KennyR: but when was the last time 800MHz was a top end PC?
Well, it is -- if you're talking about an insanely overclocked GFX chip. ;-)
Because different architectures are superior to each other in different tasks, I think a better approach is to ask yourself: "Which computer is better at what I want to use it for, and ignore the rest.
Yay! We need more people like you, Quixote.
Nightcrawler: How about the power consumption?
How about Transmeta? An efficient, low-power CPU didn't do much to improve the battery life of notebooks based on Crusoe, regardless of the performance. There's too much other hardware in a PC box to make just a CPU significant.
In other words, what BHoggett said.
The only real sweet spot of the PPC is silent operation. I've had to put a lot of time and thought into the best way to cool my Athlon, and even considered liquid cooling, until I realized that most liquid cooling systems eventually become rancid with algea and other goop. Ick.
Still, I'm a Photoshopper, so performance eventually trumps silence. It's the way of the world. If PPC eventually becomes popular, I don't think it would be long before we saw many PPC chips suffer from thermal death and a leafblower HSF.
Nah. The reason they haven't increased the external bus speed is because it doesn't actually make much difference to a PPC, as neither does the RAM speed.
I hear this over and over, so can somebody tell me why Apple uses DDR? Do they really get a benefit or is it just for show? Is it needed for other things on the motherboard, or does the CPU benefit, too?
