Macs

[Chris Rees]

2009/9/14 Odd <iodine at runbox.no>:
> Chris Rees wrote:
>> 2009/9/12 Odd <iodine at runbox.no>:
>>> Harold Sawyer wrote:
>>>> Apple has recently (time flies as we get older) changed to the
>>>> Intel Chips.  Before that, didn't they use Motorola?
>>> Yes, Motorola and IBM. PowerPC RISC chips. While the architecture
>>> was more elegant than x86, they had no chance against the Intel
>>> juggernaut. Apple did the only sensible thing, and switched.
>>>
>>> Curiously, PowerPC is in all the 3 major consoles: Xbox 360,
>>> Playstation 3 and the Wii.
>>
>> Not really curiously; power management (which Intel is strong on)
>> isn't such a big deal in a games console. In a laptop etc it's
>> everything.
>
> Not really true:
>
> 'The larger feat, however, was to provide that level of processing power
> on as little an energy budget as possible. "Game machines can't really
> afford a huge fan and a heatsink," Shippy says -- so the plan was to
> create a high-performance chip with a smaller footprint.'
>
> http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php
>
> The reason for avoiding x86 was the exact opposite of what
> you claim. They were too hot.
>
> --
> Odd
>

That's really interesting, and NOW it's curious, because the stated
reason Apple moved to Intel was because of this....

I'd guess it's because of the Cell architecture rather than the
traditional multiple cores.

Damn technological advancements!

Chris


-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in a mailing list?