Crysis 2 Versus Killzone 2 Screenshot Comparison

[Garcian Smith]

Booh! said:

Garcian Smith said:

If the four-year-old Cell found in a $299 game console can outperform a $1000 Core i7, then why aren't people using the Cell for CPU-intensive tasks instead of the i7?

They are: 

• http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/345642/Air_Force_Taps_PlayStation_3_for_Research
• http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/10/ps3_supercomputer
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadrunner_%28supercomputer%29

For physics, graphics related and signal processing tasks, the cell processor, being a vector processor, can crush any modern scalar processor (like the i7).

I'm not talking about a few isolated incidents of people utilizing a bunch of Cells in a supercomputer array. I'm talking normal consumer use. According to reports, Sony are now turning a profit on the PS3 at $299, so the implementation of the Cell in the PS3 can't cost much to manufacture. Why haven't Cells replaced Core-i5s and Athlon IIs in gaming computers if they're so powerful? More than that, why didn't they in 2006 when people were still paying several hundred dollars for Core 2 Duos? By all rights, if what jhuff394 said is true, then Sony and IBM should be multi-billionaires with a monopoly over the CPU market by now.