developers, good for everybody. Just buy off the shelf next time Sony. That way we dont have anymore developers putting their eyes out trying to get your shit to work!

( The emotion engine was just as bad as the Cell )If buying off the shelf works so well why didn't MS do it for the 360 like they did for Xbox? Well, I guess it did actually work well for them with the Xbox. But MS worked with IBM and others to make their solution for the 360 too. So why is it working for them? Oh yeah, MS asked developers what they would want in the hardware while Sony told developers what they want in the hard ware.

OK you win; Sony sucks at chip design.

ECM

11-08-2007, 07:57 AM

Which was pretty dumb to begin with. I could of told them that their PS3 technology wasn't going to be applicable to anything outside of the console itself.

Those IBM Blade servers might just disagree with this: Press release. (http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/22258.wss)

Admittedly it isn't much yet, but it's not as if Toshiba and IBM are simply going to fold up shop and jettison the whole deal (I also believe IBM is working on a supercomputer using the Cell that combos up CISC chips w/ the RISC-based Cell...memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but I think that's the gist.)

Well, I guess it did actually work well for them with the Xbox.

Actually no, it didn't. It made it impossible to effectively cost-reduce the first box--MS was taking losses on the hardware up till the moment they shut the whole thing down.

boratika

11-08-2007, 08:01 AM

If buying off the shelf works so well why didn't MS do it for the 360 like they did for Xbox? Well, I guess it did actually work well for them with the Xbox. But MS worked with IBM and others to make their solution for the 360 too. So why is it working for them? Oh yeah, MS asked developers what they would want in the hardware while Sony told developers what they want in the hard ware.

OK you win; Sony sucks at chip design.

Well the 360 basically just runs on PowerPC chips, the important part is that they own the IP to them. When they were using standard Pentium IIIs Intel held the IP and didn't ever bother dropping cost or making them smaller.

I think when he said off the shelf he meant an existing architecture (like MS did this time) rather than a specific existing chip (like MS did last time.)

Serapth

11-08-2007, 08:06 AM

If buying off the shelf works so well why didn't MS do it for the 360 like they did for Xbox? Well, I guess it did actually work well for them with the Xbox. But MS worked with IBM and others to make their solution for the 360 too. So why is it working for them? Oh yeah, MS asked developers what they would want in the hardware while Sony told developers what they want in the hard ware.

OK you win; Sony sucks at chip design.

Besides, even with the 360, a great deal of it is off the shelf. The CPU is based off the IBM power line of CPUs. The GPU is ATI's DX10 line, seen early. Its custom, for sure, but not from the ground up custom like the Cell or EE before it.

EDIT: What boratika said.

digitalErich

11-08-2007, 08:35 AM

Maybe just maybe Sony finally realized they suck balls at chip design and threw in the towel.
It's a good thing Sony didn't design the Cell then.

Also, I love it when all the armchair EEs come out, trying to pass of what they heard elsewhere as their own opinion on chip design...it's so cute. Not to say the Cell is a roaring success, but some of the stuff being tossed around in this thread is just too funny.

Serapth

11-08-2007, 08:46 AM

It's a good thing Sony didn't design the Cell then.

Also, I love it when all the armchair EEs come out, trying to pass of what they heard elsewhere as their own opinion on chip design...it's so cute. Not to say the Cell is a roaring success, but some of the stuff being tossed around in this thread is just too funny.

I know my experience with the EE.

I don't know yours. I stand by what I ( and what hundreds of developers have publically ) said.

ElektroDragon

11-08-2007, 08:47 AM

Instead of investing all this time and money into a CPU, they should have spent it instead developing a GPU and memory solution that didn't suck.

digitalErich

11-08-2007, 09:40 AM

I know my experience with the EE.

I don't know yours. I stand by what I ( and what hundreds of developers have publically ) said.
The second part wasn't directed at you, and I was saying EE as in electrical engineers...sorry for the confusion.

Also, IBM designed the bulk of the Cell, in fact IBM owns several of the patents on various architectures in the Cell design. While it might be marketed as such, the Cell is not Sony's alone :)

Serapth

11-08-2007, 09:43 AM

The second part wasn't directed at you, and I was saying EE as in electrical engineers...sorry for the confusion. Also, IBM designed the bulk of the Cell :)

Tis ok. I agree regarding the Cell, it was I believe, entirely IBM to start.

Seconary, WTF is with the expression electrical engineer?? Do they engineer electricity? No! They dont!

Serapth

11-08-2007, 09:44 AM

Instead of investing all this time and money into a CPU, they should have spent it instead developing a GPU and memory solution that didn't suck.

They werent supposed to need a GPU, the cell was supposed to perform double duty.

I think to some degree, Sony drank their own PR koolaid and honestly believed the Cell was going to be the second coming of Buddha. Then had to scramble into a deal with nVidia when it wasnt.

digitalErich

11-08-2007, 09:52 AM

Seconary, WTF is with the expression electrical engineer?? Do they engineer electricity? No! They dont!
I'm trying to come up with a witty comeback and I can't. Then again, we can hardly be the only ones said to do this...do civil engineers engineer civility?

digitalErich

11-08-2007, 09:55 AM

I think to some degree, Sony drank their own PR koolaid and honestly believed the Cell was going to be the second coming of Buddha. Then had to scramble into a deal with nVidia when it wasnt.
I agree on the first part. Like I said earlier, I was around, internally, when they were rallying the troops around the larger Cell picture and it was very ambitious, too much so in my opinion.

Every Sony product was going to have a Cell and all your devices were going to talk to each other, Skynet, dogs and cats living together

Serapth

11-08-2007, 10:02 AM

I'm trying to come up with a witty comeback and I can't. Then again, we can hardly be the only ones said to do this...do civil engineers engineer civility?

You could make the argument they are the engineers of civilizations.

Granted, if you did, you would sound like a total pompous ass.

digitalErich

11-08-2007, 10:09 AM

You could make the argument they are the engineers of civilizations.
Civil Engineers designed the Illinois/Chicago tollways, so I say they engineer anti civilizations. Even though I'm out of the midwest, my hate for driving that area still burns white-hot.

Trazzlo the Magnificant

11-08-2007, 11:56 AM

I'm trying to come up with a witty comeback and I can't. Then again, we can hardly be the only ones said to do this...do civil engineers engineer civility?
There is nothing civil about civil engineering. "Shit flows downhill, payday is Friday" was the saying at the ones I worked at. :)

Electrical Engineers. Hmmm, witty comeback attempt. How about "Well, they are just like Sanitation Engineers except with short fuses, and they don't clean up the street when they are done?".

Katana-Wolf

11-08-2007, 01:37 PM

I agree on the first part. Like I said earlier, I was around, internally, when they were rallying the troops around the larger Cell picture and it was very ambitious, too much so in my opinion.

Every Sony product was going to have a Cell and all your devices were going to talk to each other, Skynet, dogs and cats living together

Lets see what 2010 ( project end? ) brings for Cell.

I'm still very optimistic ( fanboyistic ) about it really.

reallyjoel

11-08-2007, 02:48 PM

.. in my opinion it seems like a lot of recent games and future games are going to stress the GPU a lot more than the CPU.

I disagree, I believe that GPU's are on their way out actually, and multi-core CPU's are in. In ten years time we could have computers with a very modular design, and if you can just keep adding in CPU's, you don't really need specialized GPU's. They are also alot more expensive to make, and alot more expensive to maintain (obsolete techniques still need to be supported). Perhaps we wont be using polygons forever, then what will the GPU-makers do? Multi-core CPU's go hand in hand with real time raytracing, for example.

Jack B

11-08-2007, 03:28 PM

I'm trying to come up with a witty comeback and I can't. Then again, we can hardly be the only ones said to do this...do civil engineers engineer civility?

Yeah, and what's with Military Intelligence? What's that all about. Oxymoron's FTW! :D

On a serious note, wasn't the bigger issue with the PS3 the memory architecture? I don't know, I'm just asking.

If Sony had included another 256mb of memory or used 512mb shared memory (not sure if that was possible) wouldn't that have made a monster difference in PS3 game development? I know the cost might have been more per PS3, but they spent a ton of other stuff anyway.

If the memory issues went away would the PS3 have realized it's goals for game development?

Serapth

11-08-2007, 04:11 PM

If Sony had included another 256k of memory or used 512 shared memory (not sure if that was possible) wouldn't that have made a monster difference in PS3 game development? I know the cost might have been more per PS3, but they spent a ton of other stuff anyway.

If Sony had included another 256k of memory, it would have brought the total to 256.25M of RAM!

:D

Jack B

11-08-2007, 04:14 PM

If Sony had included another 256k of memory, it would have brought the total to 256.25M of RAM!

:D

Good one. Didn't help me much, but good one. :D

I fixed it. Remember, my first hard drive was a whopping 10mb's on a Tandy 1,000, so 256k sounds like a lot. My Atari 800 had 64k... ;)

Serapth

11-08-2007, 04:18 PM

Good one. Didn't help me much, but good one. :D

I fixed it. Remember, my first hard drive was a whopping 10mb's on a Tandy 1,000, so 256k sounds like a lot. My Atari 800 had 64k... ;)

You lucky bastard, my Atari only hate 48KB of RAM! Then again, yours only had 32KB of RAM, but I am not going to be that prick that corrects someone twice in a thread. :D

Oh shit.

EDIT: My first real computer really was a 48KB atari. The 800XL, which was a much better machine then the Commodore, and Commodore can go fuck off and die. That is all.

Jack B

11-08-2007, 06:07 PM

You lucky bastard, my Atari only hate 48KB of RAM! Then again, yours only had 32KB of RAM, but I am not going to be that prick that corrects someone twice in a thread. :D

Oh shit.

EDIT: My first real computer really was a 48KB atari. The 800XL, which was a much better machine then the Commodore, and Commodore can go fuck off and die. That is all.

Serapth, OK, my turn to correct you. You spelled "had" wrong above... You said "my atari only "hate" 48kB...". :p

Come to think of it, I might have only had 48k to start with on my Atari 800 and then upgraded. I remember looking longingly at some games that required 16k more ram... :( I also remember having a cassette drive for storage and that loud annoying squeal for 30 seconds as it loaded a program. Only to see the CLOAD error or something like that on every other load.

I dreamt of the day I could afford a floppy drive. Man, a floppy drive... That was livin'! :D

fitbabits

11-08-2007, 07:59 PM

ECM

11-08-2007, 08:05 PM

My first computer? A 1K (expandable to 16K) ZX81.

Heh, my first was its 2k cousin, the Timex Sinclair 1000. Membrane kb ftw?

fitbabits

11-08-2007, 08:06 PM

Heh, my first was its 2k cousin, the Timex Sinclair 1000. Membrane kb ftw?

Aye, membrane keyboard for the win, and also for the flat fingertips.

Serapth

11-08-2007, 08:40 PM

My first computer? A 1K (expandable to 17K with a 16K expansion pack) ZX81.

Not my fault you are old!

I mean, anyone born after 32K, is just ancient! :D

fitbabits

11-08-2007, 08:41 PM

Not my fault you are old!

I mean, anyone born after 32K, is just ancient! :D
I may be old, but at least I'm not Canadian! :)

Serapth

11-08-2007, 08:46 PM

I may be old, but at least I'm not Canadian! :)

Pass me some haggis gramps.

fitbabits

11-08-2007, 08:50 PM

Pass me some haggis gramps.

Oh, I'll pass it to you! IN YOUR FACE!!! For the benefit of dukefrukem. :)

Jack B

11-08-2007, 09:47 PM

I may be old, but at least I'm not Canadian! :)

Damn, I'm Canadian and part Scottish. I can't decide who's side to take in this one. Well, at least I'm not older than 32k... :D

digitalErich

11-09-2007, 12:28 AM

Lets see what 2010 ( project end? ) brings for Cell.

I'm still very optimistic ( fanboyistic ) about it really.
Yeah, I mean there is still a long way to go for the Cell project and like I said before, they have plans for Cell well and away from just the PS3.

If they really can make a chip that powerful dirt cheap like they eventually intend to do, then it won't matter if it's a bitch to learn...people will flock to it.