i don't share the same concern w/ apple switching to intel. although, weary at the time since i thought the powerpc architecture was just fine and stable running os x and the programs i needed it to run (fce, photoshop). my aluminum imac has had more kernel panics (3 or 4) than my 12" powerbook (1 panic) in the span that i've had it since november of 2007 than the powerbook that i've been using since 2004. i'm no techie, though and won't try to convince anyone which chip should go to which systems. i don't care. what i care about is real-world performance, optimization, stability, all that good stuff, instead of the number of cores or gigahertz.
but, i do think that the gamer's market and consoles in particular are in a unique position than the pc (yet benefit from pc technology) in that they have a longer expected lifespan than a pc and have more specific needs that game and hardware developers should really be able to squeeze the performance out of each console. but, i think people are already beginning to learn that software needs to catch up to hardware. in game console history, it used to be the reverse. you saw hardware add-ons, for example to play certain games. i think intel is just trying to shop-talk this concern now, although, i don't think it has the solution since the solution already exist - powerpc or cell, which i hear is better at graphics stuff. am i correct to make this assumption?