I wonder how much better things would have gone for devs (especially earlier on) if the PS3 had unified RAM. Like others have said, the GPU should have been better.
Also, I am of the mind that Cell was not a failure, the problem with it was that it was so archaic compared to competing PC-based architectures. Think of it this way, to a 3rd Party Publisher, PC-based architectures is so well known, it could be thought of as a native language to them, whereas Cell would be a foreign language and to understand it they would have to take time to learn a new language. 3rd Party Publishers were not (for the most part) going to learn Cell when they could more easily (and less expensively) develop using the PC architecture for PC/360 and port the game over to PS3. It didn't make much business sense to them to learn it. Early on, I think this is one reason why the gap between versions was so vast. On the flip-side, look at Sony's 1st Party output. They obviously were forced to learn Cells intricacies. Many of the most impressive games from last gen came from them. They seemed to learn Cell inside and out. I mean, look at what happened when ND had started porting TLOU to PS4. It was so optimized for Cell, it was a mess to bring over to X86 at first.
So, I am wondering for those that had PS3's what would you have preferred:
A: As released
B: Unified RAM, Better GPU, and Cell (Imagine what ND would've been able to accomplish with that)
C: Unified RAM, Better GPU, and CPU-based Architecture (Essentially PS4/XB1 (and 360, too?))
D: Or Ken's crazy concept of no GPU and instead it had Dual Cell Processors.
As hard as it was for 3rd Parties with Cell, I kind of would want to pick B. I really would've like to seen what the 1st Party devs could do with unified RAM and a better GPU coupled with Cell.