Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > On 07.09.2006, at 20:36 , Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > >>Yes. The PowerPC chip set was always a better overall performer than >>the Intel equivalent. The problem that Apple is responding to with >>the move to Intel was lack of commitment on the part of the chip >>vendors (Motorola and IBM) to develop the PowerPC line in such a way >>as to pose a business advantage to Apple, not any lack in the current/ >>recent PowerPC offerings themselves. Even a PowerMac G5 2.0Ghz DP >>system is a stunningly capable, powerful system. > > Thanks for interesting insights Godfrey :-) But I doubt if there was > a real problem with development of higher spec PowerPC. Right now > Microsoft's XBOX 360 uses tri core PowerPC running at 3.2 GHz - > imagine having two such a CPUs in Mac - six cores in total, each > running at 3.2 GHz - I guess it would easily outperform the fastest > Xeon configuration... I guess one of the reasons for switching to > Intel was lack of G5 processors suitable for portable use - after all > no Powerbook was available with this CPU. > > Cheers, > Sylwek >
Both were issues. IBM wasn't particularly interested in producing general-purpose G5 units of faster speed (And indeed had lagged on it's promises to Apple about 3GHz G5's) while they had concentrated on producing the tri-core and Cell variants for MS and Sony. Also IBM had not produced a version suitable for laptop use, which was the driving factor in the timing of the conversion to Intel from all reports. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
