Wiis, yes, however the 360 uses a Dual-core 3.2GHz PPC chip. I'd say that's pretty powerful. Funny, MS using a PPC chip.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What if apple goes back to PowerPC?
- Thread starter steviem
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wiis, yes, however the 360 uses a Dual-core 3.2GHz PPC chip. I'd say that's pretty powerful. Funny, MS using a PPC chip.
And yet I would say 360 power is 6-7 years old power wise.
Now hard to emulated 6-7 year old hardware.
I come to this based on the fact 360 is released over 4 years ago. Add in the fact game system hardware wise would be 2-3 years behind computer hardware of the time. It gets you in age how far back it really is. Remember game system can get away with using older hardware because they only have to do one thing (run games) that means very little overhead has to be wasted on other things.
Also MS does not care about x86 or PPC. PPC has many advantages over x86. Apple just happen to run desktop on it. PPC is used in a lot of things.
None of your post has anything at all to do with PPC vs x86. You do know Linux ran on PPC too ? (and SPARC, and MIPS, and Alpha, and ... but I disgress).
You need to read a few things on processor architecture to even understand what it is you're proning.
I know that Linux runs on PPC too. I never knew the 360 used it though.
And yeah, maybe I will.
Does anyone think that it's also the casing that has to do with efficiency of these computers? I've wondered what would happen if we switched out an Intel with PPC in an Mac Pro, etc?
Well you would have to do a Hacktost to do that since the MOBO are not the same.
The biggest problem you will run into is the Mac Pro case lay out is not the standard ATX layout so it requires modifiying the case.
Actually, Xbox 360 has a triple-core PPC inside it. Wii has a PPC also, the same goes for the Cell CPU in the Sony PS3. All three consoles uses PPC technology.
Nevermind, x86 is still much more capable.
Yet, look, how can you emulate older console and computer system.
NES, SNES, Amiga, C64, etc. runs all at maximum speed on modern Pentium III or better CPUs, but SEGAs Dreamcast, Sony Playstation 2 and Nintendo 64 games emulators got usable only in the last past three years.
So we need to wait about minimum 10 years for emulating Playstation 3 games, or even Xbox 360. If this will be even posibble.
Different architectures, that is.
Nevermind, x86 is still much more capable.
Yet, look, how can you emulate older console and computer system.
NES, SNES, Amiga, C64, etc. runs all at maximum speed on modern Pentium III or better CPUs, but SEGAs Dreamcast, Sony Playstation 2 and Nintendo 64 games emulators got usable only in the last past three years.
So we need to wait about minimum 10 years for emulating Playstation 3 games, or even Xbox 360. If this will be even posibble.
Different architectures, that is.
In a few years time?
Apple doesn't use intel cpu in the iPhone/iPod/iPad... it uses ARM chips. In a few years time, who knows what CPU will be in use...
My CPU gets to over 85C while dmulating Super Mario 64. I can't imagine running a Gamecube emulator, let alone a Xbox 360.
I once had installed Virtual PC on my iMac G3. Not only was it super slow, taking 15 minutes to boot, but it didn't even emulate a graphics card.
PPC is dead, get over it . Who cares if it was more powerful 5, 10 years ago? Now it isn't, IBM has focused on low-voltage processors and POWER7 costs 10,000 bucks apiece.
Transition to ARM, as said before, would require a whole rewrite of software.iTunes still is Carbon based, do you really think they'd like to write it from scratch?
Edit: to clarify... I'm not talking to you , opeter, but rather to those who still think PPC will comd back.
Three reasons Apple will continue to use x86 products:
1: They are common and inexpensive to develop for. ODMs have a lot of experience with the architecture, so it is cheaper to get motherboards spun, cooling built right, and other items.
2: People like Windows compatibility. This gets Macs into places where they never would have been before.
3: x86 is scalable. It can run on very low power items (Atom), as well as keep up with the larger tasks (Xeon.)
This doesn't say PowerPC is dead. IBM's POWER7 chips are the top dog when it comes to CPU power. Cell processors are good too. However, those categories tend to be special purpose, not general computers one would run Pages or Word on.
1: They are common and inexpensive to develop for. ODMs have a lot of experience with the architecture, so it is cheaper to get motherboards spun, cooling built right, and other items.
2: People like Windows compatibility. This gets Macs into places where they never would have been before.
3: x86 is scalable. It can run on very low power items (Atom), as well as keep up with the larger tasks (Xeon.)
This doesn't say PowerPC is dead. IBM's POWER7 chips are the top dog when it comes to CPU power. Cell processors are good too. However, those categories tend to be special purpose, not general computers one would run Pages or Word on.
Correct but there's too many benefits with the intel chipset as already been discussed.
The biggest reason is windows, for both mac users who need it, and non-mac users who want apple hardware.
There's little business/economic reasons why apple would change platforms, especially given that they're paying so little attention to the computer line as it is. Let me rephrase that. Why spend a ton of money developing a different architecture when the computer platform is mature and there's no way they'll recoup any costs, quite the contrary, they'll lose consumers.
True, but we can only emulate up to the PS2 while switching architectures. That's a 300mhz processor, nothing like the 2ghz that a modern OS likes.
The 360 CPU is effectively a SIX CORE PPC chip running at a blistering 3.2Ghz. The FLOPS alone pretty much smash any i7 out there, and was even able to only be sold in the 360 because there were other areas that were scaled down (lesser L2 L3 cache, etc.), but the bitch crunching it's capable of would be like trying to emulate a Mac Pro on a PowerMac G4
lol I do think.So yeah..Intel has it's advantages, but if even the 360 CPU in its debut was fitted with more cache and fatter pipes in some areas, it - AFAIK - would have pretty much obliterated any Intel Mac out there.
Whatever it'll be, it'll be:
a) something Apple will have complete control over, and/or
b) something in which Apple will have a majority stake.
Apple is increasingly on a path (especially financial) which allows them to set their own agenda.
I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the road (or sooner) Apple will have bought a company like ARM (or maybe ARM, who knows) and do everything or nearly everything in-house.
Ideally, making "the whole widget" also means controlling its production.
The 360 CPU is effectively a SIX CORE PPC chip running at a blistering 3.2Ghz. The FLOPS alone pretty much smash any i7 out there, and was even able to only be sold in the 360 because there were other areas that were scaled down (lesser L2 L3 cache, etc.), but the bitch crunching it's capable of would be like trying to emulate a Mac Pro on a PowerMac G4
So yeah..Intel has it's advantages, but if even the 360 CPU in its debut was fitted with more cache and fatter pipes in some areas, it - AFAIK - would have pretty much obliterated any Intel Mac out there.
This thread is 1 year old. Thanks for bring it back from the dead.
Look at the date above the original poster. This thread is well over a year old. You have been suckered in to a dead thread.
I find that the date irrelevant to the conversation at hand is just one good reason to post in it, and I was just pointing out the flawed logic IMO that you posted about the 360 CPU, but are you gonna dismiss posting again because of the date of it? And a relevant thread is a relevant thread, ZOMG it's two days old lol
That would be sick if Apple were to acquire ARM and produce their own CPUs in house, imo.
lolThat would be sick if Apple were to acquire ARM and produce their own CPUs in house, imo.
I find that the date irrelevant to the conversation at hand is just one good reason to post in it, and I was just pointing out the flawed logic IMO that you posted about the 360 CPU, but are you gonna dismiss posting again because of the date of it? And a relevant thread is a relevant thread, ZOMG it's two days old
That would be sick if Apple were to acquire ARM and produce their own CPUs in house, imo.
No more it is a year old and taken out of context. Add to it FLOPs is just one of many bench marks and one of the many problems with when trying to measure a CPU. It would never be able to stand up to a lot of uses that an i7 can do.
As for Apple producing there own CPU and going ARM they would be putting themselves in the same they did with the intel switch. ARM is great for micro computers like cell phones but ARM does not scale up well to general computer (aka full power computer) Top it off ARM is a complete different architecture than x86-64 so a lot of programs will not work simple as that.
When discussing these things, it helps to think *beyond* the next seven days.
You don't know what ARM is going to be like, look like, perform like, in 1-2 years. That goes for every "mobile" chip manufacturer. The possibilities are endless.
What's a "full power computer"?
I remember one of the macs in the computer lab in my school had a DOS comparability card (or something like that) which was basically a x86 CPU on a daughter card that let you run DOS programms, including windows 3.1 at full speed for design and comparability testing, this was quite an old mac, even in 1995 when I noticed it, but then again the rest of the macs in that classroom were classics.
Perhaps something of the same could be done, offer one processor architecture as the main, say power PC, and have an optional daughter card with the necessary hardware onboard to run an intel chip, keeping costs down.
Perhaps something of the same could be done, offer one processor architecture as the main, say power PC, and have an optional daughter card with the necessary hardware onboard to run an intel chip, keeping costs down.
The Xbox 360 uses a triple core POWER architecture chip with 6 threads of execution (like Intel's Hyperthreading if you will).
Xenon is the name of it. Look it up.
i can't say that i even understand the point of this discussion. there are no viable alternatives to x86 at this point for desktop/laptop uses.
what viable PowerPC chips are there? the Xbox and Wii chips are super-specialized to their tasks and wouldn't work as an all purpose chip. if you wanted to build a super computer, sure you could use the Power chips from IBM but again, its not a general application.
what viable PowerPC chips are there? the Xbox and Wii chips are super-specialized to their tasks and wouldn't work as an all purpose chip. if you wanted to build a super computer, sure you could use the Power chips from IBM but again, its not a general application.
Good times. That was my first Mac, a PowerMac 6100/60 (PowerPC 601), in July 1994. Lasted me until May 2002!
I still remember all the RISC vs. CISC comparisons. They were coming in thick and fast around mid to late 1993.