I'm not so sure that there is that big a performance sacrifice in using the Intel mobile technology. If you look at the 3DMark06 CPU, posted on Intel's website for the core 2 Extreme X7800 (which is a 2.66GHz) you will find that it scores 2252.Too bad they didn't include the newest Intel desktop processors and chipsets, but I understand they had to sacrifice some performance for the amazing design.
I can't but agree with you. The Intel 6XXX series is my choice of today - I am pure PC - I just ordered the Q6600 in a setup including the 8800 Ultra and a P35 Mobo. I believe the 6XXX beat the Xeon core-by-core due to better chip-set and FSB options - though I haven't sought evidence to back that up. However, the little benchmark I have found on the X7800 says that it is not chopped liver compared to the (?)?6XXX series.You got me there, my rational side agrees with you completely. The only performance differences are FSB/memory speeds. Santa Rosa's frequencies are 266 / 333 (CPU / RAM), while the desktop platform runs at 333 / 400, otherwise processors are practically the same.
But while the performance difference may not be big, it's just the feeling you're not getting the latest and the greatest that I'm missing. Apple used to define the technology, (their notorious LetsLoseTheFloppy move comes to my mind) they often used bleeding-edge stuff in their machines and so on.
While PC users are currently enjoying brand-new-just-out-of-the-factory 1333 mhz quad pumped FSB processors on P35 motherboards with DDR3 support, the new iMac has C2D chips comparable to the ones we've seen on desktops a year ago (of course they are the newest on the laptop market, but that's just an excuse in the eyes of an average customer - iMac is a desktop machine and should be treated that way).
But I'll stop there. Must be just my sensibility .