Replies

The Cell has no relevance to Apple's computers. I realize that. Jobs realized that. You can't seem to realize that. Apple's decision to dump IBM was over IBM's lack of desire to develop the PPC 9x0 line for Apple's needs, not because a different line of processors not designed for desktop use wasn't good enough. It is very simple, IBM wouldn't put the R&D into getting the clock up and the heat dissipation down on the 970. Apple HAD to have its chips for notebooks, and the 970 wouldn't fit, while the low-power 7x00 line (actually made by Freescale) didn't have competitive performance.

The Cell does not replace the PowerPC, as the latter is still being manufactured for various applications: The high-end PPC970 (Apple's G5) is used in servers, blades and high-power embedded applications, older PPCs are used mainly in other embedded applications (especially networking/routers, and in military).

Even if the Cell is actually based on PPC

So you admit I'm right and you didn't know what you were talking about? Actually, the PowerPC, IBM's POWER server/workstation line and the PPE of the Cell are all POWER architecture. There are nuances, but the Cell PPE is best referred to as a PowerPC, and it runs PowerPC code, making it PPC compatible contrary to your statement. There are even more applications, as each of the three cores of an XBox 360 are variants of the PPE of a Cell (time for you to bitch about Microsoft, I won't hold my breath) and the Wii uses a single-core variant.

It appears you are Googling at straw to save your futile argument, not arguing out of actual knowledge.