In the ‘90s it was the opposite.

- Apple: We have matched Intel in CPU performance thanks to this new PowerPC! (Shows ad that uses carefully handpicked benchmarks to suggest that the PowerPC is actually faster when it really isn’t on average)

- Intel: Oh, we just found a 30% clock rate increase in the pocket of our other fab pants.

- AMD: Hold my beer, I have the DEC Alpha guys making an x86 CPU… How about 64-bit while at it.

▲

bayindirh 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I said late 90s though. The insanity which poured through early 2000s.

5.25GHz Pentium 4s, intentionally lower binned Athlons, the era your CPU got obsoleted the moment you booted it for the first time.

I don't remember early 90s much. I was too young back then. I don't remember much stuff from that era. But late 90s, early 2000s.

Oh, boy.

P.S.: AMD64 was a great sucker punch though. One of the professors in our university rejected to believe and got mad when he learnt that Intel licensed AMD64 from AMD, heh.

▲

0x457 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I had a G4 MacBook when I switched to the first-gen Intel MacBooks, and subjectively, the G4 performed much, much better. Probably because the best pairing for any Intel CPU is thermal throttling.

▲

pavlov 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I lived through the PPC->Intel transition porting real Mac apps, and "I liked the G4 laptops better" is definitely not a take I heard from anyone back then...

▲

crest 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

A lot of the important applications took a while to get ported. Also the last two generations of G4 hardware just overclocked basically unchanged chips. The 12" G4 laptop was infamous for slowly cooking your junk with their titanium shell.

	▲	0x457 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		At the time I switched, nearly everything that I used was running native. > The 12" G4 laptop was infamous for slowly cooking your junk with their titanium shell. That's my experience with every unibody Intel MacBook as well, but not with Apple Silicon.