For anyone that doesn't understand why some of us are ultra critical of DF, the comments in this thread asserting the Cell BE was trash - and a mistake for the time despite it definiting modern heterogeneous computing that Intel is now joining with P and E cores - and the RSX was trash, and somehow the 360 was allegedly "better in most games" - because Richard's DF said so - while not holding up to any fair scrutiny is the reason why.
It is boring to correct widespread misinformation about such hardware and software over and over, especially when Elden Ring, and all FromSoft souls games are made with PhyreEngine which is a by-product of the PS3 being a in-house Sony multiplatform engine rebuilt to compliment PS3 hardware , but the main reason I gather that we didn't get a chance to have a Cell BE 2 was because IBM were largely abandoning POWER to compete in the x64 desktop space and instead leaving it to be used under license by anyone in the enterprise space that had built their house on the architecture and could afford to keep going with it. Between that and the Nvidia GTX 280 being able to accelerate most of the edge case SPU algorithms in GPU Cuda faster and as power efficient, meant the CELL had largely served its purpose to drive big changes in heterogenous compute
The heterogeneous use of P-cores and E-cores is not comparable to the Cell CPU. They have very different goals and work in very different ways.
Those E-cores can do almost everything the P-Cores can do, but slower and at a smaller power usage.
The SPE was intended as a big FPU. In a way, it's closer to what we understand as a Compute Unit of a GPU, than that of a CPU core.
IBM is still developing the Power arch and releasing CPUs. For example, the Power10 Arch was introduced in 2021.
X86 has always been the default Arch for PCs. Even when IBM invented the PC, it was using X86.
But if Sony wanted to keep using PowerPC arch, they could have hired IBM, like they did for the PS3.
The Xenos was more advanced and more powerful than the RSX.
In fact the RSX was another cause of the technical issues with the PS3, because of it's dedicated vertex and pixel shader units.
On a GPU with unified shaders, each of these units can do vertex or pixel calculations. This means that it can adjust it's load according to the scene to be rendered.
In a scene with more vertex to shade, it can dedicate more units to this task. And when there is a scene heavier on pixel shaders, it can switch to that.
But on a fixed distribution of vertex and pixel shaders, if there is a scene where the is less vertex to shade, then some vertex shading units will go idle. And there is no helping the pixel shading units.
There is a reason why all modern GPUs use a unified shader arch, doing all sort of stuff at any given time. The RSX was a GPU of a dying breed. And after 2007, neither AMD nor nVidia released another arch with dedicated shader units.