As far as I can see, the PS3's CELL seems to be very closely matched in power to Intel's old (still used) Celeron processor. 3.2GHz if i'm not mistaken?
If someone can correct me here then that's fair enough.
PS3's Cell has (up-to) 7 cores
The celeron has one core and 128k L2 Cache
I know which I'd take ^^
but which can you afford
Well? My PC is running on an Intel Pentium D Dual-Core with 1024 MB RAM. All I know is cores aren't everything. Often they affect the performance of games due to their constant shifting of data streams. My Sims 2 runs junk compared to Pentium 4 equivalents
I think your comparison is like...well I can't think of any good ones. The cell processor should be able to kick any of today's latest processor's butts, and to be quite frank, the celeron doesn't rank as anything all that great.
well yeah naturally... but both run at 3.2GHz
Well? My PC is running on an Intel Pentium D Dual-Core with 1024 MB RAM. All I know is cores aren't everything. Often they affect the performance of games due to their constant shifting of data streams. My Sims 2 runs junk compared to Pentium 4 equivalents
That's because the Pentium D was Intel's 'beta' dual core processor They aren't much better than P4 equivalents. Get yourself a Core 2 Duo and watch it fly. and besides, only 2 cores isn't going to be much better anyway because you already had hyper-threading which created a virtual dual core processor. Quad cores and even Octocore Setups are amazingly quick. I can't wait for Intel's consumer 8 core chipset to become available -that's going to be my move to vista, 8 cores and ATi's dual core DX10 card 
I think your comparison is like...well I can't think of any good ones. The cell processor should be able to kick any of today's latest processor's butts, and to be quite frank, the Celeron doesn't rank as anything all that great.
Actually a Top-of-the range Core 2 Quad is better than CELL as you generally have it set up with a dual core GPU set-up = 6 cores. The average CELL only had 5 cores active (due to the low yield manufacture process). Also The FSB on a Core 2 Quad machine is higher than that of a PS3. That and Intel are the only people I trust to make a CPU.
You could even go crazy and have a core 2 quad, 2 Dual core GPUs SLI'd and a PhysX PPU
= 9 cores ^^
well yeah naturally... but both run at 3.2GHz
These days clock speeds don't mean anything
A 1.6GHz IC2D will easily beat a 3.6GHz IP4
Just like a 1.2GHz AAC could beat a 2GHz IP4G1
LemonDrago0N (?) beat me to it. As powerful as the PS3 is, there are systems out there that are more powerful and let's now forget that the PS3 will not be getting more and more powerful as time goes by but PCs do and will.
That's true, but as of right now, I don't think consumers can get their hands on quad core processors, and with the comparison to today's available processors for the general public, the cell processor kicks butt.
I guess you and I consider a general public product something different. In a couple months when HP, Dell, and the rest start making computers with these new processors, then I'll consider them mainstream.
Dell are using them in XPS machines
sorry about debating this point, but I cannot be proven wrong after continuing this far
Already saw it, but a $3000 dolor computer isn't mainstream.
Already saw it, but a $3000 dolor computer isn't mainstream.
Yeah, that is true now. I think it is great how cheap computers have gotten. When my family got our first computer it was around $3,500 and was not only nothing special for the time, but also that was just an average price...haha (That was back in 95/96 or something w/ a Dell P2 system).
Anyways, I just want to second that cores mean alot. I'm running a Intel Core Duo 1.6Ghz on my IBM laptop and it is great.
I think the one thing people could talk about is the energy/heat issue per calculation. That is my problem w/ my PS3, it runs so hot, so incredibly hot, it is like a furnace, I don't even need a heater in my room, hahaha.
If you're talking price then of course the PC will be much more expensive and has to be continuously updated if you want to play the latest games. I like consoles for that reason that I don't have to keep updating them. However, if this topic is about power then PC will always beat consoles.
PC > all
$3000 dollars is pretty cheap for what you get there,
+ that's only £1,500 to me
I know where I'm going when I want a new PC ^^
If you're talking price then of course the PC will be much more expensive and has to be continuously updated if you want to play the latest games. I like consoles for that reason that I don't have to keep updating them. However, if this topic is about power then PC will always beat consoles.
actually the topic is: Is the Intel Celeron Processor as powerful as the PS3's cell processor running at the same speeds, and the answer would be no, the PS3's processor has much more power then a Intel Celeron.