Even the ex CEO of Apple admited that motorola was a mistake.

[Hammer]

From my perspective, x86 chips didn't actually get "good" until 4 or 5 years ago. Before that, they were power-sucking, hot, and inefficient across the entire range. AMD was a bit better than Intel, but PPC seemed to offer better performance per clock cycle while using the least electricity.

Now, however, x86 has strong multicore architecture and a good product range that encompasses the powerful and the power-efficient.

Whether this is due to a business relationship with Apple is impossible to say, but I think Apple's decision to switch has been fully vindicated.

(Which does make me a tiny bit sad because I do have a soft spot for PPC)

AMD K8 Athlon 64 Mobile(1) in 2004 says Hi. IBM CPC 925's(PowerPC 970's NB) alone has a TDP of 30 watts.  AMD K8 Athlon 64 Mobile has a 35 watt version i.e. "Odessa" (CG, 130 nm, 35W TDP(2)) up to 2Ghz.

1. At that time, I used Mitec 8355 laptop with Athlon 64 Mobile and ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 Pro.
2. Max power not typical power.

A 2GHz 970FX(90nm) consumes 39 watts maximum.
http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/9DBF300EB19A60D287256E4B005E43EC/$file/970fx_thermal_an_7_20_05.pdf
Dated 2005.

By the time of 90nm for AMD, Turion MT-40 at 2.2Ghz has 25 watt version. Turion MT was first release around March 10, 2005.

[Hammer]

The man is an idiot, and is just saying this now, after Intel has come out on top.  You can bet that, if PPC had triumphed over Intel, this same man would be crowing about PPC was his own personal recommendation.

Back then, RISC, and PPC was by far the best choice for the future, was faster, more modern, based on he best technology, that is why the team of experts Apple put to investigate future recommended it.

Much of what he says doesn't even make sense



What? So, before 1990 your processor couldn't run your software?  Or they could run your software but not your technology?  My Mac still doesn't run my technology even in 2010.  Runs my software fine, though.



What an absolute tool.
It's only now, with the Core i7 series.. that Intel processors have began having built-in GPU, and, like every Intel GPU before it, is abysmal in performance.  This has no relevance whatsoever to a decision 20 years ago.

In the late 80s and early 90s, Intel has i860/i960 i.e. A VLIW CPU with 3D (fix function hardware) and SIMD(similar to MMX).  This research was later recycled into Pentium's MMX. This pattern leads to the current position i.e.
1. Intel Itanium and it's VLIW/EPIC design.
2. Intel GMA IGPs.
3. Intel Larrabee.

Intel i860/i960 cGPU was used in SGI workatations as a graphic co-processor.

PS; Large parts of Microsoft Kinect's visual with depth recognition is done on XBox 360's AMD Xenos GpGPU. GpGPUs easily process images with depth.