http://www.osnews.com/story/16052/IBM_Unveils_Energy-Efficient_PowerPC_Chips Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:14:16 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread?167956 http://osnews.com/thread?167956 Was Apple's Intel move a wake-up call? Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (twenex) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?167974 http://osnews.com/thread?167974 It was probably a combination of companies. Mainly AMD, Intel and SUN all releasing energy efficient chips. It would be stupid for IBM not get on the energy efficiency side of things. Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mdoverkil) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?167975 http://osnews.com/thread?167975 Doubtful - I'm sure it was already on their roadmap.

If anything, I suspect companies like Microsoft and Sony have been applying pressure to get lower-power processors for game consoles.

I get the impression Apple was just using it as another excuse to switch. I believe Apple no longer wanted to be "bound" to the PPC architecture regardless of it's technical merit. Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?167995 http://osnews.com/thread?167995 [QUOTE] I believe Apple no longer wanted to be "bound" to the PPC architecture regardless of it's technical merit.[/QUOTE]

Or lack thereof... Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rayiner) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?168077 http://osnews.com/thread?168077 hey now, EVERYONE knows that the 1.2ghz g4 macs are WAAAAY faster than 3ghz p4 machines!!! Wed, 04 Oct 2006 02:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (helf) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?168080 http://osnews.com/thread?168080 "Speed" != the be-all and end-all of technical merit.

Maybe Apple were just waiting until AMD got rid of the stupidities of x86 architecture for them. Wed, 04 Oct 2006 02:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (twenex) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?168089 http://osnews.com/thread?168089 With regret, I must say that Apple's move to Intel was the right choice. I love the concept of PowerPC's and being different, but what's faster than Core 2 Duo? Nothing. And to think -- those Mac Pros have got to be outrageous. So fast, they will get you arrested! Buy one of those and you will be in for some hard time. Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mattv427) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?168107 http://osnews.com/thread?168107 Well the main target of the PPC lines at IBM has almost always been embedded devices, where the PPC is rather excellent and always has been sold in massive numbers. Wed, 04 Oct 2006 04:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (flywheel) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?168117 http://osnews.com/thread?168117 Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the PPC focus of Freescale embedded while for IBM it's the server? Maybe I'm missing something, but PPC970 is on IBM's low end compared to Power 4 and 5. Wed, 04 Oct 2006 05:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ethyriel) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?168133 http://osnews.com/thread?168133 I'd better say POWER is for server and PowerPC is for embedded/desktop.

These new CL chips with reduced power consumption will certainly find their way to high-performance embedded targets. If I'm not mistaken, many PowerPC chips are available for both commercial and industrial temp. range, unlike, for example, chips from Intel and this is very important thing for embedded... Wed, 04 Oct 2006 06:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (olexiy) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?168149 http://osnews.com/thread?168149 "but what's faster than Core 2 Duo? Nothing"

that causes annoying and desperation to me because I have a Core duo running Windows and it is not indeed what I call fast.So if it is the fastest.......that god take us confessed Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Fransexy) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?168159 http://osnews.com/thread?168159 Depends on how IBM achieved these 'energy savings', was it through raw 'lets grab the achitecture and make it really efficient' or is it nothing more than glorified tweaking of the mhz scaling which they current use.

Look at the Core processor and what they've done, and the massive improvements to the underlying architecture to improve efficiency - 1cycle to complete a SSE instruction, for example; and compare it to what IBM has there lack of achieved. Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?168187 http://osnews.com/thread?168187 >> ... embedded devices, where the PPC is rather excellent ...

Is that something like, "75% pregnant"?
;) Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (h3rman) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?168199 http://osnews.com/thread?168199 Makes me feel sorry for poor little PASemi. I guess things don't look so good for them now.

They barely got started & the Apple X86 switch was a real kick in the teeth for them... Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lproven) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?168237 http://osnews.com/thread?168237 These processors are probably based on the processor design that Nintendo and IBM worked on together for the Nintendo Wii. Which is why it is ok to sell (avalible immediately), now that IBM has enough capasity(sp?) for Nintendo's Wii Production. Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (slashdev) Comments