kenstfield vs Cell

kenstfield having over than 590 million transistors with 4 really core and 8 MB L2 , but ps3's CELL having 235 million transistors!!! and soon Penryn 870 million transistors (4X ps3's CELL ) with 12 MB L2 ; AMD Barcelona Quad-Core is too very good CPU
_________________________
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/11/playstation-3-performance/
I'll just basically repeat what I wrote in the last thread.
1.6 G5 vs. PS3 and I added some Xeon benchmarks they also had. bZip and JPEG seemed like the most common and useful of the benchmarks so here they are. Check out their site for the rest.
bzip2 Compress (multi-threaded scalar)
PlayStation 3 - 124.1
Power Mac G5 - 168.4
Xeon 5160 - 1194.4

bzip2 Decompress (multi-threaded scalar)
PlayStation 3 - 99.5
Power Mac G5 - 133.1
Xeon 5160 - 1353.3

JPEG Compress (multi-threaded scalar)
PlayStation 3 - 94.8
Power Mac G5 - 103.0
Xeon 5160 - 877.6

JPEG Decompress (multi-threaded scalar)
PlayStation 3 - 72.9
Power Mac G5 - 119.2
Xeon 5160 - 788.9

So basically in performance the PS3 processor usually isn't going to be as good as a three and a half year old budget G5 processor. The PS3 is probably about equal to a G4 processor at most general tasks. Kind of pathetic after all the hype Sony made about it before it came out.
It would get totally crushed by a Quad core processor.
__________________________________________
Science on a G5/PS3/MacPro - Benchmarks
As promised last week, I have here some benchmarks that compare the performance of double-precision floating point operations between a PowerMac (2.5 GHz G5), a PlayStation 3 (3.2 GHz Cell) and a Mac Pro (2.66 GHz Xeon). The PowerMac and Mac Pro are running Mac OS X Tiger. The PS3 is running Yellow Dog Linux 5.0. The codes I used are simple, serial and single-threaded. Thus, the numbers below are for a single core only on all the systems. I used a variety of compilers/flags on these different platforms, including some commercial ones. GCC is available for all these systems, IBM XLC (an alpha version) is available for the Cell and Intel's ICC is available for the Mac Pro. Note that for now, I am only using the PPU on the PS3 for these tests, so I'm really using a fraction of the PS3's available hardware.

The "Astrophysics Simulation" is based on one of my own research codes. Its essentially a linear, hyperbolic PDE solver with a complicated source-term. Sorry, the source code is not publicly available. The other two codes compute "Pi" using different approaches. Those codes can be found easily on the internet. Now, on with the number

http://www.macresearch.org/book/print/1382
_________________________________________

What do you all think about it?

Well you are comparing apples to oranges. The CELL is not a direct competitor to an x86/PPC processor. The CELL is designed for single-floating point precision, not double, so naturally any code meant for double is going to take twice as long to complete on a CELL. Now a CELL is capable of doing double-floating point calculations, but it requires proper coding to utilize the SPEs. Its also a well known fact while the G5 is a decent PPC chip, it was also a flop, the G4's we're actually faster in some areas, and ran OSX better.

I liked your approach using code you wrote and work with, but its jus slightly skewed since its no where near CELL capable. As we speak i do believe Yellow Dog has wrote patchs for the it to improve faster, so even Yellow Dog isn't optimized to run the CELL fully.

Sorry, but your tests are just comparing the PowerPC unit of the Cell (which basically *is* a G4) against those surely stronger competitors.
Cell's strong point are its SPEs and the broadband architecture, and you need specialised and optimized code to take advantage of that.
IBM has demonstrated much more impressive numbers on specific applications.

We've already got a doctor...