I wasn't aware that the i7's were performing so well, although you do have to take into account that the *vast* majority of PS3 F@H users don't know that you can free up ~10% more horsepower by checking some optimization options (like disabling the music, and disabling the graphics, which frees the PPU for work), AND that PS3s only have 6 usable SPUs (one is reserved by the OS at all times, and one is disabled at the factory).

Let's recalculate what the approximate PPD performance of an actual 8 SPU Cell processor would be:

900 base

+33% (2 more SPUs) of 900 base == +300

+10% (PPU freed up) of 900 base == +90

-----------------

900 + 300 + 90 = ~1290 PPD for a processor from 2006.

So its not as fast as all the i7s, its true.  Ah well.  I guess Sony's claims of it being years ahead meant only 2 years, not 3. ;)

I think you're slightly over guesstimating.

Wouldn't the figure be closer to 20-25% overall considering the extra PPU overhead from the two extra SPUs and the fact that no multicore processor scales linearly?

Im not doubting your point, im just 'adjusting' it.

Although it seems that the PP$ metric is currently being won by the PC architectures, well with Nvidia GPUs anyway and thats with prebuilt systems with Windows Vista. Which is pretty amazing considering that at every level there are extra margins paid to the manufacturers of the different components and retailers. One could argue that the GPUs are the Cells biggest competitors rather than the Intel X86 CPUs in terms of comparable workloads.

It's definitely a hype machine.

Actually the near-linear scaling is the primary benefit of the Cell architecture over architectures that share more direct resources than the Cell does.  That's kinda the whole point.  There wouldn't be any significant extra PPU overhead, either, actually.  Jobs can be launched on the SPEs/SPUs and run forever, doing their own gathering and distribution of data, which is probably exactly what F@H does.

I'm not trying to make the Cell look like a superprocessor in the general sense here.  I'm just pointing out the Sony really wasn't fibbing when they said it was years ahead of its time, especially since they were talking in the realm of "possiblity" as opposed to the actual reality of games as a business.  The PS3 Cell's "output" (meaning exclusive games' quality) will continue to grow over time, as devs get more used to it, and their engines become more adept at using it.  It honestly is a really good processor for simulation tasks, and the fact that it came out in 2006 is downright phenominal, compared to the other processors at the time -- especially game console processors.  Sony PR talked it up, but claiming that the Cell didn't deserve at least some of the hype (a fair bit, even) would be just plain untrue.

It will never replace a standard multicore architecture in the home, however.

For an architecture developed in 2006 its performance per transistor is pretty much 2nd to none when you consider the flexibility and performance it has overall. Sure the GPUs give you more flops per mm^2, but those flops are hardly as flexible. So yep you're 100% right here, though my only question really is about the contestation on the ring bus and off die latency/bandwidth to feed another 2 SPUs.

Though to be honest, long term I wonder if its going to be considered a brilliant one off, but a market failure. Kind of like how someone may look back in time and lament the fact that the electric car didn't take off and was replaced by the internal combustion engine. If the architecture got 1/10th the software development and 1/5th the hardware development budget for your GPU/GPGPU hardware architectures I would be surprised. I wonder how it can keep up with that level of investment long term especially considering the number of DX11 compliant GPUs will number in the hundreds of millions in a few short years.

The PS3 pales in comparison to any gaming machine built over the last 2 years. And still has trouble showing minor improvements over 360 games. The core I7 wipes the floor with the cell in every way.

Every time there is a game on PS3 people think the 360 is incapable of, the 360 gets a game that surpasses it.

By the end of this gen there will be no PS3 game that looks noticeably better than an xbox 360 game (only extremely slight differences).

erm i7 is 107gflops peak perfomance, the ps3 is 204 or about 180gflops not counting the disable spe, for crushing numbers the cell is better, running  an OS well not, and thats problem of the OLD intel x86 architecture intel is milking to death.

and the xbox 360 doesn't have i7.. actually no 360 game looks like killzone 2, uncharted 2 yet and even when they do ps3 will likely leap away.

do you even have an xbox 360?

I can't think of a single 360 game off hand that is more technically impressive visually than Gears 2 from last year, which in all fairness was running on nothing more than an improved console version of Unreal Engine 3.

Many of us have already seen live screen capture comparisons under magnification, and the reality is, it doesn't hold up well under close scrutiny. It does however, look great at regular playing distances at normal magnification as it was meant to be displayed.

About the only game I see resetting the bar for the Xbox is Alan Wake, and that's when they finally manage to release that game. Currently its development cycle rivals that of KZ2, so there's no reason why it shouldn't be the defining game in Xbox visuals.

But I still see the Xbox hitting its technical ceiling far before the PS3 even if for no reasons other than the 1 year head start and the greater ease of unlocking the hardware's full potential.

I'm still kind of waiting on the next killer PC app (literally none since 2007/Crysis) that gives me a good reason to do a significant hardware upgrade. But a large part of me really hopes that doesn't happen until after the Core i7 "tock" revisions and DX11 based VGA cards.

As of now, the vast, vast majority of PC games simply aren't showing a massive improvement over their console versions in anything other than the ability to run 60+fps at 1920x1080+ resolutions on the appropriate hardware set up. It's enough for me, but it's actually a smaller difference than most make it out to be.

as i own one? no, i was afraid it would die seeing as my friends 360 die and warranty is only for the US, so i bought a ps3+wii instead.