In search for info on PPC cpus

[CodeSmith]

All these "very high end vs very high end" comparisons are pretty academic IMHO.  What's the good of knowing which of a PPC970 or Opteron is better if I (or over 80% of computer buyers) can't afford either?  it makes for good cafeteria discussion, but I think people would be more intestested in something like 7447 (G4+)  vs Athlon XP or Pentium 4.  That's the stuff most people can afford, so that's what they will care about.  Otherwise you might as well discuss the merits of BMW vs Lexus when someone asks you if they should buy an European or American car.

[CodeSmith]

@Hammer

IBM
G5 @1.6 GHz delivers 222 points (1Ghz FSB).
G5 @1.8 GHz delivers 251 points (1Ghz FSB).

AMD
K7-XP @1.6 Ghz delivers 207 points (266Mhz FSB).
K7-XP @2.2 GHz delivers 265 points (400Mhz FSB).
K8-FX @2.2 GHz delivers 305 points (@ Core speed).

Intel**
P4-C @3.2 GHz delivers 380 points (800Mhz FSB).

That's closer to my what my wallet can take :-) Looking at the 1.6GHz mark (most affordable and simplest to compare, 3.2GHz = 2x 1.6GHz), it looks like the differences are actually pretty minimal:

G5:        222 points
K7-XP: 207 points
P4-C:    190 points

Intel actually looks a bit sucky, saved as usual by sheer clock rate (I don't think you can actually buy P4Cs at 1.6), but other than that they're all within less than 10% of each other (except G5 vs P4C, that's closer to 15%).  Maybe a few FPS more or less in Quake 3 (or a couple more minutes in a 3D render), but for all intents and purposes fluff.  That's actually kindof good, it means that though the G5 is not the CPU for "the fastest desktop computer" (that was not going to last long anyway), PPC is at least a credible contender.  If you care about just benchmarks, the PPC does have a (slim) lead over the Intel system.  You didn't quote prices, but based on what I normally see, the AMD is probably your best bang for buck.  But we all already knew that :-)