captain carot on 02 February 2015
- PowerPC is the worst processor as far as performance per watt (a term Steve Jobs used to describe the amount of raw performance against the amount of power used - the main argument he had for x86 during Apple's transitional period) is concerned. ARM have the best performance-per-watt, but currently can't match the raw power of the x64 (64-bit x86) processors. Which is why ARM is preferred for Tablets and Cellphones, while x64 is more desirable for Computers and Game Consoles.
- It would not be possible to have a G5-based Wii-U as the PowerPC 970 architecture is no longer in development, it will have compatibility issues with Wii software, and it will have to be the size of the Xbox One to hold all the cooling apparatus (the fastest G5 PowerMacs used liquid cooling). It would also have been far far more expensive to build and thus to sell.
- Although the POWER8 as a server chip is better on raw performance than any x64 part, its considerable size, heat generation, power consumption and price would make it impossible to build into a desktop system.
- It would not be possible to have a G5-based Wii-U as the PowerPC 970 architecture is no longer in development, it will have compatibility issues with Wii software, and it will have to be the size of the Xbox One to hold all the cooling apparatus (the fastest G5 PowerMacs used liquid cooling). It would also have been far far more expensive to build and thus to sell.
- Although the POWER8 as a server chip is better on raw performance than any x64 part, its considerable size, heat generation, power consumption and price would make it impossible to build into a desktop system.
There is a major part wrong of that.
ARM went that strong because of their licensing model, and yes, they went for ultra low power designs. But those low power designs are terribly weak in some points, eveen right now they're getting better.
Power and PowerPC architecture have been very, very efficient performance per watt wise for years. Which is part of why Power based super computers where the most efficient for years.
Yes, Some Power CPU's where pretty hot, but at the same time had a very good performance per watt.
The die shrinked versions of Cell an Xenon are still somewhat efficient, even if dated. Espresso seems to eat up almost no power. And even the gigantic Power8 has a good performance per watt.
The G5 was another story. Apple wanted custom tailerod CPU's for their systems, being developed by IBM. And it seemd that IBM did not want to do so for an actually small customer, chipdesings getting more and more expensive. The G5 design itself was far more efficient than Netburst.
Clocking that chip up like done in the later PowerMacs generated much more heat than originally intended. But that goes for any CPU.
So basically overclocking a CPU (that is what Apple did by default) is ruining your performance per watt.
With the Core architecture Intel just came to be the better, more practical supplier for Apple, because Intel is making all those CPU's anyway.
Edit:
oh, that thing with 360 code running more or less without any changes on Espresso came from some devs.
