Why don't you think that's a good design decision ? (FYI the XB1 uses the same CPU cache layout as the PS4 ...) 

The HD twins still have more cache which translates to a lower miss rate so the issue of the costliness of the PS4 having a slower access to memory is an overexaggeration on your part ...

Your reference doesn't mention anything of that sort ...

Yes they do ... 

No high end PC gamers would take an AMD CPU seriously and what they're planning for is quite frankly sad ... 

@Silvergunner:
At that time AMD had low power and they had had the better CPU's for several years right until Core. Intel likely paid. Like they paid shops to keep the amount of AMD systems low and likely paid manufacturers.

As for the low clock G5, they wheren't more hot than other CPU's. And no, it was not promised. It's something you make contracts about. And if one brakes that he usually has to pay.

Xenon did not need more power than comparable CPU's. And the ROD was basically an issue with leadfree solder. The hotter part was the GPU though, which is why the heatpipe construction and other measures where taken. Especially with the GPU being under the discdrive and having a flat cooler. Cell is another story, having one PPE and the SPE's.

Apples Mac line was to small to make IBM money for tons of CPU versions. That is a plain fact. They where a minor customer demanding very much.

@curl-6: Espresso likely has no integer SIMD. If there really where no changes made it can do paired single floating point and that's it.

There's a small possibilty for minor improvements, basically because it could fit in for a shrinked triple core PPC with eD-RAM cache. The eD-RAM needs much less space than SRAM cache of the same size.

But as far as we know there's just the basic design IBM made for Gekko 14 years ago with much more cache.

So, no integer SIMD, very limited FP-SIMD, a dated FPU design. I still would be fine with that if Nintendo went for a 1.6GHz quadcore. Still would've been a very small, relatively cool CPU then.

Edit: AMD had top CPU's for years. And the low power embedded versions still are good. But they fell behind Intels performance and high end CPU's years ago. And Intel can spend 10 times the money for R&D.

There's a difference between limited SIMD and no SIMD though.

Basically PowerPC was initially far beyond x86 in performance per Watt, but its implementations aimed at desktop and portable PC markets gradually fell behind because IBM lost interest in developing those versions.
While the choice of cheap and not very powerful versions of AMD APUs and old PowerPC versions by Sony, MS and Nintendo basically depends on their needs about component costs and power consumption, and, in Ninty case, on a strategy that accepts to get just the minimum computing power needed, with the added benefit of Wii BC for free, while focusing on new features, an improved old PPC just offered all Ninty needed at the minimum possible cost, with low power consumption and possibly high reliability and low SW development costs too.
This tells us that OP is right, because these examples of PPC CPUs aren't proof of any failure or shortcoming in the POWER architecture itself, but maybe just in IBM marketing, as while I don't agree with you about Apple being a MINOR customer, I agree with you that it was so demanding and it wanted its total purchases divided in so many different versions and speeds to make profit margins for IBM very low despite good total sales numbers (this is where console makers are customers radically different), but I agree with silvergunner too when he says that ditching Apple was a marketing mistake anyway.

@Curl: There is no integer SIMD. That is why i set it in brackets. As well as limited FP SIMD.

@Alby da Wolf: IBM shifted its focus with Power architecture. And at that time Apple was the only customer left that needed refreshs on an at least yearly basis. At the same time Apple did not sell enough to justify the cost of those new designs. They where as well just one of many customers IBM had. So yes, from IBM's perspective they where a minor customer with very high demands.
Intel already built their chips for anyone who bought them, in terms of PC-market that meant something like 3 to 4% Mac with IBM Power and the rest being x86 with a major part of it being Intel.
IBM's major customers all where to be found in high performance computing and buying complete systems.
The rest was like stying with one design for several years.
I as well dont believe Macs would be as successful as they are today if they still had IBM Power instead of x86. Apples switch made it easier for many devs to make Apple versions of their software.

As for Jaguar, that is quite enough for such 'slow' GPU's to have balanced systems.
Wii U is a little different. More CPU power, meaning more cores and clock, would have made ports easier. Let's just once take AC IV as example. That game is very likely CPU-limited on Wii U. And i am pretty sure it could have been optimized better. But the version as is might have run with rock solid 30fps if Wii U had a 1.6GHz quadcore instead of the 1.24GHz triple core.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. I paid 180 dollars for my AMD FX-8320 while my friend got an i5 4610. He gets a whopping 10fps more than me in StarCraft 2, the game we play the most. He also paid 300 dollars for his CPU. I'm not gonna pay an extra 120 dollars for 10fps. Fuck that.

I'm glad that you have expendable income for days apparently, but I don't. My take home is less than 1500/mo and I can't afford to spend 300 dollars on a fucking processor.

Yes, I agree with your points, but I'd add a few things:
As we can deduce from your points too, the main problem between IBM and Apple was plans and policies far too different and distant. The problem never was PowerPC, or even less POWER, being underpowered intrinsically, but just PPC last mainstream implementations, due to IBM focusing on higher segments, too expensive for Apple needs, and obviously preferring a far less frantic product range refresh. With hindsight, IBM current open HW licensing policies could have brilliantly solved the problems for both IBM and Apple, as Apple could have been a far more appealing customer for some POWER licensees, while IBM would have continued receiving the image return for POWER in the consumer market from Apple with very little hassles, just assisting in product design (obviously not for free) without having to actually produce the chips, with that fast production process refresh implied that IBM so hates. This way, depending on a chip maker that would have needed it far more than IBM, Apple could have received the CPUs it desired, so this way Macs could have been as successful as with the switch to x86 (let's not forget that in the golden times of PowerPC, Macs were so desired also by buyers not ready to spend Apple prices, that, right or wrong choice as it could be, Apple started licensing Mac to clone makers).

I agree with that open licensing. It could have helped Power architecture as a whole back then.
As for Apple and Macs, moving to x86 was a step that made software ports much easier. Not so important for some of the big software companies, but for the smaller ones. And i really think that the software side helped Apple.

Again, that is one of the most important points with x86 CPU's in PS4 and One. It's not the ultimate CPU architecture but it makes live easier for developers. Especially the smaller ones.

Making live easier for devs has become a key element over the last decade, while both architectures can give developers enough power for everything.

Back to Wii U, as i already said i would have loved to see a 1.6GHz quadcore PPC. That should have been powerful enough at least for every last gen port, or even graphically improved ports.
Nintendo going x86 would have been fine for me as well though it would have cost them Wii compatiblity.

thread intended to clear up the confusion/misconception around powerpc, buncha people posting their googlesmarts further buried the topic in the sands of obscurity, this isn't how "clearing up" things works guys.