this thread has taken a different turn from when I last looked at it, which was around 3 or 4 am central time.
basicly it's (this thread is now about) the high performance custom closed architecture not bound by PC restraints with massive performance that PC should not be able to attain at any given timeframe - VS the PC architecture that cators to compatibility and only high performance in certain pieces, that are unable to work together in absolute harmony without inefficiencies or major bottlenecks. PCs take baby steps every few months. high performance custom closed architectures like SGI visualization supercomputers, IBM super computers, NEC supercomputers and custom non-PC based consoles like Playstation to Playstation2 take massive leaps by introducing a new, fresh architecture at each generation shift. it is true that at the time of their debut and release, the PS1 (1993, 1994-1995) and PS2 (1999, 2000) were unmatched by the best PCs that could be put together with off the shelf components. pretty much the same with SGI visualization super computers (to a much larger degree) and other supercomputers.
although Vince might not acknowledge my post here, I do agree with alot of the things he says.
the Playstation3 and CELL were envisioned to finally smash the PC architecture and deem it irrelivant or dead. with a massive upping of transistors. totally fresh architecture. totally surpassing Intel (and AMD). at least publically that is what Sony was talking about in the early days of 1999 and 2000 with Playstation3 before Cell was announced in 2001. back then it was all about the Emotion Engine 3 and Graphics Synthesizer 3 with drastiically changed architectures Sony would break Moore's Law with a processor that had 500 million transistors. far more than what Intel would likely have for consumers in 2005-2006. at that time (1999-2000) the Pentium III was the highend in PC computing, the Athlon (K7) was getting into gear and the Pentium 4 was on the near-term horizon. PC graphics chips were advancing steadily, but still very much constrained by the worst aspects of the PC architecture (AGP, etc). the Graphics Synthesizer 3 would have a massively parallel design, like the highly parallel design of GS1 in PS2. Much like Intel (and AMD) would not be able to compete with EE3, I think Sony hoped that Nvidia, 3Dfx, ArtX (and others) would not be able to compete with GS3. the EE3+GS3 combined with a decent set of tools, a good API and competent OS would be able to obliterate Wintel in both the living room and on Wintels own turf which was always the desktop and more recently the workstation & server markets. as well as supercomputing. all kinds of CE and computing devices could be built using the new EE3 and GS3 architectures. much like the Cell architecture that came to light in 2001. (I personally believe that the drastically changed architectures of EE3 and GS3 where in fact the Cell based Broadband Engine CPU and Cell based Visualizer).
[post not completed yet, work in progress, kinda rambing as i collect my thoughts]
I happen to believe in the non-PC centric approach. when it's done right, it shows the weakness of PC architecture very well.
even well-put together systems that are not all that radical, and that only somewhat move away from the PC architecture, can show how bad the PC is. like Sega's Model 3 board of 1996. PowerPC CPU + 2 Lockheed Real3D GPUs. there is no way that a properly equiped PC of 1996 could compete with Model 3. you had Pentium I CPUs, Pentium Pro at best (I don't think PII was out then) and 3Dfx Voodoo graphics. Model 3 slaughtered such PC systems. the PC was hard pressed to rival the 2.5 almost 3 year old Model 2 board in late 1996.
