looks like you are thinking intel and AMD there is a world of small micro processor and those can be costumized, they come with a small flash for internal operations. Some small processor requiere that you buy the cristal to set the speed at which you want them to work.  Intel are CSMOS micro type and are 32 bit that is one kind of micro processor. The thing is,  my explanation was from an electronic point of view not from a game programer point of view. In electronics you tend to work with the very basic of electronic devices.

Edit: you are right about the integer operations for the internals, it is important, but i dont this is more important thatn floating points

Where have you seen them sacrifying/risking anything?

They built an excellent system for a really decent price if you consider all it is able to do.

It might not be the best gaming system this gen (I think it is, but still...), it's definitely an AWESOME multimedia center, again for a really decent price. I challenge you to build a system with the same functions for the same price...

Anyway, the Cell is used in the fastest supercomputer of the world, it will be used into Toshiba's High End TVs, it's used into the PS3 in an awesome way, and it will probably be used again into the PS4. I don't think Sony did anything wrong in chosing the Cell for the PS3.

The main problem of the PS3 today is that sony hasn't been able to produce a 3D engine that would push the PS3 to its limits and that developpers use the very cool Unreal Engine that runs like shit on the PS3 but runs flawlessly on PC and the 360.
I hope Guerrilla will sell the engine from Killzone 2 to other developpers, I hope Insomniac could do the same, I hope Naughty Dog could do the same. But yet, they haven't.

@Greemedic: Cell was Sony, IBM and Toshiba project, so every Cell sold makes money for the three.

@NJ5: Well, looking at Sonys pre-PS3 arrogance, it looks like PS3 failing wasn't an option for Sony. Without Nintendo disrupting Sony, PS3 would propably be far more successful product than it currently is, so in that regard, you can't say that in business sense Sony would have made the wrong decisions (stupid maybe, but not excactly wrong). In any case, despite PS3 flopping, it already have helped Sony in the form of BD and Cell adoption.

Cost effectiveness was the main problem IMO.

The same games made for the PS3 (with very few exceptions) could have (and do) run just as well, if not better on cheaper hardware.

Selling a system that cost about $840 per unit to produce initially and selling it for $600, just didn't make much sense, even accounting for being able to reduce per unit production costs by half within 15 months.

The current $400 production cost, $400 MSRP two years later doesn't exactly paint a much brighter picture relative to PS3 soft sales.

The only logic in using such an expensive architecture was for the purpose of leaving it on the market for an extended period of time (ie PS1, PS2).

The only problem with that logic is that it runs the assumption that the platform will become profitable soon enough to be able to drop price fast enough to earn a significant market share and ensure the platform remains commercially viable in the future.

Right before they went from 1st place to last place in the console business, with the most expensive system and an utter lack of focus on the things which got them to win the previous two generations of hardware.

The Playstation brand is weaker today than it was a few years ago, and it's a lot due to the cost of their system (not just to customers but also to themselves). The cost problem is primarily due to Blu-Ray and the Cell, the other components in the PS3 aren't particularly expensive.

@radha: I don't understand what your point is any longer. Yes there are simpler processors, but what does that have to do with performance metrics? The things I and Deneidez pointed out are still true and very important in terms of performance. FLOPS are just one small part of the complicated picture of CPU performance.

I'd say the most profit from the CBE is probably being realized by IBM as a vendor, rather than as a consumer electronics company that is still selling CBE based consoles for less than what it costs to manufacture and ship them.

The payoff for Sony by using the CBE in their console, has yet to be realized. Right now it's just a feather in their marketing cap.

If anything, the PS3 was instrumental in seeing BD succeed as the next gen optical distro format, but to be blunt, the CBE isn't necessary for BD playback.

The Cell is hella powerful and quite cheap. How much do you would expend in a CPU that matches or outperforms the Cell? 
The answer.

What do you mean by "a CPU that matches the Cell"? For which application? Games?

Not really an apples to apples comparison considering what you're really buying with a QX series CPU is the unlocked FSB multiplier for the purpose of extreme overclocking.

That's the real difference between a QX9775 (factory 3.2ghz) at about $1550, and a Q6600 (factory 2.4ghz) at about $175 for the purpose of gaming where higher clock speeds provide the most benefits for game performance (assuming core for core parity). It doesn't take much more than a mobo with good OC options, a $30 HSF and some quality TIM to run a Q6600 stable at faster clock speeds than a stock QX9775.

But considering that the QX9775 can be overclocked past 5ghz with the right cooling set up, the difference between the $1500 processor and a sub $200 processor becomes a bit clearer, even when just being used for games.

Everyone already knows that spending more on a GPU for all but the most extreme gaming rigs will yield better price to performance ratios.

 Yes.

@ greenmedic88: 5 GHz ? Immersed in LN2 of course it could. But that would be even bootable?