Follow the thread: from harnessing the GPU for regular programming tasks, to what is a GPU (matrix/vector processor), to another example of that kind of processor and the massive speed you can get with it, the Cell.
Nothing, Apple already dumped IBM for their processors
Apple wouldn't have adopted the Cell had they stuck with IBM because it's not good for general-purpose computing. The Cell is far more advanced than what was made for Apple, and IBM is putting a lot of work into it because it has a far larger market (and thus much more ROI) than Apple ever provided. The current customers also don't constantly whine for improvements and make constant demands for special treatment.
and the Cell isn’t x86 or PPC compatible either
The central processor of a Cell is a Power core much like a simplified G4 PowerPC. The versions of Linux that run on the PS3 are PowerPC builds. You really need to do your research before you write.
I’m sure Sony and IBM would rather you buy a PS3 and try to get some obscure version of Linux working on it
They don't care about Linux for this much since it won't make them much money. IMHO, the PS3 allows a Linux installation with a hypervisor so hackers don't have the "I had to hack it to run Linux on it" excuse. Of course the limits the hypervisor puts on it are making them whine anyway.
but I’d take a Mac Mini over a kludge like that any day.
Good system for light general-purpose computing. Poor system for the high-speed tasks a Cell is designed for. To give you an example, in the weighted Folding@Home stats, 53,560 PS3s are putting out 1,510 teraflops while 198,529 PCs are putting out 189 teraflops. That's an average of .9 gigaflops per PC, 28 gigaflops per PS3. Even if you count that there are a lot of old PCs in the mix, giving them an order of magnitude benefit of the doubt still leaves them in the dust.
To give you another example, a new Mini can process a 1080p HD video stream. A Cell can easily process six simultaneously, including doing transformations on each stream.
Real kludge there, one that's going to be the first petaflop supercomputer, used to keep up our nuclear arsenal.
So again why are you bringing it up in a thread about Apple's new Snow Leopard operating system? This chip was too good for Apple you say? Which IBM workstations are using this chip and are better than Apple's new Intel based workstations? Or are there any IBM workstations using it, at all? And what IBM servers are better than Apple's because of this chip? Who's selling more? If you know.
a new Mini can process a 1080p HD video stream. A Cell can easily process six simultaneously, including doing transformations on each stream.
Based on your gushing over this chip you seem to think Apple and Jobs made a mistake by not sticking with IBM? Supposedly IBM made the Cell processor pitch to Jobs as part of their final presentation to him, but he walked, and switched to Intel the next day. I think it was a good move by Apple, look at how the two companies have gone in opposite directions since then, but you seem so enamored with this chip you must wonder about it.