IBM already has monster chips that dominate Cell in servers. I forgot the name but they are freaking monsters. I believe they are over 4 GHZ as well.
You dont understand technology well, like most posters on this site you're probably just a little kid. Theoretical flops from Cell dont necessarily mean anything in the real world. Because what happens as soon as you throw a branch at it? A lot of gaming code involves branches where Cell kind of sucks. Hell, John Carmack thinks X360 CPU is better than Cell, and I promise he knows a lot more about programming than you. Cell is one of the main reasons PS3 is difficult to program for and why so many PS3 ports dont run as fast or look as good as their 360 counterparts.
I hope Cell(s) is in PS4...because I dont think it's a very good chip, quite frankly. I think that will give MS an advantage in the next generation. About the best that can be said for Cell is it is a good CPU at helping the GPU out. The problem is, you are better off spending money on simply making a better GPU in the first place, because anything a GPU is good at it will do 10X faster than Cell or any CPU.
If Sony had spent half the money they spent on Cell on a better GPU for PS3 instead, they would't be in a situation where 360 games look just as good.
Ask yourself which is better, Cell+RSX or, Core2Dou+8800GTX. The latter can run Crysis. Go download some Crysis vids or better yet find a way to watch it yourself on high settings. It simply destroys anything on consoles including Uncharted. Why? Because you are better off with a great GPU and a medium CPU than a great CPU and a medium GPU every time, at least when it comes to graphics.
BTW, John Carmack said PC CPU's will be twice as fast as the current console CPU's like two years ago. You aren't looking at things like a programmer. Cell in certain trivialized applications is really good at math, it struggles in a lot of other places. A core2dou is three or four times as fast as Cell andXcpu in reality, from a programmer perspective.
