Linked by Nicholas Blachford on Wed 9th Jul 2003 16:43 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y This article started life when I was asked to write a comparison of x86 and PowerPC CPUs for work. We produce PowerPC based systems and are often asked why we use PowerPC CPUs instead of x86 so a comparison is rather useful. While I have had an interest in CPUs for quite some time but I have never explored this issue in any detail so writing the document proved an interesting exercise. I thought my conclusions would be of interest to OSNews readers so I've done more research and written this new, rather more detailed article. This article is concerned with the technical differences between the families not the market differences.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Re: Power consumption
by drsmithy on Thu 10th Jul 2003 02:27 UTC

I must say, I am impressed at the way that you so quickly shifted the focus from heat and energy to the vast expense involved in Mac ownership!!
That would be because 90% of the post was about power consumption while half of the last sentence pointing out why it's not really an issue happened to mention Apple, right ?
A beautiful shift from one straw-man to the other.
None of my points (that there are low power x86 chips, that x86 chips using more power are also faster (as are ones using less power), that the figures reported on the motorola website are difficult to interpret and that there are no power consumption figures for the fast G4s Apple are using) could be described as strawmen.
Neither is the Macintosh cost issue, given pretty much the only PPC systems out there are Macs. And this discussion is about an article comparing PPCs to x86s.
(although I think California might disagree with you on the "Electricity is cheap" argument)
Compared to the price difference between a Mac and a PC, it is.
Again, a quite skillful sleight of hand, congrats!!!!
Hardly. I wasn't trying to deceive anyone, so how could I have done it sucessfully ?