And the PS3 was a 7th gen system, released 7 years ago. Times have changed. The 8th gen systems are far more GPU-centric.

I would have to assume the bans were for saying Ethomaz was either full of shit or a troll.  You can question people all you want and ask them to prove their claims, make it personal and insulting and you'll be banned.  It's always been that simple.  

edit:  Nvm.  They seem to be for different posts than I was expecting.  I was assuming the OP had been banned but it was two other people.  

No need to get nasty.

And how do you know it will be faster than his $60 processor? I would place the performance bet on any Intel Dual-core @ 3ghz than an 8 core Jaguar.
AMD hasn't been able to compete with Intel in years, Jaguar is the lowest of lowest in AMD's processor lineup remember.

I think you mean "NB" not "ND". :P

But I agree 100%.

Nah. The Cell is very poor performing.
It could do some framebuffer effects, sure, but nothing startling, the real heavy workhorse was the Geforce GPU.

Can someone explain to me, as I'm pretty ignorant in this area; how does the PS4/Xbone's Jaguars compare to PS3's Cell and 360's Xenon? How much more powerful are the next gen CPUs? Ten times as strong? Five times? Two times?

It depends.
The Cell was *very* good at certain types of equations, not all.

The problem is, game engines use differing types of math to achieve a certain result, Jaguar on the otherhand is a more balanced CPU.

To simplify it... The Cell has a high theoretical maximum performance ceiling, but it's unrealistic to achieve it over long periods of time.
Jaguar can achieve a set level of performance constantly, there aren't any tricky nuances.

So, to put it in perspective, in a Race the Cell will run at 20km's an hour and peak at 40km's an hour every now and then, Jaguar will run at 30km's an hour for the entire race, in the end over time, Jaguar gets more work done.

It's difficult to peg in numbers of how much faster Jaguar is, because... Well. They're completely different, flops isn't a good performance metric because CPU's and Game engines do more than just deal with floating point.

The cores are fairly weak, but are intended to leech compute power from the GPU, so it's really nearly impossible to say.

Without any leaching I've heard it's worse than the cell in some regards, though, so pretty awful for a next gen bump before being utilized properly.

I realize it's not a simple matter of which is faster, but does that mean that overall Jaguar is not a massive power leap over Cell?

Jaguar *is* a massive leap over Cell, just not in theoretical floating point performance.

Having an Out-of-Order Design, wider front end, more cores will do that, which can make up for the clockspeed reductions.
However, do keep in mind though, this time around Sony is reserving a larger percentage of CPU time to the operating system.

What? Developers made it very clear that the PS3's superior CPU made up for its weaker GPU, do you know something that they don't? Please explain. 

Well I agree with you mostly but to say these consoles depend more on GPU than CPU this generation is just an assumption that you make because of the significant jump in GPU than in CPU. Do you know why sony and microsoft went with APU solutions this generation?