I have a doubt that I'm sure some of you wil be able to answer me:

Do IBM and AMD processors differ much from a performance perspective?

I know that AMD suffers compared to Intel due to having a lower IPC, but what about IBM? Do IBM processors have a higher IPC than AMD's like Intel does?

I'm asking because we all know that WiiU's IBM CPU is much slower than the Xbox360 IBM one and that it's performance won't be the same. It will be lower. But with the  PSwhatever and nextbox going with AMD the comparisons will be harder to make.

IBM Power >>> AMD in terms of CPUs. Basically, any AMD (or Intel) CPU would have to have much higher specs to match an IBM CPU.

Kinda why game consoles for a long time now have been using IBM CPUs. This is a new thing this coming gen. Also, WiiU's CPU is a still arguably equal to 360's even though it has a slower cycle.... or at least a lot closer than the simple numbers suggest. Of course that is really not a big deal considering WiiU's architecture and how much of the CPU tasks are now supposed to be handled by the GPGPU.

That's not true.

In fact the Intel/AMD CPU is way better for general use... most advanced too... mainly Intel.

Thanks to both of you, superchunck and ethomaz. So one say IBM CPUs are better while the other says the opposite... 

By the way, ethomaz, by "for general use" do you include games or not?

SO like Windows, Linux, Mac OX, etc... the PowerPC is not used for games too... but some Mainframe tasks (coorporative) the PowerPC is better.

I think that someone here recently did some math on it:

360 - 2.0IPS/cycle/core * 3 cores * 3.2GHz = 19.200MIPS

WiiU - 2.3IPS/cycle/core * 3 cores * 1.243125GHz = 85776MIPS

But WiiU's CPU is out of order execution, and Xenon is in order, so that can cut that number (19200) by a quite lot in some cases.

As for AMD, current CPUs have some 3.5-4 IPS/cycle/core, and Intel is all the way up around 9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_second

I thought you meant programs that are of common use, like web browsers, Office or the like, so thanks to putting it in perspective.

But given that IBM left the "home PC" market and focused on developing supercomputers, isn't that difference something to be expected? Their processors aren't developed with Office/browsers in mind and neither are those programse made to take advantage of their processors' superiority (if there is any).

I admit I could be wrong, but I have always heard that Power CPUs are pound for pound better CPUs. i.e. if you have a 3GHZ dual core in IBM and 3GHZ dual core in x86, the IBM will out perform it every time. This was especially true and pointed out repeatedly in the days when Apple used IBM as their CPU provider.

Thank you! It's surprising how ahead Intel is.

The values for the 360 and WiiU (2.0 and 2.3) are real data or guesstimates?

The wiki table that you link (thanks again) shows the Bulldozer based AMD FX-8150 at 3.78 IPS and 108,890 MIPS at 3.6GHz. The rumored A10-5800 uses Piledriver which improves the performance by 10-15%, but it will probably run slower on a console.

That's it... all general programs you have in your SO (Windows, Linux, etc) runs better on x86 (AMD and Intel CPUS).

And remember IBM used AMD/Intel CPU for "Home PC" too... the PowerPC was just for servers, supercomputers or Mac (now you know why Apple choose Intel over IBM for CPU after some time).

The Intel CPU is just too powerful... no other CPU comes close in Home PC.