Efficiency is more important than speed.

It can. Developers just choose not to.

Where is the poll? Put your money where your mouth is.

RSX doesn't hold a candle to a more compute-centric GPU architecture like GCN.

No.

No.

No.

Why are we even having this discussion? It's almost 2018. The Playstation 3 is dead, the Cell is dead. They are old, slow, outdated.

The Cell was never a high-end CPU to begin with, sure once you delved into iterative refinement it could come into it's own... But outside of that, the Cell was nothing impressive, even 10 years ago.
The Cell was designed to provide adequate performance for a low cost, perfect for a console.

 I would say I expect better of this forum after all this time of tech-orientated based threads/posts dating back years... But then a poster comes along and destroys that fantasy.

Jaguar is superior to Cell. Especially in Integers... Jaguar was AMD's worst CPU during a time when they had the industries worst CPU lineup.
So it goes without saying that any successor to Jaguar is going to be a rather large increase... And by default is what we will have in next-gen anyway.

So I concur. I would rather an SSD Cache... A nice big chunk of SLC NAND please.

Yeah sure you can always put a better CPU in there, like an Intel core i7 extreme edtion with 8 cores. But the problem a console is always facing is money, Sony would have pretty much to buy up what AMD is offering in 2019 if this is the release window, in this case the Ryzen. So there is not much they could do better on the CPU side of things.

I think A Cell processor+1Gb XDR2 Ram for under 50$ is good performance boost, especially if it gives you dual porpoise with BC.

Quality troll.

Nah. An 8 core Ryzen (+) will be enough for next generation by itself. It may also be enough to pull off PS3 B/C, if they even care about that at this point. It will also keep costs down, since Sony is going to want to launch at $399, again. I think we'll at least be getting PS4 Pro B/C.

You don't just buy a CPU and RAM, slam it in a box and be done with it.
That isn't how it works.

If Sony did put a Cell in the PS5 they would have to live with that for the entire life-cycle of that console, meaning:
They would have to supply / develop an OS that is capable of running in such a system.
They would have to write an API, or extend an existing one to support the exotic hardware configuration.
They would have to teach developers how to get the maximum performance out of the Cell.
They would have to learn how to develop games that can leverage all of the Cell, to stay competitive with Microsoft and everyone else.
They would have to give up the performance of adding an SSD cache or another x86 core, or some more GPU core, or an FPGA or whatever.

All of that would cost more than $50 per unit.
And even at $50 per unit (or even one dollar) they could do so much more.

+ a Cell proving BC, is not necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goSgzyxwxVA
A Ryzen 1200 running Demon Souls just fine for a young emulator.
Given a first party developed emulator, and the CPU you define in your PS5 and PS3 games will run perfectly and beyond.
Without a Cell.

Using Cell again is financial suicide.

I assume you refer about the Cell being hard to program for. I dissagree, because it would be just a bonus for devolopers for rendering certain graphics and processing to offload the CPU, sure you would have some developers not utilizing it  (probably Bethesda and the likes) but others like Naughty Dog they could make miracles with with it again especially for times to come. 50$ is really not a lot of money in the end of the day, and outweighs the worries. 

1. That true but you have to ask yourself why the Developer do that, they see these consoles they know the CPU is weak and they rather use the GPU power to deliver 1080p and better graphics than running the game in 720p with lower settings. These consoles were pretty much designed that way.

2. I put my money where my mouth is, i own all PS consoles including PS3 and continue to play older games for them

3. Yes it is the RSX has 400 Gflops, the Jaguar GPU has 1840 Gflops, its pretty much as simple as that. Does that sound like RSX cant hold a candle?

4. Dont know where you quoted me, but yeah the Cell trumps the Jaguar if you remove GPUs. The PS3 was even originally designed to run without a GPU, they planed to use two 2 Cells originally without any GPU. It is a known fact that the Cell was designed like a GPU rather than a CPU, hence why without a GPU the Jaguar would lose against the Cell running in benchmarks like the ones i have posted in my opening post.

5. Yes XDR2 even the original XDR1 inside the PS3 are faster than GDDR5 Ram

6. Yes the Cell was impressive for its time, the reason why it failed is not because it was a bad piece of hardware but because developers didnt want to programm for, you know they love their monopolies just like AMD hardware isnt running great on PC either over Nvidia and Intel despite having same hardware specs.

Its design is even superior to x86 in power savings, x86 CPUs are wasting 30% of energy while the Cell only does 5-10%, hence it was used for servers a lot. How is that not a High End CPU? And The Cell wasnt cheap at all, it costed Sony 800$ to produce one PS3 and they sold it for 600$. Does that sound a low end cost CPU? that was the whole problem with the PS3 to begin with, but now prices are down

I wouldn't bet on it being $399 again.

We just saw a $499 console hit the market and that underwhelmed people for not always hitting 4K or 60 fps.

If the PS4 was wildly successful launching at $399 while the PS3 and XBO were panned for launching at $499+, why would they go back to the unsuccessful price point? I think you simultaneously overestimate the importance of power vs. price to the average consumer while underestimating what will be possible at $399 in a few short years with 7nm.