Sony has already said that PS3 will be 1,000 times as powerful as the PS2. Woah. This fact has become even more real since IBM, which is working with Sony and Toshiba on the PS3 processor called the "Cell," announced in New Scientist magazine that they've created a processor clocked at 110 Ghz. Now think about the PS2, with its 300 Mhz Emotion Engine. Sounds too good to be true.
I didn't see the post, but I do know of Intel's work in this area. Even so, if the processor speed doubles every year, it will still take until the next decade to see a 100 GHz processor in a stand alone console or PC.
From the "cell" article, sounds like Sony is interested in the tech more for its online gaming potential. IBM's SP architecture is based on parallel processing where each processor is independent of one another and communicates via a high speed backplane. This is not the same as a multiprocessor PC architecture. The cell technology is an extension of the SP architecture. IBM has an API used to facilitate parallel programming for the SP running AIX. It sounds like, for the cell architecture, they would like to come up w/a new OS... maybe MSFT is vulnerable after all. This new OS would be based around parallel programming methodologies. I think this would only apply to gaming in the case of multiple players distributed across the "network".... just my guess about what Sony might want to do w/the tech.
You have to think though that PS3 is just about a done deal so the Intel T-chip won't be in it. It's more likely to be a dual processor type rig inside. The chip has to have the architecture around it to take advantage of the speed too. It's alot more than just the trip as the hardware flaws of PS2 show . . . . .
That is hard to believe, gamezector. My computer is a 2 GHz, and that's considered on the fast side (until later this year or 2003 when it will be average.) It seems the only way you could get to 100+ GHz would be to connect to the internet/server/mainframe/etc., which I know MSFT is trying to do. But by itself, it does sound too good to be true.
You gotta think that the consoles will be slower than the most powerful PCs at the time. Not less powerful at pushing graphics, but a slower main processor. I can't believe in five years that the PCs will be in the ... Terahertz? range. I think you'd need that for consoles to be at 300 Gig.