thogs_cave said:Unlike the x86 architecture, which is only how old? Oh, that's right: It dates back to the 1970's! (I just couldn't resisit. Yes, I know there have beern many changes, but if we're going to date the architecture, let's be accurate, shall we?)
Sorry I don't really see the argument. I'm not talking about platforms just different generations of chips. The G5 (PPC970) was born out of the need to combat the Pentium 4. It's more efficient RISC (although it wasn't efficient by most RISC standards) allowed it to compete at AMD style clockspeeds with what on paper were much faster chips. The problem was basing it on what was an already superseded server chip designed for very specific more limited uses would never translate well in to an all conquering desktop CPU.
AMD stole a march with its Athlon T-Bird design in June 2000 and really set the benchmarks for x86 until the P4 achieved ridiculous clock speeds. Initially the G4 was competitive with these but it just didn't scale quickly enough. The G5 was bascially born out of a server design created during this period. Expecting it to be competitive with what in 2006/2007 will be Intel's new Athlon T-Bird is stupid. G5 development essentially stopped 2 years ago when Apple pulled investment we have no idea what it could have gone on to do. IBM themselves are now using Power 6 for their servers and by all accounts it is a phenominal piece of engineering but it cannot be compared to any of the chips Apple will now be using.
x86 is such a generic name which basically only accurately described the first generation of this type of processor. Today if we go by name there is no longer an x86 processor as each company has trademarked its own name for their type of CPU. Although x86 compatible todays modern CPU's cannot really be compared to the first products to be produced of this type in 1978. Technology has moved on so quickly each major upgrade is essentially a new type of chip that just happens to be backwards compatible.