Not quite. In fact AMD and Intel architectures have n0ow more incommon.

The difference between the PPU and SPUs is much more fundamental.

The PPU is, like every normal core dedicated for Random Access Tasks. You can't know what will happen next, instead you must be able to switch tasks fast without heavy penalties.

The SPUs are optimized for streaming purposes. They work best without task switches, if they are allowed to only work on new data. That is the real rerason why can sometimes be simplified as a very complex GPU-Pipe.

Sure, you can use it as a normal core, in fact the OS of the PS-3 tries this, but it also proves that you shouldn't do it. It is rather difficult and complesx without any real advantages. It would be pretty ineffective to use the SPUs this way.

But the statement that the Cell was always designed to work closely with a high performance GPU isn't quite right also. Sony was not crazy enough to think that they would be capable to develop a high performance GPU.- NVidia and ATI had much more knowledge. Its companion chip would have been more asimplified GPU. It wouldn't nned very complex pipelines, when the Cell can already do much of the heavy lifting.

But the Companion chip would have interacted much more closely with the Cell directly. It would have probably worked directly on the system memory 6that the Cell uses., so there wouldn't be such a huge bottleneck due to the limited amount of system RAM.

I'm not sure we're really getting anywhere with this discussion.

All I was trying to say was that the Cell's cores aren't designed to operate the same way as the cores of an Intel or AMD consumer-level CPU.  The latter are designed to run general-purpose code while the former is 1 core designed to run general-purpose code (the PPE is actually a modified Power Architecture CPU core) and 7 cores designed to handle SIMD type work.  AMD and Intel multi-core chips are designed with one approach in mind, while the Cell is designed with a very different approach in mind.  Comparing AMD and Intel "cores" is in many ways comparing apples to apples.  Comparing AMD/Intel cores to the Cell's cores is apples to oranges.  Very different architecture.  Very different design philosophies.  So I believe telling non-architecture-aware people that the Cell is an 8-core chip might lead them to believe it would work in a similar fashion and with similar performance to an Intel 8-core chip.

I'm sorry if my belief that non-engineering types might not intuitively draw this distinction.  But there you have it.  I don't think they will.

Let's talk GPU! What does the RSX clock in at 550 MHZ or 500 MHZ? The PS3's ram is divided but clocks in at higher speeds than 360 with it's unified ram, right?

1.  "if [your] belief ..." what?  What is the result/quality/whatever of that belief that you are sorry for if it exists?  I can guess, but guessing is all I can do right now. 

2.  Such people might be inclined to believe that ... unless you tell them it's not true.  I don't see why a simple disclaimer wouldn't prevent all this misunderstanding you fear.  As for the objection "but why mention it at all?" -- well, I had had the impression that you were saying that this aspect of the Cell in particular shouldn't be mentioned (and not necessarily other things), which makes little sense unless you are indeed telling those people some things about the Cell's architecture, in which case it would make more sense to simply mention the cores, where appropriate -- with the disclaimer -- instead of skirting around the issue.  (And, for that matter, similar fears of misunderstanding (and thus disclaimers) ought, I would think, to attach to ANY architecture you mention in the Cell that could be falsely believed equivalent to Intel/AMD architecture by the uninitiated.) 

If the impression I mentioned was mistaken, then this whole side discussion was likely a misunderstanding-based waste of time.  WAS IT?

Having worked as a software engineer most of my life (I'm almost 50), I've become fairly use to the impressions non-systems-engineering people often get from "buzz-word" descriptions of technology.  Sometimes it's kind of like telling someone that a soft drink (soda) has no sugar in it, when in fact it has lots of high-fructose corn syrup, which is even worse.  But people often like to draw conclusions from simple answers to complex questions.  Saying that both a traditional 8-core CPU and the Cell both have 8 cores is technically correct.  And yes, a disclaimer of "but due to vast architectural differences the performance of a traditional CPU with 8 cores and a Cell processor with 8 cores may vary widely depending on system implementation, application used, operating system, quality of code tuning, etc." would definitely set the record straight.  But I wasn't seeing that in the original article... just that the Cell is an "8-core" CPU.  My complaint was that this oversimplified description of the Cell's architecture was misleading to anyone not versed in how various multi-core chips are designed and used within systems.  And I stand by that statement.

Also, I'm not making any assumptions regarding the technical/engineering prowess of the readers of this thread, just making a statement in general that may or may not apply to any specific reader.