DD writes to tell us ZDNet is running a story about a new Santa Clara, CA based startup that is boasting a new line of low-power, Power chips, the same architecture found in current day Macs and IBM servers. From the article: "The company's first so-called PWRficient chip will feature two processing cores, run at 2GHz and consume on average about 5 watts, thanks to an emphasis on integration and circuit design. At a maximum, it will consume 25 watts, far less than the single-core Power chips that can hit 90 watts found on the market today."Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='portables,hardware';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; Power-Light Power Chips Log in/Create an Account | Top | 175 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 175 comments 0: 169 comments 1: 144 comments 2: 102 comments 3: 34 comments 4: 17 comments 5: 14 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Embedded market (Score:5, Insightful) by Thanatopsis (29786) <brian@@@xao...com> on Monday October 24, @04:05PM (#13866244) (http://bestbuyszone.com/) According to the article they are going to focus on the embedded market. I guess they mean the embedded market that need 2 GHZ embedded chips. [ Reply to This Re:Embedded market (Score:5, Insightful) by supabeast! (84658) on Monday October 24, @04:14PM (#13866303) From the article:"The PWRficient actually won't come out for two years, so it's hard to predict exactly how it will stack up against the competition."In two years a 2 GHZ dual core will probably be a good option for a high-end embedded CPU. [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Embedded market by merreborn (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:16PM Re:Embedded market (Score:5, Insightful) by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday October 24, @04:30PM (#13866435) (http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 20, @11:24AM) It's not like Tivo's video encoding/decoding takes up any processing time. No, it's not if they've got any sense. At least, not general purpose CPU time. Dedicated video compressor / decompressor chips get much more performance per watt, and usually more performance per $ as well when compared to general purpose hardware. The iPod video can play H.264 clips that a moderately fast G4 struggles with - and not because the iPod has a faster CPU. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Embedded market by Thanatopsis (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:33PMRe:Embedded market by Doctor Memory (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:37PMRe:Embedded market by TheRaven64 (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:55PMRe:Embedded market by Bastian (Score:2) Monday October 24, @07:44PMRe:Embedded market by PeteABastard (Score:1) Monday October 24, @10:30PMRe:Embedded market by eonlabs (Score:1) Monday October 24, @11:56PMRe:Embedded market by Jeff DeMaagd (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:41PM Re:Embedded market (Score:5, Informative) by afidel (530433) on Monday October 24, @04:16PM (#13866324) UsesPrint rasterizers: I have printers with imaging engines capable of 30+ppm but I rarely achieve it in the real world because the printers are hobled by a measly ~500Mhz rasterizer.Networking equipment:If you want to do any kind of complex routing or switching in a truely flexible manner without ASICS you are going to need as fast of a processor as possible.Complex analyisis of data in an appliance:Antispam appliances are often limited in the algorithms they use because the cost in processing time for some of the better ones are too expensive to apply to the volume of messages they are supposed to handle.etc. While I am aware that there are large swaths of the embedded market where nothing more complex than a microcontroller is needed I am also cognizant of the fact that there are many areas where a more powerfull embedded processor which is still energy efficient is still very usefull. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Embedded market (Score:5, Interesting) by wowbagger (69688) on Monday October 24, @04:17PM (#13866337) (http://slashdot.org/~wowbagger/journal/87552 | Last Journal: Wednesday September 14, @05:34PM) Actually, YES, the embedded market that needs 2GHz chips - folks like me doing signal processing for communications, among other things. Do you have any idea how many operations per second it takes to do an echo canceler for a phone, or to do GSM or CDMA decoding in software (if you want a system that can adapt to new protocols - a software defined radio or SDR - you need to use a more general purpose part than the dedicated ICs for this), or to do the latest 802.11 protocols, or to do video decompression, or ....Yes, Virginia, there is a market for 2GHz processors in the embedded space. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Embedded market by TheRaven64 (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:32PMRe:Embedded market by AKAImBatman (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:35PMRe:Embedded market by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 24, @04:40PMRe:Embedded market by AKAImBatman (Score:1) Monday October 24, @04:46PMRe:Embedded market by bsd4me (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:46PMRe:Embedded market by AKAImBatman (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:54PMRe:Embedded market by Jeremi (Score:2) Monday October 24, @11:49PMRe:Embedded market by Doctor Memory (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:47PMRe:Embedded market by AKAImBatman (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:58PM(F)MAC by joib (Score:2) Monday October 24, @05:04PMRe:Embedded market by -Neko- (Score:2) Monday October 24, @05:23PM Re:Embedded market (Score:5, Informative) by wowbagger (69688) on Monday October 24, @05:27PM (#13866844) (http://slashdot.org/~wowbagger/journal/87552 | Last Journal: Wednesday September 14, @05:34PM) Because the difference between a DSP and a normal CPU is very small now-a-days.It used to be that only DSPs had multiply and accumulate instructions - now many CPUs do (the Power being among them).It used to be that only DSPs had the register count to do an FFT without having to spill to memory during the butterflys - the Power also has enough registers to avoid having to spill to memory in the innermost butterflys.It used to be that only DSPs had the fast barrel shifters for single-cycle shifts of more than one bit position - now most CPUs have them.I can go on and on - but simply put, the only real difference between a DSP and a modern CPU is that very few DSPs are clocked at 2GHz, while many CPUs are.The really fast DSPs are the ones like the TI C6X family - which get their "speed" from being very long instruction word processors, much like the Itanium. They don't have a very high clock speed - the fastest C6x is running about 1GHz. They are benchmark queens - the will do a 4096 point FFT blindingly fast. Oh, you wanted to do something ELSE with the data after you did the FFT? Sorry, but now you are going to lose most of that speed as the code falls out of cache, and as you run out of vectorizable code and stall most of the cores. Besides, you can get just as much speed-up using the vector instructions of a modern CPU (Altivec/SSE etc.) as you do from the C6X processor.They also suck when you are doing protocol as opposed to signal processing - DSPs *hate* jump instructions, and don't EVEN think of asking them to do a context switch - they are like a drag racer, they go fast until you ask them to TURN.In short, the days of the DSP as the king of signal processing are past - you can do more with a general purpose processor and an FPGA than you can with DSPs for the same amount of board real-estate, bill of materials cost, and power consumption.Sorry, but since this is actually what I do for a living, I know from first-hand experience that DSPs really aren't all they are cracked up to be with respect to regular processors now-a-days. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Embedded market by AKAImBatman (Score:1) Monday October 24, @05:50PMRe:Embedded market by wowbagger (Score:3) Monday October 24, @06:15PMRe:Embedded market by farnz (Score:2) Monday October 24, @06:33PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Embedded market by Bastian (Score:3) Monday October 24, @07:36PMRe:Embedded market by Red_Foreman (Score:1) Monday October 24, @04:18PMRe:Embedded market by kurtdg (Score:1) Monday October 24, @05:16PMRe:Embedded market by Chirs (Score:2) Monday October 24, @05:25PMRe:Embedded market by LionKimbro (Score:2) Monday October 24, @06:43PMRe:Embedded market by Superfarstucker (Score:2) Monday October 24, @07:51PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Amazing (Score:3, Insightful) by Namronorman (901664) on Monday October 24, @04:07PM (#13866265) (Last Journal: Wednesday October 05, @10:49PM) This is simply amazing, and if they're even remotely as powerful compared to their future competitors and their initial cost is not so bad, you could easilly factor in the energy savings for spending more on hardware versus spending more on electricty. [ Reply to This Re:Amazing (Score:5, Informative) by Thanatopsis (29786) <brian@@@xao...com> on Monday October 24, @04:09PM (#13866274) (http://bestbuyszone.com/) It is amazing expecially when you consider that many current Intel chips suck down 150 watts at 2.8 GHZ. This isn't like Transmeta either. The team at PA Semi are some pretty heavy hitters in the chip design world. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Amazing by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 24, @04:21PMRe:Amazing by masklinn (Score:2) Monday October 24, @05:11PMRe:Amazing by hattig (Score:1) Monday October 24, @05:16PMIntel processing cores? by phorm (Score:2) Monday October 24, @06:11PMRe:Amazing? by TopSpin (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:23PMAmazing? by jmichaelg (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:41PMRe:Amazing? by hattig (Score:1) Monday October 24, @05:21PMRe:Amazing by Aqua OS X (Score:2) Monday October 24, @06:19PM Apple (Score:4, Interesting) by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Monday October 24, @04:11PM (#13866289) So are they going to be regretting moving away from that? I mean, that would have an appeal in a low to middle end laptop that can run for 12 hours or something. I'd certainly pay for it. I'm impressed with my iBook battery as it is, but it is just shy of being able to cover all my needs in a day. Or at least, usually have to think about charging it. An 8 hour laptop would be great for people on the move, like students, or amateur filmmakers. [ Reply to ThisRe:Apple by masklinn (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:15PMRe:Apple by Jeff DeMaagd (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:21PMRe:Apple by Bloater (Score:2) Monday October 24, @05:35PMRe:Apple by tktk (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:22PMRe:Apple by TinyManCan (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:22PMRe:Apple by wvitXpert (Score:3) Monday October 24, @04:30PMRe:Apple by Egregius (Score:3) Monday October 24, @04:46PM Re:Apple (Score:5, Insightful) by yamla (136560) <[chris] [at] [hypocrite.org]> on Monday October 24, @04:51PM (#13866578) (http://hypocrite.org/) Hardly. These chips aren't due out for two or three YEARS. Let's assume for the sake of argument that they ship IN BULK in two and a half years, an obviously optimistic estimate. Should Apple be satisfied with dual-core 2 Ghz laptops in the spring of 2008? I certainly hope not. While the power usage is sweet, we are looking at less than a 20% increase in speed (assuming you can safely compare clock speeds which, as we know from Intel and AMD, is not a good assumption) for a single core over that time. Even with dual core, that's pretty pathetic.Now, if these chips were shipping in bulk TODAY and were able to be ramped up to 3 or 4 Ghz over the next six to twelve months, then maybe Apple might start regretting moving away from the G4 and G5 CPUs. That is, it'd be a toss-up at that point. As it is, this is far too little too late for Apple's laptops.Of course, this rests on the assumption that Apple cares about processing power. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Apple by Jozer99 (Score:3) Monday October 24, @05:02PMRe:Apple by hattig (Score:2) Monday October 24, @05:29PMRe:Apple by yamla (Score:2) Monday October 24, @05:33PMRe:Apple by hattig (Score:1) Monday October 24, @05:44PMRe:Apple by yamla (Score:2) Monday October 24, @05:54PMRe:Apple by masklinn (Score:2) Monday October 24, @06:22PMRe:Apple by yamla (Score:2) Monday October 24, @06:31PMRe:Apple by hattig (Score:2) Monday October 24, @06:42PMRe:Apple - I agree by olddotter (Score:1) Monday October 24, @05:57PMRe:Dual Core Apple PowerBook by Your Average Joe (Score:1) Monday October 24, @10:51PM I feel a great disturbance in the Force (Score:5, Funny) by katana (122232) on Monday October 24, @04:11PM (#13866290) (http://slashdot.org/) As if millions of Apple customers suddenly cried out, and were silenced. [ Reply to ThisRe:I feel a great disturbance in the Force by John Nowak (Score:1) Monday October 24, @04:19PMRe:I feel a great disturbance in the Force by masklinn (Score:2) Monday October 24, @05:14PMRe:I feel a great disturbance in the Force by Salandarin (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:55PMRe:I feel a great disturbance in the Force by slimak (Score:2) Monday October 24, @05:19PMRe:I feel a great disturbance in the Force by plasmacutter (Score:1) Monday October 24, @07:26PMOh it does not either. by way2trivial (Score:2) Monday October 24, @10:23PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. finally (Score:5, Funny) by kevin.fowler (915964) on Monday October 24, @04:11PM (#13866291) What a relief. Implement this en masse and a dormitory full of idling computers running aim won't use as much energy as a small country anymore. [ Reply to ThisRe:finally by joib (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:29PM I'm just wondering: (Score:3, Interesting) by mctk (840035) on Monday October 24, @04:11PM (#13866292) (http://www.livejournal.com/users/mctk) How much power do processors use relative to the rest of the computer? It seems that hard drives and fans would use the majority of power (not to mention monitors and speakers if present). [ Reply to ThisRe:I'm just wondering: by Wesley Felter (Score:3) Monday October 24, @04:17PM Re:I'm just wondering: (Score:5, Informative) by masklinn (823351) <slashdot.orgNO@SPAMmasklinn.net> on Monday October 24, @04:27PM (#13866413) It seems that hard drives [...] would use the majority of powerThe average 3"5 (desktop) hard drive (aka 7200RPM SATA/ATA133) runs around 7W idle and about 10W in seeking, high-perfs being a bit higher (12W seeking for 72Gb 10000RPM Raptor drive)Notebook 2"5 5400RPM drives run around 1W idle (0.8W for a Samsung M40 MP0402H) and around 3W seeking. It seems that [...] fans would use the majority of powerThe fans I can check right now all fall between 0.15 and 0.30A, 12V.This means that running them at max tension (12V) you're looking at 1.8W to 3.6W. Undervolt them at 7V and you fall between 1 and 2W.And these are specs for 80mm to 120mm fansSo no, hard drives and fan often ain't the worst offenders as far as power consumption goes. [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold. Posted by the CEO? (Score:1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24, @04:13PM (#13866299) I wonder if the orignal poster "DD" is "Dan Dobberpuhl", the CEO of the company, looking for free advertising on slashdot? [ Reply to ThisRe:Posted by the CEO? by WindBourne (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:29PMRe:Posted by the CEO? by hattig (Score:1) Monday October 24, @05:32PMRe:Posted by the CEO? by diegocgteleline.es (Score:2) Monday October 24, @06:36PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. This vs ARM Cortex A8? (Score:3, Interesting) by Sam Haine '95 (918696) on Monday October 24, @04:14PM (#13866308) I wonder how this will compare to the ARM Cortex A8 [arm.com] in 2007? [ Reply to ThisRe:This vs ARM Cortex A8? by WouldIPutMYRealNameO (Score:1) Monday October 24, @05:18PMRe:This vs ARM Cortex A8? by Egregius (Score:1) Monday October 24, @05:22PM G5 Powerbooks! (Score:2, Funny) by ejoe_mac (560743) on Monday October 24, @04:14PM (#13866309) Come on, please let this be true! [ Reply to This Vaporously Delicious (Score:5, Funny) by brogdon (65526) on Monday October 24, @04:14PM (#13866310) (http://www.brogdon.org/) "The company's first so-called PWRficient chip will feature two processing cores, run at 2GHz and consume on average about 5 watts, thanks to an emphasis on integration and circuit design. At a maximum, it will consume 25 watts, far less than the single-core Power chips that can hit 90 watts found on the market today."Also, thanks to our patented Vapor-based architecture, we've been able to build our level-2 RAM cache out of a giant cloud of gaseous water! And we've licensed our chips to be in the Phantom Game Console! And they'll even run Duke Nukem Forever! As we speak the SCO group is printing out some infringing Linux code with them to use as evidence in an actual trial! [ Reply to This Re:Vaporously Delicious (Score:5, Informative) by Thanatopsis (29786) <brian@@@xao...com> on Monday October 24, @04:22PM (#13866382) (http://bestbuyszone.com/) Well except the guys at PA Semi have actually designed and shipped chips.Here's some BiosDan Dobberpuhl, President and CEODan Dobberpuhl, President and CEODan Dobberpuhl, who cofounded P.A. Semi in July 2003, has been credited with developing fundamental breakthroughs in the evolution of high-speed and low-power microprocessors. Prior to founding P.A. Semi, Dobberpuhl was vice president and general manager of the Broadband Processor division of Broadcom Corporation. He came to Broadcom via an acquisition of his previous company, SiByte Inc., founded in 1998, which Broadcom acquired in 2000. Before that, Dobberpuhl worked for Digital Equipment Corporation for more than 20 years, where was credited with some of the most fundamental breakthroughs in microprocessor technology. In 1998, EE Times named Dobberpuhl as one of the "40 forces to shape the future of the Semiconductor Industry." In 2003, he was awarded the prestigious IEEE Solid State Circuits Award for "Pioneering design of high-speed and low-power microprocessors."Dobberpuhl holds 15 patents and has many publications related to integrated circuits and CPUs, including coauthorship of the seminal textbook Design and Analysis of VLSI Circuits, published by Addison-Wesley in 1985. He holds a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois.Nah - he knows nothing about processor design - but random dude at slashdot know more.Rest of the team's bios [pasemi.com]BSD [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Vaporously Delicious by ron_ivi (Score:2) Monday October 24, @05:16PMRe:Vaporously Delicious by brogdon (Score:2) Monday October 24, @07:49PMRe:Vaporously Delicious by Muevelo (Score:1) Monday October 24, @04:33PM But will it have AltiVec? (Score:3, Interesting) by lax-goalie (730970) on Monday October 24, @04:16PM (#13866323) The big question is will it have a vector processor? If so, it could end up in an Apple design, if for no other reason, to keep the pressure on Intel. If not, this is simply another PowerPC embedded CPU... [ Reply to This Yes (Score:4, Informative) by Wesley Felter (138342) <wesley@felter.org> on Monday October 24, @04:21PM (#13866368) (http://felter.org/wesley/) According to the Web site it has AltiVec. By 2007 I think Apple will have switched completely to Intel, never to look back. [ Reply to This | Parent What a business plan!!! (Score:5, Funny) by IGoChopYourDollars (924633) on Monday October 24, @04:17PM (#13866329) 1) design a low-power-consumption high-performance PowerPC chip that would be ideal for Apple to use2) keep the development so secret that spouses are kept in the dark3) launch the product after Apple has already abandoned PowerPC4) ???5) PROFIT! [ Reply to ThisApple doesn't matter by DreadSpoon (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:58PMHere, let me help you: by leoxx (Score:2) Monday October 24, @06:07PMRe:What a business plan!!! by wannabgeek (Score:1) Monday October 24, @11:19PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. To try and forestall the Apple hand-wringing... (Score:2, Insightful) by diamondsw (685967) on Monday October 24, @04:19PM (#13866355) ...since this is an embedded processor, it likely won't have things like vector processing units (Altivec) or possibly even out of order execution (as I recall the XBox 360 dropped). Take that along with the fact that it's a couple years away, and it really doesn't affect Apple at all. [ Reply to ThisRe:To try and forestall the Apple hand-wringing... by klapton (Score:1) Monday October 24, @04:29PM Honestly, I don't care... (Score:2, Interesting) by OneByteOff (817710) on Monday October 24, @04:26PM (#13866408) I've been using a laptop in some fashion for the past 5 years. Honestly to me power and peformance are significantly more important than battery life. While I may stand alone or even stand with a small crowd of like minded people, I believe that current battery life is sufficient. Honestly I can't imagine sitting anywhere for more then 2 hours (roughly my Inspiron 9300's battery life) and if I did find myself in that situation I'd just power down, pop in my spare battery and go about my business for another two hours.What I believe is important and newsworthy is the introduction of Dual-Core Laptops and Dual-Dual-Core Laptops which may not get 2-3 hours battery life, but can be used by power users to get close to desktop performance out of their laptop. When I'm onsite at a clients and need to run John the Ripper or encrypt/decrypt some folders in Windows, I really really wish my notebook had more raw processing power. [ Reply to ThisRe:Honestly, I don't care... by SlightlyOldGuy (Score:1) Monday October 24, @07:14PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. 25w is way too high! (Score:2, Interesting) by mattnuzum (839319) on Monday October 24, @04:29PM (#13866433) (http://bearfruit.org/) I just designed a complete computer that uses less than 3 watts [imageshack.us]! (more details [206.131.241.58])Admittedly, it probably does far less than a power based computer. It runs at 1 MIPS, has only 64 bytes of RAM [microchip.com] and spends most of its time sleeping, but on the plus side, it costs less than $10 to build and while sleeping uses about .05 watts of power.Imagine a beowolf cluster of these babies! [ Reply to ThisRe:25w is way too high! by tzanger (Score:1) Monday October 24, @04:59PMHmm.... by mattnuzum (Score:1) Monday October 24, @05:10PMRe:Hmm.... by mattnuzum (Score:1) Monday October 24, @06:03PMRe:Hmm.... by tzanger (Score:2) Monday October 24, @06:04PMRe:25w is way too high! by Jeff DeMaagd (Score:3) Monday October 24, @05:03PM POWER != PowerPC (Score:4, Informative) by frankie (91710) on Monday October 24, @04:34PM (#13866456) (http://geocities.com/francis_uy/ | Last Journal: Thursday August 04, @03:21PM) These are (theoretically, since they don't exist yet) based on the POWER architecture used by IBM big iron servers, which is related but incompatible to the PowerPC chips in Macs. Different pinouts and almost certainly no Altivec.Perhaps if this company had existed a couple years ago, Lord Steve might have given them an audition before jumping to Intel. But even if they somehow got their current chips to mass production in industry-record time, they would still be years away from being able to ship a PowerPC version. [ Reply to ThisPower Architecture == PowerPC by Wesley Felter (Score:3) Monday October 24, @04:50PMRe:POWER != PowerPC by bloosqr (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:51PMRe:POWER != PowerPC by greed (Score:1) Monday October 24, @05:00PMRe:POWER != PowerPC by raftpeople (Score:2) Monday October 24, @08:34PM Power Cycle (Score:3, Interesting) by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday October 24, @04:34PM (#13866460) (http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal | Last Journal: Thursday March 31, @02:48PM) Didn't Apple dump the PowerPC line because its power demand projections in upcoming generations meant more heat (less efficiency) than the Intel x86 competition? Why not just use these chips? Will we actually see a cross-platform Mac strategy, with Apple playing Intel(/AMD) against PPC makers like this, with the same MacOS running on either? Will Apple actually pull off delivering a simple interface for installing software from source, with consistent builds/runs across both Mac platforms? Who knows what to believe anymore? [ Reply to ThisRe:Power Cycle by Tavor (Score:1) Monday October 24, @09:54PMRe:Power Cycle by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Monday October 24, @11:01PMRe:Power Cycle by necro81 (Score:1) Monday October 24, @10:52PMRe:Power Cycle by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Monday October 24, @11:05PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. POWER, or PowerPC? (Score:3) by Onan (25162) on Monday October 24, @04:36PM (#13866471) I have a pretty hard time taking seriously the claims of a company that appears to consider the POWER and PowerPC chips interchangeable. Yes, they are related, but they're pretty substanially different beasts--especially when it comes to power consumption. I seem to recall that current POWER units consume over a kilowatt each. Yes, really. [ Reply to ThisRe:POWER, or PowerPC? by Thanatopsis (Score:2) Monday October 24, @04:41PMRe:POWER, or PowerPC? by be-fan (Score:2) Monday October 24, @05:19PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:POWER, or PowerPC? by TheRaven64 (Score:2) Monday October 24, @05:04PMRe:POWER, or PowerPC? by raftpeople (Score:1) Monday October 24, @08:41PM