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.
Read the thread. The discussion led there.
This chip was too good for Apple you say?
Learn to read. The Cell is not appropriate for Apple's needs, which were for a lower-power, higher-speed general purpose computing chip.
Which IBM workstations are using this chip and are better than Apple's new Intel based workstations?
None, because it is not a workstation (general purpose computing) chip. However, it may show up as a coprocessor in AMD systems to accelerate certain tasks (AMD and Intel have a technology sharing agreement). Think 3DNow! on steroids.
And what IBM servers are better than Apple's because of this chip?
IBM is packaging these into blades with about a 2:1 ratio of Cells to Opterons to achieve their 1.5 petaflop supercomputer. This is a different market than Apple's servers, which is general purpose computing. Although an XServe could certainly use a Cell if it's set up as a streaming media server, as it would probably quadruple the number of streams one server could handle.
Who's selling more? If you know.
Good question, but mostly different markets.
Based on your gushing over this chip you seem to think Apple and Jobs made a mistake by not sticking with IBM?
Not at all. The Intels were the right choice at the right time, especially since Jobs knew things about Intel's roadmap that the general public didn't at the time.
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 would like evidence for that since it sounds ridiculous. The Cell is no replacement for PowerPC or Intel chips in general purpose computing, so it would never be pitched as such. It is only an average-performing general purpose chip with its one PowerPC core (you're welcome for that bit of education). Half the die would be sitting idle most of the time for most people, making half the money spent for the chip a waste.
Your entire post and the previous one show an absolute ignorance about the Cell processor, its architecture, and its applications.