Re(2): [Ti] A different view on Intel/Apple marriage

[John Griffin]

I have always believed the same information and propaganda about the  
superiority of the PowerPC. However the following is a quote from  
Jobs yesterday:

”Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC  
processors do, said Jobs. “When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006  
and beyond, we see PowerPC gives us 15 units of performance per watt,  
but Intel’s roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to  
do,” he explained"

So why the sudden turn-around? Which claim is correct - the one we  
have always been led to believe or this sudden shift the other way?

jg

On 6-Jun-05, at 8:38 PM, Chris Olson wrote:

> On Jun 6, 2005, at 5:55 PM, Hector Luna wrote:
>
>
>> Are we getting sold down the river for the same clockspeed we've  
>> been told for years didn't matter?
>>
>
> There's only two choices for 64-bit processors - Apple's G5 and  
> AMD64.  The rest are has-beens.  Jobs almost stumbled over his  
> words today during the Stevenote because Apple got caught between  
> the proverbial rock and hard place.  It's good Apple had a backup  
> plan, but the moral to this story is you NEVER trust IBM.  I think  
> SCO already found that out.
>
> The PowerPC 970 is so vastly superior to the Intel x86 processor  
> that it's a joke.  Things like the Virginia Tech supercomputing  
> cluster were made possible because of the PowerPC 970 and it's  
> power per watt allowing great savings in the cooling system for the  
> computer room.  The PowerPC 970's superior power dissipation  
> characteristics is what made it the cpu of choice (in the Xserve  
> G5) for the US Navy on their nuclear subs.
>
> My Take:
> IBM got all the business of the three major game consoles running  
> PowerPC chips that are loosely based on the 970.  Take a look at  
> the specs on that triple core PowerPC Xbox 360 chip once.  Floating  
> point power of OVER 1 TERAFLOPS????????
>
> Holy cow, Batman!
>
> It took 1100 PowerMac G5's to make something like 10 teraflops in  
> the Virginia Tech supercomputing cluster, which at the time was the  
> third most powerful cluster on the planet.  IBM decided to channel  
> all its development resources on these new triple core gaming chips  
> then turned around and told Apple "you ain't big enough and don't  
> have enough market share - if you want PowerPC970's we're going to  
> jack the price and we'll develop them when we get time".
>
> Apple got screwed.  Big time.  They had to revert to "plan B".  God  
> only knows why they went Intel.  AMD64 would've been a better  
> choice, IMHO.  Maybe Intel has some new tricks up their sleeve that  
> we don't know about.  But not for me.  I'm going to buy every dual  
> cpu PowerMac G5 I can get my hands on.  They're going to be worth  
> big bucks in a couple years unless somebody else starts building  
> affordable PowerPC hardware.
> --
> Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Titanium mailing list
> Titanium at listserver.themacintoshguy.com
> http://listserver.themacintoshguy.com/mailman/listinfo/titanium
>
> Listmom is trying to clean out his closets! Vintage Mac and random  
> stuff:
>         http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZmacguy1984
>