SPEs aren't cores.

Yes they are. They're just not completely general purpose.

My point is 3 fold.

A) 2 8 core Power7 CPu's would be far too hot, far too big and far too expensive. 

B) A 16 core IBM chip already exists.  The PowerPC A2.

C) If you have 2 CPU's you don't necessarily count the cores together and call it a X core CPU.   You would say 2 X core CPU's.   The fact they speak in singuarl with regard the CPU suggests it's not a multiple CPU configuration which again leads back to B.

No, they are not cores.  Cores operate independantly, SPE's are not independant and their code is in order execution.  Think of them as a middle ground between a 2 thread operational CPU and a real second core.

So one cannot classify calling the PS3 variant of the Cell CPU as a multi core processor? I don't think so.

It can be classified as a multicore processor only so much that we don't have a seperate, more apt category to put it in.

The SPE's have some core like functions but they are not cores in the same sense that we calssify a CPU core.

A) Yes.

B) OK, did not know. That does make a lot of sense. Two smaller 8 core non-Power7 chips are also an option, so it could be consistent with that.

C) Definitely wrong. Go and look at Intel Core 2 Quad "Kentsfield". That was two CPU dies connected on package and NO ONE ever called it "two CPUs".

"When we talk about cores we will always be using the most agreed upon definition of cores – the integer logic." - AMD on why Bulldozer has 16 cores not 8

The SPE can independently execute integer code. Therefore it is a core. Intel Atom is in-order and is considered a CPU still. The dependent part you are talking about is that the scheduling and memory management is done by the PPE, but it's done by a shared decoder in Larrabee and Bulldozer and those were cores as well.

link not working.

here