> it's been all over the net that PS4 will (most likely) use the
> existing Cell BE cpu (probably scaled down)

With "scaled down", you mean the reported die-shrink from 90 to 45 nm? And the reported addition of 4 SPEs to the already existing ones? And the reported (slight) increase in clock frequency?
Furthermore, PS4 is a computer system while the Cell is a CPU. We were talking about the Cell CPU itself. PS4 not using a better Cell than PS3 (or even no Cell at all) wouldn't have to mean anything regarding Cell R&D itself. There might be other purposes for a better Cell than a Sony's gaming device. The existing PowerXCell 8i is proof of that.
Btw, how would PS4 most likely using Cell fit your previous statement that "PS3 will probably be the last PPC-powered Sony console"?

> Google's your friend.

It is, indeed, and has always been a good one :-P

> Sony [...] would gladly switch to another cost-saving cpu at an
> instant, if it could. For this reason it handed production to Toshiba.

You say it yourself: Sony is out of the picture regarding Cell R&D (and production). So how exactly does Cell R&D depend on Sony and their PS4 when this task is up to only IBM and Toshiba now?

> it's trivial to find the articles on google.

Yes, and I did the day they were published.

> there is no reason to bookmark this.

Yes, and I never expected you to. After all, "it's trivial to find the articles on google" for you to provide me with the sources I asked you for.

> Asking for sources in a casual discussion (which this is, right?)
> might be taken as both insulting and snobbish.

Pure nonsense. You claim something, I ask you to back up that claim. That's how discussion works and has alway been. I think nobody is obliged to accept a factual statement about a third party just like that. After all, there must have been something that led you to your perception. Or do you really mean I've to take any statement from yours for real just because it's you stating it?
Btw, in case you took it down the wrong pipe: I didn't expext you to provide sources right with your statement like you would be obliged to in academics. But you should be able to provide them after being asked for (just what I did) if you want to be taken seriously (by me, at least).

> Accept the fact that there may exist people that may know more,
> because they just care more.

I very much do. And that's very much the reason I may ask them to back up their claims. Because they may know more because they care more.

> IBM's next-gen supercomputer Sequoia, will NOT be based on Cell,
> guess what that means [...] A few months back it would be packed
> with Cell references.

That's still no proof that "Cell R&D has stopped", rather a mild indication.

> Ok, perhaps "stopped" is too harsh a word. Perhaps I should have
> used "has slowed down".

That's (almost) funny. First you're trying to lecture me like it's obvious that your claim is fact, only to eventually step back and admit it's not.
So let's be blunt: Contrary to your previous claim which I asked for sources for, there's currently no proof that "Cell R&D has stopped". The sources you afterwards indirectly refered to rather indicate that the PS4's Cell will indeed be a result of further R&D.

> Show me a cheap powerpc-based *available now* with semi-modern specs

Why should I? I didn't claim there was such thing.
1. You and I were talking about Power Architecture CPUs, not systems.
2. You and I were talking about Power Architecture CPUs in general, not just desktop suiting ones.
3. You and I were talking about *coming* Power Architecture CPUs, not already available ones.
Contrary to your claim, QorIQ and POWER7 are *not* the only Power Architecture CPUs supposed to come (see my link to my previous statement).

> For now [...] one can get [...] a powerstation

Currently "out of stock" according to Fixstars's website.

> these lose greatly to pretty much every modern Intel/AMD cpu

I see no sense in comparing whole systems to bare CPUs. But at least you finally got (almost) on topic again :-P