68000 is cisc, Power PC is risc, Apple switched to Intel not because the CPU was better or worse, it was because of the Intel Brand Name,
something called: M A R K E T I N G...
The CPU in a PS3 is far more sophisticated than anything we run windows or osx on!
The CPU in a PS3 is more closely related (in architecture) to a modern GPU. For general purpose computations (e.g. desktop computing, database servers, etc.), it is actually not very efficient.
I was a fan of the Power architecture, but let's get real. The Core/Core 2 evolution from the old Pentium III is very well thought out and plain fast.
Apple switched for several reasons, not a single one as it's being mentioned here. One of them was supply. IBM was simply not equipped to supply the demand that Apple was hoping for their systems. IBM has been developing new versions of the Power platform for some time, so I don't necessarily believe the reason they went with the Core/Core 2 was due to IBM's unwillingness to revise the architecture.
The MOST important reason why Apple switched was cost. This doesn't immediately translate to lower performance, it's just that Intel pushes more CPUs out the door than IBM does, and, with the smaller micron size manufacturing process, the cost
erformance ratio was just a no-brainer choosing the Core platform.
My favorite processor of all time is the R10K.
A second favorite is the R5K.
Then the Pentium Pro, just because the chip itself was so massive and intimidating looking.