I'm still wondering how everyone was so excited about the IBM PPC 970, seeing that it'll only enter the market late in 2003, when all competitors will again be far ahead. 1.8 GHz? Yes, cool, if it was released right now. 64bit? AMD will have that half a year earlier at higher speeds. We can then again claim that PowerPC is faster at the same clock rate, but that'd leave us in the same game like we are today, I guess.
'Only' 3.5 GHz? You must be kidding. We'll reach that number in 2005 if everything goes on like before. And I don't believe Intel will just stop evolving their processor lines. Yes, they might see one or the other trouble, but if you see what they've made with 'that bad processor called Pentium' (up to the P4 at > 3 GHz), think of how they can evolve the Itanic line of processors...
As has been pointed out in several publications, the main problem of RISC is not that it's worse, it's actually clearly the better design. But that doesn's matter if you have enough money to put into development and thus reach enough market share to pay for the development costs.
If IBM can successfully bring the Power4 and Power5 technology (scaled down) to the desktop with their PowerPC 970, 980, 990 processors in the next few years, this might change. But once Intel changes gears for the Itanium (2, 3, ...) and replaces the P4 with a desktop version of that 64bit power, it won't matter that their 64bit design is worse than IBMs (nor AMDs), because they have the power to push it beyond limits that limit the other players.
Mac user since 1987. Running Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion on a MacBook Air 11" & an iMac 27" and whatever's newest for my iPhone 4s, iPad 3 and AppleTV 2.
Apple Certified System Administrator 10.6, Apple Sales Professional 2008-2011, Apple Certified Mac Technician.