And moreover, a single-threaded application on a single-core CPU won't run any better on a multi-core CPU of the same architecture and speed, for example.

However, that misconception is, I suppose, a good way to drive up adoption rates for multi-core CPUs, which would then cause more things to be designed to utilize them, which is better for everyone, I suppose. >_>

no it isnt, its just that it can run 6 seperate threads at 1.8GHz at the same time. Its awesome but not since I would much rather have one of the older AMD server processors that ran around 2.4 - 3GHz with 4-cores.

Well, there are 6-core ones in that range as well - just this was supposed to be a power-efficient one.

thetonestarr like already said it's not "something akin". If it were then the PS3 CPU would be 2x as powerful as the Xbox 360 CPU in real world tests.

It isn't, it's actually pretty much equal and has more than double the number of cores at the same speed. Not a direct apples for apples comparison but yours is far worse and completely illogical.

Now your "pretty much equal" is like thetonestarr's "somethink akin", that is not exactly true.

This is a server chip, designed for the typically very parallel multi-threaded software servers have. Which is why you can't buy a Phenom X6, because such a chip would be useless for most consumers needs, compared to a higher clocked dual, triple or quad core processor.

Foibbles, no I'd say your comparison is worse (not that it matters). At least thetonestarr was using processors with the same instruction set, the Cell (t3h c3l1 p0w4h!!!) has one PPC core with 8 (7 in PS3) simplified, heavily optimised number crunching SPE's that have a different instruction set to the main PPC core. The key is that what the SPE's can do is so limited the end result is a similar useable performance level to the 360 CPU. If an app is truly optimised for Cell, its considerably more powerful. But this would take design decisions that would make it very difficult to port back to 360.

Here's where AMD's server processors are at.

and Desktop is up to 3.4GHz.

Does it really matter how many cores there are (in terms of games) if developers aren't going to program for them. Even with quad core CPUs, most developers don't use more than 3 cores (probably due to porting to 360 or vice versa). Adding more and more cores isn't going to matter unless people actually code for them.

That's precisely why they're not releasing a desktop version of this. Intel is, but only at the $1000 mark. 2009 and at least 2010 will still have quad-cores as the high-end.

VGChartz etiquette at its finest!  If you think someone has made a mistake there's no need to jump in with both feet.