Hacker News Reader

Comment by Waterluvian | Hacker News Reader

Oh right... I think somewhere around 1st gen they were cool with that. But didn't they end up getting killed in the market because they had to sell it for less than Five Hundred and Ninety Nine U.S. Dollars, effectively at a loss, and people were making compute centres out of them?

I think a later gen locked it right down.

View on HN

For the most part the cluster of PS3s supercomputer was a myth used to hype up how powerful the PS3 was. The amount of RAM per compute was so low that it limited the type of workloads it was good at. Then server CPUs became more powerful as the PS3 processor stayed the same.

However PS3 clusters did find niche success as a super computer. There are a handful of notable examples. The fastest one ever built was by the US Airforce, consisted of 1,760 PS3s, and was the 33rd fastest super computer at the time. It was used for satellite image processing.

There was a time when supercomputers had no GPUs. Nowadays the top list is all GPu accelerators.

When I was paying attention during the 90s and 2000s I remember this being the hype in magazines / on the web for pretty much EVERY upcoming console. Namely that it was so outrageously powerful that it might be considered a supercomputer in its own right. Needless to say, I was hyped up and obsessing about them myself.

Let's not forget the Japanese government applying export restrictions on the PS2 because it might be powerful enough to be used for military purposes [1]. It even went so far as claims that Iraq ordered a bunch of them for that purpose [2]. That's some serious hype marketing haha.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/716237.stm

[2] https://www.theregister.com/2000/12/19/iraq_buys_4000_playst...

And that is how you support your local industry.

I always thought it was a bit odd that we went from super-compute clusters built out of PS3 to the PS4/Xbone generation consoles being meh-grade laptop chips in a fancy case.

It's the performance vs programmability tradeoff.

The article references it.

As one goes back in console history, the performance to achieve contemporarily visually-stunning results required exotic architectures + hand-tuned code.

Over time, state of the art PC + GPU hardware improved, to the point there wasn't a functional difference vs exotic architectures. Additionally, the cost of developing leading-edge custom architectures exploded.

Microsoft really pushed this with the original "PC in a box" XBox, but you saw the console OEMs outsource increasing parts of their chip solutions after that.

Why keep / buy entire chip design teams, when AMD will do it for you?

Especially if the performance difference is negligible.

The article also references the cost of developing a AAA "HD" title is so high that it pretty much needs to be released on multiple platforms to be profitable.

PS3 was popular for compute clusters because it was sold heavily at cost at launch. That's typical for a console where the platform owner gets a slice of all software sales, but makes no sense for a general computing platform. The performance/$ was unbeatable because the economics were perverted.

The PS4 was sold at break even price and couldn't run unsigned code anyway.

OtherOS was a way for Sony to work around higher tarifs. General computing devices (enabled by OtherOS) had a lower schedule than consoles.

It was retroactively removed when people started getting close to enabling full GPU access. This was previously crippled under OtherOS to prevent games developed without the PS3 SDK.

Ah interesting. I do recall we never utilized the GPUs on them, just the Cell.

> It was retroactively removed when people started getting close to enabling full GPU access

It was retroactively removed when Sony started worrying about "security" concerns - aka people running unlicensed commercial games, which is usually the killer app for any firmware that supports customization and programming.

It was also advertised on the original PS3 box.

Ultimately there was a lawsuit and some PS3 owners got $10 apiece.

As PS2Linux owner I think that was a reaction to the way the Linux community handled PS2Linux.

Instead of following the Yaroze footsteps, and being a way for a new indies generation to learn how to create console games, the majority used PS2Linux for classical UNIX stuff and play games on emulators.

Note that PS2Linux had GPU access, via PSGL and an easier high level API for the Emotion Engine.

So, no GPU access, no emulators.

Reportedly the US government had no problem paying $599 per PS3 to build ML/AI supercomputers out of them.

Any source on that? It sounds unlikely to me. There was a supercomputer that IBM built for Los Alamos that used the Cell processor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadrunner_(supercomputer)

Probably referring to:

https://phys.org/news/2010-12-air-playstation-3s-supercomput...

>>About the 33rd largest supercomputer in the world right now is the US Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) newest system, which has a core made of 1,760 Sony PlayStation 3 (PS3) consoles. In addition to its large capacity, the so-called "Condor Cluster" is capable of performing 500 trillion floating point operations per second (TFLOPS), making it the fastest interactive computer in the entire US Defense Department.

>>It will be used by Air Force centers across the country for tasks such as radar enhancement, pattern recognition, satellite imagery processing, and artificial intelligence research.

Each ps3 was cheaper than the per-CPU cost of what you'd get from IBM. I'm sure you'd make it up in power usage pretty quick though.

Rumor has it that Sony axed OtherOS in response to Geohot using it to exploit & compromise the PS3 hypervisor.

If I recall correctly that was a stated fact. OtherOS was removed due to "security vulnerabilities".

Yes: https://blog.playstation.com/archive/2010/03/29/ps3-firmware...

(From wikipedia references)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com