PS3 Update Provides New Features Including Distributed Computing Boost

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/Jtc4BHQNcmXdyc/PS3-Update-Bolsters-Stanford-Research-Efforts.xhtml' target='_blank'>http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/Jtc4BHQNcmXdyc/PS3-Update-Bolsters-Stanford-Research-Efforts.xhtml</a><br /><br /></div><i>"A new software update for Sony's PlayStation 3 consoles includes Bluetooth support, enhanced downloading and the ability to help a Stanford University distributed-computing program hoping to cure protein-related diseases. Dubbed "Firmware 1.60," the upgrade can be installed directly to Internet-connected PS3 consoles, downloaded into a home computer and transfered to the console or installed when a game disc including the software is played, said Sony. The connectivity to Stanford University's Folding@home program will begin Thursday. The project will harness the processing power of thousands of home computers and PS3s across the globe creating, in essence, a giant supercomputer to perform scientific calculations."</i><br /><br />Regular Digital Media Thoughts readers know I'm not very fond of the PS3 - I think Sony badly fumbled almost everything about it - but I'm always willing to give credit where credit is due. Sony has released a firmware update that I think is ultimately more interesting than most of the Xbox 360 updates I've seen: the ability to utilize the CPU at idle for the Stanford protein analysis program. The question is, how many PS3 owners will want to leave their consoles running all the time? My Xbox 360 is too noisy for me to leave it running when it's not in use, though I'd be happy to let it run from midnight to 5pm every day when I'm not in the same room with it. What about you - if your console had the ability to donate CPU cycles like this, would you use it?

[ctmagnus]

Apparently a certain wacky Iraqi who is no longer with us used older consoles (I forget which one) for somewhat-nefarious distributed computing purposes.

[Jason Dunn]

Apparently a certain wacky Iraqi who is no longer with us used older consoles (I forget which one) for somewhat-nefarious distributed computing purposes.

I think that was all just urban legend wasn't it?

[ctmagnus]

It may have been, but iirc it was in a fairly legitimate newspaper that I read it.

[Chris Gohlke]

I've often debated whether using things like this are really a good use of resources. Assume you run this all year and that the software maxes out system resources. The PS3 uses nearly 200 watts. So it uses 1 kWh every 5 hours. or 4.8 kWh per day. In the US, the average electric cost is about 10 cents per kWh. Therefore it costs $0.48 per day or $175.20 per year to run. The electric is not tax deductable as a donation, so in reality I could donate $233.60 to the same cause and be even. Given the choice would these groups prefer a cash donation or me running their software? I'm betting they would prefer the cash.

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-2.htm
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html

[Felix Torres]

Given the choice would these groups prefer a cash donation or me running their software? I'm betting they would prefer the cash.

Tsk-tsk, you naughty boy!
There you go, ruining a perfectly good Sony feel-good story with logic and common sense!
Don't you know most of these schemes exist to make you *think* you're doing something good, not actually achieve it? ;-)
Besides, Sony needs all the feel-good stories they can drum up. Its not like they're getting any good news from their software development partners or retailers...

All things considered (CO2 emissions of generating the electricity consumed by the PS3 cycles, the wear on the processor, etc) give the money, not the cycles. You'll still feel good but it will be more quicker and more useful to the cause. :twisted:

[Chris Gohlke]

Actually, I was going to suggest that it was really a scheme by Sony to make your PS3 wear out quicker so you would buy a new one. :D

[Felix Torres]

Actually, I was going to suggest that it was really a scheme by Sony to make your PS3 wear out quicker so you would buy a new one. :D

:)
Well, considering the state of the PS3 gaming catalog, it could be a way of making sure those Cell processors don't rust from disuse. :wink:

[Jeff_R]

I'm just going to run between the arrows from the Sony-haters... :D

Should you individually give them the cash? Maybe, maybe not. It's up to you. However, there are currently 200,000 active CPUs/GPUs (and the PS3@Home will make that number climb) contributing 240 terraflops to the project; according to Folding@Home's own information, this would not be possible even with exclusive access to all the supercomputers on the planet. Even if everyone, all 200,000 active participants, gave that $233 (and let's face it, even an appreciable fraction of them doing that would be a fairy tale), that would still only amount to $46.6 million. A good number, but NOT enough to buy that kind of computing power.

So, in fact, you're doing more good by donating your cycles than by donating your cash, AND vastly more people will donate cycles than will donate cash.

So, in fact, common sense when taken to the full conclusion means that Folding@Home is a good project, so Sony joining in is a good thing. I mean, no one ripped ATI a new one when they talked about being able to fold on GPUs.

So if people still disagree, then they should condemn Folding@Home, since that's the thing people have issue with, right? This is where people logically examined whether Folding@Home was a worthwhile project in all of its various system incarnations. People wouldn't have used this topic as an excuse to pick on Sony. Of course not. :wink:

[Damion Chaplin]

Even if everyone, all 200,000 active participants, gave that $233... that would still only amount to $46.6 million. A good number, but NOT enough to buy that kind of computing power.

Gonna have to disagree with that one. For $233 I could build an 'average' machine (3Ghz/1GB/40GB) to replace the user that opted out, and that's at retail (with some effort). For $46.6M, I could build 200,000 of those 'average' PCs and not need the public at all. Stanford would undoubtedly get things at a better price than me too. So this just goes to show that A) Supercomputers are ultimately uneccesary for this sort of task, and B) Supercomputers are highly over-priced if they can't compete with a swarm of home PCs for the same amount of cash. :wink:

All that being said, I think if Sony manages to sell a few more units because they've included folding@home, that's great. They need all the help they can get at this point. It probably won't make someone not buy a PS3, so there's really no harm in including it...

[Jeff_R]

Sorry, I should have been more clear; I was talking about buying the power in supercomputers. Yes, I agree with you that supercomputers, by and large, are becoming obsolete except for the very highest end ones.

Of course, for the $46.6 million, you now need to buy a building and infrastructure to support 200,000 computers; I'm not saying you're wrong that it could be done, but I guess my conclusion here is that

1) the calculations are a bit more complex than they seem initially

and

2) they're utterly pointless, since 200,000 people aren't lining up with cheques. :lol:

[Jeremy Charette]

Somewhere an electric company CEO is rubbing his hands together with glee.

[Felix Torres]

Not wanting to get into a debate over whether PS3 actually delivers those "amazing" peak benchmark numbers or whether building a Beowulf closet supercomputing cluster with the donated money would be more efficient, I'll simply point out:

http://www.physorg.com/news92674403.html

With the donated money they could buy a bunch of PS3 and cluster them and have access to *all* of the cycles, not just an itty-bitty part of it.
For every two people donating cycles, they could buy one full PS3.
Seems to me the math will kinda favor donating the money and letting Sony and Unca Sam foot part of the bill. But that's just me.

Personally, I love the PS3 and I adore the way Sony has gone about launching it. Endlessly amusing and provides lots of conversation topics. :twisted:

[Jeff_R]

They still have to power them, so... ? Not sure where the freebee here is. If everyone gives money (which, realistically, still won't happen) and you can buy 1 PS3 for every 2 people, who's paying to power them? Uncle Sam? Sounds good to me, I'm Canadian, but I'm not sure the Americans would care for it.

Strange; this is the first time that I've seen such negativity towards Folding@Home. Most people seem to think it's a good cause, but the messages here seem to be very negative. I think people should probably look at talking to sites like HardOCP and MaximumPC which are really strong Folding proponents, since people seem to believe it's such a bad cause.

Also, I'm not sure that the logic holds together in some cases. People are saying that they will use a year's worth of extra electricity, yet Folding is only getting a small percentage of the PS3's cycles? Which is it? Either it's 100% usage, which is great for Folding but costs $233, or it's a fraction of the cycles, which isn't as great for Folding but is minimal extra cost.

I've got to admit, it's weird the way this topic seems to have become an attack on Folding@Home, yet the underlying motivation is an attack on Sony. Trust me, there are TONS of reasons to beat up on Sony regarding the Playstation 3. I just don't think this is one of them.

[Jason Dunn]

Strange; this is the first time that I've seen such negativity towards Folding@Home.

I think you're misinterpreting what you're reading here. No one is saying that Folding@Home is bad - but when you're running it on a PC that's powered up and presumably doing something, that makes sense. A gaming console that you're not using and is running nothing but Folding@Home? That makes less sense. That's really the issue here I believe.

[Chris Gohlke]

Since I started this, I figured I'd pipe back in although Jason covered my thoughts. Running folding at home on the PC makes sense because lots of people leave their PC on all the time anyway. I doubt the folding at home proponents would even suggest that you specifically leave your PC on just to run the application. The idea is to make some use of resources that would be wasted anyway. I don't see many people leaving their consoles on when they are not using them.

Leaving a device running only for the purpose of running one of these apps seems akin to buying a can of soda only to dump out the soda and recycle the can.

[makicr]

With the donated money they could buy a bunch of PS3 and cluster them and have access to *all* of the cycles, not just an itty-bitty part of it.

To fix the problem with finding a place to put the PS3's, they can just install one in each dorm room, or loan them to faculty (my aunt works there and I am sure my cousins would not object to this).

[Jason Dunn]

Leaving a device running only for the purpose of running one of these apps seems akin to buying a can of soda only to dump out the soda and recycle the can.

Hahaha...great analogy! :lol:

[Jeff_R]

Fair enough; I guess my confusion came from the fact that Folding@Home only kicks into gear when the PC is doing nothing of consequence, as it defaults to the lowest priority; arguably the PCs that can contribute significantly to Folding@Home should be turned off more often, or else they're just as guilty of the soda can analogy as the PS3 would be.

I guess it depends on how you look at it; some feel that leaving the console on just for Folding makes no sense, others would say the PS3 is a better resource for precisely that reason: more cycles available on average. There are arguments both ways. Personally, I live in a very low-emission electricity area, so all it does for me is drive my electricity costs up a bit. I'm willing to accept that in exchange for helping out. Others may have different views, or may pull their energy from a nasty smoke belching coal plant, which changes things. :)