04-09-2006, 12:49 AM

How come everyone (including IBM and Apple) has said that 'the G5 cannot reach speeds up to 3 GHz when the G5 based processor in the XBOX 360 is a triple core processor with each core running at 3.2 GHz? I don't understand why IBM didn't use this same processor (or one very close to it) for Apple? Thanks for any insight.

04-09-2006, 01:13 AM

i remember reading somewhere on the forum that the X360's cores are specifically made for gaming. The computers processors are made for multiple tasks. someone correct me if wrong?

04-09-2006, 03:47 AM

This is the kind of question that still makes me wonder why Apple REALLY switched to Intel.

04-09-2006, 04:25 AM

no the chips are designed specifically for gaming, plus M$ would order more G5 chips that apple would

Think about it who would you give priority to in a world where money talks?

04-09-2006, 04:29 AM

Supply was a huge one. One of our big problems when I worked at the Apple Centre was stock delivery being delayed and not having the high end models etc. This was a rather big problem.

Vicky

04-09-2006, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by inflexion

no the chips are designed specifically for gaming, plus M$ would order more G5 chips that apple would

Think about it who would you give priority to in a world where money talks?

While I agree with what you say in theory, I think that was not IBMs problem. IBM and Motorola are both HUGE in the embedded chip market and are both rather bit players in the desktop market. Neither company was willing to do the kind of R&D for the desktop market that AMD and Intel do. Nearly all of the chips Apple used over the years were off shoots of developments made for the embedded market and not specifically designed for the desktop market. As such Apple always had a hard time getting newer, better and faster chips to market as the embedded market doesn't require the sort of speed or power that the desktop market does.