uh, two-thirds is 2/3, that's a pretty good number saying 2/3 as well since the benchmark with 2800MHz RAM on dual channel Ivy Bridge came out to 28GB/s (though latency usually suffers from RAM with that bandwidth, it's the same with GDDR5, latency is definitely an issue, but I'm sure the PS4 will be fine). Anyways, 20GB/s is not 2x top Intel CPU at all, they are only comparing current Ivy Bridge dual channel setups which is still faster than the number you are claiming. Now the question really becomes how much latency will be there and how close the parts will be this time around(how many cycles to reach each part.) TBH comparing the PS4 to a PC is silly when you consider how much the cost difference is, a lot of it is PR talk considering that they are practically doing damage control and saying "this is good enough," but that's not a bad thing considering how much they fucked up with the PS3.

No need for that kind of setup for gaming, even current day Sandy or Ivy Bridge will still perform much faster than what's in the PS4 for much cheaper than high class Intel stuff. AMD's Steamroller will also roll some faces when it comes out and that's going to be even cheaper than Intel stuff at 8 cores with good performance.

Can we just accept that the PS4 is not a miracle box and move on? I think this discussion is silly considering that the important part is the games. I have no doubt that the PS4 will have good games and I'll pick it up once the price drops to the amount I'm willing to pay for a console and enjoy it. We need to stop comparing it to gaming PCs that'd rape it's face because they cost like 2-3x more lol...... I'm already tired from defending the Wii U, I don't want to have to do it for the PS4 and PC at the same time too haha.

I've probably spent about $5,000 AUD all told on just this system and the AUD is worth just a little more than the USD, but prices are generally higher here too.
If I was *only* playing games on my PC, then I would have stuck with my old AMD FX 8120, 8gb of ram and Dual-Radeon 6950's unlocked into 6970's which cost me a fraction of the price.

1) No it's clear you have no idea about hardware or how software interfaces with hardware.

2) Intel specifies DDR3 1600mhz to be the recommended maximum memory speeds, however the PC isn't that static, motherboard manufacturers can have profiles and multipliers and support things like XMP for higher default supported speeds without actually overclocking, my board just happens to support DDR3 1866mhz out of the box, any higher would involve overclocking. (Which I haven't done on the memory.)

4) The Cell is a CPU.
CPU's are good for processing instructions that are serial in nature, the Cell exceeds at that, given it's transister budget.
However, graphics is incredibly parallel in it's work load, which the cell is incredibly bad at, you would need hundreds of more cores.

However, frame-buffer effects are relatively simple and even low-end CPU's can do it these days, the "graphics processing" that the Cell does are this kind, the Cell isn't going to be doing advanced forms of lighting or shadowing or shader effects, it simply doesn't have the amount of parallel processing needed to pull it off.

How you can't understand this little piece of logic escapes me, Sony Marketing at it's best I suppose, they did claim that their consoles could do some ludicrous things in the past even with the PS1 and PS2 and people actually fall for it.