Keyword: could.But IBM begs to differ. The company could build PowerPC chips that satisfy the needs of the entire range of Apple's product lines, including portables such as the PowerBook, said Rod Adkins, vice president of development for IBM's Systems and Technology Group, which produces IBM's PowerPC chips.
Exactly. The majority of Benchmarking that I have seen between x86 and PPC for say photoshop performance and such always pit the G5 versus a x86 server class chip. It is always G5 vs Xeon or G5 vs Opteron. They don't typically compare the G5 to a desktop class chip like the P4 or an affordable AMD line.Mikuro said:Their desktop G5s still beat the P4, and they just released a low-power G5.
It doesn't matter if its today or tomorrow. Today the PowerMac is comparable to a x86 server class machine, when the x86 PowerMacs come out are they going to compare to desktop class PCs or Servers?fryke said:*sigh* - and people stay comparing _today's_ G5s and _today's_ Pentiums, Xeons and AMD x64 chips. Yet clearly, Apple's not going to use those in next years PCs. Well, maybe the G5s, because IBM still doesn't deliver? But intel quite surely will deliver other parts. intel's roadmap is out there. Read it, it's interesting.
Of _course_ it does matter. If you listen to what Steve said in that WWDC keynote, then his reason was "power per watt", and that intel had a compelling roadmap, whereas IBM did not. So Apple did not choose today's intel processors. Neither server or desktop or notebook. But the desktop processors that will come out sometime next year.HateEternal said:It doesn't matter if its today or tomorrow. Today the PowerMac is comparable to a x86 server class machine, when the x86 PowerMacs come out are they going to compare to desktop class PCs or Servers?