lol, I love it when people think just because a CPU from over a decade ago is better just because it says 3.2 GHz over 1.6 GHz. Guess what, Switch CPU core per core is better than the one in PS4 despite being slower. PS4 still beats it since it has 8 cores. The cell was Power PC. Power PC was in 7th gen systems and Wii U. PS4 and Xbox use X86. The Switch is using ARM.

The money spent on putting a cell in a PS5 would be better spent on a HBM die, or some small SSD to cache textures, or something.

You did see that even the example you presented shows this, right?
You expect a PS5 to have ~6 times the GPU compute of a PS4, and the PS4 can do ~16 times better in the example...
All on the GPU.

The task you gave is well suited to a GPU, and the cell does well in that kind of workload, but the PS4's GPU mops the floor with the Cell.

Even if it only costed a dollar to put a cell in the PS5, per unit.
That money would be better spent on almost anything else.
The money spent on R&D to make such a configuration possible and feasible (both hardware and software wise), would be better spent on Anything else.

The PS5 should be able to handle PS3 emulation just fine without a Cell.

How? I showed you data.

But it is better than a Jaguar. A single GPU at 3.2Ghz will run better in a lot of situations than an 8 core CPU running at 1.6Ghz.

On PC you can pretty much run most PS4 and XBox One games with the same performance on a Pentium 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzixD_Rus74

It runs like PS4, lets play some Jag lol

Glad you dont work for SONY.

Neither generation has any bottleneck. Console is a highly specialised system and that's what makes it much cheaper than PC, so it can't have superfast CPU and GPU and a lot of memory, but it definitely can have some engineering solutions that are cheap and still can make gaming better. Modern consoles are perfect in these terms.

Also how have you concluded that Cell processor made PS3 exclusives better? Single player games like Uncharted and The Last of Us don't need much CPU power at all because of simple AI, little amount of enemies, low interactivity etc - they're almost just tech demos that rely on GPU. If you want CPU-dependant games, these are GTA 5, Battlefield 4 and etc - they were still better on Xbox 360, so...

No.

Op. Please do some research. Jaguar is actually in-fact superior to Cell.

The only thing I like about this thread is seeing op’s avatar. Holy crap!!

You clearly don't have a clue how central processor unit works...

If the PS4 GPU is so strong why cant it give me 60fps?

And i am pretty sure people would rather have Cell processor that also gives full BC than some SSD cache. The example was also a GPU task, so of course PS4s GPU is doing it better regardless, just like the PS3s RSX GPU would have done better than the Cell too. But remove the GPU and let just the CPUs handle the task which is what you always do if you benchmark a CPU on PC, Cell pretty much would trump the Jaguar. XDR2 is the fastest Ram available that would be another plus and also necessary in order to even run the Cell processor.

So uh, did you learn anything from the PS3?